THE TRUMP FILE – Savior or Part of the Deep State?

See Related:

The Big Debate: Voluntaryism vs. Constitutional Republicanism – Etienne vs. Sam Bushman: Is “Government” Moral?

The Shady History of the Con-stitution

Why the Organized Crime Media Misrepresents Voluntaryism and Peaceful Anarchy as Chaos and Dystopia

The Two Party System and the Dumbing Down of America

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free… it expects what never was and never will be – Thomas Jefferson

by Greg Reese, The Reese Report
June 28, 2023

After seven years of violent revolution, our American founders were well aware that political factions were most often used to divide and conquer the people. And they knew that the Republic they created would only last as long as the people could remain educated.

In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote; “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

By the end of the Civil War, the two-party system became the norm, the Globalist system we face today was born, and the deliberate dumbing down of the American citizen began with our great-great-grandparents.

In the late eighteen hundreds, the Skinner Pavlovian method was brought into American schools by Johns Hopkins. These psychological methods allowed teachers the ability to program students’ behavior in the same way that Pavlov did with dogs.

In 1934, the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace published the Report On The Commission On Social Studies. Which explicitly stated the goal of eventually taking away people’s land, and noted that most people would obviously oppose this. The solution was to begin using the school system to re-condition the minds of children.

In 1976, the bicentennial year of the Declaration of Independence, 124 Congressmen signed the “Declaration of Interdependence.” which stated that: “Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a New World Order.”

And it pledged to give children special attention in distributing a common education to suit their goals.

By the nineteen nineties, this globalist dumbing down system was perfected. And America began exporting it worldwide in what is known as Outcome-based education.

Starting in 2010, Common Core began in the United States. It outlined what students were expected to know at each grade level, and enforced ways to assess those standards.

Charlotte Iserbyt, author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, has traced most of this agenda stemming from The Order of Skull and Bones at Yale, through both Republicans and Democrats. Two wings of the same globalist bird which understood that dumbed-down people have a base desire for a simple Dualistic choice.

In 1953, the Rockefeller Foundation funded the Robbers Cave Experiment, wherein, eleven-year-old boys who thought they were signing up for summer camp were organized into two separate tribes and were manipulated into fighting each other. Which was easily accomplished by having a single resource that the two groups competed for.

The Henri Tajfel experiments of the nineteen seventies showed that by simply dividing people into two groups, they would naturally identify with their own group and discriminate against the other.

The basic ego mind is constantly making preferences. No matter how dumb you are, you have an opinion about everything. And if you can keep the population dumb enough, and give them two parties to choose from, they will innately identify with one, and despise the other.

This allows the globalist system the cover they need to implement unpopular policies, such as a Central Bank Digital Currency, while ‘We the People’ ignorantly fight each other.

United we stand. Divided we fall. And we’ve been falling for it for generations.

The American people have been so thoroughly dumbed down that we think freedom is the ability to choose between two parties working for the same control system. And we have been made so weak that we are afraid to even discuss the option of violence. Which is most often the only remedy for tyranny.

But if we were an enlightened people, we could simply unite together as one and just say no to the tyrants.

The answer to 1984, is 1776

Connect with Greg Reese

Matt Ehret on the Occultic History of the United States

Excerpts from the video interview with Jeremy Nell found below:

“Whether or not we align ourselves with truthful ideas, that are in harmony with natural law or in defiance of said law, is really a question of whether or not we’re fit to survive or not, and whether we’re gonna be enslaved by an oligarchical class who themselves are devoted to a very specific set of very perverted wrong ideas that they’re religiously committed to.

“Whether we tolerate that indefinitely or not, I don’t think the universe has that in our destiny. I don’t think we’re wired for that ultimate destiny to be just a slave society.”

“By looking at the structures of control over the next 2,500 years, they’ve always used something similar to seduce… people who are mystically-minded or superstitious.

“They need people… who have not taken the time to use their own minds as tools responsibly, and are still locked in a realm of superstition, to then be seduced to come in as initiates into their different lodges…”

“…In the case of like South Carolina, half of the state legislature were black slaves who were elected.

“In the 1870s, you could see the configuration of the South Carolina state legislature and state senators, and half of them are black people.

“This is the state where, 80 years later, you weren’t allowed to vote if you were black. There were Jim Crow laws and lynchings.

“So you’re like, how did that happen? How did that regression happen?…”

“I don’t know exactly what (to answer your question) is going to be required for people to finally wake up to this actual, insidious deep-state operation inside of the heart of America. I don’t know what the answer is to that.

“The way I tend to look at the oligarchies, at these secret societies, and what the oligarchies, upper echelons, actually believe in, I see it as a bit of a controlled form of insanity that has persevered over a very long period of time based on its momentum.

“There’s a certain power of momentum that has maintained its continuity. But ultimately, it’s a technique of perverting their own children…

“But one of the big obsessions that they put a lot of time into is thinking about how do you ensure that your institution will maintain itself despite the fact that it demands unhuman modes of conduct in your children and managers — the managerial class that will maintain your system after you die? They think trans-generationally.

“And so there has been a cultivation of a perverse form of education for the elites, grooming for the elites, both as children and as they go out…”

“So I don’t think that they really do have secret knowledge… I do believe that they believe that they do.

“I do believe that they believe that they can get all sorts of weird, nasty energy from their victims, their sacrificial victims, and I do believe that the believe in all sorts of demonic forces…”

“But again I see it as a perversity. I don’t see it as real secret knowledge. But it has power in the sense of the belief that causes actions to be put in a certain direction always.

“They will religiously always do certain things the same way, no matter what, which is why these oligarchies come close to their transhuman and new world order on many occasions in the past.

“Even before the word transhumanism was coined, they still wanted it. It was just called feudalism, managed by a master class of “beyond humans” who expected their slaves to perceive them as if they were gods or other forms of supernatural deities that you couldn’t possibly contend with because you’re just a lowly mortal.”

“If the oligarchy was as powerful as they want us to believe they are…they already would have won. We wouldn’t be here having this conversation.

“The reason why we have this space, this time, that has been won for us, has a lot to do with the fact that Russia and China and India increasingly have chosen to exit the unipolar system, which was supposed to be the controlled demolition of the economy, like they did in 1929.

“They were planning on doing this in 2009 when the first economic collapse could have taken down the entire system. They had to postpone that. Because, again, they need everybody in the same building when it’s lit on fire and demolished.”

“So I think the oligarchy — they try to project an image of being these immortal gods of Olympus. But they’re really more like the emperor that has no clothes. They’re a lot more insecure than than we think.”

Matt Ehret on the Occultic History of the United States

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
originally published December 1, 2022
updated June 25, 2023

Matthew Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review.

The Federal Bureau Of Investigation (FBI) is the domestic intelligence and security service of the United States, officially charged with investigating federal crimes.

It was founded in 1908 as the Bureau Of Investigation (BOI) by attorney general Charles Bonaparte. The BOI was created in response to the growing threat of “anarchism” and other forms of political violence.

In 1919, the BOI was reorganised and renamed the Division Of Investigation (DOI).

In 1924, J Edgar Hoover was appointed director of the DOI.

He served as director of the FBI for 48 years, from 1924 to 1972. During his tenure, Hoover made the FBI a powerful force in American law enforcement.

However, most don’t know about its Masonic and otherwise occultic history which played an important role in the shadowy governance of the United States and manipulation of the system.

Albert Pike (1809-1891) was an American attorney, soldier, writer, and Freemason.

He is best known for his prominent role within Freemasonry and his contributions to Masonic literature.

Albert joined the Masonic fraternity in 1850 and rose to prominence within the organisation. HIs most notable work is his book Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, published in 1871. It is considered one of the most influential works on Freemasonry and explores the philosophy, symbolism, and rituals of the Scottish Rite.

Officially, Freemasonry is a fraternal organisation that traces its origins back to the medieval guilds of stonemasons. It developed into a broader social and philosophical movement in the 17th and 18th centuries. Freemasonry is known for its symbolism, rituals, and principles of moral and ethical conduct.

My conversation with Matt is based on his documentary The Origins of America’s Secret Police: Ancient Roots of Occult Societies & Intelligence Operations.

Video available at Jerm Warfare Odysee & Rumble channels.

Connect with Jeremy Nell

Cover image based on creative commons work of: Ti_ & MDARIFLIMAT

See Matt Ehret’s Documentary “The Origins of America’s Secret Police: Ancient Roots of Occult Societies & Intelligence Operations”

Video available at Rumble, YouTube & Odysee

Matt Ehret With Reiner Fuellmich: Who Rules the World? Since When?

“There’s been two Americas, which is why I named my book series ‘The Clash of the Two Americas‘, because I’m really just trying to find ways to get people to appreciate that there’s not just one America.

“Just like that there’s not just one Britain. There’s not just one Russia. There’s not one China. There’s not one any country.

“That’s a simplistic story given to naïve — basically, it’s a children’s story that has been masquerading as historical fact. It’s not true.

“There are fifth columnists operating against the interests of their people, traditions and cultures embedded within every country to varying degrees.

“And if you don’t appreciate that, you can’t really understand truly anything about how history unfolded — present, or past or deep past.”

~~~

“One thing that somebody taught me, as just good advice, some years ago was that — they could see that I was a bit demoralized and that I was giving too much credence to the power of oligarchies who’ve always seemed to be there with so much power of manipulation, conspiracies and killing good people. And it was really demoralizing me.

“And this person, an old friend of mine, made the point:

“If you look really close you’ll find that empires can never create. They can always corrupt and subvert, but they can’t actually create.

“So the type of quality of creativity emergent out of any type of oligarchical system is a reactive creativity. It’s a perverse creativity. It’s creative to the extent that it has to, at the very best, masquerade as something truth and good, but with the underlying substance of wanting to undermine and destroy that good in the future…”

~ Matthew Ehret

by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, ICIC (International Crimes Investigative Committee
published June 16 & June 17, 2023

Who Rules the World, and Since When? Part 1

In the first part of this ICIC program, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and Matthew Ehret, journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review, take us back to the historically and geopolitically relevant beginnings of a globally ruling conglomerate that has infiltrated all socio-political structures over centuries up to the present day and revealed its full power in the so-called “Corona Pandemic”.

Matthew Ehret explains with vivid visuals the (geopolitical) history, navigating from the fall of Rome and the emergence of the Vatican, Canada and the British Empire to the City of London and the WEF (World Economic Forum) to the mergers in Freemasonry and theso-called three-letter organizations in the US.

What are the connections between these eras and structures and which actors are known as masterminds? Do they continue to have influence on the development of mankind? If so, how do they exercise it?

Are the historical “facts” we are taught really incontrovertible? Or is it worth taking a deeper look into to the past in order to connect the dots through independent research by way of intelligent and soulful individuals who shed light on history in the service of a better future?

Video available at ICIC Odysee & Rumble channels.

Who Rules the World, and Since When, Part 2

In the second part of ICIC’s program entitled “Who rules the world and since when?”, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and Matthew Ehret, journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review go into greater detail to contextualize apparently orchestrated historical and geopolitical activities, which at first glance appear to be distinct and separate from one another.

Matthew Ehret’s vivid explanations go on to name names, numbers, data and facts, which together show how the effects of atrocities and their perpetrators and henchmen from the past are still present today, indeed, are being ever further expanded in order to be able to finally implement pre-established goals.

They address questions such as:

Who created constructs like NATO or the EU and why?

Is there a repetition going on, in the style of a “British Empire”, in order to dominate the world and subtly convince people of the necessity of a one-world government as the only, saving solution and thus to gain control over everything and everyone?

Is it not at all about the welfare of humanity, about saving the environment, the climate or health, but but rather about depopulation, eugenics, abuse of power and the suppression to the point of eradication of everything that constitutes being human?

If you take personal responsibility, do your own research, gather and check information without bias, an ever clearer picture of the big picture reveals itself.

It shows that these self-proclaimed “elites” and their masterminds have always used methods such as “create a problem and deliver the solution”, “divide and conquer” and the gullibility of people to be able to realize their inhumane and malicious agendas for the purpose of self-interest and total control over humanity.

Video available at ICIC Odysee & Rumble channels.

Connect with Reiner Fuellmich — ICIC website | Rumble | Odysee | Telegram

Connect with Matt Ehret — Substack | Rumble | Canadian Patriot website

Cover image based on creative commons work of: OpenClipart-Vectors

The Homage of the Slaves

by Iain Davis
May 4, 2023

As the coronation of Charlie-boy approaches, the Royal household thought it would be nice to offer the British public the opportunity to swear their allegiance to King Charles III and declare themselves his slave. This “homage of the people” has been very popular amongst some. Presumably, they’re dead keen to live a life of slavery.

Apparently, Shabana Mahmood, the Labour Party’s national campaign coordinator, thinks slavery is a “lovely idea” and that involving the people in the coronation, by offering them to opportunity to become slaves, was a “lovely touch.” The UK transport secretary, Mark Harper, thinks that elective slavery represents a “fantastic opportunity.” Although, he didn’t specify for whom.

Harper went on to suggest that enslaving millions of people will provide a “great showcase for Britain around the world.” This doesn’t appear to be necessary. Given its colonial past and current foreign policy, it seems likely that most people are already familiar with the way the British state rolls.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the “homage of the people” has not been pitched by the Establishment as the “homage of the slaves”. It’s an invitation, not a command, and everyone knows that merely attempting to enslave people is a kind of altruism.

Like Shabana and Mark, Vince, the Archbishop of Westminster, described this invitation as “remarkable” and “lovely,” with Sky News reporting:

For the first time in history the public will be given an active role in the coronation, having been invited to say the oath to the King out loud.

Of course, the whole point of his oath is that he, as the head of state, swears his allegiance to us. But let’s not allow our codified constitution to get in the way of a good old, statist hallucination. We haven’t for more than 800 years, so why start now?

That being said, it is not without good reason that an apparent majority of people have decided that they do not want to pay “homage” to an inept toff. This seems reasonable, because it avoids making the bat-shit crazy decision to pledge your “obligation of fidelity and obedience” to some bloke wearing a load of moody gold.

For those who fancy the idea of enslaving themselves to a clueless aristocrat, before you guffaw in scornful rejection of any suggestion that you are, in fact, choosing to be a slave, it is perhaps worth noting what an oath of allegiance actually means:

[. . .] the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives

Your “allegiance” means you pledge your “obedience” in return for protection. This is commonly known as a “protection racket.”

It get’s worse:

The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign.

You may have noticed your somewhat limited choices if you are ever dumb enough to swear an oath of allegiance to the parasite class. You can’t really get out of it unless you subsequently swear your “absolute and permanent” “fidelity and obedience” to the next parasitic scumbag that elbows their way in to your life.

Still, each to their own. Who am I to put anyone off opting to be a slave?

Nonetheless, before you do, perhaps spare a moment to consider your choices. There are better slave masters laying about, should you want one.

Perhaps you could choose to be Elon Musk’s slave instead? As these things go, choosing Charles as your personal oppressor might be a bit iffy.

[then] Prince Charles and Uncle Dickie Mountbatten

Charles was mentored by his father’s uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten (Prince Louis of Battenberg), who he affectionately called “Uncle Dickie.” A frequent visitor to his “honorary grandpapa’s” Broadlands estate, the young Charles often holidayed with the Mountbattens.

As an adult, Charles was encouraged by “Uncle Dickie” to use Broadlands for any sexual rendezvous that Charles would rather keep quiet. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) described Mountbatten as a paedophile “with a perversion for young boys.”

King Charles’ was extremely close to Jimmy Savile. The necrophiliac paedophile and child pimp was a confidant and adviser to the Royal household, and Charles in particular, for more than 30 years.

Child rapist Savile and King Charles – an interesting power dynamic.

When the Bishop and notorious paedophile, Peter Ball, first accepted a caution—prior to his subsequent conviction in 2015—Charles felt that a “monstrous wrong” had been inflicted upon the pederast. Knowing the nature of the allegations, and Ball’s admission of guilt, Charles purchased a property for Ball and his twin brother.

King Charles subsequently denied all knowledge of Ball’s vile crimes in the letter he submitted to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The explanation he offered was idiotic:

I was certainly not aware at the time of the significance or impact of the caution that Peter Ball has accepted, or indeed sure if I was even told about it. Whilst I note that Peter Ball mentioned the word in a letter to me in October 2009, I was not aware until recently that a caution in fact carries an acceptance of guilt.

This is in keeping with the story we are given about Charles which suggests he is a gullible pillock. Presumably, this naive stupidity extends to the enormous advisory team that surrounds Charles and the Royals.

It seems, no one advised Charles to stop hanging around with nonces. Although, admittedly, in his family, it is hard to avoid them.

Not a single one of his vast array of advisers took the time to explain to Charles what the legal implications of a caution were. Furthermore, all of them were completely unaware that their future, simple-minded King was “accidentally” maintaining a series of close friendships and “special” relationships with child rapists.

Despite all of this, some people really love waving their little flags and remain eager to declare their oath of obedience to this man. Perhaps because they have have no idea what it means or perhaps because they are as thick as he is.

It is good to know that becoming Charles’ slave is not a direct command. Many people would prefer to completely ignore the World Economic Forum (WEF) spokesman and hypocrite, King Charles III. We certainly wouldn’t want to spoil his day by telling him to shove his “invitation” where the sun doesn’t shine.

Connect with Iain Davis

Cover image based on creative commons work of: johnhain & Clker-Free-Vector-Images

Here We Go Again: Deranged Voters Looking for a Political Savior

by Gary D. Barnett
April 22, 2023

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, I’m a moron. Fool me three or more times consecutively, and I’m a voter.”
~ Jarod Kintz

My gracious sakes alive; it is amazing that it is only eighteen months away from yet another mentally deranged presidential ‘election,’ and the insanity circus is already in town. Who will run? Who will be nominated? Who will be your savior this time around? Who will give you a check? Who will ‘fix’ the country? Who will be tasked with continuing the madness? Which trimmer will get called into the game by the ruling ‘elites’ to compete in this selection-based political process? Will it be Biden again, Trump, DeSantis, M. Obama, or the new lauded democrat, RFK, Jr., or any others in the cadre of political scum of wanna-be rulers vying for the selected top spot? It does not matter you see, as so long as this voting insanity continues, this country and world will persist in flushing all freedom down the proverbial toilet bowl of dreams, while the lowly complicit masses cheer on their political gods.

The idiotic notion of the myth of representative government, democracy, and the ludicrous lie of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” will once again be shouted from the rooftops by most all involved, including the clueless voters. There have been 59 previous presidential elections since 1789, and things have worsened after every single ‘election’ in the history of this country. In case this fact is still difficult for most to grasp, this next cycle of a staged picking of a master, will culminate by allowing the lowest form of human to be placed in a dominating position of rule and power over the enslaved people. The only result will be more dominance, self-serving tyranny, and a continued democide of this population. As always, this fate of the people at large will have been voluntarily accepted.

What is so unforgettably deficient of mind about this absurdity, is that this will be the 60th time in a row, that the American people have intentionally and with free will, chosen a king and master to rule over them. This will be the 60th time consecutively, that the ‘voting public’ has allowed control of their personal behavior, accepted government theft of their property by forceable taxation, allowed the waging of continuous wars of aggression against innocents, experienced the destruction of their economy and wealth, and has given up freedom. While it is unlikely that Einstein voiced or wrote the quote: ‘insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result,’ that idea when concerning the voluntary approval of totalitarian rule, holds true. How can anyone with even a modicum of intelligence, ever fathom making the same mistake over and over 60 times consecutively? That truly is insanity.

Why does anyone expect this time to be different? How could anything be clearer than the understanding that government brings nothing but tyranny, economic devastation, and the death of liberty, and that accepting a ‘supreme leader’ is nothing more than openly embracing slavery? I wish someone–anyone–could explain this phenomenon to me, as I cannot fathom ignorance at this level.

There will be the Trump faithful, and it seems they will never falter until the last of them have their ‘Trump vaccine,’ are thrown into prison, or are lied to a thousand more times. His so-called party opponent, DeSantis, who cannot make up his mind as to what to say or do, who to support or not, but is the darling of the crossover crowd between the staunch ‘conservatives,’ the ‘libertarians,’ and those who think he is the real deal to save America because he was governor of a state that was slightly better than D.C. during the fraud and deception of fake ‘covid.’ There are many others as well, those like Haley, Hutchinson, Ramaswamy, (?) and Stapleton, on the Republican side, and the ever-braindead Biden, Williamson, and Scott on the Democratic side, at least so far. And then there is the ever-present Kennedy, who will cause all kinds of confusion, as libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans will get an aneurysm attempting to figure out how to handle this contradiction. Maybe they can all holds hands and sing Kumbaya, and all join together to rule the plebes. I am sure many others will throw their hat in the ring, just as soon as their ruling class masters gives them the green light.

One strives to present a picture of things so that most can at least understand the madness, gain some truth, and sort out the absurdity, but it is impossible to do so in this day and age without extreme sarcasm, and blatant parody. This is truly a circus event if ever one existed on this earth, and many still have the psychotic desire to not only participate and sanction this idiocy, but to expect a different outcome this time around. If Mencken were only alive today, he would likely be forever consumed by either maddening laughter, or deep and delusional schizophrenia. That would be the only saving grace of sanity in such a world consumed by this raving lunacy.

What in the world is to become of us? How can any sit back and watch this game show, and not come away thinking they are in a world of political fanaticism. If it were not so absolutely dangerous, it would be the most profound comedy of all time.

Instead, it is this manufactured and guided realty that has been foisted on this non-thinking society, and accepted by the masses as normal. If this is normal, what defines the ludicrous, and who could even comprehend such a state of confusion and neurotic existence? As Louis-Ferdinand Celine so correctly stated: “I have never voted in my life… I have always known and understood that the idiots are in a majority so it’s certain they will win.” And they have, over and over again, in a system of perpetual stupidity.

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
~ H.L. Mencken, On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe

Read full article here…

Cover image credit: Dieterich01

The Ancient Race of Forest People

by Robert Sepehr
April 19, 2023

The Ramayana is a Sanskrit epic from India in which the Vanara are a forest dwelling race or hominin species used as labor to build a bridge. They are general depicted as simian in appearance, but not specifically as monkeys.

Watch the full episode here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hllWY5BBJOQ

Connect with Robert Sepehr

Transcript prepared by Truth Comes to Light:

Even in the ancient texts of the Indian subcontinent, we have tales of the Vanara, a simian race that lives in the forest, featured in the Hindu epic, the Ramayana.

The word Vanara comes from varna, meaning forest, and nara, meaning man. And although the word vanara has come to mean monkey over the years, and the vanaras are depicted as monkeys in popular art, their exact identity is not clear.

The Ramayana presents them as human-like with reference to their speech and clothing. But also describes them as having monkey-like characteristics.

This Vanara race also appears in other ancient texts, including the Mahabharata. And while some Hindu scholars think of them as strictly mythical, a substantial number of them take the stories to reflect literal history, pointing to examples such as Rama’s Bridge, a 30-mile-long bridge described in the Ramayana as being built by the god Rama with the help of an army of ape men.

Geological evidence suggests that, what appears to be a man-made bridge, was once a former land connection between India and Sri Lanka, and that it was passable on foot until the 15th century, when storms deepened the channel.

A local Hindu temple claims that Rama’s bridge was entirely above the sea level until it broke in a cyclone in 1480.

While this bridge is controversial and there are plenty of skeptics discounting the stories as myth, I bring it up just to demonstrate that the idea of a different hominid species being hybridized and used as a worker or slave race is not exclusive to the Sumerians.

And there are scholars that not only point to archaeological evidence to support the ancient myths, many are now turning to genetics to back up the ancient literature.

Since modern DNA sequencing has unlocked the genomes of not only modern humans, but several archaic species such as Neanderthal, Denisovan and others that have yet to be identified in the fossil record — which are likely homo erectus specimen that can be found in the DNA of various races of modern living human populations today.

Dr Rangan Ramakrishnan, an Indian scholar, said that,

“If one reads the original Ramayana without the influence of succeeding vernacular versions, which emerged at least several centuries later, Vanaras like Hanuman, are referred to as distinct species altogether. Like other human species, they speak fluently and they inhabit a distinctive culture.

“Ramayana is perhaps the only literature to speak about a variety of human species, offering to fill an important gap in human ancestry and evolution through literary support.

“Interestingly, the protagonist Lord Rama corresponds to the sapiens, other ‘Vanaras’ loosely match Homo erectus, [while the villain Ravana and his ‘Rakshasas’ clan are mostly consistent with the description of Homo Neanderthals.]

“Are these striking similarities mere coincidence? Or shouldn’t we take it more seriously?”

See related images:

***Rāmacandra standing in a rocky landscape with Laksmana and the bear and monkey chiefs of his army.*** The Chief’s of Rama-Chandra’s army. 1. Rama Chandra. 2. Lacshman. 3. King Sugriva. 4. Hoonoman. 5. Jambuvan. 6. Angada. 7. Arunda. 8. Nila. 9. Samrambha. 10. Nala. 11. Vanara. 12. Durvinda. 13. Rambha. — Image is in the public domain

***Hanuman in Balinese Kecak Dance*** — Image credit: NarayaIsIyoSoup, creative commons

***Sculpture of Hanuman on the gate to Shri rama Vaikunth Nath Swami Temple in Pushkar*** — Image credit: Jakubhal, creative commons

See related article:

Hindu Monkey God Hanuman May Have Been Homo Erectus – Scientist Says

Jan Bartek – AncientPages.com – Monkey God Hanuman is an important deity in Hindu mythology and one of the central characters of the Indian epic Ramayana. Hanuman is a patron god of martial arts and is sometimes considered a symbol of a symbol of nationalism and resistance to persecution.

Together with Ganesha, the elephant-headed God of knowledge, learning, Literature, and scribe of the Mahabharata, monkey God Hanuman is said to be one of the threshold gods, on the border of the material and spiritual realms.

Left: Monkey god Hanuman. Credit: Urban Kalbermatter, CC BY 2.0 – Right: Forensic reconstruction of an adult female Homo erectus. *Image source*

Hanuman is a beloved Hindu deity, but is there any reason to think the monkey God was a real being or only a mythological creature?

An Indian scientist who examined the Hindu epic Ramayana has presented a rather unusual theory suggesting that Hanuman belonged to an extinct human species. If this assumption is correct, the perception of the monkey god Hanuman would change radically but where does the evidence come from and how is it assessed and used?

Dr. Rangan Ramakrishnan is a scholar of the Ramayana and literary historian who has recently published a book called The Ramayana of Valmiki. The Indian scholar explains that the story of the Ramayana could be of immense importance to our understanding of ancient history and paleontology.

Graham Hancock with Mauro Biglino: Gods of the Bible — A New Interpretation of the Bible Reveals the Oldest Secret in History

It is our pleasure to welcome Mauro Biglino, author of Gods of the Bible as our featured author for April. Mauro, a biblical scholar and translator, has supervised the translation and publication of 17 books of the Old Testament for Edizioni San Paolo, Italy’s foremost Catholic publisher. In his book, Gods of the Bible, Mauro offers the reader a revolutionary rediscovery of biblical writings and the remarkable insights into the history of humanity these texts contain. In his article here, Mauro explores how his decades-long background as a biblical translator compelled him towards a new interpretation of the Bible, revealing ancient secrets that transform our traditional understanding of the past. ~ Graham Hancock

Gods of the Bible: A New Interpretation of the Bible Reveals the Oldest Secret in History

by Mauro Biglino, GrahamHancock.com
originally published April 5, 2023

I can’t help but think of how it all began. As I write at my desk, I have in front of me the first printed copy of Gods of the Bible, first on top of a tall pile of books, block notes, and paper sheets. Such crumbling towers take up most of the desk. My books and those of others form a chaos of overlapping memories and voices while the rays of the afternoon sun filter through the window and light some of the covers up.

One of these volumes always holds special meaning for me — a pink notebook with my first interlinear translation of the Book of Genesis, written in pencil. Even today, every time I write, I can’t help but think of how it all began. It was more than twenty years ago, twenty-five, almost. I was just a lover of ancient languages, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. At this same desk, much emptier, I translated the Bible day and night. Then, as in all stories, adventure was born of a mistake, a small, insignificant typo. It was a rather trivial typo that I might have discovered in the edition of the Hebrew Interlinear Bible of the most famous Italian religious publisher: Edizioni San Paolo. That’s how it all started — with a mistake.

It’s worth telling the reader that Edizioni San Paolo is Italy’s most prominent Catholic publishing house. Its Vatican-approved publications are used in graduate and post-graduate Biblical Hebrew and Bible studies courses in Catholic universities and departments. I was just a self-taught translator of the Bible. And yet, it was I who caught an error. At first, I questioned my skills. I tend not to jump to conclusions too soon. I have a background in Classics, and my mindset is that of a philologist. I double-checked my grammar books and compared different translations; I read and reread many times the same passage until I was convinced I had found a mistake.

Finding errors, flaws, and typos in books is hardly surprising. In mine, they are there. And in the books of others, too. But we are human beings. The Bible, on the other hand, is a book “inspired by God.” That is what we have been taught. It contains the absolute truth — so say the theologians. More than half of humanity bases its existence and life values directly or indirectly on the Bible. As a result, the Bible has become the basis of an immense power structure. Any mistake could raise the suspicion that this monstrous giant was, in reality, a giant on clay feet.

And yet I was there looking at this mistake, like an engineer who finds a small crack in a dam. Little did I know then that that error was the first of many I was about to discover. But at that moment, I shrugged my shoulders without thinking much about it. I wrote a short note to the publisher saying, “Hey, I think I found a mistake; you might want to fix it.” A few weeks later, out of the blue, they contacted me and said: “May we see some of your translations?”. I sent them my Genesis, a copy of the pink block note I now observe from my chair. It was the turning point. A decade-long collaboration began. Following this partnership, I published seventeen books of the Old Testament in Edizioni San Paolo’s Hebrew Interlinear Bible.¹

Since the beginning of my professional career as a Bible translator, I have never stopped finding errors in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament. Not just minor typos and mistakes but downright forgeries and tendentious mistranslations. My last work, Gods of the Bible, just came from print and smells of glue and fresh paper. It’s my latest effort in this twenty-five years long research, but I still feel that the fil rouge with that first pink block note was never broken. The same spirit moved me. Understanding how such a fragile text as the biblical one could become the foundation of a monstrous power system and religions followed by billions of people. Few books in the history of humanity have been written, rewritten, added to, corrected, changed, and censored as often as the Bible. The text of the Bible, mainly fixed after the sixth century BC, but based on older oral and written traditions, is one of the most fragile, unreliable texts in human history. What should surprise us is not so much that someone is looking in it for traces of an ancient advanced civilization, but the fact that someone — theologians — could build absolute truths on such text, with a dogmatic approach that has often become in history and often still becomes fanaticism.

I may have anticipated a theme that could frighten more cautious readers. Still, there is no way to prepare a traditional readership for the hypothesis I seek to test in Gods of the Bible, starting precisely from the Hebrew translations and the demystification of theological, spiritualizing readings. But I have to start somewhere, and I have no better option than playing cards face up. Therefore, let me declare right off that the Bible is not a holy book. In antiquity, the term “holy” was understood as everything “reserved” for the deity. This term has by no means the spiritualistic value we ascribe to it today. The protagonists of the biblical accounts all move within a materialistic and immanentist horizon, very concrete and tangible.

The Old Testament is just the story of the alliance/relationship between Yahweh and the family of Jacob-Israel, and such a tale is deprived of any universalistic perspectives (a later invention of Christianity). This alliance, which did not even involve all the descendants of Abraham’s family but only one of its branches, that of Jacob-Israel, is not a universal but a particular account of events that happened at a specific time in history in a specific place: today we would perhaps label it as a local history book. Yahweh, the protagonist of the Old Testament, was just the leader of the family of Jacob.

Other families, peoples, and nations had their leaders; only they did not take the pain to write an accurate account of such relationships. Or maybe they did, and the books went lost. But the question is: who were these “leaders” that the ancient people considered “deities” and referred to by different but equivalent names? The Sumerians called them “Anunnaki,” the Egyptians called them “Neteru,” and the Babylonians called them “Ilanu.” The Bible calls them “Elohim.” Who were the Elohim, then?

Ten or so years ago, when I started voicing my doubts about the correctness of translating the term “Elohim” with “God,” Edizioni San Paolo’s bosses began to worry about my heterodox ideas, and our collaboration came to a halt after seventeen books were published together. What made them so mad? The extraterrestrial hypothesis, to be fair, was not the main problem, as the Catholic Church does admit the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, ex-Vatican’s chief astronomer, avers that there is no conflict between believing in God and the possibility of “extraterrestrial brothers,” perhaps more evolved than humans.²

The main problem was my methodology and its profound implications. To be clear, I propose a literal interpretation that allows me, and all those who adhere to it, to read the Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, from the advantage point of distancing myself from the theological filters that have buried the “sacred text” for thousands of years, making it unreachable and unusable.

Monotheistic theology has deprived us of the possibility of treating the Bible like any other ancient source to be studied objectively. If treated as any other ancient source, the Bible could say much about the history of humankind before saying anything about God. But here lies the problem. Nobody knows anything about God, yet priests and theologians claim the right to interpret the Bible according to their theological schemes. It is frankly unbelievable that the literal reading of the Bible could represent such a Copernican revolution in biblical and anthropological studies. This circumstance says much about theology’s deforming, obscurantist power when applied to an ancient book.

As is well known, at least until the 16th century, the Catholic Church forbade reading the Bible without the mediation of an official interpreter. The reason behind this prohibition is apparent today to anyone. If you read what is written without interpretative filters, without theological lenses on your nose, the Bible becomes an exciting source of knowledge, not about God, but about human history. The readers of the Bible will experiment with the regenerating feeling of discovering something left unseen in plain sight. This is what I experienced when I started translating the Bible. The literal reading is as subversive as it is simple. A new reality, at the same time revolutionary and familiar, materializes in front of the reader in the same way a small child discovers a unique gelato flavor and realizes that the world is an inexhaustible source of surprises.

I certainly am not the first one to endorse such methods. With appropriate differences, this is the same methodological approach that Heinrich Schliemann (1822-1890) successfully adopted. The history of archeology has taught us that much good can come from questions asked by independent researchers who view reality with a divergent thinking approach. One must ask how Schliemann, who was not a professional archaeologist, succeeded in finding the lost city of Troy, whereas professional archeologists, firmly entrenched in academic circles, failed in the task. Free of preconceived notions, Schliemann believed that the story of the Trojan War, as told in the Iliad, was true, or at least contained much truth, and was not merely a product of Homer’s imagination. Schliemann decided to believe the ancient sources. The groundbreaking premise of his work was to “pretend” that the Iliad contained actual historical events. He took Homer’s account as a starting point for his research. Accompanied by sarcastic ridicule from the academic world, he pursued his research with extraordinary tenacity and eventually found Troy on Hissarlik Hill in western Turkey.³

Using this method, Schliemann made some of the most significant discoveries in the history of archeology. For any unbiased observer, this method is logical; still, the archeologists of his time amazingly could not see its value. Not because their eyesight was weak but because they wore blinders and did not even know it.

I pretend that the Bible is true in its literal sense. I say, “Let us pretend that the Bible is true.” Opinable as it can be, this methodology has the advantage of not arbitrarily resorting to hermeneutical categories (allegories, symbols, metaphors, and so forth) to explain “difficult” passages. The Bible is straightforward and can be understood easily through literal reading. When I see theologians and biblical exegetes swim in a sea of confused and confusing interpretative devices, to which they inevitably must resort to making sense of problematic passages, I wonder how they could reconcile their arbitrary interpretative method with the claim that the Bible is “word of God.” However, I know the answer. How can you explain Yahweh’s craving for the smell of burnt flesh, if not allegorically?

If you read the Bible, literally everything becomes understandable and plain because the biblical authors did not feel the need, as we do, to advocate for a precise monotheistic theological perspective or a moral authority of religious order. The biblical authors wrote what they experienced, saw with their eyes, or heard with their ears, even when the image of Yahweh from those reports was all but flattering. As a theologian of a loving God, how do you explain that Yahweh orders the extermination of men, women, and children and claims for himself 675 sheep, 72 oxen, 61 donkeys, and 32 virgins after a battle against the Midianites (Numbers 31:32-40)? This portion of the spoils was not for the service of the tabernacle, as Numbers 31 explains: it was for Yahweh’s personal use. One only wonders why a spiritual and transcendent “God” would need 32 virgins — or 61 donkeys, for that matter.

Such disturbing passages were not intended as metaphors or allegories to be interpreted 2,000 years later by some theologians in their Vatican libraries but reflected what the writer had heard or seen. Similar examples are found throughout the Bible, and I don’t want to assume that the authors of the biblical text misrepresented their ideas or the facts they wanted to convey and describe. I take the text seriously.

From the necessity of harmonizing the biblical text with the theological and monotheistic conception of God of Western culture arises a whole series of falsifications and mistranslations, in view of which that first innocent printing typo I had discovered twenty-five years ago really seems like a “speck in the eye of the brother.” Instead, here we talk about massive logs that have remained in our eyes for hundreds and thousands of years, so long that we even ignore our blindness. In Gods of the Bible, I have tried to remove at least some of these logs, addressing subjects such as the story of creation, the origins, and evolution of humankind, the existence of angels, the nature of cherubim, the identity of Satan, the meaning of the name of Yahweh and many more.

Mainly I focused on the identity and character of Yahweh and the meaning of the term “Elohim.” To make a long story short, when we read the term “God” in the Bible, this usually comes from the Hebrew term “Elohim.” However, at least when I worked for Edizioni San Paolo, the term “Elohim” was left untranslated into the interlinear edition of the Bible that we prepared for scholars and academia. In the Bibles available to the public, the same term was translated as “God.” Therefore, where people read “God” and believe that the biblical authors wrote the equivalent of the word “God,” scholars read the term “Elohim.” This was to alert them that this word is problematic, to say the least, for the unbiased translator.

Furthermore, Yahweh is just one of the many individuals who comprise the group of the “Elohim.” As shown, this term is the equivalent of the Sumerian “Anunnaki” or the Egyptian “Neteru,” which described a pantheon of a multiplicity of deities. Monotheism arose quite late on the roots of a previously widespread polytheism that affected all the peoples of the ancient Near East, including the Israelites. This fact is now recognized even in Bible study circles. Professor Mark Smith of Princeton Theological Seminary has written extensively on the polytheistic roots of the Bible and the long development of monotheism from an earlier polytheism.⁴

Often, however, these findings remain isolated. They certainly do not penetrate the realm of doctrine, except in a form purified of its most radical consequences, and therefore do not influence popular piety and practiced religion. Scholars in this field tend to defuse their most controversial results to avoid conflicts between theology and biblical scholarship. On the contrary, I think one of the greatest hindrances to reading the Bible is theology. In 2016, I held a conference in Milan with four theologians of different backgrounds: Ariel Di Porto, Chief Rabbi of the Jewish Community of Turin; Mons. Avondios, Archbishop of the Orthodox Church of Milan; Daniele Garrone, Biblical scholar, and Protestant pastor, Old Testament expert; Don Ermis Segatti, priest and professor of Theology and History of Christianity at the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy — this was at times a very heated meeting.⁵

At any rate, nobody who is intellectually honest can be sure of what “Elohim” means, but there is substantial evidence that “Elohim” does not mean “God” at all. Our very idea of God as a transcendental, omniscient, omnipotent being has nothing to do with the idea the ancient Biblical authors had in mind when employing the term “Elohim.” The Bible mentions several other “Elohim” besides Yahweh, of whom we even know the names, such as Chamosh, Milcom, Astarte, Hadad, Melqart, and many others. The “Elohim” was thus a group.

We could also add that the Old Testament tells the story of how Elyon, the most powerful of the Elohim, the commander-in-chief, would divide the lands and peoples of the earth among all the various Elohim leaving some of them satisfied and others dissatisfied.⁶ Yahweh was one of them, and he received only the people of Israel, who were still landless. As the Bible says, “Yahweh alone led him; no foreign El was with him” (Deuteronomy 32:12). In a very significant passage, the Bible also describes an “assembly” of the “Elohim.” To be an assembly, they must have been more than one. Traditional translators argue that “Elohim” here means “judges,” but they are contradicted by the Bible itself, which always uses a different word for “judges.” Also, this is an entirely arbitrary affirmation. I wonder on what ground can we say that “Elohim” at times means “God” and at times mean “judges.” What criteria are we following? In Psalm 82, Elyon rebukes the assembly of the gathered “Elohim” and reminds them that although more powerful than humans, they also “die like Adam,” thus emphasizing a clear distinction between the “Adamites,” the descendants of Adam, and the group of the “Elohim.”

It won’t be surprising that the term “Elohim” has a grammatical plural ending. “Elohim” is a grammatical plural. Translating “Elohim” in the singular as “God” would be nothing more than a simplification of monotheistic theology. Therefore I think it should be left, to be safe, untranslated.

Yahweh’s character is also worth investigating. When not violent, Yahweh’s behavior often seems bizarre, extravagant, and arbitrary. Yahweh’s words demonstrate his eagerness for the smell of the smoke of burnt flesh, prescribing elaborate rituals for the holocausts and commanding that violation of pedantic rules for the sacrifices be punished by death. Yahweh also moves and intervenes in human businesses in peculiar ways; for example, at times, he literally arrives “flying riding on a cherub” (Psalm 18:10) or aboard flying machines called “ruach” or “kavod,” which I discuss extensively in Gods of the Bible. Yahweh destroys cities with terrifying weapons, crushes villages, and demands his share of the spoils.

In my view, biblical scholarship and theology hopelessly oppose each other. However, I don’t deny the existence of God in general; I only say that God is not present in the Bible. Luckily so! This supposedly loving God theologians have come up with shows himself in the Old Testament as a cruel, sadistic, manipulative, and narcissistic individual.

Yahweh was undoubtedly endowed with unique qualities that made him superior to man in power and knowledge, but he was not superior in morals and ethics. It is enough to remember Yahweh’s exterminations, cruel rules, and bizarre behaviors, like sniffing the smoke of burned flesh, which he needed to relax. This matter was so important that any violation of the ritual could result in the death of the sacrificer. I detail this in Gods of the Bible and propose my interpretation of the sacrificial rituals occurring in all ancient religions, including Greek and Roman cults.⁷

The Bible does not speak about the origin of the Elohim. There is no hard evidence about the provenance of this group. Still, the comparison with the Adamites points to their clear and overwhelming biological and technological superiority. I, however, suggest and discuss in my book the possibility that something like the “cargo cults” might have occurred in the ancient past, not only among the people of Israel but among all the peoples of the world, from the Middle East to the Far East and the Americas.

During World War II, the inhabitants of Melanesia in the Pacific Ocean first encountered the white man and saw airplanes. The U.S. Army occupied their islands scattered across the Pacific as logistical bases for war operations. The natives saw the American soldiers coming from the sky and taking off from the ground with their aircraft. They saw them equipped with powerful weapons, high-speed air vehicles, and means of communication that defied understanding. They thus started considering them as deities. The natives began to develop rituals, prayers, and cults in anticipation of the return of the American soldiers.

I use the paradigm of “cargo cults” to speculate on the arrival in antiquity of civilizations that were much more advanced than ours. Our ancestors would then develop rituals, myths, and narratives that today we consider fairy tales but perhaps hide a very different reality, the reality of an extraordinary encounter with a superior civilization.

All the people of the Earth tell us the same thing. They tell us about superior beings who came from the sky, who created humankind and gave them knowledge, teaching them how to grow crops, write, predict the course of the stars, build incredible structures, and work metals. Is it possible that all the peoples of the Earth, independently from each other, developed the same stories, the same narratives about their past?

Gods of the Bible is just my last attempt to bring some light to our ancient past through the narrative found in the Bible. I aim to narrate, understand, and describe in detail the reasons and habits of that group of individuals called “Elohim,” of whom Yahweh was part, one of many. Yahweh was the Elohim of the family of Israel — and only of them and their descendants. I deny the universality of the Bible. The Old Testament records Israel’s covenant and relationship with Yahweh. Other Elohim, as we have seen above, had inherited other peoples, families, and nations.

The Elohim of other peoples are mentioned and addressed several times in the Old Testament. These passages suggest that these “foreign Elohim” were similar to Yahweh and had identical abilities and habits. The Elohim had advanced technology unavailable to our ancestors; lived longer than humans but were mortal; had weapons and tools that could do wonders; they were more powerful and knowledgeable, and yet they could be abandoned, betrayed, and deceived, just like humans, because they knew a lot but were not omniscient.

The space of a short article would only allow for briefly summarizing some of the aspects of the Elohim that I have detailed in this new book and all my previous works.⁸

Still, perhaps it is not superfluous to end by mentioning something about the fascinating biblical term “ruach.” This term has always been translated as “spirit” through the influence of the Greek culture and the so-called Septuagint version of the Bible, which renders it with “pneuma.” The Ancient Hebrew term “ruach” actually had a very definite and concrete meaning as it stood for “wind,” “breath,” “moving air,” “storm wind,” and, in a broader sense, “that which moves quickly through the air space.” In modern biblical translations, the term “ruach” is always rendered as “spirit” because it responds to monotheistic theology’s spiritualist needs.

In the Old Testament, however, this “ruach” appears to be flying through the air, making noise, and taking people from one place to another, with a loud clangor and visible manifestations, taking off and landing in specific geographical locations — in very concrete ways.

The two following passages illustrate what has just been said.

“The [ruach] lifted me and brought me to the gate of the house of Yahweh that faces East. There at the entrance of the gate were twenty-five men, and I saw among them Jaazaniah, son of Azzur, and Pelatiah, son of Benaiah.” (Ezekiel 11:1)

“Look,” they said, “we, your servants, have fifty able men. Let them go and look for your master. Perhaps, the [ruach] of Yahweh has picked him up and set him down on some mountain or valley.” “No,” Elisha replied, “do not send them.” But they persisted until he was too embarrassed to refuse. So he said, “Send them.” And they sent fifty men, who searched for three days but did not find him. (2 Kings 2:16-17)

I left the word “ruach” untranslated, as the reader can see. If you follow monotheistic exegesis and replace “ruach” with “spirit,” the passages become incomprehensible. But it is difficult to interpret the term “ruach” spiritually without distorting the text’s meaning. I give countless similar examples about “ruach” and other words and biblical passages in Gods of the Bible, always underlining the concreteness and realism of the Ancient Hebrew language and the ancient Semitic culture, which was the culture of a pastoral people that Yahweh had found in the desert, landless.

I began and ended Gods of the Bible with the same spirit that moved me twenty-five years ago when I first picked up my pink notebook and then discovered the little mistake that began my professional career as a translator of the Old Testament with Edizioni San Paolo. Since then, I have found many more errors in the Bible — and not all were done in good faith. The list is long and cannot be continued here. But I hope at least to have been able to open a dialog with all those who, with an open mind, are interested in learning more about humankind.

I am not looking for absolute truths but for a glimmer of reality. As I gaze into the impending sunset, the peaks of the Alps, silhouetted against the evening sky, glow pink. A mountain peak is all I hope for. I leave the climb to heaven to others.

I take Gods of the Bible from its stack and open it in the last light of day. I find the best summary of what has been said on the page that opens before me. It is good never to ignore the authoritative voices of the past whose intentions are free from the controversies of the present. I find the voice of a great historian of antiquity who had no reason to lie or embellish. And I realize it is not for heretics like me to explain the meaning of such words, but for the “guardians of the discourse” that exclude apriori hypotheses they cannot accept. I pretend what I read is true.

“Armies clashed in the sky, swords blazed, and the temple shone with sudden flashes. The doors of the sanctuary were suddenly torn open, and a superhuman voice cried out that the gods were fleeing, and at the same time, there was a great uproar as if men were fleeing.” (C. Tacitus, Histories, V 13)

1 Biglino, Mauro. Cinque Meghillôt. Rut, Cantico Dei Cantici, Qohelet, Lamentazioni, Ester. Edited by Pier Carlo Beretta, Cinisello Balsamo (Milan), San Paolo Edizioni, 2008; See also Il Libro Dei Dodici, San Paolo Edizioni, 2009.

2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-extraterrestrials-idUKL146364620080514

3 Cfr. Ceram, C. W., Gods, Graves and Scholars: The Story of Archaeology. Revised, Vintage, 2012. Ceram provides a brief but very clear account of how Scliemann came to the greatest archaeological discovery of the century.

4 Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford University Press, 2003. Mark Smith’s presentation of his work can be found at: https://youtu.be/8FZ2BdHmCNw

5 The meeting between Mauro Biglino and the theologians can be found: https://youtu.be/nCEG9Znl6Lc

6 “When Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance. In a desert land he found him, in a barren and howling waste.” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)

7 Cfr G. M. Corrias, Prima della fede. Antropologia e teologia del culto romano arcaico, Tuthi, 2022.

8 Many of Mauro Biglino’s conferences and videos can be found on his youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/@MauroBiglinoOfficialChannel. Available books in Italian and English are: Biglino, Mauro, and Lorena Forni. La Bibbia non l’ha mai detto. Mondadori, 2017. Biglino, Mauro, and Giorgio Cattaneo. La Bibbia nuda. Tuthi, 2021. Biglino, Mauro, and Giorgio Cattaneo. The Naked Bible. Tuthi, 2022. Biglino, Mauro. La Bibbia non parla di Dio. Uno studio rivoluzionario sull’Antico Testamento. Mondadori, 2016. Biglino, Mauro. Il Falso Testamento. Creazione, miracoli, patto d’allenza: l’altra verità dietro la Bibbia. Mondadori, 2017.

Connect with Graham Hancock

Connect with Mauro Biglino

Michael Clarage: Questioning Our Understanding of DNA — The Electrical Shaping of Biology

“The story of DNA that we grew up with—and still teach our children—is not only wrong, it’s harmful to our spirit because it gives us a false understanding of ourselves and our relationship to the universe.”

TCTL editor’s note:

Below you will find a lecture (parts 1 and 2) given by Michael Clarage of The Thunderbolts Project, as found at Thunderbolts youtube channel.

With all the questions out there related to the toxic mRNA vaccines as well as work in gene-editing, etc., it feels important to take a step back and question what we really know.

Most who read this website fully understand that we have been lied to since birth — held captive within belief systems that involve collaboration between established science, religion, governments, education, etc. We are learning that we know little about the real history of this planet, much less our own countries.

Michael Clarage is not alone in questioning what we know about DNA. Biology itself is certainly not what we’ve been told it is.

Below the videos, you will find transcripts. At this site, we create transcripts for selected videos because written word is powerful and easier to reference than a video. To set ourselves free from the straight-jacket paradigms, we have to look around us and ask “Is this really true?” about every “established fact”, belief and dogma out there. The more we question and explore, the freer become. ~ Kathleen

“On a more personal note, the Levin lab results are terrifying to me because, here we are again bumbling into areas we do not understand with tools too powerful for us to wield with wisdom.

“Has this new technology allowed us to add beauty to the world? Not so far.

“To date, we are only making grotesque monsters with legs growing out of their heads. The poor creatures live, somehow, and it turns my stomach to imagine that.

“I’m afraid we are right back where we were with the DNA story.

“We knew that mucking with the DNA will cause monsters. And now we know that mucking with the electric fields will cause monsters.”

~ Michael Clarage

Michael Clarage: Electrical Shaping of Biology

In this first episode of a two-part presentation, we begin with an open question in biology—how do the shapes of creatures come about?

How does a certain frog species obtain its particular shape and not some other?

How do its legs and toes and claws always get their particular shape and not some other?

We repeat the 70 year-old idea that DNA alone somehow determines everything, though there is surprisingly little evidence.

The story of DNA that we grew up with—and still teach our children—is not only wrong, it’s harmful to our spirit because it gives us a false understanding of ourselves and our relationship to the universe.

Astrophysicist and Lead Scientist of The SAFIRE Project Michael Clarage, PhD, highlights some of the evidence for the role of electricity in how plant and animal shapes come to be, and the role of electric fields in how inorganic objects obtain their shapes.

Michael Clarage: Electrical Form and Function

We examine three fundamental questions in the second episode of this two-part presentation.

Is matter even capable of organizing itself?

Where do form and shape come from?

Can form exist without matter?

Researching the origin of forms in Nature for several decades, Astrophysicist and Lead Scientist of The SAFIRE Project, Michael Clarage, PhD, has found none of our current sciences very good at describing how forms arise.

Be it geology, physics, chemistry, biology, or astronomy, there is a substantial amount of hand-waving when it comes to describing how form occurs.

Dr. Clarage conveys a powerful and profound idea. When your purpose changes, your shape changes. Purpose is causal. It makes things happen and presents a more useful and meaningful cosmology for all.

Connect with The Thunderbolts Project

Transcript prepared by Truth Comes to Light editor:

Electrical Shaping of Biology

An open question in biology is how do the shapes of creatures come about?

How does, for example, a certain frog species obtain its particular shape and not some other? How do its legs and toes and claws always get their particular shape and not some other? The same question for all the internal bits, the spine, the liver, the brain.

How do each of these always come to the same shape and interconnect in the same way, particular for this species and no other?

Most textbooks still repeat the 70-year-old idea that the DNA alone somehow determines everything. Though there is surprisingly little evidence for this.

I would like to highlight some of the evidence for the role of electricity in how plant and animal shapes come to be and also ay a few words about the role of electric fields in how inorganic objects obtain their shapes.

I was motivated to give this talk after reading about the work of the Michael Levin lab at Tufts University in Boston.

For more than a decade, the lab of Doctor Levin has been overturning some long-held beliefs about how biological shapes arise.

Back in the late 1950s, when DNA was being discovered and its role was starting to be understood, Watson and Crick championed the idea that the DNA determines everything about the organism. They call this the central dogma of biology.

For the past 70 years, most textbooks and funding have unquestioningly followed this dogma. It is a form of predeterminism all over again, since it assumes that the information flows only one way from the DNA out and nothing an organism could do would ever change that.

Crick was very vocal that finally he, a mere man, had once and for all eliminated the need for a god or any intelligence in the universe, since everything about us flows from our DNA.

Bombastic cheekiness aside, we can still run experiments to test the idea.

Over the past 70 years, many thousands of experiments have been run to elucidate the role of DNA in developmental biology. But try as we might, we could never show that genes actually create any forms.

What exactly in the DNA determines that an arm be shaped just so and not otherwise?

How is the inside of the mouth formed just right to know with the nose above and the throat below?

Search the literature and you will find that the best we can do is to show that disabling certain sections of DNA will cause some body part to form incorrectly, but this does not mean that the DNA is causing the form of that body part.

I was always surprised at such sloppy thinking.

That would be like me showing that I can prevent you from driving to the store if I give you a flat tire. Correct. You cannot drive to the store if you have a flat tire, but the tire was never the cause of you going to the store.

Just because mucking with some DNA causes an arm to form incorrectly does not mean that the genes cause the shape of the arm.

Using a cooking metaphor, which is surprisingly accurate, ingredients do not by themselves cause anything. You need a recipe that tells you what to do with the ingredients. And what is the meal? How many people are you cooking for? What is the order of the evening? All that makes a real difference.

Our genes do not necessarily tell our bodies what to make or when to make it. These decisions are made mostly outside the genes.

Everyone should know that we do not really understand DNA.

Every decade, the advanced textbooks need to be rewritten because we find out that the system is way more complicated than we previously thought.

What we call genes are really a very small part of the total DNA. Genes are that small part of the code that contain the blueprint for building proteins.

We still do not know what most of the DNA does. The collection of all the genes in your DNA is much like a giant ingredient list.

If you had a cookbook of all the recipes you could ever make and you made an index of all the ingredients needed for all those recipes, that is what the genes are.

All the blueprints for how to make each of the ingredients you might ever need. But again, genes constitute only a very small part of the DNA.

The work in Doctor Levins lab is impressive by any measure. These are virtuoso level skills. They alter the DNA of individual cells to change the number of ion pumps the cell makes for itself. This makes these particular cells more or less electrically polarized relative to what they would have been in the wild type.

At certain times in the development of the embryo, if enough cells in one place can be tricked into creating just the right electrical alterations, then body parts will grow in that location. An eye will grow inside of a stomach. A toe might grow on an elbow.

The 70-year-old central dogma of biology states that DNA, isolated inside the nucleus causes all shapes and forms to appear.

What does Levin’s result show? That an electric field external to the nucleus cause the shapes and forms to appear when and where they did.

It does not mean that the fields create the form itself, but it does mean that the field can cause the shape to appear.

What does this mean for the central dogma? Things get really tricky because Dr. Levin is altering the genes in the cells which cause more ion channels to form on the cell wall, which causes a different electrical potential of the cell relative to its surroundings.

So you could argue that the DNA is controlling everything, but the argument has become muddied.

Why does the entire eye form in the electrified location and not just pieces of an eye? And how is it that we instinctually know that the eye should not be in the stomach?

In Levin’s cancer research, they show that changing wild type electrical fields can start and stop cancer cell growth.

Highly malleable cells such as stem cells and cancer cells, have less defined electrical potentials relative to their surroundings.

Whereas healthy, mature cells have higher electrical potentials.

One of the hallmarks of cancer cells is that they have lost their relationship to the larger body. They are an out-of-control growth of cells that are part of nothing. They have no function beyond their self interests.

Here Levin’s results come very close to actually disproving Crick’s central dogma with regard to the form and function since electric fields, external to the nucleus, can destroy all form and function.

On a more personal note, the Levin lab results are terrifying to me because, here we are again bumbling into areas we do not understand with tools too powerful for us to wield with wisdom.

Has this new technology allowed us to add beauty to the world? Not so far.

To date, we are only making grotesque monsters with legs growing out of their heads. The poor creatures live, somehow, and it turns my stomach to imagine that.

I’m afraid we are right back where we were with the DNA story.

We knew that mucking with the DNA will cause monsters. And now we know that mucking with the electric fields will cause monsters.

It does not prove the DNA is causing the proper shape, nor does it necessarily prove that the electrical field is causing the proper shape.

Dr. Levin’s lab is justifying all this with the promise of new medical treatments if we can just make it through a few more decades of producing monsters.

I am also surprised that Dr. Levin does not seem to reference Dr. Robert Becker, who already showed most of these principles 40 years ago. You can see a good summary of Becker’s work in his book “The Body Electric”.

Dr. Becker, a practicing physician, discovered that controlling electric fields could heal burn victims and could let salamander tails grow back properly. Why not give credit where credit is due?

I fear it is because it became known that Robert Becker had a spiritual side. He maintained that humans were more than just sacks of chemicals.

I fear that since Dr. Becker did not believe in pure materialist reductionism many journals will not allow reference to his work.

Let us look at two more sets of experiments from Dr. Levin’s lab. Then we can step back and ask why does it all matter?

These experiments involve planarian flatworms. In the wild, if the tail of the worm gets chopped off, then a new tail will grow. If the head of the worm gets chopped off, a new head will grow, brain and all. Pretty amazing.

The wild type worm has an electrical gradient along its body, more positive towards the head. The researchers cut off the tail, then artificially gave that end a positive charge. This caused a new head to grow off the back end. We now have a new shape. A two-headed worm.

This new two-headed worm then propagates. It reproduces asexually, as all planarians do.

Is this a new species? I think so. Yet the DNA has not changed. You can see that the connection between the DNA of the animal and the shape of the animal is becoming less clear.

How could the DNA remember that this new worm species has two heads, so all future progeny must also have two heads.

Returning to the cooking metaphor, it looks like the genes are available to get the raw ingredients produced, but the recipe and the plans for the full meal are being handled at quite another level, quite outside the world of the genes.

In a different experiment, they went to the wild type, cut off its head, then, while the new head was forming, they modified the electrical potential of some cells, and ended up producing the head and brain types of another species of planaria.

Let that sink in. The DNA is still that of the original species, but the form, the shape of the new worm head is that of a related species of worm. We have created a new species but we have not altered the DNA.

In my opinion, any notion of DNA determining the shapes of creatures is on pretty shaky ground.

Why does any of this matter?

It matters because the story of DNA that we grew up with and still teach to our children is not only wrong, it is actually harmful to our spirit because it gives us a false understanding of ourselves and of our relationship to the universe.

We were told that a simple molecule, with sequences of four molecular letters determines everything about us.

We were assured that not only our shape, but our entire being is supposedly a simple unfolding of some molecular computer program into which we have no input.

I find all aspects of this dogma incorrect and harmful.

As a scientist, I am trying to reconstruct a cosmology that is more accurate and more meaningful. In the second-half, we will look at the question of whether matter is even capable of organizing itself. And if not, then where could all these shapes be coming from?

Electrical Form and Function

Picking up right where we left off.

Is matter even capable of organizing itself?

If you believe in materialist reductionism, you say that the universe is only matter. Matter and forces. And the forces are not matter.

But I’m happy to overlook that inconsistency for now.

In the first half of the lecture we saw how a materialist reductionism applied to biology states that DNA is everything. All you need is the DNA and a bag of chemicals, and you can make any life form you want.

Yet, as shown, in the first part, this theory runs into some major problems, confusions and contradictions when applied to even a simple worm.

Many previous civilizations would say that we are stuck on these very basic questions because we are looking in the wrong place for the answer.

We keep wanting the matter to produce the form. But what if matter cannot, on its own, produce form?

Another idea is that forms and shapes are imposed upon matter or made available to matter.

To illustrate this, let us look at some examples that are often rolled out as proofs of self-organized matter. The Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction is given often as proof that matter alone can self organize.

Here, a simple chemical preparation cycles through beautiful alternating spirals. Some point to the growth of crystals as an example of self-organized matter, such as geodes or growing rock candy at home.

But, without exception, in all these laboratory cases, the researchers are spending many hours setting up specialized equipment that creates very special conditions. They then flip a switch and say, voila, the matter has self organized.

And I’m like, no, you just spent months carefully arranging thing, imposing a form from the outside. You have, in fact, proved that matter cannot self organize.

In the case of crystal growth, in graduate school we spent many months trying to grow protein crystals for our X-ray diffraction experiments. And I can tell you from experience that most of the time nothing forms. And it was only through very carefully-controlled conditions and obvious artistry that crystals form, once again showing that matter does not self organize.

So where do form and shape come from? An older body of ideas states that shape and form are imposed upon something from the larger world of which it is a part. For example, the cell in the liver has its form and function because it is part of the liver and has very clearly defined jobs to do in the larger body of the liver.

If that cell were part of a different world, say part of the stomach, then that cell would have a different shape.

The organs themselves each have their particular forms only because they are part of the body and have clearly defined jobs that they each do for the body.

The very idea of proper shape only has meaning for something that is part of a larger body. That is the only way you know if you have the right shape. That is the only way you know if you are doing the right job.

When something breaks its connection with a larger world then it can no longer have a proper shape.

The cancer cell has broken its connection with the larger body. The cancer cell has no shape, no function. The cancer cells are still connected to the matter of the body. The substance of the blood still flows to the cancer. There is not a material disconnection. There is, instead, a disconnection of purpose and function, which leads to a loss of shape and form.

I realize this is a different way to think. I have pondered it for many years and I still find it elusive.

We are so immersed in centuries of thinking that matter explains everything. It can be challenging to think that form and shape are quite distinct from matter.

Shape is something that can be imposed upon matter or made available to matter. But shape is not matter and shape does not come from matter.

In living systems there are proper shapes. It’s not arbitrary.

A frog toe must have a certain shape to be part of a frog foot, which must have a certain shape to be part of a frog leg, which must have a certain shape to be part of a whole frog. Once we have seen a frog, it is obvious when any part is mis-formed or not doing the right job.

Instead of asking questions about how DNA can cause shapes and functions, we should ask: What is it about the environment that will call forth different ingredients from the DNA?

Do we have any evidence that form exists without matter?

In corona discharge imaging, we place an object inside an electric field of several kilovolts per centimeter. The object distorts the flow of electrons, which produces a very beautiful image of the object.

When you place a leaf between the plates, you see the structure of the leaf.

The image on the left shows the corona discharge picture of one such leaf.

You then cut off the top part of the leaf. You choose a new cover plate and film, so that there is no contamination from the previous image, and you make a new coronal discharge image.

The image on the right shows what you get. Much of the part that you cut off is still visible.

In one study, 137 leaves were photographed from 14 different species. Ninety-six of the photographs showed at least some image of the section of the leaf that was removed.

How could that be since the matter in that section is missing? The form exists independent of the matter and is detectable through electric fields and the flow of electrons.

I personally think that the electric field is a mediator for the form. I do not believe that the electric field is the source of the form, but this hypothesis can be checked in further experiments.

These results might also remind you of a hologram where every small section of a hologram film contains the entire picture. Although holograms can be easily explained using physics, I personally am always amazed every time I see one. I am baffled that they actually exist. I cannot get my head around the fact that each part of the hologram picture can actually be used to recreate the entire picture.

In these leaf experiments, we see the same thing, where a remaining part of the leaf still somehow contains the information needed to construct the entire leaf.

It is the same with the planarian worms. The remaining part of the worm somehow still has the pattern of the whole worm, which the matter then fills in.

Let us leave the world of biology. Forget about DNA, clear our heads, and look at all this in an entirely different setting.

Consider the snowflake. Stunningly beautiful. Millions have been looked at and so far no two are exactly the same. Endless variations within a theme.

You may have heard, or assumed, that physics or maybe chemistry has explained how snowflakes get their shape. Not so. The origin of snowflake morphology is a mystery.

I have marked off two sections on this snowflake picture. Look at the two red circles, then look at the two yellow circles.

How did the two red regions know to make the same shape?

How did the two yellow sections get the message to make their shape?

There are trillions of molecules separating these regions. That is basically infinitely far away if you are a molecule. And it’s not just two regions that get the message from infinitely far away. It’s six regions for every feature that end up looking the same.

I propose that the overall form of the snowflake is imposed upon the freezing water all at once, like a New England contradance hall forming and unforming to the caller and the music. I think that the entire pattern exists in an electric field at the region where the snowflake forms.

I’m not saying that the electric field is all by itself the cause or the origin of the form. But I do think the electric field is a mediator or a translator of the form into matter.

Maybe somebody could help us by doing electric field snowflake experiments. We already have good evidence that crystal growth is disrupted by the presence of pulsed microwave electric fields, which shows that electric fields are involved with crystal formation.

To take the next step in snowflake research, we must see that the large scale shape of the snowflake is not coming from the individual water molecules. And why would you want it to anyway?

If you are a scientist, why would you want to explain this enormous, elaborate shape arising from isolated molecules that cannot know anything about each other?

In closing, I will ask aloud:

Dr. Clarage, you seem to be saying that matter alone is not sufficient to explain everything and that we must consider this other principle called shape or form. Yet you never clearly define what this is or where it comes from.

To which I reply:

But neither can you clearly define exactly what is matter or where does it come from. And I really do not see how form is any less obvious than matter.

So perhaps we should change the terms of the discussion and ask why would anyone want to describe everything with only one principle called matter?

Why is that preferable to having also a second principle of form?

If you say that it is obvious that having only one principle is simpler, I will say, “Oh man, really? I just spent all this time showing experimental evidence why matter alone leads to all kinds of complications, confusions and outright contradictions.”

I have been researching the origin of forms in nature for several decades. I have found that none of our current sciences are very good at describing how form arises, be it geology, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy.

There is a substantial amount of hand-waving when it comes to describing how the form of things arises.

For example, in astrophysics we do not know why solar systems form with a certain number of planets, why the spacings between the orbits closely follows an exponential spiral, why the planets have their particular sizes, why the star has its particular cycle of magnetic patterns, et cetera, et cetera. This question is so difficult for astrophysics that it is generally ignored.

I think all our sciences are weak in this area because we are looking in the wrong place for the origin of forms and shapes. We keep wanting the matter to organize itself. I think that is a dead end.

To get out of this dead end, two questions can be useful.

The first is: Why would you personally want a world view where matter organizes itself? I hope you can answer this for yourself and not from some physics video you saw, or a book that you read.

The second question is: In your personal experience, in your life, what useful functions or procedures have you personally seen come about spontaneously with no effort?

When your purpose changes, your shape changes.

Purpose is causal. It makes things happen.

A more useful and meaningful cosmology would include that.

It is my hope that I have helped convey some of that message.

Thank you.

Cover image credit: Public Domain
The Flammarion engraving is a wood engraving by an unknown artist that first appeared in Camille Flammarion‘s L’atmosphère: météorologie populaire (1888). The image depicts a man crawling under the edge of the sky, depicted as if it were a solid hemisphere, to look at the mysterious Empyrean beyond. The caption translates to “A medieval missionary tells that he has found the point where heaven and Earth meet…”

The Politics of Obedience

by Ian Davis
sourced from Ian Davis newsletter
March 7, 2023

I thought I’d share a 500 year old text from French Judge and writer Etienne de La Boetie with you today.

Before you wander off, thinking this is all completely irrelevant, I urge you to download and read The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, as nothing could be more appropriate for the times we are living in.

With an excellent essay introduction from Murray N. Rothbard, and exploring ideas of liberty, authority and Natural Law, as we face ever more authoritarian government, de La Boetie’s observations and proposed solutions are vital to understand today.

It’s a great translation from the original French and, despite it’s age, is surprisingly easy to read.

If you fancy watching an exploration of Boetie’s work first, check out this discussion between James Corbett and Keith Knight.

Connect with Ian Davis

Cover image credit: MoneyforCoffee

Alternative location to download PDF: The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude

(alternative location to download The Voluntaryist Handbook PDF

The West Must Never Again Go Totalitarian

by Joakim Book, Brownstone Institute
January 26, 2023

The West can never again go totalitarian.

We saw it happen generations ago. We fought two of humanity’s most destructive wars and faced the horror of industrial-scale extermination. Never again, said the world’s peoples in the late 1940s, and they began the difficult task of uncovering all that had been done, all that had gone wrong.

The mass graves, the German and Soviet labor camps, the Japanese massacres in the Far East, America’s internment camps, the secret police and the mutilations, the ever-present threat of violence hanging over every member of society. We saw the personality cults around Hitler or Stalin for what they were, the blatant ideologies for what they had resulted in.

When the Berlin Wall fell in November of 1989, and with it the remains of the Evil Empire that had put it there, we discovered more horror. The archives of East Germany and the Kremlin showed that informants were everywhere happily giving up information – real or invented – on their fellow humans. We found more bodies. We learned that under enough fear and pressure, human life wasn’t worth anything. When push came to violent shove, bonds of family and community meant nothing.

The error of this terrifying history is to think that this was a problem of “the other,” someone far away who is nothing like us. Asks Thorsteinn Siglaugsson in a recent article: ”How do you find your inner Nazi? And how do you get him under control? Most people would have participated in the atrocities of their time, had they been put in that position – or at least sat by and allowed them to happen.”

In The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn’s oft used and highly relevant phrase says that the line between good and evil passes “right through every human heart.” The passage goes on, and Solzhenitsyn digs even deeper into the most horrifying self-reflection a man can reach: the line of good and evil goes through all human hearts, mine included, “This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained.”

It oscillates. What is evil isn’t always an identifiable thing, a clear enemy, but a blurry line that moves and becomes clear only in hindsight. History is hard like that. It’s us, but in the past, doing things we couldn’t imagine ourselves doing. Yet millions of our prior selves did. Are we really confident enough that with the right external circumstances “we” wouldn’t once again?

We received a small-scale test with the upheaval of societies in the last three years. Many of us wonder both what went wrong in the Covid saga and how the future will look upon the events that took place. Are the anti-vaxxers the unsung heroes who stood up against unjust tyranny, or the new 9/11-truthers nobody really cares about? Are the lockdowners wise lifesavers who hadn’t yet perfected a tool that the future takes for granted as obvious and necessary? Only on a long enough historic timeline will we know.

Take the following segment from Michael Malice’s The While Pill: A Tale of Good And Evil, a newly released and much-needed account of the Soviet Union’s totalitarianism:

“Even if the man on the street felt something wasn’t quite adding up, it was very difficult for him to get the full picture – especially in a culture where questioning authority could have deadly consequences for oneself and one’s entire family. The newspapers were filled with boasts about enormous achievements of production and the success of heroic ‘Stakhanovite’ workers, yet there were no clothes in the stores and no food on the shelves.”

Even to the regular Joe (or Vladimir…), something wasn’t adding up:

“Sure the papers might make mistakes or have a bias, but they couldn’t realistically be filled with lies, week after week, year after year. … Only crazy people would think that there was a conspiracy to control the news and what information reached the public. The only possible logical alternative was that someone must have been keeping the productive socialist bounty from reaching the people. It had to be the wreckers.”

The echo of 2020-22 intrudes, too close for comfort. For is not this precisely what happened to us?

In the early days of Covid, the newspapers were filled first with outrageous disaster porn and fear-mongering and later with “boasts about enormous achievements of production and the success of heroic [Big Pharma] workers,” all the while there were “no clothes in the stores and no food on the shelves.” Everyone took outlandish personal actions, yet the catastrophic numbers shot higher and higher.

Clearly, somebody must have been ruining the good men’s neatly laid plans, those who chanted messianic faith in “two weeks to flatten the curve.” They told us what to do; it got worse than they said; somebody must be wrecking the process.

I did my pandemic part, many people reasoned: I masked and desanitized and kept my distance and vaxxed myself over and over to Fauci’s delight. Yet, the pathogen kept spreading and people kept dying and I even got sick, again and again – something the rulers repeatedly said was impossible. And then it wasn’t, which they said was always going to happen.

It felt scripted, of course. When I for Brownstone reviewed Mattias Desmet’s great book on totalitarianism last summer, I wrote that toying with objective truth is precisely what totalitarian regimes do:

“The collective hums together and upholds the rules, no matter how insane or ineffective at achieving their supposed aim. Totalitarianism is the blurring of fact and fiction, yet with an aggressive intolerance for diverging opinions. One must toe the line.”

It matters not whether the charge holds water or has logic on its side; it just has to stick, by endless repetition if need be. Like all propaganda. In the last few years surely, there must have been some evil group of detractors undermining the Party’s good efforts. Those fifthly pandemic wreckers, the anti-vaxxers! They are nothing; less than nothing, and it’s OK to blame them!

Replace “wreckers” with anti-vaxxers, the media’s boasts of Soviet production with today’s establishment elite’s never-ending yapping about vaccine efficacy or lockdown effects or responsible monetary policy, and Malice’s distant history feels much closer to our recently lived-through present.

We might still have food on the shelves — though of worse quality and at much higher prices. We might still have the ability to move and work and travel, but heavily circumscribed, always at risk of canceling and always with papers showing the number of needles in your arm, or your scarred heart tissue. Nobody is torturing us (yet anyway) and for the most part we have some semblance of rights and freedoms remaining.

But we’re closer to that horrific totalitarian world today than we were, say five years ago. Or perhaps it was just always there, calmly waiting to be unleashed like Solzhenitsyn implied.

What Malice’s book so expertly chronicles is that elites can be wrong. Wrong in facts, wrong in morals. It is possible that whole sways of intellectuals, scientists, journalists, professionals, and civil servants can be deceived and deluded, for decades stubbornly refuse to admit their error.

The 1930s US intelligentsia’s view of Comrade Stalin and the Soviet Union is one such episode. The warmongering early 2000s in Britain and the US, though far from unopposed by the public, is another.

Nothing shows this better than my own field of economics, riddled with wrong calls and embarrassing prediction errors. The Great Moderation of stable growth, low inflation and unemployment, circa 1990 to 2007, is another collective bout of madness and mistaken optimism.

Four years before the Great Recession began, Nobel laureate Robert Lucas gave a presidential address to the American Economics Association saying that macroeconomics had succeeded: “its central problem of depression prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.” In the summer of 2008, already nine months into the recession and merely weeks before Lehman Brothers collapsed, Olivier Blanchard, then at the IMF, published “The State of Macro is Good.”

The year 2020 marked the beginning of just another such episode of collective insanity. It will take some time and soul-searching before we can once again view the errors of our time the way we now view the “adulation of Stalin’s professed ideology,” or laugh at them like we do the crooks in The Big Short.

But Malice’s message is ultimately optimistic. “I’m not saying nothing bad ever happens,” he confesses, but that evil isn’t almighty, doesn’t have to win. It might take a while, but even for the West’s most malevolent elements, the “costs are just going to be too much for them to bear – and they’re going to fold.”

One day, a future chronicler might look upon the Covid era with the same deep incredulity that Malice’s readers look upon the Soviet Union.

Joakim Book is a writer and researcher with a deep interest for money and financial history. He holds an MSc from the University of Oxford.

Connect with Brownstone Institute

Cover image: Polish Jews captured by Germans during the suppression of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (Poland) – Photo from Jürgen Stroop Report to Heinrich Himmler from May 1943. One of the most famous pictures of World War II. (Public Domain)

Dr. Tom Cowan & Howdie Mickowski: On Our Hidden History & the Mystery of the World’s Fairs

“So we’ve got two avenues that we can discuss. There’s the avenue that most everyone looks at, which to me is actually the smallest part of the story and that is the buildings themselves. How are these buildings constructed? How is it possible in the time frame what’s supposed to be there? And how could they be so ornate, so beautiful, so spectacular and then be destroyed?

So we have the one side of it which is the buildings, which like I say, that gets the most of the attention.

To me it’s the other side of it that it should get more attention and that is: What was actually going on at these fairs? What were the exhibits, what was being presented? Because to me now, I see these fairs as like indoctrination centers. That they were literally indoctrinating a complete concept, a complete idea, complete structure of thinking — before movies, before television, before — this was it. And you put these all over the world. And lo and behold you can get a story into people’s minds.

And I think that’s what they were doing because, as you dig into what was actually shown at these things, it’s beyond bizarre. On one level it’s sick and on another level it’s showing our whole world for the next 120, 140 years. Where we are now was built actually at these fairs. And scary enough, I use the word ‘reset’ in my book before any of this started. To me these fairs were literally like portals from the end of the last world, however that last world ended — looks like destruction — and this was resetting in a new idea.

And then all of a sudden here we are with all of these controllers of the world throwing out the word “great reset” again.

And now I see that, hey, these fairs are like an important marker to where we are now, to telling us what we’re maybe going through and what we’re headed for. So that’s why to me it’s so important to study them, not just asking the questions of how did these buildings get built. Was there a civilization prior to this? Was there a technology we didn’t have? That’s question one we can talk about. But the other one, the bigger one, is what was really going on there?”

~~~

“That means that all the history we have prior to this period of the world’s fairs is not only questionable, it’s highly likely completely wrong.”

[…]

“And now this has helped show me how much we are so in the dark about history, which is so important. Why is history important?

Well, history is important because it explains our present. We can explain here’s where we are, and the story of history is how we got here.”

[…]

“But if we find that history is absolutely wrong, that it’s just a story that’s been used to explain a particular method of control, now all of a sudden, we would have to say, well, why are we doing anything the way we’re doing it then?

Because if the history that brought us here, that supposedly brought us here is wrong, then we don’t have to stay here. We can change it.

So the historical narrative is important for the overall control mechanism, because it explains why we are where we are.”

~ Howdie Mickowski

“And essentially the thesis here is that they implanted this narrative in this time, in this way, in these buildings, in these exhibitions, in these simulations, and that became our reality. And we’re actually still dealing with the consequences of that, even more so in the last three years.

And I can tell you it’s the exact same thing and the exact same time in medicine and biology.”

~ Dr. Tom Cowan

Conversations with Dr. Cowan & Friends | Ep 59: Howdie Mickoski

by Dr. Tom Cowan
January 12, 2022

Howdie Mickoski is a researcher who has spent the past decade-plus investigating such subjects as the philosophy and teachings of ancient Egypt, the philosophy and teachings of the Cathars, Gnostics and other historical groups, as well as the works of Carlos Castenada, among others.

Howdie has also written books about the fascinating history of the world’s fairs and expositions of the late 1800s and early 1900s, and postulates what these events can tell us about our history. Please join me for this interview in which we discuss all aspects of these fairs and expos and wonder about what these investigations have to tell us about our current world situation.

Bring your most open mind and questioning habits to this interview, and enjoy the ride.

Best,
Tom

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan — website — BitChute — Rumble

Connect with Howdie Mickowski at his YouTube channel

Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: Howdie mentions a website where all World’s Fairs are listed and where links are provided to a vast amount of information. Find the page here: http://www.studylove.org/worldsfairs.html

Cover image credit: The World’s Columbian exposition, Chicago, 1893 — (public domain)

Sanity, Harmony, Love, Amazement, and Freedom, Are Now the Hidden Side of Life: A Backward and Deranged State of Mind

by Gary D. Barnett
January 4, 2023

“I have observed this in my experience of slavery,–that whenever my condition was improved, instead of its increasing my contentment, it only increased my desire to be free, and set me to thinking of plans to gain my freedom. I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery; he must be made to feel that slavery is right; and he can be brought to that only when he ceased to be a man.”

~ Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

What in the world has happened to the human animal? What has happened to man? Why is it acceptable to be lorded over, to be allowed to exist, to be told what to do and what not to do, to be metaphorically and in many cases literally chained by draconian mandates, to be restricted as to what to say and what not to say, and to be controlled by the malevolent dregs of society called ‘leaders’ and rulers? Is this the true nature of man, or is this deranged state of mind the creation of evil intent by those seeking the power to dominate others? This is a very important distinction, for if this weak and pathetic state of being is natural, then there is nothing that can remedy the misery of the ruled. But if it is a designed and contrived effect of long term indoctrination, dumbing down, and a propagandized conspiratorial plot, then it can be reversed, and therefore, this voluntary slavery could be eliminated in favor of mass freedom.

As was pointed out by Jacob Hornberger recently, there was a time in our history when there was no income tax or IRS, no government welfare, no drug or medical laws, no immigration controls, few economic regulations and restrictions, no foreign wars, no passports, no three letter enforcement agencies, no government controlled markets, no foreign military bases, few if any government bureaucracies, little if any mandated ‘public’ schooling, no unbacked currency or central bank, and absolutely no gun control. Things were certainly not perfect, nor was any utopia present, but better times did exist in this country, and people were for all intents and purposes, temporarily free. This was a superior time, and should be instructive of what could be, instead of what is today.

Has this society lost all of its intellectual capabilities, its desire to be free, and fully succumbed to a subordinate position, and therefore settled for a dependent level of existence? Have the masses voluntarily accepted the idea that life is serfdom, or is this a temporary phenomenon, and one that can be reversed? I would like to think in terms of the latter, but this current state of being gives my great pause, as the controlling system that exists in this country and the world is being allowed to continue its drive toward a technocratic dictatorship. This is a tragedy, and if accepted by the bulk of society as normal, all hope for freedom would simply disappear.

It seems we live in a time when the bulk of populations are on the verge of ‘clinical’ depression, are filled with hate, are divided in every aspect of life, are worried and troubled constantly, are in a continuous state of fear, are dissatisfied with all the good in life while concentrating only on anger and immediate gratification, are consumed by indifference, and have lost any ability to improve self in order to gain a more harmonious connection to the wonders that life has to offer. This is a sad state of affairs to be sure, and a stark realization that humanity is teetering on the edge of willing annihilation.

Regardless of all the strife, uncertainty, antagonism, moral decay, and psychopathic insanity that confronts us daily, it should be recognized that life goes on, and each of us has a responsibility to develop and strengthen his ability to survive and prosper, and to be independent, so as to find peace of mind. The most important aspects of life can never be given to you, they must come from within, and cannot be experienced unless and until one is secure and satisfied with self. This is a mandatory aspect of growth that can lead to becoming a light for others. Without self-control, self-dependence, self-awareness, and self-confidence, love, family, compassion, empathy, and joy cannot be fully and truly experienced. To gain such a state of mind as this requires honesty and an unlimited acceptance of truth, regardless of risk.

Whining, complaining, cursing, lying, laying blame, dependence, voting, and begging for a master to grant you favors, will never be of any use whatsoever in any struggle to gain or retain freedom. Freedom cannot be given, it must be lived, taken, and forever defended. The founding of this country was structured in such a manner so as to present a false picture that rights are somehow tied to government parchment, which is a gross misrepresentation of fact. No rights come from any piece of paper, no rights can be secured by governments; for if that is so, then no rights ever existed in the first place. This is one of the most egregious misconceptions of duped Americans who have been inundated with the notion that some constitution is there to protect their freedom. It is not!

Yes, those who lived in this country in past times did have a much more free society than exists today, but even then, there were attacks against the sovereignty of the individual by the state. The aggression against liberty levied by the ruling class over time has increased greatly, but only because it was voluntarily allowed. Currently, little if any freedom has survived, and this is of course a planned outcome, that has been generally accepted by the herd. This atrocity can only be remedied by the masses themselves, not by a few, and not by the total, but by large numbers of willing participants (individuals) who will practice the negation of government and rule.

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

~ Robert A. Heinlein

Cover image credit: un-perfekt

All Governments Are Illegitimate Authorities

Etienne de la Boetie argues that the government – any government – is the biggest scam in history.

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
November 12, 2022

I recently read an excellent book called The Most Dangerous Superstition, by Larken Rose, in which he argues that the government – any government – is completely illegitimate, immoral and no different to a cult. In other words, the government’s existence should be rejected for the fake superstitious authority that it is.

“The root cause of most of society’s ills – the main source of man’s inhumanity to man – is neither malice nor negligence, but a mere superstition – an unquestioned assumption which has been accepted on faith by nearly everyone, of all ages, races, religions, education and income levels. If people were to recognize that one belief for what it is – an utterly irrational, self-contradictory, and horribly destructive myth – most of the violence, oppression and injustice in the world would cease.”

~ Larken Rose

Etienne de la Boetie (which is not his real name) is the author of a similar book called Government – The Biggest Scam in History, in which he makes an overlapping argument with some excellent additions.

[The book] “exposes the hidden control system and pseudo-religion of Statism used by an inter-generational organized crime system centered around banking and central banking to rob and control the population.”

Although one can technically debate subtle differences between “the state” and “the government”, I am keeping things simple by using the terms interchangeably (since that is how most people understand the terms anyway).

What is anarchism?

For clarity, anarchism is a collection of ideas that lead to anarchy, although it’s probably acceptable to use both words to describe the same idea.

Rejection of the state equates to anarchism. But the problem that I have found is that anarchism is misunderstood, whether by design or not. Anarchism (or anarchy) does not mean chaos. Anarchism, in the words of Benjamin Tucker, could be described as

“the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the state should be abolished.”

He goes on to say that

“the state is the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an individual, or a band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area.”

Basically, the government is the subjection of the noninvasive individual to an external will. Anarchy is a synonym for liberty, freedom, independence, self-government, non-interference and you-don’t-speak-for-me.

Our conversation

Etienne joined me for a conversation about all of the above and explained how society would benefit from abolishing the state and why the free market can do anything and everything the government does, but better.

Government – The Biggest Scam in History

cover image credit: TheHilaryClark

PDF links:

The Most Dangerous Superstition (or use this alternate link)

Randall Carlson: The Mysterious Origin of Halloween

by After Skool with Randall Carlson
October 24, 2022

[Video available at After Skool Odysee and YouTube channels.]

Halloween is seen in our modern age as a day lacking in any historical meaning. It has become known for scary movies, candy, costumes and mischief.

But there is a deep, universal tradition behind Halloween, also known as the Festival of the Dead, All Souls Day or Feast of the Ancestors. This festival is observed around the world, in the northern and southern hemispheres at the SAME time of year.

In this video, we take a dive down the rabbit hole with Randall Carlson to uncover the mysterious origin of Halloween.

Randall Carlson is a master builder and designer, a geologist, anthropologist and historian. He specializes in sacred geometry, ancient civilizations, climate and environmental change, myths, legends, cosmic cycles and catastrophes. He is a proponent of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, and has theorized about the extinction of historical advanced human civilizations.

Get the complete, in depth halloween lecture from Randal Carlson at https://www.howtube.com/13916

To learn more about Randall please visit https://randallcarlson.com/

Check out Randall’s Podcast, Kosmographia https://www.youtube.com/c/TheRandallC…

To learn about geology tours with Randall https://randallcarlson.com/

Special thanks to the Lowell Observatory for providing some of the astronomy footage.

Connect with After Skool

Predictive Programming, HG Wells and the Clash of Two Creativities

by Matthew Ehret, Matt Ehret’s Insights
October 17, 2022

In this interview conducted in January 2021 with Patrick Timpone on One News Network, I details the historical precedents of the Orwellian paradigm threatening to undermine the nation state system and broader multipolar alliance. Special focus is given to the often overlooked matter of cultural warfare and the new techniques in predictive programming in the field of science fiction innovated by HG Wells which shaped the zeitgeist for over 120 years and continues to shape popular culture and cinema to this day.

[Video available at Canadian Patriot 1776 & Patrick Timpone BitChute channels.]

Topics Covered:

What are the roots of the Great Reset?

What was H.G. Wells’ connection to British eugenicists Julian Huxley and Leonard Huxley?

Why was The British Empire’s Round Table Movement such an important tool of Anglo-Saxon globalism?

How was World War 2 just act 2 of World War 1? aka: global division for the profiting of corporations and banking institutions.

Why did the British Empire require a cultural matrix rooted in pessimism?

How are pessimistic movies like Soylent Green and Planet of the Apes products of a deliberate global divide-and-conquer strategy?

How is dystopian science fiction different from the optimistic world of Jules Verne, who was happy with technology as long as it included morality?

https://oneradionetwork.com/all-shows/matthew-ehret-h-g-wells-dystopic-vision-comes-alive-with-the-great-reset-agenda-how-darwinism-took-over-the-world-january-5-2021/

See related:

H.G. Wells’ Dystopic Vision Comes Alive With the Great Reset Agenda

C.S. Lewis vs H.G. Wells: A Journey out of the Deep Black Void (and Invitation to lecture #2)

The Miseducation of Hamilton: America’s First Shadow Banker Redefines Reality

by Aaron & Melissa Dykes, Truthstream Media
September 10, 2022

[Video available at Truthstream Media YouTube and BitChute channels.]

Excerpt from essay by Aaron Dykes (see the full essay here):

This video on Alexander Hamilton is over an hour-long, and for several reasons (some better than others). But gave us lots of amusement about history and about bad wannabe hip-hop raps.

With a deluge of information, and mini-perseveration and obsessive focus on the facts of the founding period, against a setting of slow, clumsy medical recovery that is beginning to see the light of day – in that context, I slew the dragons in my mind with the ammunition I could scour from our library in something of an offshoot of our previous series ‘The Trust Game’.

Drawing a duel in my mind with fundamentally-flawed philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, and, mixed up with meta-layers of irony, at the same time dueling with the flawed and deceptive framing of today, the presentation of history by major foundations, by entertainment giants and by the education system.

These and other forces have seemingly teamed-up to inspire the next generation to believe that 2+2=5, that aristocracy was democracy, and that Hamilton reigns over an alternate-dimension of woke hip-hop fantasy legitimized by the power of using “words” to define “reality.” A bent pseudo-realness brought into existence either by scientists at CERN probing dark matter, or whisked into meta-being by influencers who often use the term “meta” in their speeches, or perhaps in combination with one or other creative writers in the entertainment business.

My quixotic quest to right the wrongs of modern remix-history thus morphed from a simple summary about the Rockefeller Foundation sponsoring a play and paying to get kids to watch it, into a meta-analysis disassembling the core significance of our historical founder Alexander Hamilton from our 21st Century dumpster-fire culture. Our chances for a bright future are, thus, impaired, as the powers-that-be have given the young-in-spirit-and-mind the wrong codes and keywords. Instead of treasuring our individual rights and traditions of freedom, to maintain and treasure, even as the future keeps changing our notions of how things ought to be, the powers-that-be have trained impressionable minds to celebrate their own mental enslavement; to cheer on incredible financial rapings, and call for a greater concentration of power in the name of besting dissidents and opponents.

The wisdom and knowledge that too much power in the hands of government is a recipe for disaster. In respect to this principle, takes away the focus on individual rights and limiting abusive powers in all its forms. Too much power has been given away, given to despots and political champions, and technology has made modern people appear and feel minuscule in the grand scheme of things with respect to decision making and agency in writing their own future.

It occurred to me, with a bit of a background in government studies, that the growing public misconception about such fundamental rights as the Freedom of Speech (and the freedom of conscience) is a significant and growing danger to our society. An alarming number of lost sheep are prone to believe that society is vulnerable to “haters” who must be disarmed of their expression by government policies, and by huge tech companies who own and control the prevalent mediums of expression. It is a generation prone to believe that words CAN hurt you, and hurt so much that online speech must be patrolled, terms terminated, certain language left unspoken, and expression narrowly confined with search terms so as to not offend. Verified information only. Vetted, sanitized, safe.

The catastrophic fallout from this kind of thinking — from just this example — has already besieged our generation. It has purged many dissidents, threatening their livelihoods and their rights to expression. It has emboldened those abusing powers, who seek excuses and rationales to grab and use further power, and has empowered the worst abuses we’ve seen in freedom of conscience and freedom of speech both under the cloak of medical emergency in recent years. You know, our generational trauma.

On top of that is Hamilton. Miseducation hidden in the casserole of a trendy musical: a clear example that the truth has become a catspaw to manipulative powers, kneading a dough of history into a tableau that expresses the values of power they way they wish them to be presented, to be perceived. Is there a controller behind the veil? Or are these just shadows, pixels, static?

What has transpired to make this or any other best-selling musical/book/movie speak for a generation IN FAVOR of a figure who specifically represents the quest for more government power?

What is behind the glorification of a reprobate who has been strongly criticized by his contemporaries and by historians for his Machiavellian works towards a Federal Government over-endowed with uncontrollable powers? Superlative powers over the several States, over the revolutionaries who believed in and fought for liberty?

We find a banker, a shadow banker, who instituted a government system vulnerable to the undue influence of the mega-wealth, the elite. Made in the image of his patrons. A founding father thinker who believed that Aristocracy was the most desired form of government, that the monarchy American colonists had just fought against represented not-the-worst-but-the-best system, and that democracy was a totally destructive, unstable, untrustworthy system of government. People in mass a monster.

Yet people today — the typified acolytes of the Hamilton! Musical and its political affiliates — clamor for “democracy” and swoon at the Histor-tainment surrounding Alexander Hamilton whom they see as a climber from the lower classes, as a self-made immigrant, as an abolitionist of slaves, and a beacon of – democracy.

But that’s the very opposite of what Broadway’s most celebrated man actually stood for.

How is that even possible? Are people really that misinformed?

As the Constitutional Convention concluded, Benjamin Franklin was reputedly asked: “Well, Doctor, what do we have, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin famously replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

This is our system, but this cannot be in of itself the best of all governmental-forms, because it did not produce or secure a significant-enough quantity of liberty, or distribute freedom widely enough to sustain true progress against ill intent on the part of those in power. Hence our modern disharmonies and disbalances. Things gravitating towards total disaster.

But a republic may have been the best of all outcomes under the circumstances for the young United States. It could have easily buckled under the pressures of world domination, intrigue, foreign loans and finance, and disagreements between political factions, economic sectors, and between the cultures of the Northern and Southern States — struggling to maintain the appearance of total unity in the wake of a doomed geopolitical marriage.

But a Republic based theoretically on past systems like Rome and tweaked by enlightenment insights, and which institutes divided and theoretically balanced powers, and which declares the principle of sustaining individual liberties, while separating duties and jurisdiction among different levels of government, and retaining unexpressed powers to the sovereign states – this Republic was as close as we Americans would get to a pseudo-healthy balance between the rock-and-a-hard-place of the threats of the “tyranny of the few” and that of the “tyranny of the many.”

A Democratic Republic in that elections and public opinion could influence or determine leaders; yet also an Aristocratic Republic, as Senators were selected by States whose politics were dominated by aristocratic land and property owners. Aristocratic, also, in the barriers between public election and the selection of the President, court justices and cabinet appointees, who Hamilton wanted appointed for life. Aristocratic in the heavy influence of the British system of titles, and the relationship between merchants, banks and money with the government that continued or was deliberately imitated by the colonies-turned-republic.

A Plutocratic Republic, in that the United States system was nauseatingly friendly and defenseless against the machinations of its richest, thanks in no small part to Alexander Hamilton himself, who represented for an elite cadre of extremely powerful land owning families, land speculators and investors who were especially dense in New York, fast-developing into one of the world’s foremost financial centers.

Our Republic was, thus, Plutocratic in the relationships and bonds that cemented in with Hamilton’s vision for the country. His role as a banker with a vision. The strings of capitol funds are absolutely connected to the institutions of the Federal capital and the governments of the States. The word puppet comes to mind.

Finance was and is a central pillar in the secretive and unquestionable foundations of the nation. The public face of good government for-the-people assumes the private, unimpeded operations of the wealthy players of plutocracy. This mold of capitalism, and hence its toxic derivatives, were ushered in by Alexander Hamilton, baked into our American traditions. The maker, in one sense, of some of the biggest Titans of Industry and capitalist fortunes. Philanthropists and Misanthropes alike.

And when it comes to the many, to the unfortunate who are dominated by this system, Hamilton enabled life-support and preferential treatment for the parasitic systems that denigrated human life on a grand-scale. He married into them, and cozied up to the powerful families of early America — he didn’t dismantle their institutions or moralize to them until their behavior changed. Abolition, racial justice and economic humanism were never a serious focus for Hamilton. Play things, maybe – concentrating power was his only true aim throughout his influential career.

So for the public to celebrate his cult of personality around these values – democracy, equality, et al. — is truly sickening. Especially when the soundtrack is saccharine-sweet with modern flair and over-hyped production value.

The young United States was a remarkable experiment in self-government and self-determination that espoused noble principles, but its final mold was still quite flawed. The powers-that-be did not make this mold of liberty and freedom easily transferable to less fortunate locales.

The young U.S., as now, had to endure competing interests including participants throughout the continent and abroad who held suspicious aims or dispassionate stakes in the economic factors, but who, nonetheless, helped to keep the weird glue of the union together, for better or worse. Its dark blemishes and severe philosophical oversights are fairly glaring in hindsight.

A Republic was as good as we got; Hamilton originally wanted a full-blown aristocratic monarchy, with total powers for the Federal government and political leaders who would rule for life – even if without an actual crown. The public has been so severely miseducated, however, that they now believe Hamilton fought for democracy.

This false notion had to be corrected. It is my duty, and it is also my pleasure.

The Republic he and other founders secured with his catspaw-Constitutional Convention was one set up to balance disagreements between the enfranchised, the “elect” of 18th Century society. This primarily, and almost exclusively, included property holders in society who were the only people who could vote or hold any true vestiges of power. It did very little to protect those that were subject to the dominance of the former “elect,” little for those under the thumb of any master, and for those who could only eek out an existence under duress, enslavement, indenture or indebtedness – for what was, at best, an illusory promise of freedom.

This was, after all, a system designed by Alexander Hamilton. He wrote more words than any of his nearest competitors; he worked hard. But who did he work for? And what were his words working to bring about? Is it something we should celebrate to a lively, hip-hop score?

Perhaps it’s time you met Hamilton. Once again. This time with feeling. Because he is a best-selling edition of history reshaped, remolded, redefined. Reality reconstructed like a lump of Playdoh.

I want to personally acknowledge and thank my beautiful wife, and partner in thought and expression, for her support in all things during this challenging time. Thank you, Melissa.

In Liberty and Love,

Aaron

The breakdown of the $1.25 trillion dollar (Plus) National Security State Budget

The Only ‘National Security’ Necessary Is the Elimination of the ‘National Security State’?

by Gary D. Barnett
August 13, 2022

I’m afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.”

~ Jim Garrison

“National Security” is just the excuse for every form imaginable of tyranny, totalitarianism, privacy destruction, abuse of freedoms, aggression, terror, and war. Every time I hear this deceptive and scurrilous term, I cringe knowing that lies, deceit, and horror are on the horizon. It is based completely on false fear; fear planted in the minds of the people in order to force (goad) them to run to government and the state for protection from fabricated enemies. It is the state’s go to argument when additional control is sought, and it has worked nearly every time it has been tried. It is currently the mainstay of this fascist state called America, and it is still effective. The term ‘national security’ is nothing more than sheer propaganda based on unwarranted fearmongering.

One has to wonder, given that this country has never been aggressively attacked on its home soil by any foreign aggressor state, how the term ‘national security’ ever became the default reasoning for any and every aggressive war waged by this government against countries around the world. It is not just war against other innocent countries that has been waged, aggression in the name of national security has been levied against the American population almost continually, whether in the case of desired war, disasters, ‘pandemics,’ bogus ‘climate change’ risks, state and federal emergencies, and any number of other deceptive means of control.

Before the letters start rolling in claiming that the sinking of the Lusitania, the Pearl Harbor attack, the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, and the 9/11 inside job were acts of pure aggression by outsiders, please refrain from such nonsense. They all, and many more, were set up and staged, and led to major wars of aggression by the U.S. against multiple foreign countries that had nothing to do with attacking America. In the process, freedom was destroyed. This has been written about by very many scholars for decades, and plenty of proof has been forthcoming. As I have stated over and over again, the United States has aggressively attacked many other countries, as well as Americans, and has prosecuted wars of aggression for 93% (an understatement in my estimation) of its entire history against those who never attacked or were a threat to this country; all under the pretext of ‘national security.’

In that effort, the vast U.S. national security state has been built on the blood and property of every American citizen, and has grown into a bureaucratic behemoth unimagined in earlier times. U.S. military spending matches the rest of the world combined, and dwarfs every country on earth by a huge margin. One would think that this insanity would guarantee that the U.S. had the most powerful military, and the highest sophistication of military weaponry, but that is likely not accurate by any measure, as many criminal corporations, politicians, foreign heads of state, and contractors are enriched due to this ludicrous amount of spending, and waste and fraud are basically incalculable. Of course, this is all by design, as those controlling the government and the political heads, are always paid off and protected by their dependent pawns in government.

The total national security state budget for early 2019 was over $1.25 trillion, and it has grown exponentially since that time. Allotted military spending alone has increased by over a quarter of a trillion dollars in just the last three years. Just in the past few days, IRS spending increased by $80 billion in order to hire 87,000 new agents; 70,000 of them armed and willing to use deadly force against American citizens. Is this for ‘national security,’ or meant to control any who speak out against government? Obviously, it has nothing to do with collecting taxes, as this country through its atrocious central banks prints all the money it wants at will. A new militarized IRS can be nothing more than a heinous and murderous arm of the controlling class, and used to keep the sheep in line, and stifle truthtellers and dissent by brute force of arms.

Private self defense is always necessary in this world we live in, but national defense through a state-controlled military and ‘national security state’ system, is always meant to be used to dominate the masses by extreme tyrannical measures under the guise of protecting the hapless and helpless citizenry. It is never for the purpose of actual defense, as all government is based on brutal and forcible offensive control of its subjects. As long as the people of this country continue to voluntarily allow such a powerful state to exist, all will be relegated to the position of guaranteed slavery. In that light, is it any wonder what has happened since early 2020, and how can any thinking individual not understand that this extreme tyranny at the hands of the state was not only planned long in advance, but was completely and purposely exposed beforehand? The warnings were evident, but very few listened or paid any attention to the signs given, and have sat idle in a pool of indifference, as the downfall of this country has taken shape.

If one considers all the money and resources taken by and for the benefit of the state itself, little is left for any other purpose. The state simply sucks up all the production of its subjects through taxation and central bank money printing, and in the process, inherent inflation abounds. This is accomplished through theft, extreme deception, and propaganda, and destroys the psyche of the individual, leaving only a collective mass of non-thinking commoners, lost in a fog of ignorance.

The government consumes most all the energy of its population in one way or another. Bureaucracies abound, and the enforcement arm of the government is now at very extreme levels, as police, state and federal militaries, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the IRS, and hundreds of other enforcement and restrictive regulatory agencies abound. Virtually everything, every movement, every communication, every action by individuals is in one way or another the reasoning used for policing the people. Government and the state apparatus care nothing for its citizens, but revel in the ability to control them. This is the essence of the state, and why if freedom is desired, the state must be abolished.

If the so-called ‘national security’ arm of the state can be eliminated or made impotent, the power of government to monitor and control the masses will be severely curtailed, allowing for more liberty and less restriction. It is the vital first step, but in order for this heinous security state to be castrated, we as individuals must cease to rely on government promises of protection, stand on our own as individuals en masse, and destroy the entire notion of a ‘national security state.’

It has been said, and I agree; as goes the U.S., so goes the world. If nothing is done to stop this assault on Americans and the rest of the world, be prepared for more war; likely major or world war with nuclear armed nations. Be prepared for more tyranny and more slaughter. This will all be by design, will help eliminate much of mankind as is sought by the state, all while the ruling elites sit back in comfort and watch, as the civilian populations are used as fodder for the agenda of world government and a world ‘security state.’

Freedom and legitimate national security are one and the same, while the so-called state and its false promise of national security spells aggression, restriction and regulation, fascist control, murder, and slavery. In order to regain freedom, the elimination of government and its national security state must be achieved.

“The words ‘national’ and ‘security’ are like precursors for a binary chemical weapon: not overly dangerous by themselves, but capable of completely shutting down the brain and nervous system when used in combination.”

~ John Alejandro King a.k.a. The Covert Comic

Reference links:

Behind the sinking of the Lusitania and other false flags

The truth about Pearl Harbor

9/11 Truth: Lessons Learned

The U.S. has been at war 93% of its history (1776-2015) and all 7 years since!

90,000 additional IRS agents/70,000 of them armed

cover image credit: hucky / pixabay

Admiral Byrd, the Ant People and the Hopi Tribe: How Credible Is the Hollow Earth Theory?

video by Zohar StarGate Ancient Discoveries
August 8, 2022
based on text by Marcus Lowth

Could the Earth really be hollow? As unlikely as it may sound, the are many compelling claims to support the idea not only that our planet may be house a world within a world, but also that this inner realm may also be home to ancient intelligent lifeforms – or what the Hopi tribe have known for centuries as the ‘ant people’. But just how does this all relate to the famed Antarctic explorer Admiral Richard Byrd? This video explains all…

From The Ant People And The Hopi Tribe to Admiral Richard Byrd – How Credible Is The Hollow Earth Theory?

by Marcus Lowth, Me Time for the Mind

Conventional wisdom suggests that the Earth is essentially a solid spherical mass, with an inner core of solid iron encased in a layer of molten iron, followed by stiffer mantle and the crust, before heading to the surface on which we all live.

However, although this theory is almost universally accepted as absolute fact, it is only an educated guess, with no solid proof to back it up. The fact is that we have never been anywhere near to the center of the Earth.

So with that in mind, theories that state the Earth is, in fact, hollow, and even able to support life, should be treated the same way as the widely accepted aforementioned theory – as you might suspect though, most scoff at this notion and dismiss it entirely without any further investigation.

However, throughout history many prominent and respected minds, thinkers, and even military veterans have presented detailed theories as to what lies deep within our planet. When these theories are combined with the numerous reports and texts that make reference to living beings and entire civilizations that live and sometimes “come up from inside the Earth!”, not only appear to warrant further study but when viewed with an unbiased mind, suggests there may be more evidence to support the Hollow Earth theory than not.

One of the many cave and wall paintings of the Hopi Tribe depicting the Ant People – were they the Anunnaki?

Long History Of Hollow Earth Theories

Both sides of the spectrum seem to agree that the moment of inertia of the Earth indicates that there is a concentration of mass around the very center of the planet, with further research along with seismic data appearing to show that this mass to be a solid sphere.

Hollow Earth theories vary on what exactly this mass is, with some stating it to be a magnetic core while others suggesting that it is a central sun (this is particularly interesting as modern science seems to suggest that the center of the Earth could indeed be as hot as our Sun).

In ancient times Buddhists believed that the Earth was hollow and that it housed a race of “super men and women” who would venture to the surface via tunnels. Buddhists even kept guards at the entrances to these tunnels to the inner Earth – said to be in Tibet.

In other Tibetan, Indian and Hindu texts, an ancient kingdom called Shambhala Is described – said to be located “deep within inner Asia”, while other texts from India such as the Ramayana speak of the Avatar Rama, a great blue being from deep within the Earth.

In the 1600s, as western cultures were beginning to come out of the dark ages where science and free thought was frowned upon by the Catholic church (with many scientists and philosophers murdered by the church as heretics), there were prominent and influential figures who had come to their own conclusions about the Earth and if it was hollow or not. It should also perhaps be noted that although these “thinkers” were no longer forced to operate in secrecy under the threat of death, they were still kept a very close eye on by “society’s elites.”

Edmund Halley, perhaps best known for his discovery of Halley’s Comet was just one who theorized that the Earth was indeed hollow during this time. Using much of Issac Newton’s work on gravity to prove his theories, he claimed that the Earth was hollow and had a shell around five hundred miles thick, had an “innermost core”, and was capable of supporting life. He went on to state that an atmosphere filled the space inside the Earth and that the outer shell and the inner core both had their own magnetic poles that caused them to rotate at different speeds.

Leonard Euler, a Swiss physicist, also proposed that the Earth was hollow during his time in the 1700s. Like Halley, he claimed that the Earth had a very thick outer shell but at its core was a central sun – this sun he claimed provided heat and light for the inhabitants of the inner Earth.

Interestingly, Euler went on to claim that the inner Earth could be accessed through huge entrances at both the North and South Poles – it is claimed by some people today that such appliacations as “Google Earth” have purposely attempted to hide these entrances, although there are some photographs that appear to show the opening that Euler claimed.

Does this Google Earth image really show an entrance into the inner Earth?

Operation Highjump And The Claims Of Admiral Richard Byrd

As recently as the 1940s there have been claims of an inhabited inner world – perhaps none more high profile than those made by Admiral Richard Byrd following Operation Highjump in 1947.

Operation Highjump was a multinational effort led by the United States to establish a base at the North Pole. On 19th February 1947, Admiral Byrd led a squadron of planes over the North Pole. He claimed that he could see vegetation and animals that “shouldn’t have been there” and ultimately that he saw a huge opening that led inside the Earth.

However, perhaps even stranger, Byrd stated that out of nowhere there were strange “flying crafts” that got so close to them that they could see what looked very similar to “swastika” markings on them. His airplane would not respond and he was essentially in “an invisible vice grip of some kind!”

Byrd went on to say that he was taken inside the Earth where he noticed “great lakes and vegetation” and that the inner Earth had an inner Sun. He was greeted by the beings that resided there. They were, he claimed, concerned about humans in general but particularly about nuclear weapons that were building up around the planet – interestingly there have been numerous UFO sightings in and around both nuclear power plants and on grounds where nuclear weapons are housed. You can read what are claimed to be Byrd’s diaries of the events here.

It may be worth noting that there have long been rumors that Hitler himself had a keen interest in establishing a base at the North Pole with the objective being to find the entrance to the inner world, believing that extraterrestrials or an advanced race would be found there. You can read a little more about the Nazi regime’s interest in such things here.

One of the many photos from “Operation Highjump” – is that a saucer shaped crafted in the middle of the picture?

On 5 March, 1947 the El Mercurio newspaper of Santiago, Chile appeared, with the headline article ‘On Board the Mount Olympus on the High Seas’ in which it quoted Byrd saying “Adm. Byrd declared today that it was imperative for the United States to initiate immediate defense measures against hostile regions. Furthermore, Byrd stated that he “didn’t want to frighten anyone unduly” but that it was “a bitter reality that in case of a new war the continental United States would be attacked by flying objects which could fly from pole to pole at incredible speeds.”

Like Euler two hundred years earlier, he also claimed that there were huge entrances to the inner Earth at both the North and South poles.

He repeated these views several times, including at a press conference in front of the world’s media before he was hospitalized and ultimately forbidden from holding press conferences on the subject again.

Byrd died in his sleep in 1957 – maybe predictably, maybe not, there were quiet claims of foul play, although his official cause of death was a “heart ailment.” Perhaps also worth checking out is this article here concerning Bryd’s son (Richard Byrd Jr.) who was six years old in 1947 and had accompanied and witnessed his father’s claims – he was found dead mysteriously in a New York warehouse and had, by all accounts, had various “trying times” during his life.

Ancient dwellings of the Hopi – similar look to modern day apartment blocks?

The Legends Of The Hopi Tribe

Perhaps the most interesting of all the Hollow Earth claims, are those made by the Native American Hopi Tribe, who have lived upon the plains of northern Arizona for thousands of years.

According to their ancient writings, it was here that their gods instructed them to settle and build up villages in the rock – which look very similar to modern apartment blocks.

Here they were taught to grow corn, beans, and squash and thrived as a civilization.

Key to the Hopi’s existence was the Ant People, who had guided their tribe to safety during two cataclysmic events.
In the “First World” (which was destroyed by fire) and the “Second World” (that was destroyed by ice) the tribe had each time been guided by a strange cloud during the day and a “moving star” during the night until they came to the god named, Sotuknang, who in turn led the Hopi to the Ant People.

The Ant People had lived on Earth since the “first time” and now housed themselves deep within the planet. They offered the Hopi safety until it was safe to return to the surface of the Earth, and also taught them skills such as food storage, rationing and how to sprout beans inside the cavern under the ground.

Not only is this another reference to the Hollow Earth theory, but it also lends a certain amount of support to the Ancient Astronaut theory and the Anunnaki. The Hopi word for Ant is “Anu” – Anu was a Babylonian sky god – the Anunnaki. Not only this but Naki in Hopi, means “friend.”

Ant Friend – Anu Naki (Anunnaki) – coincidence? Or evidence? We should perhaps stress that not everyone agrees with that interpretation.

Check out the videos below concerning Admiral Richard Byrd and Operation Highjump – a simple search of YouTube will bring up ample results for further viewing on the Hollow Earth theory.

Everything posted on this site is done in the spirit of conversation. The views and opinions expressed in articles posted on this site are those of the authors and video creators. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Truth Comes to Light. Please do your own research and trust yourself when reading and when giving consideration to anything that appears here or anywhere else.

John Hamer on the Titanic Not Sinking

The Titanic was actually switched with its sister ship, the Olympic.

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
August 1, 2022

John Hamer is a historian and author who has written extensively on the Titanic conspiracy, revealing how it was switched with its sister ship, the Olympic.

It’s a fascinating take, and one that I find more compelling than the official version. (After all, who believes any official story anymore?)

Excellent Documentary

I’d recommend the following documentary as a solid backdrop.

If you don’t have time for both, then skip the documentary and rather listen to my podcast with John.

Our Conversation

It’s absolutely riveting. He goes through the Titanic’s history in chronological order.

I could listen to John for hours

Connect with Matt Ehret’s Insights

Connect with John Hamer

cover image credit: pixel2013 / pixabay

Can Cars Run on Water?

I present answers from various sources

by Jon Rappoport, Jon Rappoport substack
August 3, 2022

For years, I’ve been writing about the technocrats’ plan to radically lower energy production and use, worldwide.

This program, hidden behind all sorts of propaganda about energy-sharing, environmental justice, and climate change, is a method for visiting destruction on humanity.

Aside from oil, gas, coal, and nuclear, alternatives exist. The technocrats’ preference for solar and wind power—two methods that are presently incapable of replacing traditional energy sources—shouldn’t make people think those are the only options.

Here, I ask the question, can cars run on water?

I present answers from various sources.

Keep this in mind. Many of the naysayers readily admit the technology is available but claim the cost is prohibitive. They neglect to mention the gigantic government subsidies and deals and favors that make nuclear power—and even the oil industry—possible.

These critics will NEVER say, “Well, sure, you can build a nuclear power plant that produces steam, but the cost of doing it is absurdly high and rules it out as a viable source of energy.” But they WILL say it about splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen and running cars on hydrogen.

Popular Mechanics (2008): “There is energy in water. Chemically, it’s locked up in the atomic bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. When the hydrogen and oxygen combine, whether it’s in a fuel cell, internal combustion engine running on hydrogen, or a jury-rigged pickup truck with an electrolysis cell in the bed, there’s energy left over in the form of heat or electrons. That’s converted to mechanical energy by the pistons and crankshaft or electrical motors to move the vehicle.”

“Problem: It takes exactly the same amount of energy to pry those hydrogen and oxygen atoms apart inside the electrolysis cell as you get back when they recombine inside the fuel cell. The laws of thermodynamics haven’t changed, in spite of any hype you read on some blog or news aggregator. Subtract the losses to heat in the engine and alternator and electrolysis cell, and you’re losing energy, not gaining it–period.”

From thoughtco[dot]com (2019): “Can you make fuel from water that you can use in your car? Yes. Will the conversion increase your fuel efficiency and save you money? Maybe. If you know what you are doing, probably yes.”

MIT School of Engineering (2018): “A water molecule contains three atoms: an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, which bond together like magnets. According to Wai Cheng, a professor of mechanical engineering and director of the Sloan Automotive Lab (where he does research on engine performance and emissions, combustion science, and energy conversion), breaking those bonds will always take more energy than you get back.”

“Let’s say you wanted to build this car. It would need equipment to split a water molecule apart and separate its oxygen and hydrogen. Then it would need to isolate each of them in separate tanks. Then you would need a combustion system that could mix and ignite them, or a fuel cell that could recombine them to make electricity. The released energy could then drive a piston or run a motor and move the car.”

“Here’s the problem, Cheng says: ‘A water molecule is very stable.’ The energy needed to separate the atoms is greater than what you get back — this process actually soaks up energy instead of giving it out.”

“Plus there’s a more volatile problem: hydrogen is dangerously flammable. Without the right safety measures, a fender-bender could turn into an explosion worthy of an Avengers movie.”

Gaia[dot]com (2020): “[Stanley] Meyer’s invention promised a revolution in the automotive industry. It worked through an electric water fuel cell, which divided any kind of water — including salt water — into its fundamental elements of hydrogen and oxygen, by utilizing a process far simpler than the electrolysis method.”

“Despite skepticism about the legitimacy of a car that runs on water, Meyer was able to patent his invention under Section 101 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Index…”

“Meyer’s water-powered engine was the result of 20 years of research and dedication, and he claimed it was capable of converting tap water into enough hydrogen fuel to drive his car from one end of the country to the other. His invention was mind-boggling and promised a future of non-polluting vehicles that could be refueled with a garden hose.”

“On March 21, 1998, Meyer was having lunch at a Cracker Barrel with his brother and two potential Belgian investors. The four clinked their glasses to toast their commitment to uplifting the world, but after taking a sip of his cranberry juice, Meyer clutched his throat, sprang to his feet, and ran outside. Rushing after him, his brother Stephen found him down on his knees, vomiting violently. He quickly muttered his last words, ‘They poisoned me’.”

“Meyer’s death was investigated for three months, though it was eventually written on the coroner’s report that he died of a cerebral aneurysm.”

The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, July 8, 2007, “The car that ran on water,” by Dean Narciso:

“After more than 20 years of research and tinkering, it was time to celebrate.”

“Stanley Allen Meyer, his brother and two Belgian investors raised glasses in the Grove City Cracker Barrel on March 20, 1998.”

“Meyer said his invention could do what physicists say is impossible — turn water into hydrogen fuel efficiently enough to drive his dune buggy cross-country on 20 gallons straight from the tap.”

“He took a sip of cranberry juice. Then he grabbed his neck, bolted out the door, dropped to his knees and vomited violently.”

“‘I ran outside and asked him, “What’s wrong?”’ his brother, Stephen Meyer, recalled. ‘He said, “They poisoned me.” That was his dying declaration’.”

“Stanley Meyer’s bizarre death at age 57 ended work that, if proved valid, could have ended reliance on fossil fuels.”

“People who knew him say his work drew worldwide attention: mysterious visitors from overseas, government spying and lucrative buyout offers.”

“His death sparked a three-month investigation that consumed and fascinated Grove City police.”

“‘Meyer’s death was laced with all sorts of stories of conspiracy, cloak-and-dagger stories,’ said Grove City Police Lt. Steve Robinette, lead detective on the case.”

“If Stephen Meyer was shocked at his twin brother’s collapse and death, he was equally amazed at the Belgians’ response the next day.”

“‘I told them that Stan had died and they never said a word,’ he recalled, ‘absolutely nothing, no condolences, no questions’.”

“‘I never, ever had a trust of those two men ever again’.”

“Today, Stanley Meyer is featured on numerous Internet sites. A significant portion of the 1995 documentary It Runs on Water, narrated by science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and aired on the BBC, focuses on his ‘water fuel cell’ invention.”

“James Robey wants a permanent place for Meyer in his Kentucky Water Fuel Museum.”

“‘He was ignored, called a fraud and died without his small hometown even remembering him with so much as a plaque,’ Robey wrote in his self-published book Water Car.”

“Meyer had euphoric highs and humiliating defeats. He was kind and generous yet paranoid and suspicious. He would be hailed as a visionary and a genius. He also would be sued and declared a fraud.”

“The basis for Meyer’s research, electrolysis, is taught in middle-school science labs.”

“Electricity flows through water, cracking the molecules and filling test tubes with oxygen and hydrogen bubbles. A match is lighted. The volatile gases explode to prove that water has separated into its components.”

“Meyer said his invention did so using much less electricity than physicists say is possible. Videos show his contraptions turning water into a frothy mix within seconds.”

“‘It takes so much energy to separate the H2 from the O,’ said Ohio State University professor emeritus Neville Reay, a physicist for more than 41 years. ‘That energy has pretty much not changed with time. It’s a fixed amount, and nothing changes that’.”

“Meyer’s work defies the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.”

“‘Basically, it says you can’t get something for nothing,’ Reay said.”

“‘He may have had a nice way to store the hydrogen and use it to make a very effective motor, but there is no way to do something fancy and separate hydrogen with less energy’.”

“…Nevertheless, Meyer attracted believers, investors and, eventually, legal trouble.”

“‘I was a sucker for some of this stuff at the time,’ William E. Brooks said from his home in Anchorage, Alaska.”

“Brooks invested more than $300,000 in Meyer’s technology. He hoped to find applications for his aviation business.”

“Today, he and his wife, Lorraine, laugh about the ordeal, made easier because their money was returned in a 1994 settlement in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.”

“Two years later, a Fayette County judge found ‘gross and egregious fraud’ in Meyer’s contract negotiation with two businessmen. Their money was returned.”

“…Belief in Meyer continues today. So does suspicion about plots to silence him.”

“Stephen Meyer recalled a phone call to his brother’s home in the 1980s.”

“’He turned to me and said, ‘They just offered me $800 million. Should I take it?’”

“I said, ‘Hell yes. How much money do you want?’”

“‘He got very quiet. When he got into that thinking process, I just let him alone,’ Stephen recalled.”

“Charlie Hughes, now 36, vividly recalls the strangers who visited his parents’ home in the late 1970s.” [Stanley Meyer was living in the Hughes house at the time.]

“He had been playing outside when the driveway suddenly filled with limousines. Men in turbans stepped out. In ‘stern, thick accents,’ they asked for Meyer. ‘I remember, because I was not allowed in my own house that day’.”

“They left briskly. Charlie was about to go inside when the driveway filled again, this time with military vehicles. ‘Army brass,’ he recalled.”

“At dinner that night, Meyer told them: ‘The Arabs wanted to offer me $250 million to stop today. You and this lovely family can live in peace and prosperity the rest of your days’.”

“The Army officials, meanwhile, had questioned Meyer about what the foreigners wanted, thinking that a deal might have been struck, Charlie recalled Meyer telling the family.”

“Meyer discusses the offers in the Clarke documentary.”

“‘Many times over the last decade, I have been offered enormous amounts of money simply to sell out or sit on it… The Arabs have offered me a total of a billion dollars total pay simply to sit on it and do nothing with it’.”

“The Grove City police investigation of Meyer’s death included taped interviews of more than a dozen witnesses.”

“Absent, however, were audiotapes of the two Belgians, Phillippe Vandemoortele and Marc Vancraeyenest.”

“The men had agreed to purchase 56 acres along Seeds Road in Grove City. The city had approved a research campus there two months before Meyer’s death.”

“Lt. Steve Robinette said it’s possible the men’s interviews were not taped.”

“Calls and e-mails to Vandemoortele and Vancraeyenest for this story were not returned.”

“The Franklin County coroner ruled that Meyer, who had high blood pressure, died of a brain aneurysm. Absent any proof of foul play, the police went with the coroner’s report.”

“The only detectable drugs were the pain reliever lidocaine and phenytoin, which is used to treat seizures.”

“And what became of the dune buggy that captivated a community for at least a few years?”

“A longtime friend of Meyer’s, who doesn’t want to be named because he fears that people will bother him about the invention, led a reporter to the basement of a property south of Columbus recently.”

“‘I really shouldn’t be showing you this,’ he said.”

“After passing through several darkened rooms scattered with computers and electrical equipment, he opened a door. In the far corner of a garage sat the buggy, its leather seats cracked, its engine partially covered with a cloth.”

“A decal on the bright red paint declares: ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’.”

“Then the man quickly led the way out. Lights went dark. Doors clicked shut.”

“In his front yard, he sat on a lawn chair and sipped fruit punch. He watched the cars and trucks drive by on the road, burning gasoline.”

Finally, for now, here is an excerpt from an article I dug out of my files. I can’t find the whole article, and I don’t know who wrote it. The excerpt indicates there are innovative ways to split hydrogen and oxygen from water. I present the excerpt. I don’t know whether the methods described are workable.

3. SYSTEM TO SPLIT WATER FOR FUEL BY USING RESONANCE

Another variation on the water-fuel theme relies more on vibrations than on chemistry. At more than 100 per cent efficiency, such a system produces hydrogen gas and oxygen from ordinary water at normal temperatures and pressure.

One example is U.S. Patent 4,394,230, Method and Apparatus for Splitting Water Molecules, issued to Dr. Andrija Puharich in 1983. His method made complex electrical wave forms resonate water molecules and shatter them, which freed hydrogen and oxygen. By using Tesla’s understanding of electrical resonance, Puharich was able to split the water molecule much more efficiently than the brute-force electrolysis that every physics student knows. (Resonance is what shatters a crystal goblet when an opera singer hits the exact note which vibrates with the crystal’s molecular structure.)

Puharich reportedly drove his mobile home using only water as fuel for several hundred thousand kilometers in trips across North America. In a high Mexican mountain pass he had to make do with snow for fuel. Splitting water molecules as needed in a vehicle is more revolutionary than the hydrogen-powered systems with which every large auto manufacturer has dallied. With the on-demand system, you don’t need to carry a tank full of hydrogen fuel which could be a potential bomb.

Another inventor who successfully made fuel out of water on the spot was the late Francisco Pacheco of New Jersey. The Pacheco Bi-Polar Autoelectric Hydrogen Generator (U.S. Patent No. 5,089,107) separated hydrogen from seawater as needed.

A pioneer in breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen without heat or ordinary electricity, John Worrell Keely reportedly performed feats which 20th-century science is unable to duplicate. He worked with sound and other vibrations to set machines into motion. To liberate energy in molecules of water, Keely poured a quart of water into a cylinder where tuning forks vibrated at the exact frequency to liberate the energy. Does this mean he broke apart the water molecules and liberated hydrogen, or did he free a more primal form of energy? The records which could answer such questions are lost. However, a century later, Keely is being vindicated. One scientist recently discovered that Keely was correct in predicting the exact frequency which would burst apart a water molecule. Keely understood atoms to be intricate vibratory phenomena.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover images are from Stanley Meyer’s water fuel cell patent, which he claimed produced more energy than it consumed.
U.S. Patent 5,149,407: Process and apparatus for the production of fuel gas and the enhanced release of thermal energy from such gas.
Sourced from public domain here and here / Wikimedia Commons

They Thought They Were Free

by Joshua Styles, Brownstone Institute
July 28, 2022

“I came back home a little afraid for my country, afraid of what it might want, and get, and like, under pressure of combined reality and illusion. I felt—and feel—that it was not German man that I had met, but Man. He happened to be in Germany under certain conditions. He might, under certain conditions, be I.” —Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, ix.

It’s been more than seventy-five years since the Nazis were defeated and Auschwitz was liberated. Seventy-five years is a long time—so long, in fact, that while many still learn of the horrors of the Holocaust, far fewer understand how the murder of the Jews happened. How were millions of people systematically exterminated in an advanced Western nation—a constitutional republic? How did such respectable and intelligent citizens become complicit in the murder of their countrymen? These are the questions Milton Mayer sought to answer in his book They Thought They Were Free.

In 1952, Mayer moved his family to a small German town to live among ten ordinary men, hoping to understand not only how the Nazis came to power but how ordinary Germans—ordinary people—became unwitting participants in one of history’s greatest genocides. The men Mayer lived among came from all walks of life: a tailor, a cabinetmaker, a bill-collector, a salesman, a student, a teacher, a bank clerk, a baker, a soldier, and a police officer.

Significantly, Mayer did not simply conduct formal interviews in order to “study” these men; rather, Mayer had dinner in these men’s homes, befriended their families, and lived as one of them for nearly a year. His own children went to the same school as their children. And by the end of his time in Germany, Mayer could genuinely call them friends. They Thought They Were Free is Mayer’s account of their stories, and the title of the book is his thesis. Mayer explains:

“Only one of my ten Nazi friends saw Nazism as we—you and I—saw it in any respect. This was Hildebrandt, the teacher. And even he then believed, and still believes, in part of its program and practice, ‘the democratic part.’ The other nine, decent, hard-working, ordinarily intelligent and honest men, did not know before 1933 that Nazism was evil. They did not know between 1933 and 1945 that it was evil. And they do not know it now. None of them ever knew, or now knows, Nazism as we knew and know it; and they lived under it, served it, and, indeed, made it” (47).

Until reading this book, I thought of what happened in Germany with a bit of arrogance. How could they not know Nazism was evil? And how could they see what was happening and not speak out? Cowards. All of them. But as I read Mayer’s book, I felt a knot in my stomach, a growing fear that what happened in Germany was not a result of some defect in the German people of this era.

The men and women of Germany in the 1930s and 40s were not unlike Americans in the 2010s and 20s—or the people of any nation at any time throughout history. They are human, just as we are human. And as humans, we have a great tendency to harshly judge the evils of other societies but fail to recognize our own moral failures—failures that have been on full display the past two years during the covid panic.

Mayer’s book is frighteningly prescient; reading his words is like staring into our own souls. The following paragraphs will show just how similar the world’s response to covid has been to the German response to the “threat” of the Jews. If we can truly understand the parallels between our response to covid and the situation in Hitler’s Germany, if we can see what lies at the end of “two weeks to flatten the curve,” perhaps we can prevent the greatest atrocities from being fully realized in our own day. But to stop our bent toward tyranny, we must first be willing to grapple with the darkest parts of our nature, including our tendency to dehumanize others and to treat our neighbors as enemies.

Overcoming Decency

“Ordinary people—and ordinary Germans—cannot be expected to tolerate activities which outrage the ordinary sense of ordinary decency unless the victims are, in advance, successfully stigmatized as enemies of the people, of the nation, the race, the religion. Or, if they are not enemies (that comes later), they must be an element within the community somehow extrinsic to the common bond, a decompositive ferment (be it only by the way they part their hair or tie their necktie) in the uniformity which is everywhere the condition of common quiet. The Germans’ innocuous acceptance and practice of social anti-Semitism before Hitlerism had undermined the resistance of their ordinary decency to the stigmatization and persecution to come” (55).

Others have explained the link between totalitarian impulses and “institutionalized dehumanization” and have discussed the “othering” of unvaccinated persons in nations across the world. Mayer shows that such dehumanization does not necessarily begin with prejudice:

“National Socialism was anti-Semitism. Apart from anti-Semitism, its character was that of a thousand tyrannies before it, with modern conveniences. Traditional anti-Semitism . . . played an important role in softening the Germans as a whole to Nazi doctrine, but it was separation, not prejudice as such, that made Nazism possible, the mere separation of Jews and non-Jews” (116-117).

Even if many Germans did not harbor anti-Semitic prejudices (at least not initially), the forced separation of Jews and non-Jews created a devastating rift in German society, tearing the social fabric and paving the way for tyranny. In our day, the separation of the masked and unmasked, the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, has divided populations around the world like nothing we’ve experienced in our lifetimes. And the global scale of this separation has perhaps not happened in recorded history.

How has this separation been made possible? The immense power of propaganda, and particularly propaganda in the digital age. We think we understand how propaganda affects us, but we often don’t realize the truly insidious effects on how we view others until it is too late. Mayer’s friends explained this in great depth. On one occasion, Mayer asked the former bank clerk about one of his Jewish friends. “Did your memory of the peddler make you anti-Semitic?” “No—not until I heard anti-Semitic propaganda. Jews were supposed to do terrible things that the peddler had never done. . . . The propaganda didn’t make me think of him as I knew him but of him as a Jew” (124; emphasis added).

Is there anything we can do to mitigate the dehumanizing effects of propaganda? Mayer describes the power of Nazi propaganda as so intense that all of his friends were affected by it—changed by it—including the teacher who was more aware of such tactics. Nearly seven years after the war, his friends still could not be persuaded that they had been deceived:

“Nobody has proved to my friends that the Nazis were wrong about the Jews. Nobody can. The truth or falsity of what the Nazis said, and of what my extremist friends believed, was immaterial, marvelously so. There simply was no way to reach it, no way, at least, that employed the procedures of logic and evidence” (142).

Mayer’s conclusion is depressing. If we cannot persuade others with logic and evidence, how can we persuade them? How many of us have shared indisputable data that the vaccines carry risks? How many of us have shown videos where public health officials openly admit that the vaccines do not stop transmission and that cloth masks don’t work (and are in fact little more than “facial decorations”)? Yet the evidence does not persuade those who have been captured by propaganda; indeed, it cannot persuade them. This is because the very nature of propaganda does not appeal to logic or reason; it does not appeal to evidence. Propaganda appeals to our emotions, and in a world where many people are led by emotions, propaganda becomes deeply rooted in the hearts of those who consume it.

So what are we to do? Mayer relays a frustrating reality. But understanding how propaganda worked in Nazi Germany and how it works today is essential if we are to have any chance of persuading those who have been shaped by it. Moreover, understanding why many people tend to be led by emotions and to outsource or suspend their critical thinking is perhaps even more essential to forestalling greater tragedies. We cannot expect others to escape the tyranny of propaganda if they do not have time to think or are motivated not to think.

Our Own Lives

Even without the dehumanization of those who were a “threat” to the community, most Germans were too focused on their own lives to consider the plight of their neighbors:

“Men think first of the lives they lead and the things they see; and not, among the things they see, of the extraordinary sights, but of the sights which meet them in their daily rounds. The lives of my nine friends—and even of the tenth, the teacher—were lightened and brightened by National Socialism as they knew it. And they look back at it now—nine of them, certainly—as the best time of their lives; for what are men’s lives? There were jobs and job security, summer camps for the children and the Hitler Jugend to keep them off the streets. What does a mother want to know? She wants to know where her children are, and with whom, and what they are doing. In those days she knew or thought she did; what difference does it make? So things went better at home, and when things go better at home, and on the job, what more does a husband and father want to know?” (48)

The best time of their lives. From where we stand in 2022, this seems like an unbelievable statement. How could they view a society that ostracized and eventually murdered millions of their fellow citizens as a good society? How could they look the other way when the Jews and others were suffering? It’s easy to ask these questions, but in our modern world, are we not also narrowly concerned with the comforts of our own lives and those of our loved ones? If the lives of others are put at risk so that our families can continue to “stay home and save lives”—so that we can feel safe from a deadly virus and “righteous” because of our decisions—would we not choose to do it? Many of us did. But did we even consider that our staying home meant others could not?

The lockdowns destroyed the lives of millions of poor children, both at home and abroad. But the laptop class remained insulated from this suffering, content with delivered groceries, zoom calls, and new episodes of Tiger King. And while many around the world starved or fought over limited supplies of food and water, we battled over the newest iPhones, believing that these devices were necessary to “ride out the pandemic” from our high-rise castles and suburban fortresses. Indeed, for many of us, our biggest concern was whether or not we could quickly have a new 42” TV delivered if ours stopped working. We knew nothing of the suffering of others, and we barely considered that their realities could be different. So also in Germany:

“There were wonderful ten-dollar holiday trips for the family in the ‘Strength through Joy’ program, to Norway in the summer and Spain in the winter, for people who had never dreamed of a real holiday trip at home or abroad. And in Kronenberg ‘nobody’ (nobody my friends knew) went cold, nobody went hungry, nobody went ill and uncared for. For whom do men know? They know people of their own neighborhood, of their own station and occupation, of their own political (or nonpolitical) views, of their own religion and race. All the blessings of the New Order, advertised everywhere, reached ‘everybody’” (48-49).

We quickly forget those who are distanced from us. And in a faceless world of “social distancing,” it’s that much easier to forget the myriad human beings who are suffering beyond what we could bear. The children who have never known their teachers’ faces? Not our concern. The elderly and infirm who’ve been cut off from the rest of the world, deprived of social interaction and human touch? It’s for their health and safety. Both children and adults with disabilities and special needs, those who cannot speak and cannot hear? We must all make sacrifices to slow the spread.

Our Own Fears

Add to our own lives our own fears (real or imagined), and we become even less motivated to consider the hardships of others:

“Their world was the world of National Socialism; inside it, inside the Nazi community, they knew only good-fellowship and the ordinary concerns of ordinary life. They feared the ‘Bolsheviks’ but not one another, and their fear was the accepted fear of the whole otherwise happy Nazi community that was Germany” (52).

The “accepted fear” of the community. The ten men Mayer lived among described the socially acceptable fears they were allowed to express—and the fears by which they must order their lives. But to express fear or even uneasiness about the growing totalitarianism of the Nazi regime? Such concerns were verboten. And so it is today. We are permitted (indeed, encouraged!) to fear the virus. We can fear the collapse of the healthcare system. We can fear “the unvaccinated” and even “anti-maskers.” But dare we express fear of the growing totalitarianism among us? Dare we challenge the “scientific consensus” or question the edicts of public health officials? We dare not, lest we be lumped together with the science-denying anti-vaxxers. We dare not, lest our posts be labeled misinformation or our accounts be permanently suspended.

Our Own Troubles

“It was this, I think—they had their own troubles—that in the end explained my friends’ failure to ‘do something’ or even to know something. A man can carry only so much responsibility. If he tries to carry more, he collapses; so, to save himself from collapse, he rejects the responsibility that exceeds his capacity. . . . Responsible men never shirk responsibility, and so, when they must reject it, they deny it. They draw the curtain. They detach themselves altogether from the consideration of the evil they ought to, but cannot, contend with.” (75-76).

We all have our own lives—the everyday concerns of our families and friends. We also have our own fears—fears of imaginary threats or actual risks. Add to our lives and fears the weight of our own responsibilities, and we can be rendered powerless to consider the troubles of those around us. This was true not only of the Germans of this era but of Americans as well. Mayer describes an interaction with his friend Simon, the bill collector, over the American internment of the Japanese. Simon recounted the forced relocation of more than 100,000 Americans—including children—because of their Japanese ancestry (and supposedly due to the threat they posed to the security of the nation).

Simon asked what Mayer had done to stand up for his fellow citizens who were removed from their homes without any form of due process. “Nothing,” Mayer replied. Simon’s response is sobering:

“‘There. You learned about all these things openly, through your government and your press. We did not learn through ours. As in your case, nothing was required of us—in our case, not even knowledge. You knew about things you thought were wrong—you did think it was wrong, didn’t you, Herr Professor?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘So. You did nothing. We heard, or guessed, and we did nothing. So it is everywhere.’ When I protested that the Japanese-descended Americans had not been treated like the Jews, he said, ‘And if they had been—what then? Do you not see that the idea of doing something or doing nothing is in either case the same?” (81).

We all want to think we would react differently. We all have the best of intentions and believe we would have the courage to stand up for others. We will be the heroes when everyone else is too afraid to act. But when the time comes, what will we actually do? Mayer’s interaction with his friend the teacher is worth quoting at length:

“‘I never got over marveling that I survived,’ said Herr Hildebrandt. ‘I couldn’t help being glad, when something happened to somebody else, that it hadn’t happened to me. It was like later on, when a bomb hit another city, or another house than your own; you were thankful.’ ‘More thankful for yourself than you were sorry for others?’ ‘Yes. The truth is, Yes. It may be different in your case, Herr Professor, but I’m not sure that you will know until you have faced it. . . .

You were sorry for the Jews, who had to identify themselves, every male with “Israel” inserted into his name, every female with “Sarah,” on every official occasion; sorrier, later on, that they lost their jobs and their homes and had to report themselves to the police; sorrier still that they had to leave their homeland, that they had to be taken to concentration camps and enslaved and killed. But—weren’t you glad you weren’t a Jew? You were sorry, and more terrified, when it happened, as it did, to thousands, to hundreds of thousands, of non-Jews. But—weren’t you glad that it hadn’t happened to you, a non-Jew? It might not have been the loftiest type of gladness, but you hugged it to yourself and watched your step, more cautiously than ever” (58-59).

I feel bad for them, but I am unwilling to speak up. I hate that children are denied access to speech therapy, in-person school, or social interaction with their friends. But if I speak up, I may lose my status and influence. I hate that the unvaccinated are losing their jobs and being confined to their homes. But if I speak up, I could lose my job as well. I hate that my fellow citizens are being taken to “quarantine centers” against their will. But if I speak up, I could face criminal penalties. And I hate that the unvaccinated are being excluded from society and treated with contempt by national leaders. But if I speak up, I could be excluded as well. The risk is too great.

The Tactics of Tyrants

“[M]odern tyrants all stand above politics and, in doing so, demonstrate that they are all master politicians” (55).

How often have public officials denounced those who question the narrative as “politicizing covid”? “Stop politicizing masks!” “Stop politicizing vaccines!” And those who dissent are demeaned as “science-denying Trump supporters” or “anti-vax conspiracy theorists.” It’s no wonder so few have questioned the official narratives on masks, lockdowns, and vaccines—to do so is to put oneself in the crosshairs, to draw accusations of caring more about politics and the economy than people’s lives and health. This gaslighting is by no means the only tactic of those who seek greater authoritarian control. In addition to helping us understand what makes us susceptible to totalitarianism—why so many of us will “draw the curtain” in the face of evil—Mayer’s work also exposes the tactics of tyrants, enabling his readers to see and resist.

“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter” (166-167).

Many have sounded the alarm over the past two years about the threat of endless emergencies, and we have all seen the goalposts be moved time and again. “It’s just two weeks.” “It’s just a mask.” “It’s just a vaccine.” And on and on it goes. But while most everyone recognizes that “two weeks to flatten the curve” was not just two weeks, too few understand the insidious threat of ongoing “rule by emergency.” But Mayer’s friends understood, and they experienced the catastrophic results.

Before Hitler became chancellor, Germany was still a republic governed by the Weimar Constitution. But Article 48 of this constitution permitted the suspension of civil liberties “[i]f public security and order are seriously disturbed or endangered.” These emergency powers were continually abused, and following the Reichstag Fire in 1933, the Enabling Act transferred all law-making power from the German parliament to the executive branch, allowing Hitler to “rule by decree” until the end of the War in 1945.

While the legislative branches of the States and the federal government in the United States (and other nations around the world) have been in session the past two years, the reality is that legislatures rarely sought to limit the powers of the executive. Under the auspices of the CDC, the WHO, and other health agencies, executives have effectively ruled by fiat. Closing businesses, mandating masks and vaccines, forcing people to stay home—most of these measures were implemented by executives without even consulting legislatures. And what was the justification? The “emergency” of covid. If we could go back in time to 2019 and ask whether executives should be permitted to unilaterally impose such life-altering policies on their people even with legislative consent, the vast majority of people would likely say “No!” So how did we get here in 2022? Mayer’s friends offer valuable insight.

The Common Good

“The community is suddenly an organism, a single body and a single soul, consuming its members for its own purposes. For the duration of the emergency the city does not exist for the citizen but the citizen for the city. The harder the city is pressed, the harder its citizens work for it and the more productive and efficient they become in its interest. Civic pride becomes the highest pride, for the end purpose of all one’s enormous efforts is the preservation of the city. Conscientiousness is the highest virtue now, the common good the highest good” (255).

What has been the reason given for many of the measures implemented over the past two years? The common good. We must wear our masks to protect others. Get vaccinated to love our neighbors. Stay home to save lives. And it’s not just for our neighbors as individuals but for the community as a whole. We must close schools to preserve hospital resources. In the U.K., efforts were being made to “Protect the NHS.” And countless other slogans signaled our common virtue.

To be clear, I’m not opposed to working together for the common good; I do not value my liberties more than the lives of others (this was a common gaslighting tactic employed against those who opposed government overreach). Rather, I simply understand how governments across time have used the “common good” as an excuse to consolidate power and implement authoritarian measures that under normal circumstances would be rejected. This is exactly what happened to Mayer’s friends:

“Take Germany as a city cut off from the outside world by flood or fire advancing from every direction. The mayor proclaims martial law, suspending council debate. He mobilizes the populace, assigning each section its tasks. Half the citizens are at once engaged directly in the public business. Every private act—a telephone call, the use of an electric light, the service of a physician—becomes a public act. Every private right—to take a walk, to attend a meeting, to operate a printing press—becomes a public right. Every private institution—the hospital, the church, the club—becomes a public institution. Here, although we never think to call it by any name but pressure of necessity, we have the whole formula of totalitarianism.

The individual surrenders his individuality without a murmur, without, indeed, a second thought—and not just his individual hobbies and tastes, but his individual occupation, his individual family concerns, his individual needs” (254; emphasis added).

Tyrants understand how to exploit our desire to care for others. We must understand their tendency to exploit our good will. Indeed, to understand this tactic and to resist encroachments on liberty is the way to preserve the actual common good. Tragically, many people do not realize that they have been exploited—that their desire to work for the common good has become obedience without question. Mayer’s description is stunning:

“For the rest of the citizens—95 percent or so of the population—duty is now the central fact of life. They obey, at first awkwardly but, surprisingly soon, spontaneously.” (255)

This type of compliance seems to have happened most clearly with the use of masks. We obey spontaneously, not at the point of a gun. And we obey without thinking about the rationality of what is required. We will wear a mask to walk to a table in a packed restaurant, and we will dine for two hours before donning it again to walk out. We must wear masks on a plane to “stop the spread,” but we can take them off as long as we are eating or drinking. Some even wear masks while driving alone in their cars. To be clear, I am not criticizing those who wear masks in these situations; I am lamenting how propaganda has so affected us that we comply without considering our actions. Or, perhaps worse, we have considered them, but we comply anyway because that’s what others are doing and that’s what we’re expected to do.

Do you see the dangerous parallels between what’s happening today and what happened in Germany? This is not simply about masks (and it never has been). This is about a willingness to comply with government demands, no matter how illogical or insidious. Can you see how these tendencies contribute to the demonization of certain persons, particularly the unvaccinated? Those who do not act to “protect their neighbors” by wearing a mask, or who choose not to get vaccinated “for the sake of the vulnerable,” are a danger to society and a threat to us all. Can you see where this demonization can lead? We know where it led in Germany.

Endless Distractions

“[S]uddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time” (167).

Combine the tyrannical use of the common good with a perpetual state of emergency, and you have a totalitarian regime that cannot be questioned: “[T]his, of all times, is no time for divisiveness” (256). Add to these tactics endless distractions to occupy the citizenry, and no one even has time to question. Listen to one of Mayer’s colleagues:

“The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?” (167-168).

Is this not what is happening, even as I write this, in the world around us? Over the past two years we have experienced a continual upending of our lives with lockdowns, zooming, online “learning,” mask mandates, “social” distancing, and more. And then we are told we must comply with vaccine mandates or lose our jobs, leaving some of us too weary to resist and others more weary for trying. And for those of us who have chosen to forgo the available vaccines, we must spend time—lots and lots of time—composing exemption requests for the various mandates, explaining in depth our reasons for objecting to the jabs.

And then, when it seems the covid madness is coming to an end (at least for the time being), an “emergency” is declared in Canada that tramples the rights of Canadian citizens, and even now the world has been plunged into crisis because of the conflict in Ukraine. There is so much going on, so many legitimate concerns that demand our attention, that many are unaware of the totalitarian noose that is tightening around us. More than that, we are too exhausted to examine what is happening, too tired to even care. But care we must! Or it will be too late, and there will be no turning back.

Science and Education

“[T]he university students would believe anything complicated. The professors, too. Have you seen the ‘race purity’ chart?” “Yes,” I said. “Well, then, you know. A whole system. We Germans like systems, you know. It all fitted together, so it was science, system and science, if only you looked at the circles, black, white, and shaded, and not at real people. Such Dummheit they couldn’t teach to us little men. They didn’t even try” (142).

“Trust the science.” Or so we have been told the past two years. Yet another tactic used by authoritarians across time is the appeal to science and expertise. Mayer’s friends described how the Nazis used “science” to convince students and others that the Jews were inferior, even diseased. But this was not science; it was scientism. And so it is today.

Science is not dogma; it is not a set of beliefs. Real science is the process by which we discover the truth about the physical world. We begin with a hypothesis that must be rigorously tested through observation and experimentation. But over the past two years, “science” has meant whatever the public health authorities claim to be true, regardless whether the claims are supported by evidence. In fact, much of this so-called science has proved to be demonstrably false.

In addition to using “science” to support its goals, the Reich government also sought to control education. “National Socialism required the destruction of academic independence” (112), replacing truth and the search for truth with allegiance to Nazi doctrine. Notably, the Nazis captured not only the secondary schools but the primary schools as well, even rewriting certain subjects to comport with Nazi propaganda: “In history, in biology, and in economics the teaching program was much more elaborate than it was in literature, and much stricter. These subjects were really rewritten” (198). Mayer’s friend the teacher explained how the Reich would also place “ignorant ‘reliables,’ from politics or business, over the educators”; this was “part of the Nazi way of humiliating education and bringing it into popular contempt” (197). In today’s world, this would likely involve bringing in bureaucrats to control what is taught in the classroom or to control whether there even is a classroom, as so many schools have been perpetually closed “to slow the spread.”

Suppressing Speech and Encouraging Self-Censorship

“Everything was not regulated specifically, ever. It was not like that at all. Choices were left to the teacher’s discretion, within the ‘German spirit.’ That was all that was necessary; the teacher had only to be discreet. If he himself wondered at all whether anyone would object to a given book, he would be wise not to use it. This was a much more powerful form of intimidation, you see, than any fixed list of acceptable or unacceptable writings. The way it was done was, from the point of view of the regime, remarkably clever and effective. The teacher had to make the choices and risk the consequences; this made him all the more cautious” (194).

The Reich’s method of controlling education (and speech more broadly) did not rely on overly specific regulations. In our modern world, this tactic goes well beyond the enforcement of covid protocols, but it certainly includes them. Rare were the institutions that permitted a choice concerning masks; most schools required their students to wear them regardless of personal convictions. The result? Students who quickly learned that they must cover their faces to participate in society, and some who came to believe that they would seriously harm themselves or their classmates if they took them off. And even with most U.S. jurisdictions removing mask requirements in most schools, many students have become so self-conscious of showing their faces that they will voluntarily continue wearing them. What is the cost not only to the mental health of these students but to freedom of speech and expression? We may never fully know.

And it was not only schools. Covid protocols and covid narratives were enforced outside of schools as well. In early 2021, only a small minority of businesses permitted their customers to enter unmasked; still fewer allowed their employees this option. Though rarely acknowledged by most public health officials, masks do interfere with human communication (if they did not, world leaders would not take them off to speak). And if the ability to communicate is hindered, the free exchange of ideas also suffers.

As to speech more broadly, the tactic described by Mayer encourages self-censorship, which any fair-minded person admits is also happening today. Going back decades to speech that was considered “politically incorrect,” we all understand that there are certain accepted positions on a variety of topics, ranging from race and gender to vaccines and covid treatments.

Don’t dare share anything that counters the narrative, on covid or anything else. To share something that comes close to questioning the narrative could have myriad consequences, both personal and professional. You do not want to be accused of spreading misinformation, do you? Or maligned as a conspiracy theorist? So we refrain from sharing counterpoints and evidence, even if that evidence is absolutely legitimate and completely sound.

Uncertainty

“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

“Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. . . . you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things” or “You’re an alarmist.”

“And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have” (169-170).

And so we do nothing. Mayer is right. His colleague was right. What can we say?

One thing we can say is that those who have required masks, whether by accident or design, have made the feeling of uncertainty even greater. We struggle to know what others are thinking, or feeling, because our faces are hidden. In addition to the low-level anxiety and fear that masks induce in everyone (at the very least causing us to view others as threats to our safety and not as persons), we are uncertain why those around us are wearing masks. Is it simply because they are told to do so? Is it out of deference to others? Or because they genuinely desire to wear them?

Let’s say it’s true that the strong majority of workers would choose not to wear masks if their employers did not require them. How are we to know for sure what they prefer if the choice is taken from them? Similarly, if one was required to do various things to show allegiance to the Party, how was one to know whether others were genuinely loyal to the Party or simply going along in order to blend in (and not be taken to the camps)?

Gradually, Then Suddenly

“To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head” (168).

Of all the tactics employed by tyrants to achieve their goals, the illusion that we have plenty of time to escape is arguably the most important. If we could all go back to February 2020, how many of us would have predicted we would be here? How did it all happen? Gradually, then all at once. Mayer senses our dilemma:

“How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did; they didn’t, but they might have. And everyone counts on that might” (168).

Think back to March 2020. We should have resisted then. We should not have tolerated stay-at-home orders or various (and even non-sensical) restrictions on local businesses and private life. Governments had already gone too far. And then came the masks, and some said that masks were the hill. Individuals who shared these concerns were derided as fanatics and conspiracy theorists, but they were right.

Many did not see it, and even fewer resisted. I saw it relatively early, but I did not resist as fiercely as I should, and my failure haunts me to this day. Had we more seriously resisted masks, the prospect of vaccine mandates would have largely collapsed. Indeed, there would be no political, moral, or practical support for vaccine mandates and the more insidious vaccine passports had mask mandates been successfully resisted. But we—but I—did not resist as fiercely as I should have.

Why not? I told myself that it was worth keeping my position of influence at my job. It was a “calculated decision” to continue to help those around me. And I also needed to provide food and shelter for my daughters, to enable them to have a “normal” childhood.

But in my good and noble compromises—they are, in fact, compromises—have I laid the groundwork for further infringements on my family’s lives and liberties? Have I sowed the seeds of an eternal dystopia that will forever terrorize my daughters and their children? Have I made a deal with the devil? More importantly, if I have, is there any way out of this contract?

The Power of Non-Violent Resistance

“It is actual resistance which worries tyrants, not lack of the few hands required to do the dark work of tyranny. What the Nazis had to gauge was the point at which atrocity would awaken the community to the consciousness of its moral habits. This point may be moved forward as the national emergency, or cold war, is moved forward, and still further forward in hot war. But it remains the point which the tyrant must always approach and never pass. If his calculation is too far behind the people’s temper, he faces a palace Putsch; if it is too far ahead, a popular revolution” (56).

We underestimate how much power people have when they choose to resist. Parents across the nation pushed back against mask mandates, and many school boards relented and made masks optional. Many employees refused to comply with vaccine mandates, and many employers relented (or at least granted broad exemptions). Parents and employees did not win in all cases, but they’ve won more battles than many realize, and the war is far from over. Strong and united opposition has also resulted in reversals of government covid policies, and more mandates are being lifted as more pressure is applied. We must continue to resist and help others do the same, recognizing that the costs we bear will be worth it in the end.

The Cost of Dissent

“You are respected in the community. Why? Because your attitudes are the same as the community’s. But are the community’s attitudes respectable? We—you and I—want the community’s approval on the community’s basis. We don’t want the approval of criminals, but the community decides what is criminal and what isn’t. This is the trap. You and I—and my ten Nazi friends—are in the trap. It has nothing to do directly with fear for one’s own or his family’s safety, or his job, or his property. I may have all these, never lose them, and still be in exile. . . . My safety, unless I am accustomed to being a dissenter, or a recluse, or a snob, is in numbers; this man, who will pass me tomorrow and who, though he always said ‘Hello’ to me, would never have lifted a finger for me, will tomorrow reduce my safety by the number of one” (60).

In Hitler’s Germany, to stray from the acceptable concerns, to deviate from the accepted narrative, was to put oneself at risk. And so it is today. Dissenters are looked on as the ones who cause problems. Challenging the accepted narratives or questioning the “consensus” draws the ire of both everyday citizens and cultural elites. Dissent is dangerous, not because one is factually incorrect in his assessments, but because his assessments challenge accepted dogmas.

The Cost of Compliance

There is a cost to being a dissenter. Mayer’s friends were in constant danger of losing their jobs and their freedoms—and possibly their lives. But there is also a cost to compliance, and that cost is far greater than anything we can currently imagine. Listen carefully to Mayer:

“It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait. But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next.

“And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jew swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God.”

“You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined. Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.”

“What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know” (171-172).

I’ve read this section more times than I can count, and as I read it now, I weep for my own failures. My own fears. My own complicity in the slow growth of covid totalitarianism. Of allowing governments and media to set narratives. Of failing to take a stand. But it is not too late! What is coming with digital IDs and digital passports is more insidious, and more ingenious, but there is still time to resist. But we must resolve to stand now. We must resolve to stand together. And we must stand no matter the cost.

“You know,” he went on, “when men who understand what is happening—the motion, that is, of history, not the reports of single events or developments—when such men do not object or protest, men who do not understand cannot be expected to. How many men would you say understand—in this sense—in America? And when, as the motion of history accelerates and those who don’t understand are crazed by fear, as our people were, and made into a great ‘patriotic’ mob, will they understand then, when they did not before?” (175).

The duty is upon us who see what is happening to stand up and resist. We will all bear some cost, either now or in the future. Some of us have experienced the cost of standing up: we have lost jobs, lost friends, even lost freedoms. But all of us have borne the cost of tyrannical overreach in the name of public health. I’ve lost count of the number of people I know who were not permitted to say goodbye to their loved ones. Who were denied access to potentially life-saving treatments. Who were refused medical care in the name of the common good. There is no doubt we’ve all suffered during the past two years, but failing to resist this ever-encroaching tyranny will cost more than we can comprehend. I don’t know exactly what it will cost us to stand for truth and liberty in the coming months and years. But what I can say with near certainty is that the cost of present resistance will be far more tolerable to our consciences and perhaps our lives than failure to resist. More importantly, resisting now will certainly be more tolerable for the lives of our children.

The Choice Before Us

Because of the risks to their lives and their families, many Germans refused to speak openly about what was happening, even when they knew. And their fears were completely justified:

“Those who came back from Buchenwald in the early years had promised—as every inmate of every German prison had always had to promise upon his release—not to discuss his prison experience. You should have broken your promise. You should have told your countrymen about it; you might, though the chances were all against you, have saved your country had you done so. But you didn’t. You told your wife, or your father, and swore them to secrecy. And so, although millions guessed, only thousands knew. Did you want to go back to Buchenwald, and to worse treatment this time? Weren’t you sorry for those who were left there? And weren’t you glad you were out?” (59).

Is this not the case with the many who have escaped the camps in North Korea? Or the Uyghurs who have been released from “re-education facilities” in Xinjiang, China? I dare not judge harshly those who have not spoken up, as I have no way of understanding what they have experienced. But I want to think that I—and that everyone reading this piece—will have the resolve to speak up in these dark hours. To stand shoulder to shoulder, to not shirk from our responsibility to our children, to our neighbors, and to the generations who will come after us. But then I think of my children—my three precious daughters—and I think of the present cost of standing up.

If I speak up, I might be arrested, my bank accounts might be frozen, my professional license suspended or revoked. My ability to provide for my family could be greatly diminished, and my girls might lose their family home. Even more, if I am one day arrested and taken to prison or to a camp (or whatever the facilities are called where people are being held against their will), I will not be present to play catch with my youngest, to watch my second ride her hoverboard, or hear my oldest read to me. I might not be able to tuck them in bed, to sing to them, to pray with them—and not only for a night but for weeks or months (if not years). So I am torn.

Do I speak up, knowing that voicing dissent could upend my daughters’ lives and render them virtually fatherless? Or do I choose to remain silent, with the protests of my heart suppressed until they shrivel to nothing? Do I accept a new normal of dystopian tyranny in order to be physically present with my children, knowing that this choice will consign my daughters (and their families and descendants) to a totalitarianism that may never be overthrown? What would love compel me to do? What is the right thing to do? What will I choose to do? I know what I hope I will choose, but do you see the difficulty?

What Will We Choose?

“Here in Kronenberg? Well, we had twenty thousand people. Of these twenty thousand people, how many opposed? How would you know? How would I know? If you ask me how many did something in secret opposition, something that meant great danger to them, I would say, well, twenty. And how many did something like that openly, and from good motives alone? Maybe five, maybe two. That’s the way men are.” “You always say, That’s the way men are,’ Herr Klingelhöfer,” I said. “Are you sure that that’s the way men are?” “That’s the way men are here,” he said. “Are they different in America?” Alibis, alibis, alibis; alibis for the Germans; alibis, too, for man, who, when he was once asked, in olden time, whether he would prefer to do or to suffer injustice, replied, “I would rather neither.” The mortal choice which every German had to make—whether or not he knew he was making it—is a choice which we Americans have never had to confront” (93-94).

When Mayer wrote his book, Americans had not yet confronted the choices his friends had to make. But for the past two years, we have been staring these choices in the face. Certainly Australians are confronting them, as are the citizens of New Zealand. Austria, Spain, Italy, and Canada—to say nothing of many Eastern nations—are most definitely confronting them. And in many blue cities and states across the nation, our fellow Americans have faced these choices and felt the weight of separation and discrimination.

I often ask my students the following question when we discuss this book each spring: what happens if the United States and other free nations fall into tyranny? In Germany before World War II, it was at least possible to immigrate elsewhere. One could get out if he had means and if he saw it coming in time. But what happens if we give up the fight? Where else can we go? Where can our children flee? If the whole world becomes like China, there is nowhere else to escape the approaching storm.

So what must we do? We must decide today to draw a line that must not be crossed. As others have written, we should have drawn the line at masks. Governments the world over have rendered entire societies more compliant by hiding our faces. In so many cases, we no longer see others as human. We instead view them as threats, as anonymous vectors of disease. But since we didn’t draw the line at masks in 2020, we must regain that ground that was lost. We must fight to end not only the current mask and vaccine mandates (and other remaining covid restrictions), but we must not relent until the possibility of such mandates is viewed not only as politically untenable but morally and ethically indefensible. And no matter the cost, we cannot under any circumstance accept the use of digital passports (this short video shows why). And finally, we must not only be in the business of changing policies; we must strive to change hearts and minds, to wake others to the reality of what is taking place.

Friends, we must act—I must act. There is no more time to wait.

Joshua Styles is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice & Legal Studies / Christian Studies at North Greenville University. He is committed to finding and reporting the truth.

cover image “Hitler greets the Protestant Archbishop of Nuremberg, Ludwig Müller, and Benedictine Abbott Albanus Schachleitner
at the Reich Party Rally of 1934.” is in the public domain

James Corbett What Hath God Wrought — The Media Matrix, Part Two

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
July 26, 2022

Watch the video on Archive / BitChute / Odysee or Download the video or audio

TRANSCRIPT

Hi, I’m James Corbett of The Corbett Report, and I’m not here right now. . . . I mean, there. With you.

Confused? Well, take a look at this . . .

[Steps aside to reveal James in screen] See? But, in truth, I’m not here either. What you are watching are the ghostly reflections of someone far away. I am not in the room with you, but you can see me. You can hear me. You might not think much about this, but . . . [Snaps fingers, revealing green screen set in studio] . . . it is one of the wonders of our era, and it has shaped the world in ways we can barely comprehend.

VOICEOVER: Media. It surrounds us. We live our lives in it and through it. We structure our lives around it. But it wasn’t always this way. So how did we get here? And where is the media technology that increasingly governs our lives taking us? This is the story of The Media Matrix.

PART 2 – WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT

There’s a story about the famous Battle of Waterloo in 1815 that is not usually included in the history textbooks.

The story is that John Roworth—a trusted employee of Nathan Rothschild, the English heir of the infamous Rothschild banking family—was at the battlefield that day and, when the battle was decided and it was apparent that Napoleon had been defeated, he raced off on horseback, bearing the news across the English channel. The messenger arrived at his employers’s London office a full 24 hours before the official government courier and Rothschild, always looking for a way to turn a profit, decided to use the news to his advantage. He made a show of selling his shares at the London Stock Exchange and the public, believing the famed stockbroker had received word that Napoleon had won the battle, began selling as well. The stock market plummeted and Rothschild secretly bought up the shares at rock-bottom prices. By the time the news finally reached Londoners that Wellington—not Napoleon—was the victor at Waterloo, the coup was complete: Nathan Rothschild was the richest man in the realm.

This story, like so many historical adventure yarns, has been much decorated in the retelling: John Roworth was not at Waterloo, for one thing, and there was no great market sell-off in the hours before the official news of the battle reached London. But the central part of the tale is true: Nathan Rothschild did receive early news of Napoleon’s defeat and he did “do well” by that information, as Roworth admitted in a letter the month after the incident.

But whatever this story tells us about the world of finance, it tells us something more fundamental about something far more important: power. Knowledge is power, and, as we saw in Part 1 of this series, Gutenberg had brought that power to the masses. With the printing press, knowledge could be copied and spread to the far corners of the globe faster and easier and cheaper than it ever had before . . .

. . . but it still had to be carried. On horseback, on foot, by train, by carrier pigeon. Information was still a physical thing and even the news of Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo had to be physically transported from one place to another. But did it have to be this way? What if information could be communicated directly by electric current and sent across wires or through the air at the speed of light?

Enter Samuel Morse.

Morse was not a scientist or an experimenter, but a painter. He claimed that the idea for sending messages through electrical wires came to him in a flash of genius on a lengthy ship journey from Europe to America in 1832, and thus that he deserved credit as the sole inventor of the telegraph.

In reality, research along these lines had been going on for nearly a century. The idea of sending electrical messages through wires was first proposed in Scots Magazine in 1753 and it was demonstrated numerous times over the years—most memorably by Francisco Salvá, who in 1795 connected wires to human test subjects, assigned each of them a letter, and instructed them to shout their letter out when they received a shock.

Ignorant of this history, Morse had to rely on real scientists and inventors for his important breakthroughs. Like Professor Leonard Gale, who helped develop the technique of using relays to help the messages travel further than a few hundred yards. And Alfred Vail, a bright young machinist whose improvements to Morse’s crude prototype brought the idea into reality. Many even contend that it was Vail, not Morse, who invented the system of dots and dashes that we know as Morse Code.

Nonetheless, history is written by the winners, and Morse proved to be the winner. Getting the credit, the glory and, more to the point, the patent for the telegraph, Morse received a congressional appropriation of $30,000 to build the first telegraph line from Washington to Baltimore in 1844. He sent the first official telegraph message from the US Capitol to Alfred Vail at a railroad station in Baltimore. The message had been selected by Anne Ellsworth, the daughter of the Patent Commissioner with whom Morse was lodging while he was stationed in Washington. She chose a passage from the Bible fitting of the momentous occasion: “What hath God wrought!”

The passage, from the book of Numbers, is one of praise—rejoicing at the wonders that God had wrought for Israel—and ends with an exclamation mark. But the telegraph message didn’t contain punctuation, and so the press misreported the phrase with a question mark at the end: “What hath God wrought?” The medium had already begun to change the message.

It’s difficult for us to appreciate just how incredible it was for those who first witnessed communication from a distance with a disembodied electric ghost. In fact, it was almost impossible for people to understand this type of communication in anything but spiritual terms. Even the word “medium” evokes the specter of contact with the spirit world.

When the radio was introduced to Saudi Arabia, the country’s conservative Islamic clerics declared it “the devil hiding in a box” and demanded that King Abdulaziz ban the infernal contraption. The king saw the potential use of the radio for the development of the country, but, relying on the clerics for support, he couldn’t outright reject their council.

Instead, the crafty monarch proposed a test: the radio would be brought before him the next day and he would listen to it himself. If what the clerics said was true, then he would ban the devil’s device and behead those responsible for bringing it into the country.

The next day, the radio was brought before the king at the appointed time. But the king had secretly arranged with the radio engineers to make sure the Quran was being read at the hour of the test. Sure enough, when he switched it on and passages from the Quran were heard.

“Can it be that the devil is saying the Quran?” he asked. “Or is it perhaps true that this is not an evil box?” The clerics conceded defeat and the radio was allowed into Saudi Arabia.

We may laugh, but the Saudis were not the first or the last to mistake media technology for devilry. In 1449, Johann Fust—the scion of a wealthy and powerful family in Mainz—lent Gutenberg an enormous sum of money to start producing his famed Bible and confiscated the books from the printer when he couldn’t afford to repay the loan. When Fust later appeared on the streets of Paris, selling multiple copies of Gutenberg’s Bible, the bewildered Parisians—who had never seen printed books before and so couldn’t imagine how so many strangely identical copies of a manuscript could be produced so quickly—arrested him for witchcraft.

The essence of the mass media—its ability to project the voices of people who aren’t there using electronic gadgets and wireless networks—is the essence of magic, bringing to life the scrying mirrors and palantirs of lore. But is this media technology a dark art, or can its powers be used for good?

As the new medium of commercial radio rose in the early decades of the 20th century, listeners had cause to side with the Saudi clerics in their determination that it was, in fact, a devil in a box. Listeners like those who tuned into a strange news report on the Columbia Broadcasting System on the evening of Sunday, October 30, 1938.

ANNOUNCER: Ladies and gentlemen, we interrupt our program of dance music to bring you a special bulletin from the Intercontinental Radio News. At twenty minutes before eight, central time, Professor Farrell of the Mount Jennings Observatory, Chicago, Illinois, reports observing several explosions of incandescent gas, occurring at regular intervals on the planet Mars. The spectroscope indicates the gas to be hydrogen and moving towards the earth with enormous velocity. Professor Pierson of the Observatory at Princeton confirms Farrell’s observation, and describes the phenomenon as (quote) like a jet of blue flame shot from a gun (unquote). We now return you to the music of Ramón Raquello, playing for you in the Meridian Room of the Park Plaza Hotel, situated in downtown New York.

SOURCE: Orson Welles War Of The Worlds 10/30/1938

Of course, this wasn’t a news broadcast at all. It was the infamous “Halloween Scare,” Orson Wells’ radio adaptation of The War of the Worlds, which infamously caused panic among some members of the listening audience who were flipping through the dial and mistook the dramatized news “interruptions” for actual reports of a Martian invasion.

It’s become fashionable in recent years to downplay the incident as a myth. There was no real scare, only a few dimwits who got frightened. The newspapers—looking for any excuse to belittle radio, its fast-rising competition for the public’s attention and corporate advertising dollars—ginned up the story and sold the public on a panic that never was.

But there was something to the Halloween Scare. The City Manager of Trenton, New Jersey—mentioned by name in the broadcast—even wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to demand an immediate investigation into the stunt. In response, a team of researchers fanned out, collecting information, conducting interviews and studying reports about the panic to better understand what had happened and what could be learned about this new medium’s ability to influence the public.

The team was from the Princeton Radio Project—a research group founded with a two-year, $67,000 grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to study the effect of radio through the lens of social psychology. The team was led by Hadley Cantril, the old Dartmouth College roommate of Nelson Rockefeller who had written in 1935 that “[r]adio is an altogether novel medium of communication, preeminent as a means of social control and epochal in its influence upon the mental horizons of men.”

Cantril’s report on Wells’ Halloween broadcast, The Invasion from Mars, concluded that such a large-scale media-induced frenzy could happen again “and even on a much more extensive scale.” This was important information for the funders of the Princeton Radio Project; their next major research project was a study of how radio could be used for spreading war propaganda, an increasingly important subject as the world slipped into the maw of World War II.

The question of electronic media’s ability to influence the public became even more important as the radio revolution of the early twentieth century flowed into the television revolution of the mid-twentieth century. Television had actually been ready to roll out as a commercial medium in the 1930s, but the Depression and then the war delayed the mass production of television sets. The first mass-produced commercial television hit the market in 1946, and it soon became one of the most quickly adopted technologies in history to that point, finding its way into the majority of American homes within a decade.

Strangely, as sociologist Robert Putnam documented in his 2000 bestseller, Bowling Alone, the era of television adoption precisely coincides with a severe drop-off in civic engagement among the American public. Could there be a relation? If so, what could it be?

One intriguing possibility comes from research conducted by Herbert Krugman in 1969. Krugman—who would go on to become manager of public opinion research at General Electric in the 1970s—was interested to discover what happens physiologically in the brain of a person watching TV. He taped a single electrode to the back of his test subject’s head and ran the wire to a Grass Model 7 Polygraph, which in turn interfaced with a Honeywell 7600 computer and a CAT 400B computer. He turned on the TV and began monitoring the brain waves of his subject. He found through repeated testing that “within about thirty seconds, the brain-waves switched from predominantly beta waves, indicating alert and conscious attention, to predominantly alpha waves, indicating an unfocused, receptive lack of attention: the state of aimless fantasy and daydreaming below the threshold of consciousness.”

Krugman’s initial findings were confirmed by more extensive and accurate testing: TV rapidly induces an alpha-state consciousness in its viewers, putting them in a daydream state that leaves them less actively focused on their activities and more receptive to suggestion. This dream state combines with the nature of the medium itself to create a perfect tool for disengaging the viewers intellectually, removing them from active participation in their environment and substituting real experience with the simulacrum of experience.

In a word, TV hypnotizes its viewers.

NEIL POSTMAN: To begin with, television is essentially non-linguistic. It presents information mostly in visual images. Although human speech is heard on television and sometimes assumes importance, people mostly watch television. And what they watch are rapidly changing visual images, as many as 1200 different shots every hour. The average length of a shot on network television is 3.5 seconds. The average in a commercial is 2.5 seconds.

Now, this requires very little analytic decoding. In America, television watching is almost wholly a matter of what we would call pattern recognition. What I’m saying here is that the symbolic form of television—its form—does not require any special instruction or learning.

In America, television viewing begins at about the age of 18 months and by 36 months, children begin to understand and respond to television’s imagery. They have favorite characters, sing jingles they hear and ask for products they see advertised.

There’s no need for any preparation or prerequisite training for watching television. It needs no analog to the McGuffey Reader. Watching television requires no skills and develops no skills and that is why there is no such thing as remedial television watching.

SOURCE: 2001 | Fredonia Alum Neil Postman On Childhood

As we have seen, it was only a matter of years from the advent of commercial radio as a medium of communication until monopolistic financial interests were funding studies to determine how best to use it to mould the public consciousness. And, it seems, the television—with its brain wave-altering, hypnosis-inducing, cognitive impairment abilities—was designed from the very get-go to be a weapon of control deployed against the viewing public.

But if these media are weapons, if they are being used to direct and shape the public’s attention and, ultimately, their thoughts, it begs some questions: Who is wielding these weapons? And for what purpose?

This is no secret conspiracy. The answer is not difficult to find. TimeWarner and Disney and Comcast NBC Universal and News Corp and Sony and Universal Music Group and the handful of other companies that have consolidated control over the “mediaopoly” of the electronic media are the ones wielding the media weapon. Their boards of directors are public information. Their major shareholders are well known. A tight-knit network of wealthy and powerful people control what is broadcast by the corporate media, and, by extension, wield the media weapon to shape society in their interest.

In Part 1 of this series, we noted how technological advancements in the printing press and the development of new business models for the publishing industry had taken Gutenberg’s revolutionary technology out of the hands of the public and put it into the hands of the few rich industrialists with the capital to afford their own newspaper or book publisher. The Gutenberg conspiracy had led, seemingly inevitably, to the Morgan conspiracy. But that process didn’t end with the electrification of the media; it accelerated.

By the end of the twentieth century, a handful of media companies controlled the vast majority of what Americans read, saw and heard. That this situation was used to control what the public thought about important topics is, by now, obvious to all.

NEWSCASTERS: The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories — stories that simply aren’t true — without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think. This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.

SOURCE: Sinclair Broadcasting Under Fire for “Fake News” Script

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, this media oligopoly had cemented its control over the public mind. Combined, newspapers, television, movies and radio had the ability to direct people’s thoughts on any given topic, or even what they thought about. The zenith of that era was reached on September 11, 2001, when billions across the globe watched the dramatic events of 9/11 play out on their television screens like a big-budget Hollywood production.

But the media was not done evolving. Technologies were already being rolled out that would once again change the public’s relationship to the media. Technologies that would once again leave people questioning whether the media was a devil hiding in a box, wondering whether this new media was a tool of empowerment or control, and asking the question: What hath God wrought?

Next week: Into the Metaverse

Connect with James Corbett

Frederick Douglass, Lincoln and the Fight to Save the Soul of America

by Matthew Ehret, Matt Ehret’s Insights
July 5, 2022

It is an unfortunate fact that too few among today’s citizens of all races have any spiritual or intellectual connection to the principled nature of America’s constitutional origins as the world’s first republic founded upon “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

There is little sense in the hearts of too many citizens that words like “The General Welfare” are anything more than ink on parchment devoid of meaning, and the ideals of freedom are little more than empty promises reserved for a small few.

In this RTF lecture, Cynthia Chung sheds light at the deeper historical roots of American slavery shaped by British imperialism, as part of a world economy, and the battle against it stretching back to 1630.

Frederick Douglass, a former slave who would become an advisor to Lincoln, will be used as our guide through the mangled history of the Civil War. His soul and insight into the nature of both evil and goodness alike made his life’s work, writings and devotion to liberty of all races an immortal source of inspiration and wisdom for all races and for all times, especially in times of great crisis, such as now, when soul searching is needed more than ever.

America’s Early Civil Rights Case You Probably Weren’t Taught

by Truthstream Media
July 4, 2022

Available at Truthstream Media BitChute and YouTube channels.

Yuval Harari’s Unipolar Dystopia vs the Greater Eurasian Partnership: Two Technological Paradigms Clash

by Matthew Ehret, Matt Ehret’s Insights
June 22, 2022

This bizarre new philosophy posits that we have been wrong to think of technology as the consequence of the mind’s exploration of the objective universe and the application of discoveries to improve our subjective lives. It also denies that “mind” is anything more than the sum total of non-living atoms composing the physical brain.

Instead, the “new wisdom” which emerged in the wake of cybernetics revolution of the 1960s asserted that technology grows with life all its own acting as a synthetic and deterministic ‘elan vital’ without any regard for human thought or free will.

Harari stated this explicitly, saying:

“If you have enough data, and you have enough computing power, you can understand people better than they understand themselves and then you can manipulate them in ways that were previously impossible and in such a situation, the old democratic systems stop functioning. We need to re-invent democracy in this new era in which humans are now hackable animals. The whole idea that humans have this ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ and have free will… that’s over.”

Following the theories of Marshall McCluhan, Sir Julian Huxley, Cybernetics founder Norbert Wiener, Jesuit transhumanist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Chardin’s intellectual heir Ray Kurzweil, these new priests of the Fourth Industrial Revolution preached a new gospel to humanity. As a leading figure of the WEF Great Narrative Project, Harari described this new gospel saying:

“We have no answer in the Bible [of] what to do when humans are no longer useful to the economy. You need completely new ideologies, completely new religions and they are likely to emerge from silicon valley… and not from the Middle East. And they are likely going to give people visions based on technology. Everything that the old religions promised: Happiness and justice and even eternal life, but HERE ON EARTH with the help of technology and not after death with the help of some supernatural being.”

Having replaced God with Silicon Valley technocrats, Harari is certainly being sold as a “Moses” of the new post-human age which his own masters wish to usher into the world.

This synthetic religion is neo-Darwinian in character and has a few sacred cow assumptions underlying its creed. One of these assumptions is that random stochastic (and thus intrinsically unknowable) processes on the small scale define an overarching tendency for technologies to grow inexorably towards ever greater states of a phenomenon dubbed “complexity” (i.e. the increased quantity and speed of transmission of interaction of parts of a system in space and time).

Rather than assume that a moral direction shapes the flow of upward evolution as previous generations of thinkers had presumed prior to the cybernetics cult, these new reformers were quick to assert that no such foolish notions of ‘better’ or ‘worse’ have any meaning whatsoever. This self-professed Uber menschen recognized that morality, just like God, patriotism, soul or freedom, are abstract human-made concepts having no ontological existence in the mechanistic, cold and ultimately purposeless universe in which we are presumed to exist.

Despite the randomness of stochastic behavior assumed to ‘organize’ all apparently ordered systems, these high priests are firm believers in a deterministic rigid set of “laws” which shape our ever complexifying relationship with technology. For example, it is asserted that humans are destined to suffer the irreversible loss of mental powers of the species with each apparent upshift of technology with A.I inevitably replacing the obsolete organic life forms the way mammals replaced dinosaurs.

On this point, Harari said: “Humans only have two basic abilities — physical and cognitive. When machines replaced us in physical abilities, we moved on to jobs that require cognitive abilities. … If AI becomes better than us in that, there is no third field humans can move to”.

Like all transhumanists, Harari presumes that these ‘hackable minds’ devoid of soul or purpose are merely the effect of the total chemical and electric behavior of the atoms contained in the brain and hence when he answers that these humans (which he always excludes himself from interestingly enough) have no other purpose but to be made “happy” by the new synthetic religion, he only refers to drugs and videogames which stimulate the chemical impulses that he defines as the “cause” of happiness.

The notion of a happiness caused by non-material stimulation such as joy of discovery, joy of teaching and joy of creating something new and true plays no role in the cold calculus of such humans aspiring to become immortal machines.

Interestingly enough, this is the psycho-biological manifestation of the geopolitical doctrine of zero-sum Hobbesian thinking which demands that all “wholes” be thought of merely as the sum of the parts making them up. Adherents to either philosophy assume that any material system which exists at any given “now” is all that can ever exist since the existence of creative change or universal principles are denied to have any claim to existence.

Such a pathetic mind is forced to presume that the 2nd law of thermodynamics (aka: Entropy) is the only dominant law shaping all change in every closed system they try to understand, from a biosphere, to a brain, to an economy and to the entire universe while ignoring all evidence of creative change, design and purpose built into the entire fabric of space time.

Transhumanists vs Humanists

We have already noted that transhumanist priests have preached that the powers of the human mind are irrevocably reduced with each upshift of “technology”[1].

Of course, for such an absurd thesis to be maintained, it is also requisite that only “information” technologies be brought into such considerations, or else the danger that people recognize that higher productive technologies actually liberate human beings from the repetitive manual lives of banality and liberate their powers of creative reason which 12 hour days of brute labor never permitted be blossomed.

When technologies that pertain to the increased productive powers of humanity are introduced into this equation (as for example ever higher efficient energy sources that permit greater powers of action per capita and per square kilometer as outlined in the five decades of writings of the late American economist Lyndon LaRouche), then the argument that asserts “humanity’s irrelevance increases in direct proportion to technology’s improvement” also breaks down.

Additionally when one allows for the definition of science and technology to be extended rightfully to the domain of politics and moral law, the argument breaks down even further.

For whether you knew it or not, forms of government and systems of political economy are, in actual fact, forms of technology with different designs and models crafted with objective goals which are or not attained depending upon the wisdom or folly of the framers of laws and constitutions. Unlike conventional machine designs which will run according to the pure deterministic mechanics of physics independent of free will, the machinery of government both shapes and is in turn shaped by the willful application of human thoughts in a dance of subjective and objective phenomena.

What standards exist to judge “better” or “worse” forms of government technologies? To answer this question, it is useful to listen to the wise words of the great German ‘poet of freedom’ Friedrich Schiller who wrote in his 1791 Legislations of Lycurgus’ Sparta vs Solon’s Athens’:

“In general, we can establish a rule for judging political institutions, that they are only good and laudable, to the extent that they bring all forces inherent in persons to flourish, to the extent that they promote the progress of culture, or at least not hinder it. This rule applies to religious laws as well as to political ones: both are contemptible if they constrain a power of the human mind, if they impose upon the mind any sort of stagnation. A law, for example, by which at a particular time appeared to it most fitting , such a law were an assault against mankind and laudable intents of whatever kind were then incapable of justifying it. It were immediately directed against the highest Good, against the highest purpose of society.”

Within his many essays, the great scientist, inventor and statesman Benjamin Franklin explained to the world that government was not a “science of control” or a “science of stability” as many of the elite of both his day and ours wish to assume. Franklin and other leading scientist-statesmen throughout history believed that government is itself better understood as an applied technology that advances a “science of happiness” whose practical expression, like any technological expression of scientific concepts, is endowed with the seeds of its own self-improvement infused into the design. Hence the brilliant concept of the American foundational documents of 1776 and 1787 which instituted an operating principle founded upon the notion of constant self-perfectibility the seemingly contradictory wording of “a more perfect union” (a logician would complain that this construction is an absurdity since something is either perfect/static or more better/changing but cannot be both).

Franklin and his allies were fortunately scientists and not logicians and thus knew better.

This new form of government “of, by and for the people” was never meant to become a fixed, crystalized or static machine at any point, for it was better understood in those days that should such a stasis be imposed causing formal structures to suffocate the creative spirit that brought said law into existence, then that foolish society were doomed to decadence, stupefaction, and absolute tyranny.

Of course, society were doomed if such corruption took hold for too long which is why Franklin and the other authors of the Declaration of Independence wrote that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

America’s Forgotten Anti-Malthusian Heritage

This principle of self-perfectibility in both science, technology and statecraft was enunciated brilliantly by Abraham Lincoln’s economic advisor Henry C. Carey (1793-1879), who refuted the dismal science of British East India Company economists J.S. Mill and David Ricardo who advanced the pseudo-scientific “law of diminishing returns”. This supposed ‘law’ presumed a deterministic devaluation land over time as rents increased under a “law of exploitation” of the unfit by the “more fit”.

These closed system theories advanced by all British Imperial economists were not only the basis upon which Marx and Engel’s crafted their theory of “class struggle” (ignoring entirely the existence of the anti-imperial economic school then active in the USA), but were also the basis of the Club of Rome’s 1968 neo-Malthusian revival which saw computer models used to justify supposedly “fixed limits to humanity’s growth”. These models were incorporated into the World Economic Forum during the 1973 event that saw the crafting of the ‘Davos Manifesto’ outlining Schwab’s notions of “Stakeholder Capitalism”.

In his Unity of Law (published in 1872) [2], Henry C. Carey demonstrated not only that technological progress caused unproductive lands to become more productive over time, but also proved that the power to support life increased rather than diminished with increased returns to all parties in a non-zero sum system of mutual cooperation.

Carey zeroed in on the simple ratio of human mentation to the force of nature as a reciprocal interaction over time. In this interplay of the so-called “subjective” forces of mind, and the “objective” forces of nature’s laws, a coherence between humanity and the discovered laws of creation was firmly established. Carey says of this interplay:

“The more perfect that power [of self-direction], the greater is the tendency towards increased control of mind over matter; the wretched slave to nature gradually yielding place to the master of nature, in whom the feeling of responsibility to his family, his country, his Creator and himself, grows with the growth of power to guide and direct the vast and various forces placed at his command.”

From 1787 to John F. Kennedy’s 1963 murder, the general trend of the US republic specifically and the western world more broadly was admittedly turbulent and often self-destructive, due in large measure to the subversive hand of London-centered deep state operations active across the globe.

But despite this turbulence, a general ethic founded upon a love for technological progress, God, nation, truth, and family prevailed and for the most part a tendency of each generation living in a better world than the one left behind by previous generations was the norm. Within this value system, it was generally understood that the moral, scientific and political aims of the species were united in a single tapestry of self-perfection and freedom.

Speaking to the National Academy of Science on October 22, 1963, President Kennedy took aim at the rot of the closed system ideologues then beginning to latch onto the levers of policy and culture saying: “Malthus argued a century and a half ago that man, by using up all his available resources, would forever press on the limits of subsistence, thus condemning humanity to an indefinite future of misery and poverty. We can now begin to hope and, I believe, know that Malthus was expressing not a law of nature, but merely the limitation then of scientific and social wisdom.”

A century earlier, Henry C. Carey also attacked Malthus by name saying: “Of all contrivances for crushing out all Christian feeling and for developing self-worship, that the world yet has seen, there has been none entitled to claim so high a rank as that which has been, and yet daily is, assigned to the Malthusian Law of Population.”

Despite the loud clamoring of Malthusians and eugenicists to the contrary, the material facts of man’s relationship to nature over the past several thousand years support the ideas of Franklin, Carey and Kennedy.

Every time the people are provided with the proper political liberties and economic opportunities, humanity increased not only her “carrying capacities” in ways that no other species of animal could do rising from one billion souls in 1800 to nearly 8 billion today, but also leaping from life expectancies averaging 40 years of age in 1800 (in the USA) to 78 years today. Meanwhile per capita productivity has tended to increase along with political emancipation (at least until the economic financial coup of 1971 as far as the trans-Atlantic society has been concerned).

Eurasia and the Defense of Natural Law

While coherence with natural law (both scientific, and moral) has been dislodged in the western world during the past half century, giving way to a transhumanist, neo-eugenicist pseudo-religion underlying a unipolar rules-based order, the torch has been picked up by leading statesmen across Eurasia who have decided to resist the trend towards a neo-feudal dystopia.

In his July 17 keynote address to the XXV St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, President Putin described his concept of technological growth, industrial improvement and multipolarity in the following terms:

“Technological development is a cross-cutting area that will define the current decade and the entire 21st century. We will review in depth our approaches to building a ground-breaking technology-based economy – a techno economy – at the upcoming Strategic Development Council meeting. There is so much we can discuss. Most importantly, many managerial decisions must be made in the sphere of engineering education and transferring research to the real economy, and the provision of financial resources for fast-growing high-tech companies.

Changes in the global economy, finances and international relations are unfolding at an ever-growing pace and scale. There is an increasingly pronounced trend in favour of a multipolar growth model in lieu of globalisation. Of course, building and shaping a new world order is no easy task. We will have to confront many challenges, risks, and factors that we can hardly predict or anticipate today.

Still, it is obvious that it is up to the strong sovereign states, those that do not follow a trajectory imposed by others, to set the rules governing the new world order. Only powerful and sovereign states can have their say in this emerging world order. Otherwise, they are doomed to become or remain colonies devoid of any rights.”

Compare these concepts with the dismal view of Harari and his transhumanist patrons who are devoutly committed to a unipolar order of stasis and an end to history when Harari describes technology’s role in creating a new “post-revolutionary” global useless class forever under the dominance by the emergent “high caste” of golden collar Davos elites:

“The high caste which dominates the new technology won’t exploit the poor. They just won’t need them. And it’s much more difficult to rebel against irrelevance than against exploitation.”

Since the technology has rendered the majority of humanity useless and the emergent new form of technetronic unipolar governance will render all potential for revolution obsolete, the question in Harari’s mind becomes what will be done with the plague of useless eaters spread across the globe? Here Harari follows in the footsteps pioneered by his earlier soul mate Aldous Huxley during his infamous 1962 ‘Ultimate Revolution’ lecture at Berkley College by pointing to the important role to be played by drugs and video games:

“I think the biggest question in economics and politics in the coming decades will be ‘what to do with all these useless people?’ I don’t think we have an economic model for that… the problem is more boredom and what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life when they are basically meaningless, worthless? My best guess at present, is a combination of drugs and computer games”.

Looking at the two diametrically opposed paradigms clashing over the operating system that will shape the role of technology, economy, diplomacy, science, and industrial progress into the 21st century and beyond, it is worth asking which one you would prefer shape the lives of your children?

cover image credit: geralt

Forgotten History: The Ludlow Massacre & the PR Machine

by Aaron & Melissa Dykes, Truthstream Media
May 27, 2022

The 108th anniversary of this event just happened last month. Always feels strange how a century can go by and little details slip through the cracks, forgotten. We thought we knew this story… but then we had to go and dig.

{An edition to our new “Forgotten History” series}

Available at Truthstream Media Bitchute & YouTube channels.

cover image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Hyperinflation, Fascism and War: How the New World Order May Be Defeated Once More

“While everyone knows that the 1929 market crash unleashed four years of hell in America which quickly spread across Europe under the great depression, not many people have realized that this was not inevitable, but rather a controlled blowout.” ~ Matthew Ehret

by Matthew Ehret, Matt Ehret’s Insights
May 12, 2022

While the world’s attention is absorbed by tectonic shifts unfolding in Ukraine and the danger of military confrontation between NATO and Eurasia, something very ominous has appeared “off of the radar” of most onlookers. This something is a financial collapse of the trans-Atlantic banks that threatens to unleash chaos upon the world. It is this collapse that underlies the desperate efforts being made by the neo-con drive for total war with Russia, China and other members of the growing Mutlipolar Alliance today.

In recent articles, I have mentioned that the Bank of England-led “solution” to this oncoming financial blowout of the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble is being pushed under the cover of a “Great Global Reset” which is an ugly and desperate effort to use COVID-19 as a cover for the imposition of a new post-covid world order operating system. Since the new “rules” of this new system are very similar to the 1923 Bank of England “solution” to Germany’s economic chaos which eventually required a fascist governance mechanism to impose it onto the masses, I wish to take a deeper look at the causes and effects of Weimar Germany’s completely un-necessary collapse into hyperinflation and chaos during the period of 1919-1923.

In this essay, I will go further to examine how those same architects of hyperfinflation came close to establishing a global bankers’ dictatorship in 1933 and how that early attempt at a New World Order was fortunately derailed through a bold fight which has been written out of popular history books.

We will investigate in depth how a major war broke out within America led by anti-imperial patriots in opposition to the forces of Wall Street and London’s Deep State and we will examine how this clash of paradigms came to a head in 1943-1945.

This historical study is not being conducted for entertainment, nor should this be seen as a purely academic exercise, but is being created for the simple fact that the world is coming to a total systemic meltdown and unless certain suppressed facts of 20th century history are brought to light, then those forces who have destroyed our collective memory of what we once were will remain in the drivers seat as society is carried into a new age of fascism and world war.

Versailles and the Destruction of Germany

Britain had been the leading hand behind the orchestration of WWI and the destruction of the potential German-Russian-American-Ottoman alliance that had begun to take form by the late 19th century as foolish Kaiser Wilhelm discovered (though sadly too late) when he said: “the world will be engulfed in the most terrible of wars, the ultimate aim of which is the ruin of Germany. England, France and Russia have conspired for our annihilation… that is the naked truth of the situation which was slowly but surely created by Edward VII”.

Just as the British oligarchy managed the war, so too did they organize the reparations conference in France which, among other things, imposed impossible debt repayments upon a defeated Germany and created the League of Nations which was meant to become the instrument for a “post-nation state world order”. Lloyd George led the British delegation alongside his assistant Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), Leo Amery, Lord Robert Cecil and Lord John Maynard Keynes who have a long term agenda to bring about a global dictatorship. All of these figures were members of the newly emerging Round Table Movement, that had taken full control of Britain by ousting Asquith in 1916, and which is at the heart of today’s “deep state”.

After the 1918 Armistice dismantled Germany’s army and navy, the once powerful nation was now forced to pay the impossible sum of 132 billion gold marks to the victors and had to give up territories representing 10% of its population (Alsace-Loraine, Ruhr, and North Silesia) which made up 15% of its arable land, 12% of its livestock, 74% of its iron ore, 63% of its zinc production, and 26% of its coal. Germany also had to give up 8000 locomotives, 225 000 railcars and all of its colonies. It was a field day of modern pillage.

Germany was left with very few options. Taxes were increased and imports were cut entirely while exports were increased. This policy (reminiscent of the IMF austerity techniques in use today) failed entirely as both fell 60%. Germany gave up half of its gold supply and still barely a dent was made in the debt payments. By June 1920 the decision was made to begin a new strategy: increase the printing press. Rather than the “miracle cure” which desperate monetarists foolishly believed it would be, this solution resulted in an asymptotic devaluation of the currency into hyperinflation. From June 1920 to October 1923 the money supply in circulation skyrocketed from 68.1 gold marks to 496.6 quintillion gold marks. In June 1922, 300 marks exchanged $1 US and in November 1923, it took 42 trillion marks to get $1 US! Images are still available of Germans pushing wheelbarrows of cash down the street, just to buy a stick of butter and bread (1Kg of Bread sold for $428 billion marks in 1923).

With the currency’s loss of value, industrial output fell by 50%, unemployment rose to over 30% and food intake collapsed by over half of pre-war levels. German director Fritz Lang’s 1922 film Dr. Mabuse (The Gambler) exposed the insanity of German population’s collapse into speculative insanity as those who had the means began betting against the German mark in order to protect themselves thus only helping to collapse the mark from within. This is very reminiscent of those Americans today short selling the US dollar rather than fighting for a systemic solution.

There was resistance.

The dark effects of Versailles were not unknown and Germany’s Nazi-stained destiny was anything but pre-determined. It is a provable fact often left out of history books that patriotic forces from Russia, America and Germany attempted courageously to change the tragic trajectory of hyperinflation and fascism which WOULD HAVE prevented the rise of Hitler and WWII had their efforts not been sabotaged.

From America itself, a new Presidential team under the leadership of William Harding quickly reversed the pro-League of Nations agenda of the rabidly anglophile President Woodrow Wilson. A leading US industrialist named Washington Baker Vanderclip who had led in the world’s largest trade agreement in history with Russia to the tune of $3 billion in 1920 had called Wilson “an autocrat at the inspiration of the British government.” Unlike Wilson, President Harding both supported the US-Russia trade deal and undermined the League of Nations by re-enforcing America’s sovereignty, declaring bi-lateral treaties with Russia, Hungary and Austria outside of the league’s control in 1921. The newly-formed British Roundtable Movement in America (set up as the Council on Foreign Relations) were not pleased.

Just as Harding was maneuvering to recognize the Soviet Union and establish an entente with Lenin, the great president ate some “bad oysters” and died on August 2, 1923. While no autopsy was ever conducted, his death brought a decade of Anglophile Wall Street control into America and ended all opposition to World Government from the Presidency. This period of deregulation led by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (controller of the dimwitted and corrupt President Coolidge) resulted in the speculation-driven bubble of the roaring 20s whose crash on black Friday in 1929 nearly unleashed a fascist hell in America.

The Russia-Germany Rapallo Treaty is De-Railed

After months of organizing, leading representatives of Russia and Germany agreed to an alternative solution to the Versailles Treaty which would have given new life to Germany’s patriots and established a powerful Russia-German friendship in Europe that would have upset other nefarious agendas.

Under the leadership of German Industrialist and Foreign Minster Walter Rathenau, and his counterpart Russian Foreign Minister Georgi Chicherin, the treaty was signed in Rapallo, Italy on April 16, 1922 premised upon the forgiveness of all war debts and a renouncement of all territorial claims from either side. The treaty said Russia and Germany would “co-operate in a spirit of mutual goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries.”

When Rathenau was assassinated by a terrorist cell called the Organization Consul on June 24, 1922 the success of the Rapallo Treaty lost its steam and the nation fell into a deeper wave of chaos and money printing. The Organization Consul had taken the lead in the murder of over 354 German political figures between 1919-1923, and when they were banned in 1922, the group merely changed its name and morphed into other German paramilitary groups (such as the Freikorps) becoming the military arm of the new National Socialist Party.

1923: City of London’s Solution is imposed

When the hyperinflationary blowout of Germany resulted in total un-governability of the state, a solution took the form of the Wall Street authored “Dawes Plan” which necessitated the use of a London-trained golem by the name of Hjalmar Schacht. First introduced as Currency Commissioner in November 1923 and soon President of the Reichsbank, Schacht’s first act was to visit Bank of England’s governor Montagu Norman in London who provided Schacht a blueprint for proceeding with Germany’s restructuring. Schacht returned to “solve” the crisis with the very same poison that caused it.

First announcing a new currency called the “rentenmark” set on a fixed value exchanging 1 trillion reichsmarks for 1 new rentenmark, Germans were robbed yet again. This new currency would operate under “new rules” never before seen in Germany’s history: Mass privatizations resulted in Anglo-American conglomerates purchasing state enterprises. IG Farben, Thyssen, Union Banking, Brown Brothers Harriman, Standard Oil, JP Morgan and Union Banking took control Germany’s finances, mining and industrial interests under the supervision of John Foster Dulles, Montagu Norman, Averill Harriman and other deep state actors. This was famously exposed in the 1961 film Judgement at Nuremburg by Stanley Kramer.

Schacht next cut credit to industries, raised taxes and imposed mass austerity on “useless spending”. 390 000 civil servants were fired, unions and collective bargaining was destroyed and wages were slashed by 15%.

As one can imagine, this destruction of life after the hell of Versailles was intolerable and civil unrest began to boil over in ways that even the powerful London-Wall Street bankers (and their mercenaries) couldn’t control. An enforcer was needed unhindered by the republic’s democratic institutions to force Schacht’s economics onto the people. An up-and-coming rabble rousing failed painter who had made waves in a Beerhall Putsch on November 8, 1923 was perfect.

One Last Attempt to Save Germany

Though Hitler grew in power over the coming decade of Schachtian economics, one last republican effort was made to prevent Germany from plunging into a fascist hell in the form of the November 1932 election victory of General Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor of Germany. Schleicher had been a co-architect of Rapallo alongside Rathenau a decade earlier and was a strong proponent of the Friedrich List Society’s program of public works and internal improvements promoted by industrialist Wilhelm Lautenbach. The Nazi party’s public support collapsed and it found itself bankrupt. Hitler had fallen into depression and was even contemplating suicide when “a legal coup” was unleashed by the Anglo-American elite resulting in Wall Street funds pouring into Nazi coffers.

By January 30, 1933 Hitler gained Chancellorship where he quickly took dictatorial powers under the “state of emergency” caused by the burning of the Reichstag in March 1933. By 1934 the Night of the Long Knives saw General Schleicher and hundreds of other German patriots assassinated and it was only a few years until the City of London-Wall Street Frankenstein monster stormed across the world.

How the 1929 Crash was Manufactured

While everyone knows that the 1929 market crash unleashed four years of hell in America which quickly spread across Europe under the great depression, not many people have realized that this was not inevitable, but rather a controlled blowout.

The bubbles of the 1920s were unleashed with the early death of President William Harding in 1923 and grew under the careful guidance of JP Morgan’s President Coolidge and financier Andrew Mellon (Treasury Secretary) who de-regulated the banks, imposed austerity onto the country, and cooked up a scheme for Broker loans allowing speculators to borrow 90% on their stock. Wall Street was deregulated, investments into the real economy were halted during the 1920s and insanity became the norm. In 1925 broker loans totalled $1.5 billion and grew to $2.6 billion in 1926 and hit $5.7 billion by the end of 1927. By 1928, the stock market was overvalued fourfold!

When the bubble was sufficiently inflated, a moment was decided upon to coordinate a mass “calling in” of the broker loans. Predictably, no one could pay them resulting in a collapse of the markets. Those “in the know” cleaned up with JP Morgan’s “preferred clients”, and other financial behemoths selling before the crash and then buying up the physical assets of America for pennies on the dollar. One notable person who made his fortune in this manner was Prescott Bush of Brown Brothers Harriman, who went onto bailout a bankrupt Nazi party in 1932. These financiers had a tight allegiance with the City of London and coordinated their operations through the private central banking system of America’s Federal Reserve and Bank of International Settlements.

The Living Hell that was the Great Depression

Throughout the Great depression, the population was pushed to its limits making America highly susceptible to fascism as unemployment skyrocketed to 25%, industrial capacity collapsed by 70%, and agricultural prices collapsed far below the cost of production accelerating foreclosures and suicide. Life savings were lost as 4000 banks failed.

This despair was replicated across Europe and Canada with eugenics-loving fascists gaining popularity across the board. England saw the rise of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in 1932, English Canada had its own fascist solution with the Rhodes Scholar “Fabian Society” League of Social Reconstruction (which later took over the Liberal Party) calling for the “scientific management of society”. Time magazine had featured Il Duce over 6 times by 1932 and people were being told by that corporate fascism was the economic solution to all of America’s economic woes.

In the midst of the crisis, the City of London removed itself from the gold standard in 1931 which was a crippling blow to the USA, as it resulted in a flight of gold from America causing a deeper contraction of the money supply and thus inability to respond to the depression. British goods simultaneously swamped the USA crushing what little production was left.

It was in this atmosphere that one of the least understood battles unfolded in 1933.

1932: A Bankers’ Dictatorship is Attempted

In Germany, a surprise victory of Gen. Kurt Schleicher caused the defeat of the London-directed Nazi party in December 1932 threatening to break Germany free of Central Bank tyranny. A few weeks before Schleicher’s victory, Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency in America threatening to regulate the private banks and assert national sovereignty over finance.

Seeing their plans for global fascism slipping away, the City of London announced that a new global system controlled by Central Banks had to be created post haste. Their objective was to use the economic crisis as an excuse to remove from nation states any power over monetary policy, while enhancing the power of Independent Central Banks as enforcers of “balanced global budgets”. elaborate

In December 1932, an economic conference “to stabilize the world economy” was organized by the League of Nations under the guidance of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and Bank of England. The BIS was set up as “the Central Bank of Central Banks” in 1930 in order to facilitate WWI debt repayments and was a vital instrument for funding Nazi Germany- long after WWII began. The London Economic Conference brought together 64 nations of the world under a controlled environment chaired by the British Prime Minister and opened by the King himself.

A resolution passed by the Conference’s Monetary Committee stated:

“The conference considers it to be essential, in order to provide an international gold standard with the necessary mechanism for satisfactory working, that independent Central Banks, with requisite powers and freedom to carry out an appropriate currency and credit policy, should be created in such developed countries as have not at present an adequate central banking institution” and that “the conference wish to reaffirm the great utility of close and continuous cooperation between Central Banks. The Bank of International Settlements should play an increasingly important part not only by improving contact, but also as an instrument for common action.”

Echoing the Bank of England’s modern fixation with “mathematical equilibrium”, the resolutions stated that the new global gold standard controlled by central banks was needed “to maintain a fundamental equilibrium in the balance of payments” of countries. The idea was to deprive nation states of their power to generate and direct credit for their own development.

FDR Torpedoes the London Conference

Chancellor Schleicher’s resistance to a bankers’ dictatorship was resolved by a “soft coup” ousting the patriotic leader in favor of Adolph Hitler (under the control of a Bank of England toy named Hjalmar Schacht) in January 1933 with Schleicher assassinated the following year. In America, an assassination attempt on Roosevelt was thwarted on February 15, 1933 when a woman knocked the gun out of the hand of an anarchist-freemason in Miami resulting in the death of Chicago’s Mayor Cermak.

Without FDR’s dead body, the London conference met an insurmountable barrier, as FDR refused to permit any American cooperation. Roosevelt recognized the necessity for a new international system, but he also knew that it had to be organized by sovereign nation states subservient to the general welfare of the people and not central banks dedicated to the welfare of the oligarchy. Before any international changes could occur, nation states castrated from the effects of the depression had to first recover economically in order to stay above the power of the financiers.

By May 1933, the London Conference crumbled when FDR complained that the conference’s inability to address the real issues of the crisis is “a catastrophe amounting to a world tragedy” and that fixation with short term stability were “old fetishes of so-called international bankers”. FDR continued “The United States seeks the kind of dollar which a generation hence will have the same purchasing and debt paying power as the dollar value we hope to attain in the near future. That objective means more to the good of other nations than a fixed ratio for a month or two. Exchange rate fixing is not the true answer.”

The British drafted an official statement saying “the American statement on stabilization rendered it entirely useless to continue the conference.”

FDR’s War on Wall Street

The new president laid down the gauntlet in his inaugural speech on March 4th saying: “The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit”.

FDR declared a war on Wall Street on several levels, beginning with his support of the Pecorra Commission which sent thousands of bankers to prison, and exposed the criminal activities of the top tier of Wall Street’s power structure who manipulated the depression, buying political offices and pushing fascism. Ferdinand Pecorra who ran the commission called out the deep state when he said “this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United States.”

Pecorra’s highly publicized success empowered FDR to impose sweeping regulation in the form of 1) Glass-Steagall bank separation, 2) bankruptcy re-organization and 3) the creation of the Security Exchange Commission to oversee Wall Street. Most importantly, FDR disempowered the London-controlled Federal Reserve by installing his own man as Chair (Industrialist Mariner Eccles) who forced it to obey national commands for the first time since 1913, while creating an “alternative” lending mechanism outside of Fed control called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) which became the number one lender to infrastructure in America throughout the 1930s.

One of the most controversial policies for which FDR is demonized today was his abolishment of the gold standard. The gold standard itself constricted the money supply to a strict exchange of gold per paper dollar, thus preventing the construction of internal improvements needed to revive industrial capacity and put the millions of unemployed back to work for which no financial resources existed. It’s manipulation by international financiers made it a weapon of destruction rather than creation at this time. Since commodity prices had fallen lower than the costs of production, it was vital to increase the price of goods under a form of “controlled inflation” so that factories and farms could become solvent and unfortunately the gold standard held that back. FDR imposed protective tariffs to favor agro-industrial recovery on all fronts ending years of rapacious free trade.

FDR stated his political-economic philosophy in 1934: “the old fallacious notion of the bankers on the one side and the government on the other side, as being more or less equal and independent units, has passed away. Government by the necessity of things must be the leader, must be the judge, of the conflicting interests of all groups in the community, including bankers.”

The Real New Deal

Once liberated from the shackles of the central banks, FDR and his allies were able to start a genuine recovery by restoring confidence in banking. Within 31 days of his bank holiday, 75% of banks were operational and the FDIC was created to insure deposits. Four million people were given immediate work, and hundreds of libraries, schools and hospitals were built and staffed- All funded through the RFC. FDR’s first fireside chat was vital in rebuilding confidence in the government and banks, serving even today as a strong lesson in banking which central bankers don’t want you to learn about.

From 1933-1939, 45 000 infrastructure projects were built. The many “local” projects were governed, like China’s Belt and Road Initiative today, under a “grand design” which FDR termed the “Four Quarters” featuring zones of megaprojects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority area in the south east, the Columbia River Treaty zone on the northwest, the St Laurence Seaway zone on the North east, and Hoover Dam/Colorado zone on the Southwest. These projects were transformative in ways money could never measure as the Tennessee area’s literacy rose from 20% in 1932 to 80% in 1950, and racist backwater holes of the south became the bedrock for America’s aerospace industry due to the abundant and cheap hydropower. As I had already reported on the Saker, FDR was not a Keynesian (although it cannot be argued that hives of Rhodes Scholars and Fabians penetrating his administration certainly were).

Wall Street Sabotages the New Deal

Those who criticize the New Deal today ignore the fact that its failures have more to do with Wall Street sabotage than anything intrinsic to the program. For example, JP Morgan tool Lewis Douglass (U.S. Budget Director) forced the closure of the Civil Works Administration in 1934 resulting in the firing of all 4 million workers.

Wall Street did everything it could to choke the economy at every turn. In 1931, NY banks loans to the real economy amounted to $38.1 billion which dropped to only $20.3 billion by 1935. Where NY banks had 29% of their funds in US bonds and securities in 1929, this had risen to 58% which cut off the government from being able to issue productive credit to the real economy.

When, in 1937, FDR’s Treasury Secretary persuaded him to cancel public works to see if the economy “could stand on its own two feet”, Wall Street pulled credit out of the economy collapsing the Industrial production index from 110 to 85 erasing seven years’ worth of gain, while steel fell from 80% capacity back to depression levels of 19%. Two million jobs were lost and the Dow Jones lost 39% of its value. This was no different from kicking the crutches out from a patient in rehabilitation and it was not lost on anyone that those doing the kicking were openly supporting Fascism in Europe. Bush patriarch Prescott Bush, then representing Brown Brothers Harriman was found guilty for trading with the enemy in 1942!

Coup Attempt in America Thwarted

The bankers didn’t limit themselves to financial sabotage during this time, but also attempted a fascist military coup which was exposed by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler in his congressional testimony of November 20, 1934. Butler had testified that the plan was begun in the Summer of 1933 and organized by Wall Street financiers who tried to use him as a puppet dictator leading 500 000 American Legion members to storm the White House. As Butler spoke, those same financiers had just set up an anti-New Deal organization called the American Liberty League which fought to keep America out of the war in defense of an Anglo-Nazi fascist global government which they wished to partner with.

The American Liberty league only changed tune when it became evident that Hitler had become a disobedient Frankenstein monster who wasn’t content in a subservient position to Britain’s idea of a New World Order. In response to the Liberty League’s agenda, FDR said “some speak of a New World Order, but it is not new and it is not order”.

FDR’s Anti-Colonial Post-War Vision

One of the greatest living testimonies to FDR’s anti-colonial vision is contained in a little known 1946 book authored by his son Elliot Roosevelt who, as his father’s confidante and aide, was privy to some of the most sensitive meetings his father participated in throughout the war. Seeing the collapse of the post-war vision upon FDR’s April 12, 1945 death and the emergence of a pro-Churchill presidency under Harry Truman, who lost no time in dropping nuclear bombs on a defeated Japan, ushering in a Soviet witch hunt at home and launching a Cold War abroad, Elliot authored ‘As He Saw It’ (1946) in order to create a living testimony to the potential that was lost upon his father’s passing.

As Elliot said of his motive to write his book:

“The decision to write this book was taken more recently and impelled by urgent events. Winston Churchill’s speech at Fulton, Missouri, had a hand in this decision,… the growing stockpile of American atom bombs is a compelling factor; all the signs of growing disunity among the leading nations of the world, all the broken promises, all the renascent power politics of greedy and desperate imperialism were my spurs in this undertaking… And I have seen the promises violated, and the conditions summarily and cynically disregarded, and the structure of peace disavowed… I am writing this, then, to you who agree with me that… the path he charted has been most grievously—and deliberately—forsaken.”

The Four Freedoms

Even before America had entered the war, the principles of international harmony which FDR enunciated in his January 6, 1941 Four Freedoms speech to the U.S. Congress served as the guiding light through every battle for the next 4.5 years. In this speech FDR said:

“In future days, which we seek to secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

“The first is the freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

“The second is the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

“The third is the freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.

“The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.

“That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

“To that new order, we oppose the greater conception–the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

“Since the beginning of American history, we have been engaged in change–in a perpetual peaceful revolution–a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself to changing conditions–without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

“This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or to keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.”

Upon hearing these Freedoms outlined, American painter Norman Rockwell was inspired to paint four masterpieces that were displayed across America and conveyed the beauty of FDR’s spirit to all citizens.

FDR’s patriotic Vice President (and the man who SHOULD have been president in 1948) Henry Wallace outlined FDR’s vision in a passionate video address to the people in 1942 which should also be watched by all world citizens today:

Churchill vs FDR: The Clash of Two Paradigms

Elliot’s account of the 1941-1945 clash of paradigms between his father and Churchill are invaluable both for their ability to shed light into the true noble constitutional character of America personified in the person of Roosevelt but also in demonstrating the beautiful potential of a world that SHOULD HAVE BEEN had certain unnatural events not intervened to derail the evolution of our species into an age of win-win cooperation, creative reason and harmony.

In As He Saw It, Elliot documents a conversation he had with his father at the beginning of America’s entry into WWII, who made his anti-colonial intentions clear as day saying:

“I’m talking about another war, Elliott. I’m talking about what will happen to our world, if after this war we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery!

“Don’t think for a moment, Elliott, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight, if it hadn’t been for the shortsighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch. Shall we allow them to do it all, all over again? Your son will be about the right age, fifteen or twenty years from now.

“One sentence, Elliott. Then I’m going to kick you out of here. I’m tired. This is the sentence: When we’ve won the war, I will work with all my might and main to see to it that the United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan that will further France’s imperialistic ambitions, or that will aid or abet the British Empire in its imperial ambitions.”

This clash came to a head during a major confrontation between FDR and Churchill during the January 24, 1943 Casablanca Conference in Morocco. At this event, Elliot documents how his father first confronted Churchill’s belief in the maintenance of the British Empire’s preferential trade agreements upon which it’s looting system was founded:

“Of course,” he [FDR] remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, “of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade.”

He paused. The P.M.’s head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.

“No artificial barriers,” Father pursued. “As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.” His eye wandered innocently around the room.

Churchill shifted in his armchair. “The British Empire trade agreements” he began heavily, “are—”

Father broke in. “Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.”

Churchill’s neck reddened and he crouched forward. “Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England’s ministers.”

“You see,” said Father slowly, “it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.

“I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can’t be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now—”

“Who’s talking eighteenth-century methods?”

“Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation—by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.”

Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. Hopkins was grinning. Commander Thompson, Churchill’s aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.

“You mentioned India,” he growled.

“Yes. I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.”

“What about the Philippines?”

“I’m glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they’ve gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down…”

“There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements.”

“They’re artificial…”

“They’re the foundation of our greatness.”

“The peace,” said Father firmly, “cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. Will anyone suggest that Germany’s attempt to dominate trade in central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?”

It was an argument that could have no resolution between these two men…

The following day, Elliot describes how the conversation continued between the two men with Churchill stating:

“Mr. President,” he cried, “I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it. But in spite of that”—and his forefinger waved—”in spite of that, we know that you constitute our only hope. And”—his voice sank dramatically—”you know that we know it. You know that we know that without America, the Empire won’t stand.”

Churchill admitted, in that moment, that he knew the peace could only be won according to precepts which the United States of America would lay down. And in saying what he did, he was acknowledging that British colonial policy would be a dead duck, and British attempts to dominate world trade would be a dead duck, and British ambitions to play off the U.S.S.R. against the U.S.A. would be a dead duck. Or would have been, if Father had lived.”

This story was delivered in full during an August 15 lecture by the author:

FDR’s Post-War Vision Destroyed

While FDR’s struggle did change the course of history, his early death during the first months of his fourth term resulted in a fascist perversion of his post-war vision.

Rather than see the IMF, World Bank or UN used as instruments for the internationalization of the New Deal principles to promote long term, low interest loans for the industrial development of former colonies, FDR’s allies were ousted from power over his dead body, and they were recaptured by the same forces who attempted to steer the world towards a Central Banking Dictatorship in 1933.

The American Liberty League spawned into various “patriotic” anti-communist organizations which took power with the FBI and McCarthyism under the fog of the Cold War. This is the structure that Eisenhower warned about when he called out “the Military Industrial Complex” in 1960 and which John Kennedy did battle with during his 900 days as president.

This is the structure which is ran a coup in the USA in November 2020, and is intent on ripping the republic apart under an oncoming Civil War. This British-run deep state has been petrified that a new FDR impulse would be revived in America which may align with the 21st Century international New Deal emerging from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Eurasian alliance. French Finance Minister Bruno LeMaire and Marc Carney have stated their fear that if the Green New Deal isn’t imposed by the west, then the New Silk Road and yuan will become the basis for the new world system.

The Bank of England-authored Green New Deal being pushed under the fog of COVID-19’s Great Green Global Reset which promise to impose draconian constraints on humanity’s carrying capacity in defense of saving nature from humanity have nothing to do with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and they have less to do with the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. These are merely central bankers’ wet dreams for depopulation and fascism “with a democratic face” which their 1923 and 1933 efforts failed to achieve and can only be imposed if people remain blind to their own recent history.

cover image credit: mohamed_hassan / pixabay

How Do You Know?

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
sourced from Jerm Warfare newsletter
April 20, 2022

Thanks to the arrival of the fake pandemic, I have spent the last two years trying to piece together various puzzles and, while some of the smaller pieces sometimes don’t fit correctly, most of the larger pieces fit fairly tightly.

For example, a smaller puzzle piece might be the existence (or non-existence) of SARS-CoV-2, and a larger puzzle piece might be the global introduction of digital ID via vaccine passports.

The piecing-together is largely thanks to the hundreds of incredible podcast guests to whom I’ve had the pleasure of speaking. The more great minds to whom I speak, the less I know. It’s indeed humbling, especially because, as a political cartoonist of 17 years, I can confirm that humility is not a characteristic for which a satirist strives. After all, ridicule means positioning myself as excellent against those whom I consider mediocre.

Over the last two years I’ve noticed how, like me, others have gradually begun piecing together the various puzzles. But not many. As Belgian professor Mattias Desmet said, around 30% of all people will, sadly, remain asleep and blissfully continue their daily lives, believing the propaganda they’ve been fed by, what philosopher Curtis Yarvin refers to as, The Cathedral.

“The cathedral” is just a short way to say “journalism plus academia”—in other words, the intellectual institutions at the center of modern society, just as the Church was the intellectual institution at the center of medieval society.

It goes without saying that the government (and its shareholders) are upstream from journalism and academia.

But just as the sun began setting over the fake pandemic, a new sun rose over Ukraine, and the propaganda started from scratch.

We are in an information war, probably the most severe in history.

For example, before 2020, the research around masks was so clear that a discussion wasn’t even warranted. Here are over 150 comparative studies concluding that (different kinds of) masks do not prevent viral transmission. Today, however, that’s all changed. The Cathedral has done a sterling job at sowing confusion through deliberate misinformation; everybody just makes it up as they go along, these days.

The reason is because it’s not about a virus. It was never about virus.

It has always been about compliance and the ushering in of a new world order.

Last month, Joe Biden literally said that “a new world order is coming”.

Dismiss it, sure, but remember that he isn’t alone. George Bush said the same thing back in 1990. More recently, a member of the Australian government said that people “must accept the new world order”. Meanwhile, a member of the Ukrainian government said that Ukraine is “fighting for the new world order”.

South African president Cyril Ramaphosa said the same thing during 2020.

Why are they using the same terminology, and what is the “new world order”?

Firstly, it’s because the global elites – the Davos club – are in the same WhatsApp group. Secondly, it is precisely what the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab refers to as The Fourth Industrial Revolution, a new paradigm in which the world is centrally governed by a few technocratic elites through the use of science and technology.

I strongly recommend you watch my conversation with Patrick Wood, who is an expert on the history of technocracy (which dates back to the 1930s).

My point is the following.

The more I try to piece together the puzzle, the more I realise that we’re in an information war.

We are told, daily, that SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly virus, but the all-cause mortality does not show that. Still, that doesn’t stop the propagandised types from punching blind.

Numerous times I’ve been shouted at with something along the lines of

“I have a friend who died from it!”

and when I ask

“how do you know?”

I get neither a coherent nor scientific answer. And that’s likely because he was programmed to believe that SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly virus and, as a result, no critical thought is required.

Same story with Ukraine.

All that matters is that we must believe what The Cathedral feeds us. Something something Putin is an evil dictator something something.

For example, the outrage over the Bucha massacre is unavoidable, and it’s all Russia’s fault.

Except that there is very little evidence it even happened.

Speaking of information wars, take a listen to my conversation about Yemen and the US-backed atrocities that have been happening there for years.

Let’s not even get started on Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on.

All that matters is that you “stand with Ukraine”.

But the puzzle piece that constantly fascinates me is

“how do you know?”

SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly virus, yes? Vladimir Putin’s troops massacred the people of Bucha, yes? Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, yes? Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, yes? World Trade Centre Building 7 collapsed because of office fires, yes?

How do you know?

cover image based on creative commons work of geralt

How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution

by TJ Martinelli, Tenth Amendment Center
originally published on August 12, 2015

When people think of the causes of the American War for Independence, they think of slogans like “no taxation without representation” or cause célèbre like the Boston Tea Party.

In reality, however, what finally forced the colonials into a shooting war with the British Army in April 1775 was not taxes or even warrant-less searches of homes and their occupation by soldiers, but one of many attempts by the British to disarm Americans as part of an overall gun control program, according to David B. Kopel.

Furthermore, had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army.

In his paper titled “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution,” Kopel claims that various gun control policies by the British following the Boston Tea Party, including a ban on firearm and gunpowder importation, tells us not only the purpose of the Second Amendment, but its relevance within the context of today’s gun control debate.

“The ideology underlying all forms of American resistance to British usurpations and infringements was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights,” Kopel writes. “From the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The philosophy was not novel, but was directly derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke.”

Kopel writes that two important things underlined the American response to the British policies. One was the practical concept of self-defense, which British disarmament measures was making more difficult. The other, and more relevant concept, was that “Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government.”

Following the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, in which the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships carrying East India Company cargo and dumped forty-six tons of tea ships of tea to prevent its landing, the British government introduced a series of retaliatory measures known as the Intolerable Acts. Among the actions was the closure of Boston’s port, effectively cutting off all trade.

sons of liberty advertisement

However, Kopel writes, “it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them (the Intolerable Acts) that primed many colonists for armed resistance.”

An example of this is a South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, that urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate (bold emphasis added).

“When an Army is sent to enforce Laws, it is always an Evidence that either the Law makers are conscious that they had no clear and indisputable right to make those Laws, or that they are bad [and] oppressive. Wherever the People themselves have had a hand in making Laws, according to the first principles of our Constitution there is no danger of Nonsubmission, Nor can there be need of an Army to enforce them.”

The British Army had already been occupying American cities like Boston since 1768, where the notorious Boston Massacre took place in 1770. Following the passage of the intolerable Acts, the Massachusetts Government Act dissolved the provincial government in the state, and General Thomas Gage was appointed royal governor, all which inflamed tensions and prompted backlash from Americans who saw it as the Crown attempted to force their colonies into submission.

Tensions were so great, in fact, that the shooting might have started much earlier than Lexington and Concord. In one incident, General Gage sent Redcoats to squash an “illegal” town meeting in Salem, only to retreat when, according to one of Gage’s aides, three thousand armed Americans arrived.

It was clear to the British that gun control measures would be necessary if they were to maintain their rule. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston, while there were thousands of armed men in Boston and more in the surrounding area.

One solution, Kopel writes, was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder. In September 1774, several hundred Redcoats raided a Charlestown powder house – where militias and merchants stored their gunpowder due to its volatile nature – and seized all but the powder belonging to the colonial government.

“Gage was within his legal rights to seize it,” Kopel concludes. “But the seizure still incensed the public.”

Known as the Powder Alarm, this also nearly started the Revolution when rumors spread wildly that the Redcoats had started shooting. In response, 20,000 militiamen were mobilized that same day and marched on Boston – they later turned around once they learned the truth.

The Powder House (“Magazine”) is near the northern edge of this detail from a 1775 map of the Siege of Boston.

Still, Kopel writes, the message was clear:

“If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that seizure as an act of war, and the militia would fight,” he writes. “And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.”

Following the Powder Alarm, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled at the Worcester Common, where the Worcester Convention ordered the resignations of all militia officers who had received their commissions from the royal governor. The officers promptly resigned, and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention, independent of the British administration.

Governor Gage then tried another approach – warrantless searches of people for arms and ammunition without any provocation. The policy drew fierce criticism from the colonists. In fact, the Boston Gazette wrote that of all General Gage‘s offenses, it was this one that outraged people the most.

In October 1774 the Provincial Congress convened, with John Hancock acting as its president. The Congress adopted a resolution that condemned the military occupation of Boston and called on private citizens to arm themselves and engage in military drills. The Provincial Congress also appointed a Committee of Safety, giving it the power to call up the militia. This meant that the militia of Massachusetts “no longer answered to the British government,” Kopel writes. “It was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.”

Not surprisingly, British officials in England were eager to see outright gun confiscation in order to effectively suppress any resistance to their rule. Lord Dartmouth, the royal Secretary of State for America, articulated this sentiment in a letter to Governor Gage.

“Amongst other things which have occurred on the present occasion as likely to prevent the fatal consequence of having recourse to the sword, that of disarming the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut and Rhode Island, has been suggested. Whether such a Measure was ever practicable, or whether it can be attempted in the present state of things you must be the best judge; but it certainly is a Measure of such a nature as ought not to be adopted without almost a certainty of success, and therefore I only throw it out for your consideration.”

Gage warned that the only way to carry it out would be to use violence (bold emphasis added):

“Your Lordship‘s Idea of disarming certain Provinces would doubtless be consistent with Prudence and Safety, but it neither is nor has been practicable without having Recourse to Force, and being Masters of the Country.”

The gun confiscation proposal didn’t remain secret for long, as Gage‘s letter read in the British House of Commons and then publicized in America. Two days after Dartmouth’s letter was sent, King George III ordered the blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America, save those with governments permits. No permit, Kopel writes, was ever granted, and the ban would remain in effect until after the War of Independence ended and the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783.

Having banned the import on all guns and ammunition, the British moved next to seize that which remained in colonial hands. In anticipation of such a seizure at Fort William and Mary in December 1774, four hundred New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort.

Eventually, Kopel writes “Americans no longer recognized the royal governors as the legitimate commanders-in-chief of the militia. So without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors.”

It was such a militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord against Gage’s Redcoats in April 1775. Following the battle, the colonials lay siege to Boston. The British response in other colonies was a swift move to confiscate or destroy firearms. In Virginia, they seized twenty barrels of gunpowder from the public magazine in Williamsburg and removed the firing mechanisms in the guns, making them impossible to shoot.

Meanwhile, in Boston, General Gage carried out his own gun confiscation policy against the remaining Bostonians, but having learned his lesson from Lexington and Concord, he tried a more furtive approach by offering them the opportunity to leave town if they gave up their arms. Within days, Kopel writes, 2,674 guns were handed over to the British. Gage then promptly turned back on his promise and initially refused to allow anyone to leave. Only food shortages led him to permit more emigration from the city.

Although there is room for speculation as to what would have happened had the American colonies lost the War of Independence, historical documents make some things very clear. When a British victory seemed likely in 1777, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan titled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” Intended to prevent any further rebellions in America, the plan called on the establishment of the Church of England in all the colonies, along with a hereditary aristocracy.

But the most ominous measure it would have enacted would have been a permanent standing army, along with the following (emphasis added):

The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, [and] the Arms of all the People should be taken away . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . .”

Many gun control policies in America today follow the British blueprint. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, for example, prohibits the import of any firearm which is not deemed suitable for “sporting” purposes by federal regulators. Certain cities openly declare their gun fees are intended not to prevent the wrong people from owning guns, but to discourage all private citizens from owning them.

“To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era,” Kopel writes, “the late twentieth century claim that the Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual right might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, or their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began.”

Yet, Kopel believes “the most important lesson for today from the Revolution is about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament,” something that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Local law enforcement confiscated firearms, many times at gunpoint. A federal district judge properly issued an order finding the gun confiscation to be illegal.

“Gun ownership simpliciter ought never be a pretext for government violence,” Kopel concludes. “The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree. Americans of the twenty-first century should not squander the heritage of constitutional liberty bequeathed by the Patriots.”

It is easy to see, then, why modern gun control advocates are the spiritual successors of the British government our forefathers opposed, for while gun grabbers call for restrictions on the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, they are all but silent on the dangers of having standing army in America or the blatant militarization of police departments.

Connect with Tenth Amendment Center

cover image is in the public domain: sourced from Wikimedia Commons

The Road to Manzanar: The Story of an American Internment Camp (Documentary)

by Melissa Dykes, Truthstream Media
March 8, 2022

I put together this documentary on the Manzanar War Relocation Center in California — one of ten internment camps the Army used to house Japanese-Americans without charge or trial after the bombing of Pearl Harbor during WWII. We happened to pass by Manzanar off the side of the road during a filming road trip back in 2020 prior to the lockdowns and when I saw the guard tower at the entrance to a national park, I had no idea what it was.

Despite having earned a master’s degree, I had never been taught about the history of Japanese-American internment in school, and that includes completing two university level American history classes (one of which specifically covered WWII supposedly in-depth). I wouldn’t learn about this dark chapter in American history until years later during my own history research. Why wasn’t this ever taught?

What follows is one of the saddest pieces I have ever made, but I think people need learn about this, so history doesn’t get to repeat these human rights violations on the next “minority” simply because of the majority’s hysteria and fear.

Watching now. Pretty wild to think I would have been hauled away living where I am right now in the 1940’s https://t.co/fve6DtDxvy

— Gonz (@FaceLikeTheSun) March 8, 2022

Video available at Truthstream Media Odysee and YouTube

Special thanks to James Corbett and Riley Waggaman (aka—Edward Slavsquat substack)

Gary D. Barnett: “The Masses Are Tricked by Their Masters and Media Into Picking a Side… They Are Being Played as Fools by Those Holding Power Over Them.”

The Power of Propaganda: State Control of the Press and Media Will Be the Death Knell of Freedom

by Gary D. Barnett
March 4, 2022

“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.”
~ Evita Ochel

Once again, black is white and white is black. We are all living in a state-created inversion. The press, as has been noted in this country and others since the beginning, was charged with the noble role of informing the people about what is actually going on around them. The freedom of the press has been lauded as necessary for any free society to exist. America’s own so-called ‘Bill of Rights’ in the third amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, but all government ‘guarantees,’ as has been exposed, are as worthless as the paper on which they are printed. If all this is true, then why is the entirety of all mainstream and major press and media so corrupt, dishonest, colluding, state-supporting, evil, and essentially controlled by the CIA? Why are virtually all ‘news’ reporting entities owned by the same small group of individuals and companies, or the state itself? Why is most all the ‘reporting’ just propaganda, regardless of the venue?

The only sane position to take in this day and age is to understand that every word coming from the whores in the press, the politicians, and the media are absolute lies. Everything should be considered a falsehood, and should be ignored until and unless it is completely verified and supported by fact.

We are living in madness; we are living in total absurdity. There is no other way to explain our current situation. So why does the bulk of society, not just in this country, but around the world, still cling to every word coming from the state and its minions in the press and media? Why do people believe whatever they are told to believe, without the benefit of any facts or logic; even to the point of voluntarily destroying their own life’s work, their families and loved ones, their communities, and their very souls? Can this ever be legitimately explained?

All this boils down to the sad truth that the people at large desire a master/slave relationship in order to function, without putting forth the effort necessary to live as free men. This is of course pathetic, but it is a fact of life in modern times. Because of this dependent nature, humanity is facing hell on earth, and even possible extinction. That is quite a price to pay for being too lazy, stupid, and gullible to function as responsible individuals. Instead of relying on one’s own abilities, one’s own moral compass; most rely on government to tell them how to act, how to think, what to believe and not believe, and what to condemn or accept.

One major example of this current behavior is brutally evident, and is a very dangerous risk to all. That is the plotted and planned U.S, NATO, Russia, and Ukraine, debacle that is playing out in front of us. There are no ‘good guys’ here, only evil tyrants and government stooges without the capability to see the fatal risk in the games they play, or any soul to care about the outcome. Of course, the masses are tricked by their masters and media into picking a side. As is always the case, another nefarious coup is turned into one of each side hating the other; each supporting the evil intent of both, without the ability to ascertain the truth, which is that they are being played as fools by those holding power over them. Once sides are taken, the ability to control all increases dramatically, just as was planned all along by the state actors.

In this case, those siding with the West against Russia, scream for protection and war to protect poor, ‘innocent’ Ukraine, a country steeped in total corruption, and controlled by the U.S. through a puppet put in power by the same U.S in 2014. Those siding with Russia, especially in the alternative media, due to U.S. aggression against them for decades, falsely assume that Putin is some sort of innocent patriot who is only prosecuting a war that he said he would never do, just because he was pushed to the limit by the U.S. and NATO, and had to protect ‘his’ country. This is total nonsense. The complete idiocy of both sides is beyond astounding. The proletariat hordes are doing exactly as they were coached to do by their state masters, while the mainstream and much of the alternative media take sides in a no-win contest of ignorance and planned chaos.

U.S. aggression, brutality, corruption, warmongering, arrogant interference in other countries, and mass murder are evident, and have been ongoing for nearly the entirety of its existence, but what about the evil Putin and his Russian government? Putin has a very checkered background; from his time in the KGB, to his political rise with support from the U.S., his criminal methods to gain power, and his treatment of those opposing him. He, like the rest of the world rulers, was fully engaged in terror against the Russian people concerning the fake ‘virus pandemic’ labeled as ‘Covid.’ No tracking system for deaths from ‘vaccine’ is allowed by the Russian government, and that website was completely shut down. Putin praised AsrtraZeneca and signed a fast-track deal to get poisonous bio-weapon injections into the population, no different than the evil Trump and Biden. He set up biometric tracking and tagging of school children through a corrupt banking system with strong ties to the World Economic Forum, all under the guise of ‘child safety.’ The same bank is also in charge of launching state-sponsored digital Cryptocurrency, and with the likes of JP Morgan, so as to control the currency and monetary system of Russia.

This is just an extremely brief list of some of the things done by or with the blessing of Putin, who is no innocent saint, but a pure ruling globalist, not different than all the others. He is likely no better or no worse than the rest of the globalist cabal, but in this arena, all are evil. To take sides with any of the ruling class is not only a terrible and possible fatal mistake, but one that guarantees siding with malevolent monsters whose own ambitions always run completely counter to the best interests of the people.

In the midst of all this, the falsely claimed scourge of the earth called ‘Covid-19, that which was said to threaten every man, woman, and child on this planet, temporarily disappeared overnight in favor of the next media narrative; this without a shred of explanation or comment. At the same time, economic turmoil in the realm of major monetary disruption, was an obvious play to continue the drive to eliminate cash and privacy in order for central bank control of currency. This continued plot is now fully underway.

What will be the next narrative change? What new supposed threat will emerge when this one has played out its use? There will always be another emergency, another threat, and another false flag waiting to be released by the powerful globalists and their ilk. Will it be war, another fake virus, a monetary collapse, a bio-weapon release, a targeted nuclear attack, a bogus climate change’ disaster,’ another warning that China may side with Russia, or another U.S./NATO plot meant to stoke more unrest and fear among the commoners?

So long as the people continue to blindly obey and believe the propaganda, there will always be another threat, another emergency, another plot, or another scam meant to subdue and control them.

“One of the greatest responsibilities for the people of our time is to accept everything that he hears in the pro-government media as a lie and to investigate the truth from independent sources personally!”
~ Mehmet Murat ildan

References and Links:

CIA funds WePlot startup for journalists

Real war vs phony war

Russian government shuts down ‘vaccine’ death tracking site

Russia’s biometric tagging of school children

The Russian government’s big-pharma alliance

Putin’s AstraZeneca ties

Russia’s largest bank to launch state-controlled crypto digital currency

Origins of the Deep State in North America part 1: The Round Table Movement

cover image credit: OpenClipArt-Vectors / pixabay

New Discoveries That Completely Alter Human History

by After Skool with Ben, Uncharted X
March 1, 2022

UnchartedX is a youtube channel that explores anomalies in ancient history and examines possible forms of high technology.

Ben, the creator of UnchartedX, is an explorer, film-maker and student of lost ancient civilizations. I’ve had the great honor to explore some of these incredible sites with Ben.

To learn more about the UnchartedX content and tours, check out these links below.

UnchartedX YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/c/unchartedx
UnchartedX Website: https://unchartedx.com
UnchartedX Podcast: https://unchartedx.com/unchartedx-podcast

Connect with After Skool

The British Hand Behind the Global Deep State

by Matthew Ehret
February 14, 2022

In this edition of the Coronavirus Investigative Committee Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion, I was invited to showcase Britain’s modern invisible empire under the cover of a global bureaucracy of Crown Agents, Mining Interests, Offshore bank havens, drug money laundering operations, terrorism financing, intelligence operations and more.

After painting a sketch of our modern British-run age, I lept back in time to the early days of Canada with the 1867 British North America Act that formulated a synthetic nation premised upon “preserving the interests of the British Empire” in the face of a world of sovereign republics then blossoming onto the scene.

We trace the growth of the British Round Table Movements fueled by the ill-begotten gains of Cecil Rhodes in misshaping the entire 20th century with the aim of reconquering the rebellious colony under an Anglo-American world government pausing to explore the deep state takeover of the USA after FDR’s untimely death, the Rhodes’ Scholar-driven Cold War, and the major coup of 1971 that saw the US dollar detached from the fixed exchange rate system, the creation of the Rothschild InterAlpha Group and the World Economic Forum.

Click on the video below to watch the presentation on Bitchute:

Or watch on Rumble Here.

Finally, I would highly encourage everyone to watch the presentations by UK Column’s Alex Thompson and Brian Garish before and after my presentation which can be done by clicking on the following link

And for those who want to take their knowledge to the next level, here is some supplementary reading:

Origins of the Deep State in North America part 2: Milner’s Perversion Takes over Canada

Origins of the Deep State in North America part 3: What is the Fabian Society and to What End was it Created?

Origins of the Deep State part 4: George Grant, Massey and the Creation of a Synthetic Nationalism of Canada

Video: The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Invisible Empire