The Scam of “Government” Explained in Less Than 5 Minutes… Now… With Memes!

“Government” Has Been the Biggest Scam in History! 

by Etienne de la Boetie2, Art of Liberty
April 25, 2024



In “Government”—The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! I break down the illegitimacy, illogical nature and criminality of “government” in 150ish pages, with another 20 pages of endnotes cataloging 776 references. In this short clip from a podcast, I was able to break down the basics in Five (5) minutes flat. Hat tip to David Rodrigues, the founder of the Gatto Project and Valor Academy, for adding value by editing in some examples from the book.

The weirdest thing about the scam of “Government” is that ANYONE can understand its illogical nature and immorality. Here are the basics… In memes!

1. It is IMPOSSIBLE to Have a Legitimate, Moral and Logical “Government”

a) You can’t delegate rights you don’t have personally to a “representative” or a “government”

b) You can’t be bound by a social contract you didn’t sign

Backstory: Abolitionist and legal theorist Lysander Spooner completely destroyed the legal and moral legitimacy of the U.S. Con-stitution in his 1870 masterwork No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, whose arguments are just as valid today.

c) If my buddy and I can’t vote to rob you because there are two of us and one of you, it doesn’t matter how many additional people vote to rob Peter to pay Paul; it is still theft and immoral.

2. The Inter-Generational Organized Crime Interests Using “Government” to Rob and Control Society Have Been Using Control of Education and Monopoly Media to Control the Information that Society Receives About “Government” to Trick Them Into Thinking “Government” is Legitimate, Desirable and Necessary.

a) Control of Education – Children are unethically and manipulatively indoctrinated with the belief in “government” in mandatory schools, and private schools whose curriculum is controlled through accreditation with the belief in “government” slipped to them as a pseudo-religion known as Statism.

b) Monopolization of the Media—Six monopoly media companies run hundreds of subsidiaries with different names to give the illusion of choice.

c) Wide-scale Surreptitious Control of Hundreds of Publishers, Editors, and Reporters at Dozens of Ostensibly Unaffiliated Wire Services, Networks and Publications Control the Information the Public Receives.

In this poster from our White Rose MUCHO GRANDE series, you can see dozens and dozens of reporters, editors and publishers from dozens of ostensibly unaffiliated news organizations apparently being coordinated through three organizations that Jeffrey Epstein was a member of and meeting regularly in secure facilities swept for bugs.

Dozens of “Ex” CIA and intelligence agency alumni make up a substantial portion of the 200ish people that are paid/allowed to talk about politics and current events on the tell-a-vision.



Video Shows News Anchors in DOZENS of Different Cities Reading off the Exact Same Script.

d) Dozens and dozens of monopoly Internet Search Engines, Social Media Sites, Video Sites, and “Fact Checkers” Algorithmically Censor the Information the Public Receives About the Legitimacy of “Government” while concealing the theft of trillions. Ex-CIA employees control content moderation at Facebook, “Ex” FBI employees were (are?) controlling content moderation at Twitter/X, while “Ex”- U.S. State Department employees are controlling content moderation at TikTok.

e) Hollywood manipulatively weaves the US flag into thousands of movies and tell-a-vision shows at moments of high, positive emotion while making the “government,” CIA, FBI, and Military the heroes to trick the population into a warm and fuzzy feeling about “government” and the enforcement class living off money stolen from them at the point of a gun.

 

Short 7-minute video showing 469 American Flag “Product Placements” in just 12 Michael Bay Movies.



The documentary “Theatres of War” exposes the Pentagon and intelligence agencies behind THOUSANDS of Movies and Tell-a-vision shows.

Connect with by Etienne de la Boetie2

Cover image credit: pixellicious

The World Out of Kilter: Occupation and Zombification

by Paul Cudenec, Winter Oak
April 22, 2024

The kind of society I long for is an organic one, in which people live in the way they see fit, guided by their own inclinations, the customs they have inherited and the circumstances of place.

As an anarchist, I am obviously opposed to all authority imposed from above, to any kind of formalised, entrenched power, but that does not mean that there could be no kind of moral “authority” or guidance in the world I want to see.

Traditional societies often look to village elders, wise women, and other respected individuals to help steer their decision-making.

The advice they give arises from within the community concerned and, in order to be followed, will have to correspond to a generally-shared sense that the proposed direction is the right one.

This is not the case with those who exercise power over us today. Due to the corruption of our society, authority is wielded in the interests of a group which neither identifies with the people as a whole nor is prepared to be guided by its wishes.

Instead, it seeks to impose its own agenda on the population by any means necessary – by propaganda and persuasion, if possible, or otherwise by outright deceit, intimidation and physical violence.

Even worse is that this ruling gang, which is essentially nothing but an occupying force, shares neither the specific local moral codes of the various peoples it rules over, nor the general human sense of right and wrong that would once have been shared by its own ancestors.

This is because it is a rogue element, a criminal entity, intent only on increasing its own wealth and power, and has no use for ethics.

Indeed, it takes sadistic pleasure out of using, manipulating and inverting the majority population’s values – their sense of justice, their fondness for their homeland or their love of nature – in order to advance its own venal programme.

Individuals in such a society are unable to follow their own moral compass, to act according to their own innate desires, to follow their dreams, pay respect to the archetypal template in their unconscious.

This is not just because they are physically constrained, by authority, from acting and living in ways that they feel are right, but also because they have been mentally conditioned not to listen to the voice within.

They are besieged, through all their waking hours, by messaging, by propaganda that tells them they have to live, think and behave in the ways set out by the ruling gang.

A natural society will produce all kinds of individuals who complement each other in the ways that they contribute to its well-being.

There are those who are drawn to caring for others, to teaching the young, to growing, to feeding, to building, to physically defending the community, to resolving disputes and so on.

There are also the artists, poets, preachers and prophets, the antennae of the people, who are sensitive to the overall feel of the society and can sense when something is wrong.

Young people often start out with this gift – think of all the different generations rebelling, in their varying ways, against this modern world! – only to be ground down into compliance by the satanic mills of power.

But some carry on noticing and sounding the alert, with the aim of waking up the population as a whole to the danger they are facing.

It is therefore important for the ruling occupying force to isolate the small minority who remain connected to their own deep knowing and to the organic spirit of the community.

They do this by insulting, mocking, demonising, dismissing, intimidating, criminalising and imprisoning them – by presenting them, in their usual inverted manner, as a menace to the very society whose well-being they are trying to defend.

This is psychologically difficult for these social antennae, who risk being deeply wounded by a rejection that they feel comes as much from their own community as from the occupying force.

Banding together in self-defence, they can become inward-looking, cultish, and unable to properly communicate with others outside their ranks.

Or, as individuals, they can become bitter and angry with those who refuse to listen to them, dismissing most members of their community as ignorant fools who deserve no better.

In either case, they have completed the work of the ruling gang by cutting themselves off from the social organism to which they belong.

That organism therefore has no more brain, no more soul, but is a social zombie, staggering on towards its own destruction under the malevolent control of the life-sucking criminocracy.

Connect with Paul Cudenec substack | website

Cover image credit: CDD20

Lab Leak: An Elaborate Misdirection?

by Health Freedom Defense Fund Team
originally published February 7, 2024

The ongoing investigations into the elusive Covid Pandemic murder mystery are cluttered by all manner of obfuscation and misdirection.

Chief among these shaky postulations are the various iterations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus lab-leak theory, which has more lives than a feral cat and possesses a capacity for reappearing as often as the shambling zombies who lurk in the woods at the edge of town.

Once the curtain is pulled back on the unsubstantiated lab-leak hypotheses, the socially engineered sorcery of the Covid Pandemic is revealed as the base scheme that it is.

The lab-leak claim posits that SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered quasi-biological, deadly gain-of-function phenomenon rather than a computer-generated construct. The initial research paper illustrates that the virus in question was nothing more than an in-silico apparition, a simulacrum created by demonstrably dodgy genomic sequencing.

This theory advances the fanciful plot that a hyperreality TV show viral escapee miraculously slipped out of—or was released intentionally from—a biological research facility in faraway Wuhan, China, went on a global rampage, and killed millions of people.

By implying that the virus was a man-made microbial murderer, promulgators of the lab-leak story avoid facing the fact that the last three-and-a-half years were a deliberate, highly organized culling of the global population under the guise of protecting “public health.”

Unfortunately, many in-the-know folks who are skeptical of the medical industry’s pharmacological fantasies are still trapped on the lab-leak circuit of the Covid merry-go-round.

Amidst the hyperfocus on gain-of-function research, furin cleavage sites, restriction enzymes, and the rest of the sci-fi vernacular that shroud the lab-leak hypothesis in scientific-sounding mumbo jumbo there lies an elementary question, “Does this theory hold even an ounce of water?”

One conspicuous curiosity that calls into question the threat of “lab-leaked bioweapon” is the fact that the “Covid-19” deaths follow the age/risk stratification and seasonal curve of influenza and pneumonia (two named illnesses that, until 2020, health authorities lumped together in their charts).

Equally inexplicable is the fact that, in 2020, reported cases of flu in many countries suddenly vanished.

Meanwhile, many pneumonia deaths since 2020 have been fraudulently attributed to “Covid” on death certificates. Even if the bioweapon theory were a reality, perhaps we should be relieved, since Covid seemed able to impact only two kinds of populations:

1. 80-plus-year-olds who had multiple comorbidities and

2. other chronically ill people who were already in or were sent to hospitals and nursing homes.

In these institutions, “Covid” patients were forcibly “treated” with toxic medications, placed on sedatives and ventilators that blew up or collapsed their lungs, and abandoned in their rooms to die a painful, lonely, despairing death.

Family members were prevented from being at their side to comfort them, to question the macabre protocols being mercilessly inflicted, and to spirit them out of the “death row” facilities.

That the death rate attributed to Covid was so low throughout the rest of the global population proves the alleged “bioweapon” was a dud.

Indeed, to hang one’s hat on the lab-leak theory and the grandiose narrative of the Covid Pandemic requires contorted mental gymnastics and a blind faith in the esoteric.

Countless incongruities point to the lab-leak theory—and possibly the virus itself—being a myth.

Here are a few peculiarities that should cause any reasonable person to question the lab-leak theory:

(1) This Covid virus, so-called, apparently struck without warning. There was no observable evidence of contagion in late 2019 or early 2020 that would lead up to a mass death event. In the US and in alleged hotspots elsewhere, the Covid Death Event began to be reported precisely the same week the WHO declared a global pandemic—in mid-March 2020.

How is it possible that this virus was so demographically smart?

Why did it target those institutions—filled with ill, infirm, and elderly—so specifically and blanket them so completely?

Would not the high rate of deaths in hospitals and nursing homes have had anything to do with their application of dangerous protocols, their unilateral do-not-resuscitate orders, and their apparently purposeful policies of neglect?

(4) During that reputed “first wave” the people impacted were mainly poor, and many were disabled.

QUESTION: How, pray tell, was this Frankenstein virus programmed to avoid upper middle class and wealthy people? How did it know to sidestep healthy and able people? Aren’t the poor always more susceptible to disease? Do we need a viral event to explain this?

(5) During that initial wave, if we are to believe the “spreading pathogen” story, we must believe that this virus was geographically savvy. How was it that certain counties and metro areas in certain states in the US were impacted while neighboring regions adjacent to these areas were not affected? Curiously, many of these Covid-affected counties in the US were right next to unaffected areas, including in the NYC metro region where the virus seemed unable to cross rivers.

QUESTION: Was this gain-of-function hobgoblin designed to recognize county, state, and national boundaries and to stick to urban areas while leaving suburban and rural communities largely alone?

(6) Even after the “first wave,” the population groups that appeared to be exclusively targeted by this “bioweapon,” both in and out of institutions, were the elderly and the sickly and the disabled—people who are more susceptible to all types of afflictions.

QUESTION: Why did the supposedly novel virus jump over children and younger adults and able, healthy people?

(7) This lab-leaked daemonic entity killed many more victims in places where de facto police state “emergency measures” were fiercest and far fewer victims in contiguous jurisdictions where the countermeasures taken by authorities were much milder.

QUESTION: Why?

What each of these outlandish events illustrates is that there was no global viral event. Instead, what we saw play out was that radically different public health policies and mandates in a handful of jurisdictions around the world produced radically different health results.

Thus, to ascribe this convergent set of circumstances to a lab-leaked daemon or pathogen of any genus strains credulity. What it should be attributed to is a coordinated campaign orchestrated by powerful interests and their collaborators in academia, in the medical industry, and in the media.

Origins of the lab-leak story

In the media, the lab-leak story surfaced early on. It was quickly adopted and became an accepted narrative even amongst certain sectors of the “respectable” Covid “skeptics.” In fact, some “Establishment” Covid skeptics have built their reputations—and in some cases entire cottage industries—around the lab-leak mythology, even though this gain-of-function narrative strains credulity.

So-called Covid skeptics buying into aspects of the Covid myth creates a situation in which “dissident movement” resources are channeled into conferences and investigations where attention is fixed—and fixated—on esoteric explanations that ultimately prop up the overall pandemic narrative. If they were truly dissidents, they would be collaborating with truth-tellers to prove the demonstrable forensics of the fraud that defines the Covid enterprise.

The lab-leak theory reinforces the idea that “the virus” is a grave problem that needs to be solved rather than a fear-based control mechanism. It bolsters the notion that a “deadly” man-made, “novel” virus caused an “unprecedented medical emergency” for which a raft of invasive policies—including the worldwide suspension of basic civil liberties—would become justified.

To justify another round of lockdowns and to codify more draconian measures such as mandated vaccination in the future, all that will be needed is to reignite the fear of a bioweapon.

A further but related result of focusing on the “lab-leak” conjecture is that it shores up the “deadly novel virus suddenly appeared” narrative, which provides the rationale for the biosecurity complex to siphon trillions from taxpayers through the aptly named “pandemic preparedness” industry.

Another consequence of accepting the lab-leak supposition is to distract attention from how the perception of a pandemic/mass panic was conjured with staged Hollywood productions, doomsday models, and the meaningless PCR tests that fraudulently manufactured cases and spuriously attributed deaths from other causes to Covid.

But perhaps the biggest problem with accepting and promoting the lab-leak theory is that it reifies the Big Lie that there ever was a “pandemic” caused by a “unique viral pathogen” in the spring of 2020. In so doing, the theory hides the crimes that were committed in the hospitals and nursing homes and provides cover for the criminals who designed and executed this top-down operation.

Not only does the “pandemic” narrative serve to conceal the likelihood that this was a mass murder spree set off by policies constructed, orchestrated, and mandated by identifiable individuals, it also serves as a smokescreen for the entire “Covid Operation” that benefited the wealthy while steamrolling working people’s lives.

Is it possible that the gain-of-function virus story was manufactured to get the public to snap up and swallow the lab-leak bait?

And was this entire fish tale dropped into the Covid discourse to keep the public obsessing over the “origins” of the disease rather than focusing on the policy-induced slaughter of the last three-and-a-half years? (When we say “slaughter,” we do not mean from an actual disease, but, rather, from isolation, from toxic treatments like Remdesivir and mRNA injections, and from the murderous misuse of sedatives and ventilators.)

Without the existence of a SARS-CoV-2 bioweapon, everything else in the official narrative swirls down the toilet, including the contrived Covid-19 case definition, the dodgy non-diagnostic rt-PCR tests, the fake excuses given for lockdowns and masks and social distancing, and the debate between whether the “novel virus” originated with a love match between a bat and a pangolin or from gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan lab.

In other words, the establishment’s insistence on pushing the lab-leak theory serves to cover up the actual crimes that were committed on a massive scale and with impunity.

If it can be proven that there was no pandemic, as we have posited in a previous article, and no evidence of a virus, where would we go from there?

We would have to come to terms with the reality that this was never about “a mismanaged pandemic,” as some “health freedom” celebrities have taken to calling it.

We would have to confront the fact that the only pandemic was one of violent government and medical assault against billions of people, of false attribution of a made-up disease on death certificates, and of intense propaganda using fraudulent tests and bogus “scientific” studies.

We would have to accept that what we are dealing with is the collaboration of despotic public and private elements to commit criminal fraud and outright genocide.

We would have to hold the government (including intelligence agencies and the military), the health regulatory agencies, the hospitals and nursing homes, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and the media accountable for these crimes.

The whole system would be revealed as the corrupt house of cards it is.

In short, legitimizing the lab-leak theory is a backdoor way of legitimizing the false claim of a global pandemic.

Coda

Misdirection is a classic strategy used to divert attention from one subject and direct it to another. Getting people to ask all the wrong questions ensures they will be kept from seeking answers to the right questions. Asking the wrong questions also ensures they will always draw wrong conclusions.

Thus, we have a deceived public wrongly determining: “It was a manufactured new virus and a few bad actors.”

And we have the subversive actors, who purport to oppose the official Covid narrative, pretending to believe: “It was a bioweapon that needs to be contained next time.”

Those who subscribe to the manufactured “deadly man-made virus” story are understandably terrified and desperate for explanations and for heroes and for “bombshell reports” that will mitigate their fears.

They want some simplistic, reassuring answers that can explain it all away and let them go back to sleep.

They don’t want to be overwhelmed by talk about a global cabal or conditional UBI or programmable CBDCs or digital IDs or mass surveillance rolled out across the world via an endless series of manufactured crises.

This entire issue needs to be confronted head-on in the health freedom movement. Some apparent health freedom advocates who have captured the attention of huge audiences are, wittingly or not, doing the bidding of the biosecurity state. By maintaining and heightening the fear factor of the gain-of-function bogeyman, these influencers are creating fertile ground for future psychological “terror” campaigns.

How can we stop these popular but either deluded or deceitful actors from inadvertently—or purposely—promoting fear?

Or, more realistically, how can we help the hangers-on of these perceived “heroes” to stop giving credence to their claims—to stop automatically deferring to their opinions and advice?

One way is to show people that when they uncritically accept any statement as fact, regardless of the insubstantiality of the claim and the evidence that refutes the claim, they are operating on a level of superficial emotional reaction, are incapable of thinking critically or evaluating ideas rationally, and can be easily duped.

Each time an individual comes to understand that all facets of the official narrative of “Covid” are a fiction, that there was no “pandemic” and no “novel virus” and no “lab leak,” the world moves a step further from the lies and a step closer to the truth.

Connect with Health Freedom Defense Fund

Cover image credit: CDD20

Psychiatrists Attempt to Edit Childhood Out of Existence

by Citizens Commission on Human Rights UK
February 8, 2024

When it’s Children’s Mental Health Week, it’s ironic that attention isn’t actually focused on children’s mental health. Instead the focus is on mental illness and the host of psychiatric ‘disorders’ being used to label various aspects of childhood.

It would be more accurate to call it children’s mental illness week. Rather than label children mentally healthy, psychiatrists have for decades been unscientifically labelling them as mentally ill.

Through the redefinition of difficulties associated with the early years, psychiatrists have been editing childhood and adolescence out of existence. Challenging behaviour has gone under the psychiatric microscope, redefined, before being categorised as criteria for so-called mental ‘disorders.’

It’s an obsessive habit resulting in the regular use of meaningless and stigmatising psychiatric labels that can create even more difficulties for young people. Nothing appears to be off limits for editing psychiatrists.

Reading, writing and maths have been included in diagnostic manuals. They have been unscientifically classified as “impairment in reading,” “impairment in written expression” and “impairment in mathematics.”

The habit, which includes the use of labels like “ADHD” and “conduct disorder,” lead a young person down the road of mind-altering prescribed drugs. It demonstrates a focus on mental illness, not on mental health.

Children and adolescents are being chemically restrained, some for lengthy periods of time. Consequently, they experience the debilitating effects that go hand-in-hand with the drugs. The saddest and most tragic aspect of it all is some children don’t make it. They take their own lives after taking antidepressants known to cause suicidal thoughts and suicidal behaviour.

If psychiatric solutions worked, we wouldn’t keep hearing the psychiatric mantra that more and more children are suffering with mental illness. They fall into the category of having mental difficulties on the basis that boisterous or argumentative childhood behaviour has been redefined.

Parents who have lost their children have said they would never have let their children take the psychiatric drugs if they had been fully informed and knew the truth. It’s therefore vital we keep on beating the drum to expose damaging psychiatric habits.

In Children’s Mental Health Week, we must be reminded that children are not experimental animals. They are human beings who have every youthful right to expect protection, care, love and the chance to reach their full potential in life.

Connect with Citizens Commission on Human Rights United Kingdom

Cover image credit: titouhwayne

See Related:

New Diagnostic Manual With ADHD Listed Could Turn Childhood Into a Mental Disorder

Supply of Psychiatric Rhetoric Equals Demand for ADHD Drugs

The Corbett Report: The 7th Annual Fake News Awards

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

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
February 5, 2024

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

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



Read transcript and show notes…

Connect with The Corbett Report

Cutting, Pasting, Splicing DNA; Welcome to the New World—Oops, Full of Mistakes

 “I thought the technology was supposed to be perfect. What the hell is going on here?”

by Jon Rappoport
January 23, 2024

The bright new dawn of genetic engineering of life has a few problems. My, my.

Of course, the engineering companies pitching investors for money downplay the problems, and so do governments. Remember when Biden issued a release glorifying “overwriting cells of the body” (*) to achieve new breakthroughs in…something or other?

From Gene Watch UK, here are documented cases of genetic editing screw-ups. The language is technical, but you can grasp the essentials. Scientists are playing with fire.

“Petri et al. (2022) reported unintended genetic insertions and deletions in zebrafish following prime editing…Prime editing does not induce double stranded breaks and thus is often proposed to be safer than standard CRISPR/Cas systems. Nonetheless, integration of guide RNA derived DNA sequences was detected, showing that even using a technique without introducing foreign DNA, or double-stranded breaks, the technique does not rule out the potential for unintended insertion of exogenous DNA.”

“Tao et al. (2022) reported insertions of transposable elements in human cells in vitro following both standard CRISPR/Cas9 and prime editing systems, though these unintended changes were more common with CRISPR/Cas9 systems. Moreover, hundreds of integrated copies of vector plasmid DNA used to deliver the prime editing machinery were also detected…Moreover, insertions occurred at induced DNA breaks where CRISPR/Cas9 has been applied for controversial therapeutic editing…”

“Weiss et al. (2022) reported that in Arabidopsis plants, the DNA repair pathway chosen by the plant cells to repair the CRISPR-induced DNA breaks was influenced by the epigenetic status of the genome, including DNA methylation status… This in turn, influences the final mutational outcomes. This paper highlights limitations in relying on predictive tools that only take into consideration sequence information when trying to predict efficiency, specificity and mutational outcomes of genome editing. Bigger complexities beyond the level of the genome are also involved.”

“Höijer et al. (2022) reported large structural unintended on-target changes, including 4.8kb deletions to 1.4kn insertions, in zebrafish. This study showed the passing down of these mutations to the next generation.”

“Huang et al. (2022) reported that following CRISPR/Cas12 editing in fungal species, doublestranded breaks are repaired with multiple DNA repair pathways, each with different mutational profiles. This study highlights the lack of current understanding around the various DNA pathways that exist in various species, and how they may impact editing outcomes. Rather than being able to predict or even control CRISPR mutations outcomes as is often presented by GMO proponents, this study instead shows how CRISPR is being used in research to try to understand the basic mechanisms and complexities of DNA repair. Without a full understanding of the underlying science, assertions of precision and thus safety are unfounded.”

“Park et al. (2022) reported high levels of on-target unintended changes, when assessed using a new analytical tool that can sequence larger segments of the target site. Long range sequencing was able to detect a variety of changes including large deletions, highlighting the need for detailed analytical tools to assess on-target impacts.”

“Geng et al. (2022) report on-target unintended changes including genomic inversions, duplications, rearrangements and integration of exogenous DNA at the target-site in human cells, resulting in alterations in cell proliferation. This study highlights the potential impacts of unintended changes on target cell function, with implications for both edited plants and animals.”

But don’t worry, be happy. These genetic engineers all over the world may be bulls charging through shops shattering objects…but I’m sure they’ll eventually fix all their mistakes. Right?

For a final note—I’m not confident these genetic madmen even know what they’re playing with in the first place. When they see their errors, what are they really looking at? They make so many basic assumptions and guesses about DNA and genes, they could be operating in the dark, clueless and lost.

“Here’s a break in DNA where the repair after the cut failed.”

“Really? Are you sure that’s DNA?”

“It has to be.”

“Why?”

“Because if it isn’t, we have no idea what we’re doing.”

You know, THAT kind of thing.

The same kind of thing that happens when biologists trying to alter a virus fail to realize there isn’t any virus there…

These awesome problems can only be ignored in one way: by deciding that the 8 billion people on planet Earth are merely subjects in a vast ongoing experiment. And therefore have no reason to complain.

— Jon Rappoport

(*) FURTHER READING:

The Biden White House Executive Order: “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy” (September 12, 2022). The link to this EO is here. My comments on this EO are here—as a “breaking news” update—at the very beginning of this podcast.

See also this podcast: “DARPA/Pentagon research projects to create future humans,” here.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: OpenClipart-Vectors

“You Must Be an Anti-Semite”

by Paul Cudenec, The Acorn
January 15, 2024

If you think free speech is a really good thing

If you fear the future that censorship may bring

If you think Mark Zuckerberg is a pawn of the CIA

If you don’t believe whatever the western leaders say

If you march and chant “from the river to the sea”

If you say you’ll keep fighting until Palestine is free

There’s just one explanation, right there in black and white

You must be an antisemite, you must be an antisemite

These lyrics to a song by the brilliant David Rovics, from his new album Notes from a Holocaust, really put their finger on the way that a certain term has been instrumentalised to the point of utter absurdity in the interests of silencing dissent.

Over the last few months we have all got used to hearing that it is “anti-semitic” to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, that being anti-Zionist is the same thing as being “anti-semitic“, that “false equivalence” between murders of Jews and by Jews risks “anti-semitic effect“.

David Rovics is Jewish and, while that doesn’t stop him from being accused of being “anti-semitic“, it does at least help him to see through the fraudulent nature of the insult.

As we have reported previously in The Acorn, the smear has for many years been wielded as a weapon to stifle criticism not just of Israel, but of the global criminocracy in general.

And it’s about time that we all took a leaf out of the Rovics songbook and, while remaining alert to the toxic threat of actual anti-semitism and other prejudiced attitudes, called out this blatant gaslighting.

Is it really “anti-semitic” to write a booklet exploring the power and activities of the Rothschilds, while carefully stressing that this is being done despite rather than because of their Jewish identity?

Is it really “anti-semitic” to write about the enormous influence wielded by globalist financier George Soros, given that he is Jewish?

Is it really “anti-semitic” to criticise the financial excesses of Goldman Sachs in the light of the fact that it is “a Jewish firm founded by Jews”?

Is it really “anti-semitic” to continue to investigate the “transgender” industry, even when several prominent funders turn out to be Jewish?

Is it really “anti-semitic” to write and stage “a morality tale about modern capitalism, a story of greed and financial trickery that left countless ordinary people impoverished or homeless” if the central characters, the Lehman Brothers, are Jewish?

Is it really “anti-semitic” to paint a mural declaring that “The New World Order is the enemy of humanity”, in which some of the depicted criminocrats are Jewish – and is it really “anti-semitic” to defend that mural from attack?

Is it “anti-semitic” to suggest that if the definition of what is “anti-semitic” is expanded way beyond most people’s understanding of the term, it is hardly surprising that a “rise in anti-semitism” can subsequently be identified and further instrumentalised?

Is it “anti-semitic” to point out that the victims of this instrumentalisation will not only be the non-Jews whose honest opinions will be criminalised and silenced, but the Jews who will be frightened into clinging to the gaslighters for protection against a majority outside world that they have been tricked into imagining is opposed to them as individuals and communities, rather than to the global mafia that oppresses and manipulates Jews and non-Jews alike?

[Audio version]

Connect with Paul Cudenec Winter Oak website | substack

Cover image credit: geralt

A Nation of Non-Compliers

by Jeffrey A. Tucker, Brownstone Institute
January 6, 2024

The train wasn’t scheduled for another 20 minutes, so I had a chance to contemplate the official sign on the door of the huge elevator leading to the platform. It said that only four people are allowed in because we must all practice social distancing. There was a helpful map of the interior of the elevator with stick figures telling people exactly where to stand.

Yes, these stickers are still everywhere. I recall when they first went up, sometime in April 2020. They seemed oddly uniform and appeared even permanent. At the time I thought, oh, this is a huge error because within a few weeks, the error of the whole of this idiocy is going to be known by all. Sadly, my worst fears came true: it was designed to be a permanent feature of our lives.

Same with the strange arrows on the ground telling us which way to walk. They are still everywhere, stuck on the floor, an integral part of the linoleum. If you walk this way, you will infect people, which is why you have to walk that way, which is safe. As for masks, the mandates keep popping up in strange places and strange ways. My inbox fills with pleas for how people can fight this stuff.

The essential message of all these edicts: you are pathogenic, a carrier, poisonous, dangerous, and so is everyone else. Every human person is a disease vector. While it’s fine you are out and about, you must always create a little isolation zone around you such that you have no contact with other human beings.

It’s so odd that no dystopian book or novel ever imagined a plot centered on such a stupid and evil concept. Not even in 1984 or The Hunger Games, or The Matrix or Equilibrium, or Brave New World or Anthem, was it ever imagined that a government would institute a rule that all people in public spaces must stand six feet away in all directions from any other person.

That some government would insist on this was too crazy for even the darkest imaginings of the most pessimistic prognosticator. That 200 governments in the world, at roughly the same time, would go there was unimaginable.

And yet here we are, years after the supposed emergency, and while governments are not enforcing it, for the most part, many are still pushing the practice as the ideal form of human engagement.

Except that we are not doing it. In this train station, no one paid any attention to any of the signage. The exhortations were entirely ignored, even by those who are still masked up (and, one presumes, boosted seven times).

When the moment arrived for people to get into the elevator, a crowd began to pour in, quickly beyond four, then eight, then 12. I stood there shoulder to shoulder with fully 25 other people in one elevator with a sign that demanded only four people get in at any one time.

I sort of wanted to ask the crowd if they saw the sign and what did they think. But that would have been absurd, because, actually, no one even cares. In any case, one guy asking a crowded elevator such a question would have raised suspicions that I was deep state or something.

It was never clear in any case who was enforcing this. Who issued the rule? What are the penalties for not complying? No one ever said. Sure, there was in the past usually some flunky bureaucrat or Karen who yelled at people and said do this and don’t do that. But those people seem long ago to have given up.

It’s not even a thing anymore. And yet the signs still exist. Probably they will stay forever.

There is an enormous disjunction that still persists between what we are told to do and what we actually do. It’s as if incredulity toward official diktat is now baked into our daily lives. My first thought is that it doesn’t make much sense at all, even from the point of view of those who aspire to control our lives, to issue commands to which no one listens or obeys. On the other hand, there might be some meta-rationale for this, as if to say, “We are nuts, you know we are nuts, we know you know we are nuts, but we are in charge and can continue to do this anyway.”

In other words, edicts to which no one complies serve a certain purpose. They are a visual reminder of who is in charge, what those people believe, and the presence of a Sword of Damocles hanging above the whole population: at any point, anyone can be snatched away from normal life, made a criminal, and be forced to pay a price.

The nuttier the edicts, the more effective the message.

Thus do we live in insane times. There seems to be a huge and widening gulf separating the rulers from the ruled, and this gulf pertains to values, aims, methods, and even vision for the future. Whereas most of the population aspires to live a better life, we cannot shake the sense that someone out there who has more power than the rest of us aspires for us to be poorer, more miserable, more afraid, more dependent, and more compliant.

After all, we are just barely shaking off the most grandiose experiment in universal human control in the historical record, the attempt to micromanage the whole of everyone belonging to the human race in the name of gaining control over the microbial kingdom. The effort petered out over time but how in the heck does anyone with ruling-class power expect to maintain any credibility after such a destructive experiment?

And yet there is a reason we have heard precious few concessions that it was all bogus and unworkable, and why there is still a dripping sound of papers telling us that the whole scheme worked pretty well and that people who say otherwise are disseminators of disinformation. There are still publishing opportunities out there to trash repurposed generics and praise the shots and boosters. The power is still with the crazy people, not with those who question them.

And the people who threw themselves into Covid controls as the greatest years of their lives are still at it. Hardly a day goes by when there is not a freshly written hit piece on the resistance and efforts to trash those with enough sagacity to see through all the baloney. Far from being rewarded, those who protested and opposed are still living under a cloud that comes with being an enemy of the state.

We all know that it is not just about these dumb stickers and these virus controls. There is more going on. Coincident with the pandemic restrictions came the triumph of woke ideology, the intense push for EVs, and wild ramp-up in weather paranoia with the discovery that climates change, a rampant gender dysphoria and denial of chromosomal reality, an unprecedented refugee flood that no one in power is willing to mitigate, a continued attack on gas including even stoves, and a host of other inane things that are driving rational people to the brink of despair.

We long ago gave up the hope that all of this is random and coincidental, any more than it so happened that nearly every government in the world decided to plaster social distancing signs everywhere at the same time. Something is going on, something malevolent. The battle of the future really is between them and us but who or what “them” is remains opaque and too many of “us” are still confused about what the alternative is to what is happening all around us.

Noncompliance is an essential start regardless. That crowded elevator, assembling spontaneously in open defiance to the blasting signage, is a sign that something in the human longing to be free to make our own decisions, still survives. There are cracks in the great edifice of control.

Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Liberty or Lockdown, and thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Connect with Brownstone Institute

Cover image based on creative commons work of Mohamed_hassan & geralt

The Psychiatric Diagnostic Evaluation: Medical Expertise or Smoke And Mirrors?

By Lawrence Kelmenson, MD, Mad in America
November 21, 2023

Psychiatrists used to not put much effort into diagnosing. Instead, they focused on getting to and working on the issues in their clients’ lives that were upsetting them. But all that changed when the 1980 DSM came out. Since then, diagnosing mental disorders has been one of their main focuses (prescribing medicine being the other). People pay huge sums of money for psychiatrists’ expert opinions, and their diagnostic evaluations carry great weight in court, school, the workplace, and disability determinations. But is this truly warranted? Is a doctor really needed to make a psychiatric diagnosis, or can anyone do it?

Here are three points which support the idea that anyone can make a psychiatric diagnosis:

1. All the diagnostic criteria that psychiatrists learn in their training can be easily found on various websites. Therefore anyone can look up the criteria for diagnosing any mental illness and then conduct a do-it-yourself diagnostic evaluation.

2. It’s true that only trained doctors can perform physical exams and order lab tests, x-rays/scans, biopsies, etc.. And it’s true that only doctors are qualified to interpret their results. But these medical workups are only ever done to verify physical illness diagnoses, like cancer or diabetes. They are never done to diagnose mental illnesses. If a medical workup is ever done during a mental illness evaluation, it’s only to rule out a real (physical) illness.

3. If one examines the criteria for all the mental illness diagnoses, it becomes clear that identifying them doesn’t require any medical background or skill. For example, here are some criteria for diagnosing depression: diminished interest/pleasure in activities, indecisiveness, and feelings of worthlessness. First of all, these are not terms/concepts that only doctors are privy to. Secondly, they’re vague, subjective perceptions rather than objective, scientific facts. They’re in the eye of the beholder. Thus, any human could offer an opinion as to whether or not someone is experiencing them. Who’s to say which is the “right” opinion?

These are all excellent points.

But if a regular human such as you dares to take it upon yourself to perform a psychiatric diagnostic evaluation, you’ll be laughed at for your brazenness. You need a doctor’s official stamp of approval to make the diagnosis appear legitimate and valid. Doctors are greatly revered and trusted. Only if you tell others that a learned doctor diagnosed you with your mental illness, will it be viewed as a proven fact rather than a mere opinion. So even though psychiatrists don’t use any medical knowledge when making diagnoses, they do have MD degrees, and that’s enough.

Furthermore, for centuries psychiatrists have been designated by society to be the supreme authorities over several key areas: They decide who is insane and should be involuntarily committed and forcibly sedated. They also determine who is mentally unfit and should lose their right to manage their own lives. Perhaps these longstanding power roles have culturally imbued psychiatrists with an aura of superhuman capabilities which makes all their opinions far more important than a regular person’s. The common belief that psychiatrists have the intimidating ability to read and manipulate people’s minds may enhance this aura. Without necessarily being consciously aware of the aura, people may sense it, fear it, and be awed by it. They may thus be particularly likely to unquestioningly, submissively accept whatever their omniscient psychiatrist diagnoses and commands.

Psychiatry’s aura of superiority may be what enabled it to convince people that mental illnesses are real physical illnesses, even though they’re opposites: First psychiatry constructed a fantasy about emotional distress being a medically-treatable disease caused by a chemical imbalance or brain anomaly.Then it turned it into a reality just by proclaiming it to be true. It didn’t matter that 50 years of intensive research never found any chemical imbalances or brain anomalies. Nor did it matter that antidepressants were proven to be mere placebos(1). When psychiatry says something is true, that makes it true, no matter how illogical. And this isn’t the first time this was done: The diagnosis of hysteria was taken seriously for many centuries. It was another example of emotional distress being unfoundedly declared to be a medical condition. This time it was said to be caused by a wandering uterus, and the treatment was to coax it back into place(2).

Psychiatry would lose its power over people if its aura was removed, because nothing would be left but smoke and mirrors. People would lose faith in it (just as happened to the Wizard of Oz when his curtain was removed, revealing that he wasn’t a higher being but just a regular human). Psychiatry’s customers would then realize that they’re not defective and helpless as their doctor oppressively insists. They’d see that they’re actually capable of thinking for themselves in order to devise adaptive ways to solve their own problems. (The tin man, scarecrow, and lion made the same realization after their wizard was shown to be a fraud.) If this ever happens, then people will no longer feel compelled to follow the yellow brick road to a doctor’s office to have their painful feelings medicalized.

1. Kirsch, I. “The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding The Antidepressant Myth”, Basic Books, New York, 2010.

2. Wellesley, M “A Load Of Ballokis” London Review of Books, 23 April 2018.

Lawrence Kelmenson has practiced psychiatry for 32 years, working with children, adults, and families. He graduated medical school from State University of New York, and completed psychiatric residency training at Cornell. He then became staff psychiatrist, and later medical director, of Craig House Hospital in Beacon, New York until 2000, and has since conducted a psychotherapy-based private practice in Cold Spring, New York.

Connect with Mad in America

Cover image credit: Conmongt

The Trump Thing

by Larken Rose
November 14, 2023



View video at Larken Rose Bitchute & Youtube channels. Mirrored at Odysee & Brighteon.

Transcript prepared by TCTL:

Hey, Larken Rose here, and whether you completely despised Donald Trump or totally adored Donald Trump, you’ll probably be offended by this video either way. Because the two sides, the sides that are going, ‘Rah, rah, rah’, put him on the throne. And the side that’s going, ‘anybody but him on the throne’ are falling for the exact same game. And it’s worth explaining the phenomenon and how, oddly enough, both sides are examples of — they’re driven by good intentions but they’re driven into playing an inherently, immoral and destructive game known as politics.

Now the thing that the leftist media just has complete tantrums about is the same thing that makes a lot of people like Donald Trump. It isn’t principle because he doesn’t have any. It isn’t being pro-freedom because he isn’t.

It’s the fact that he doesn’t appear as a normal politician. He speaks with disdain and disrespect towards a bunch of power-happy psychos. And lots of people like that and go ‘Rah, rah, rah’ about that, as well they should.

I think, accidentally, the best thing Trump is doing is tearing down the apparent respectability of the entire system. I don’t at all mind that he talks down to them and constantly insults them. What’s kind of hysterical is that anybody imagines that he’s any different. He isn’t. He’s one more clown in the clown show.

But I wanted to at least give a little sympathy to the people falling for the Trump pitch because most of them are doing a common thing that a lot of people did. I remember doing it myself with Ross Perot. It shows how old I am. Basically imagining into his words things that I wanted him to believe in. Things, agendas that I wanted him to push, whether it matched or not.

So lots of people love Trump because they picture him as an outsider, which he’s not. They picture him as anti-establishment, which he’s not. And they hallucinate that he’s in favor of freedom, which he isn’t.

But the fact that he talks down to them and is insulting, and is sort of funny in the process, and you so rarely see that among politicians, that excites a bunch of people. Like, ‘Yeah, you tell ’em!’. And they’re not — they’re just emotionally riled up because they’re so sick of the lukewarm tomato soup BS crew — that both parties have cranked out as politicians for decades and decades and decades and decades — that by comparison, they think, here’s Trump, he says it like it

Well, no, he doesn’t, but he says it bluntly and insultingly. And that’s refreshing to a lot of people, which is kind of weird and kind of understandable. Because the fake respectability that politics has received for so long, including in the mainstream or formerly mainstream media, is sickening. Like we’re supposed to treat these people like, oh, there are lords and masters and they’re above reproach. And no, there are a bunch of corrupt, lying psychos. And the fact that Trump points that out and says so, gets a lot of people excited. And then they want to believe that he is fundamentally different, even though he’s not and he’s never given any reason to think he’s fundamentally different. Because he isn’t.

He openly adores literal dictators. He single-handedly pushed the worst federal gun control in my lifetime by telling the lawyers, not even going through Congress, something that conservatives would have flipped out if a Democrat president did this. Which is ‘I’m just going to tell the lawyers rewrite the definition of machine gun and make it include bump stocks. So now I’m just making several hundred thousand Americans into felons overnight by changing the wording of a regulation. Because I said so.’ That’s what Trump did. And if Biden had done that, all of the conservatives would have flipped out. But their own favorite clown did it. So they’re like, ‘Well, he was bullied into it or he had to or it’s not that serious. It’s just bump stocks.’ They make excuses for it, which is exactly what the other side does.

So if you’re going ‘Rah, rah, rah’ for Trump, because you think he’s anti-establishment, I commend you for being anti-establishment. I can’t commend you for being very observant because he’s not anti-establishment. He appointed all the same warmongers. He appointed all the same bankers, all the same parasitic control freaks. And he talks a little bit different.

Donald Trump IS professional wrestling. And he’s literally been involved in professional wrestling. He was the thing that they brought in to get attention back on politics because nobody cared. You have a bunch of lukewarm, boring politicians on both sides. Nobody was paying attention. Nobody cared. Voter rolls were going way down. They needed to shake it up by fabricating a fake drama.

So in comes Donald Trump with all his bluster and bravado and arrogance — and just all the qualities — including the ones that were sort of good? — which is that he dared to bash the system. I mean, he did it sort of incoherently and inconsistently. But at least he showed them, he showed them libtards by calling out how horrible they really are. Yeah, good for him.

Here’s the problem. Literally, every single historical tyrant you can think of, rose to power by bashing an injustice that was there before them. And in almost every case, it was a real injustice. You know, Hitler was right to condemn the — like the Treaty of Versailles and the way Germany had been treated after World War I and stuff like that. That was a just complaint. And that’s why people said, ‘Rah, rah, rah, we want him’. They didn’t say ‘Rah, rah, rah, we want him to kill a bunch of people or, like, bring in fascism and violently dominate everyone’. They went ‘Rah, rah, rah’ because they were so sick of what was happening, that if somebody came along who pretended to be something different, they didn’t bother looking closely at what he was actually proposing. Well, as long as he’s against that thing that we all don’t like.

And the same thing with the czars in Russia and the Soviet Union, and Mao and the feudal lords or whatever you want to call them in China, and the injustice there. We’re going to bring in communism to save the day. Every single time tyrants come to power, it’s because they’re bashing, usually rightfully bashing, some past injustice, or present injustice when they’re in the process of bashing it. That’s all Trump did.

And people were so sick of the liberal collectivist establishment that they decided, well, the enemy of my enemy must be my friend. And they didn’t bother. It was so much wishful thinking. They didn’t bother looking closely and realize Trump is literally a New York liberal. And he’s been pretty open about that. He’s literally buddies with the Clintons and that whole crowd. And he knows how to put on a show, à la professional wrestling, literally being involved in professional wrestling.

He knows how to put on a show to get people’s attention by bashing his enemies — the ones he pretends are his enemies and totally aren’t. ‘Lock her up. Lock her up.” Then the moment he’s elected. ‘Well, she’s been through enough.’ He never meant a word of it. He didn’t care. He’s buddies with them. He puts on a show and you fall for it because you’re eager to have somebody in power who’s against the establishment. So eager that you’ll ignore everything he actually says and actually does.

And what he proposed and did was slight tinkerings with the authoritarian game, adding some here, pretending to oppose authoritarianism over here — to the point where people are going, ‘Rah, rah, rah’, he’s putting tariffs on a bunch of things. ‘Yeah, he’s really sticking it to China.’

The US government can’t tax China. Do you understand that? The US government cannot tax China.

If there is trade between people in China and the US, they can tax the transaction going to the American or coming from the American. Tariffs are taxes on Americans. Always. You can’t tax foreign countries. Wnd you can say, ‘Well, it’s an import tax’. Yeah, who’s importing it? The people here! You import something from China when you’re already here. To stick a tax on that or to stick attacks on exports, you’re taxing Americans.

So you had a bunch of people going, ‘Rah, rah, rah, hooray for Trump because he’s taxing us more’. And they didn’t recognize that, because they were so into the mentality of ‘at least he’s anti-establishment and he’s against China and he’s against Russia and he’s against the libtards’. And no, he’s just one more person playing the game. And that’s why Trump is Trump. It’s because he is a very good bullshitter. Well, I can’t even say he’s very good at that. He’s just convincing enough to have gotten his way in a lot of different ways throughout his life, and to dupe a bunch of people into thinking he’s pro-freedom.

What has he said that’s pro-freedom? ‘I believe in taking guns first and going through due process second.’ What would your reaction have been if Biden said, ‘Yeah, we’re going to disarm you first and then maybe we’ll do due process second’? All conservatives would have flipped out. Donald Trump said that, live and in front of a bunch of cameras. What was your excuse? And that was talking about the red flag laws where, ‘Oh, some anonymous somebody said this person might be a danger. Let’s send in armed thugs of the state to violently disarm that person and then later we’ll go through due process and see if it was at all necessary or justified.’ That was the context. That is 100% anti-constitution, anti-second amendment and pro-dictatorship. Where you start by forcibly disarming people. Later we’ll decide whether we should have.

And so many conservatives go, ‘Well, yeah, but the other side is worse’. And that’s the problem. If you’re not thinking in terms of principles, then all they have to do to get you to cheer for a warmongering power-happy psycho is run him against the slightly worse warmongering power-happy psycho. Or what appears to you as slightly worse. And that’s why people fell for it.

And so the good news is that the enthusiasm behind Trump demonstrated sort of an inherent rebelliousness in Americans. They didn’t want the established –the establishment. They didn’t want the status quo. And here was a guy coming out and pretending to bash it. They were, ‘Rah, rah, rah. Yeah, you tell him.’ And there was so much wishful thinking. They didn’t bother to look closely at what he was actually doing, which was just more of the same. It’s more of what the puppets have always done. Authoritarian garbage.

Yeah, he kept the bombing going. He kept the war going. ‘Well, he didn’t start any new wars.’ Like how far are you going to stretch to pretend he’s a good person who believes in good things.

It’s like, oh, well, yeah, that carjacker, he’s still stealing cars, but he’s only stealing cars from the same people he stole from before. So it’s good. He’s awesome. He’s a great improvement. We support that carjacker. That’s the equivalent of what Trump supporters did.

So for Trump supporters, I would say, don’t give up your rebelliousness. Don’t give up your resentment and hatred for the establishment and the status quo because they totally deserve it. Don’t give up your resentment for the socialist BS that they’re trying to impose on you. But instead of just letting your emotions carry you away, look who you’re actually supporting. And ultimately, what that comes down to is, don’t support anybody being on the throne.

If you believe in freedom, bickering over which jackboot’s going to be on your throat or which clown is going to sit on the throne, that’s not freedom. That’s not in the direction of freedom at all. Your brain isn’t even in the direction of freedom. If the entire discussion you can comprehend is which crook should we put on the throne? The only pro-freedom answer is ‘none’. Don’t have there be a throne.

And I know that’s passed what most people want to think about right now. But in the case of Trump, he doesn’t even do a… like Reagan did a really good job in his rhetoric of bashing authoritarianism, and coming right out and saying government is not the solution, government is the problem. And saying all sorts of cool things like that. And then whether he knew it ahead of time or he was sort of cajoled or tricked into it, he supported the insane evil completely unconstitutional war on drugs.

So gee whiz, one of the best spokespeople for limited government ever, to ever make it to the White House, increased authoritarian domination. And so did Trump. And so will everybody who ever gets there. Because you’re not going to get anywhere near there if you actually, in principle, oppose authoritarianism.

And so it’s sad to watch so many people’s hopes and enthusiasm be thrown into the Trump camp as if that is the path to freedom. No, it’s not. Look more carefully. Don’t support what you blindly wish he was. See what he actually is. See what he’s actually done. See what he’s actually said. Watch what he did in his first for years in there. And then recognize that you’re not pro-freedom.

And the fact that you’re zealously against Biden, because he’s a senile old socialist psychopath — good, keep being against that. And be against that in principle, which also means being against Trump, who also push the free handouts that caused the inflation. Yes. And he did it first. And he was smart enough to do it when he knew the inflation would hit after he wasn’t there anymore. Trump did it, then Biden did it, then the inflation hit. Trump was pushing for bigger socialist handouts after that ridiculous debacle. He was also with his, with his lispy… he was pushing the same crap.

It was under his administration that that slimy little troll Fauci was pushing the propaganda. What did he do? Well, you half the time, sort of pretended, to almost be against it. That cannot be. You can’t make it that easy to trick you into cheering for your own subjugation and victimization and then be baffled by why we aren’t free.

We’re not free because you fall for crap like that. You think Trump is pro-freedom when he hasn’t even pretended to be. And Vivek Ramaswamy, however the hell you say his name, he’s the next salesman of pro-freedom authoritarianism. He’s actually way better at it than Trump as far as trying to express actual principles, but he doesn’t have any. He’s absolutely a statist authoritarian. And he’s doing the same thing of ‘I’m going to bash certain forms of authoritarianism that I think you’re against and you’re opposed to’. So you go, ‘Rah, rah, rah. Put him on the throne.’ And then you’re sort of going to downplay or ignore it when he mentions all the authoritarian domination that he’s in favor of. You’re bickering over what style of fascism you want imposed on you, instead of thinking from principle.

So as for your rah, rah, rah, anti-establishment — good, keep doing that. Only actually do it. Actually do it consistently. Not by supporting Trump, another puppet in the clown show, but by actually supporting principles that don’t match what any politician is ever going to tell you.

If you’re still looking for a political solution, you’re doomed.

So having bashed the Trump supporters, let me focus on the political left and Trump derangement syndrome. And that totally is a thing where they completely flip out. And the irony is they’re flipping out at somebody pretending to be anti-establishment who isn’t. So both sides are pretending that, ‘Ah, this is this radical, extreme change.’ No, it isn’t. Not in any way, shape or form was Trump radical on anything ever. He was this lukewarm, you know, finger to the wind, constantly seeing what would get him approval and him praise and him money. That’s all he has ever cared about.

And anyone paying any attention should be able to see that Trump cares about Trump. Nope, that’s the whole list. Just Trump. That’s all he gives a shit about is himself, his glory, his power, his money. He makes that as obvious as anybody could possibly make it. Like, could the narcissism and ego be any more obvious and blatant than the way he openly talks in front of the cameras. And if you’re trying to imagine him to be an advocate for principles instead of just an advocate for Trump, that’s just your imagination. That’s just your wishful thinking.

But let’s get back to the opponents of Trump who completely flip out at things that aren’t even significantly different. And they have to do that. They have to have tantrums at Trump because what are they even going to pretend to be for? Biden? This senile old corrupt racist? By the way, there’s way more of a basis to call Biden a racist than Trump. Like by a lot. If you look at the legislative history of what Biden has actually voted for and pushed, yeah, there’s a whole lot more basis to actually call him racist than, ‘oh, Trump has lots of white supporters. So he must be a white supremacist’ or some stupid logic like that. I have plenty of complaints against Trump, but him being a racist is like the dumbest.

That’s just the accusation they throw at everybody they don’t like. ‘You’re racist and a fascist.’ He is kind of a fascist and he openly adores dictators. So there’s that. But the racist part, you just made up.

Biden, there’s even less of an attempt to pretend he has any principles. He doesn’t believe in anything except the political machine. It’s all he’s ever been. He’s a cog in the wheel, in that giant machine of evil domination and parasitism known as the federal government. That is what Biden is. And they’ve gotten away with it so long that they take corruption… They’re not even trying anymore. Like Hunter and the stuff he’s been doing. Just so blatantly obvious. Like they didn’t even try to hide it because they thought they’d get away with it. And they knew, probabl, that the media was going to cover for them, which they did. The media lied their asses off to try to cover corruption.

And that’s the dead giveaway. Whether you’re talking about the media or just leftists in general supporting Biden, if they can do things that obviously corrupt and evil. and you’re going to look the other way because ‘well that other guy is even worse’, not only are you just as bad as the people who fell for Trump’s BS, you’re the same thing. You’re the exact same thing.

Trump supporters and Biden supporters are mirror images of each other. They’re both supporting old crooked, slimy, corrupt, power-happy, half senile, slime balls. And their excuse is, ‘Well, the other one is even worse’. Well gee, how did we get to a point where, like, two of the worst people in the world are the choices for president of the United States? And before that, it was Hillary versus Trump.

How do you think we get to the point where 300 and some million people are told to choose between the wicked witch of the west in Hillary and this egomaniac, arrogant lying piece of boop, Trump? Why is that what ended up? Because you keep falling for it. You keep voting for corrupt crooks and doing the comparison game and saying, well he’s not as bad as the other guy, so I’m going to vote for him.

Now, what I’m actually scared of is someone coming along who doesn’t suck at propaganda. And Trump is good at propaganda for an unthinking, emotion driven, angry audience that’s just so mad at the left, which I can understand. You should be left. They’re evil in doing evil things. But they’re so emotionally angry that they’re like, ‘Anybody who’s on our side say how bad they are. Good, you have our support’. Okay. Well, who is he? What does he believe? Well, he’s a self-absorbed narcissist who doesn’t believe in anything except himself. Yeah, that’s going to turn out great.

But the liberals who are just constantly having tantrums, and like obsessed with January 6th. It’s one of the funniest and saddest things I’ve ever seen. ‘January 6th, oh we have to have hearings about it.’ It was a tantrum. It was a frat party tantrum. And they’re talking of this, ‘Oh, this was an attempt to overthrow the government’. No, when there’s an attempt to overthrow the government, you’ll know it because they’ll show up with guns. And they won’t stay between the velvet ropes. But they have to blow it ridiculously out of proportion. Because what else do they have? It’s like, well, our guy is, we don’t know what he thinks. You can’t form a complete sentence. So there’s a problem with that. And even before that, there was never a principle. It was just he, he changed his positions on everything. You can go back and see the videos of Biden floundering on literally every single thing — because he’s going to say whatever he thinks will get him votes and get him public support because that’s what politicians do, including Trump.

So the political left, all they have is hatred of Trump. That’s all they have to hang on to. And it’s not like they know that on a conscious level. But, subconsciously, none of them are like Biden, he’s so brave and principled and he really cares. Nobody believes that. Nobody believes that. Biden is never… And same thing with Kamala, that babbling, cackling imbecile. Nobody believes she gives a crap about anybody but herself. Like, they’re not even putting up good actors in this puppet show anymore. And some people are still falling for it. Thankfully a lot of people aren’t.

Now let me try to give a little bit more credit to the political left, which, man, that takes a serious effort sometimes. But they look at Trump and say, ‘Oh, he’s going to start World War III’. It’s like, well, we’re on the way to World War III and who’s is in the White House now? When people are that scared — like when people are told over and over again, he’s a racist and a fascist and all these horrible things and they don’t bother to check — you can see the outcome. There’s tons of conservative pundits who do interviews with angry liberals and go like, ‘Okay, can you give me example of his racism?’. Dead silence. No example. They have no idea. They just heard other people say it about them. And that’s been true of the political left forever. And now they throw the label, racist and fascist at everybody. I mean, look at Trudeau up in Canada, which is just laughably stupid. ‘So, you don’t like us destroying your lives? Well then you’re misogynist and a racist and fascist’ to the truckers. What are you talking about? We just didn’t want you ruining our livelihoods. How did that get — and how did like homophobe get in there? Like, yeah, you must hate gay people because you want to earn a living. Okay. Not sure how many flying leaps of logic it takes to get that from there to there.

But they’ve become so desperate it’s ridiculous. All they have is throwing the labels. The thing is their followers believe it. When they get terrified. And so you get ridiculous spectacles like the Antifa, which is short for anti-fascist, which is kind of ironic because they’re the most fascist movement there is in this country. Literally, ‘we’re going to violently’ — they use the exact tactics of Hitler’s brown shirts. ‘We’re going to violently attack people, try to silence anybody who disagrees with us and label them as horrible evil people’. It’s just ridiculous because they don’t think in principles either.

What I would really ask people to do, and I know it’s a big ask because it requires people turning down their fricking emotions long enough to think, be clear in your own head about what it is that you actually want. What do you actually want? If policy were up to you. You’re the king on the throne now and they decided, yeah, these candidates are all horrible. They’re taking you and you’re putting on the throne. You can do whatever you want. What are you going to do? Is it freedom? Is it using the violence of the state to control people and limit what they can say and do? Is it using the violence of the state to rob everybody to fund a welfare state or to fund a huge military and a police force?

Whatever you want to do to the people, if you had the power, that’s what they’re going to do to you. Because you’re not going to be the one on the throne. It’s going to be somebody else. If you supported having a throne, and the amount of power that you would have used on people, and then it gets used on you and you complain about it, you’re a giant freaking hypocrite. If you’re a Republican, you’re a giant freaking hypocrite. If you’re a Democrat, you’re a giant freaking hypocrite. Because what every single statist does is say, ‘I want government force used to impose my values and my preferences and serve my interests by way of government power’. Then the next day they’re saying, ‘Hey, no fair, they’re using government power to force their interests and their priorities and their values and their preferences on to me’. Well, gee frickin’ whiz, that’s what the game is, the game that you agreed to, the game that you supported.

And this is a point I’ve made before. I’ll end on this. There is no such thing as political corruption, or I should say it’s redundant. Political corruption is redundant. There isn’t any other kind of politics.

The people who use the violence of government and call it politics to get what they want at the expense of other people’s freedom and prosperity, they call it “a representative republic doing the will of the people”. And the people on the losing end who say, ‘Hey, that’s not what I wanted’ and ‘You’re using their violence against my interests and my values. That’s corruption!’. They’re the ones who are right.

The fact that you might be the recipient, the beneficiary, from corruption doesn’t make it not corruption. Corruption is all politics and government will ever be. It’s all it can ever be.

Fricking George Washington said it. Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force.

When you try to vote a person in, it’s because you want them to use force to force your agenda and your preferences onto the rest of the world. And then you act all shocked and offended when they do the same thing to you. And if you win, you go, ‘Yeah, we’ll show them. We’ll forcibly control them’. A few years later, they win and you’re going, ‘Hey, they’re forcibly controlling us’. Shut up. Until you advocate freedom for everybody, just shut the hell up.

If you’re supporting Trump, you’re supporting authoritarian mass extortion and domination. If you’re supporting Biden, you’re supporting mass authoritarian extortion and domination.

If you’re on the losing end of the game, tough crap, you deserve it because you legitimized that game. You said it was okay. You said you wanted that. You just wanted the violence used in a different direction so that you’d win and they would lose, instead of them winning and you losing.

The thing is, there’s only one way for humanity to win, which is stop advocating violent authoritarian domination. And that means do not support Trump. Do not support Biden. Do not support Vivek or DeSantis or any other clown that says, ‘If you give me power, I will do the right thing with it’. No, they won’t ever. Have they ever? No. And you can point to a thing. ‘Well, he did slightly less abuse’. Oh, goody. We got a slave master who only whips us half as much as the slave master before. Is that any closer to freedom? No. On a practical level. Okay, we’re suffering a little bit less. Rah, rah, rah. That doesn’t make you free. Just means your master is a little bit nicer to you.

And this is something that a lot of people, Trump supporters, Biden supporters, everybody else, they need to recognize that their own goodness is being used to trick them into supporting evil with them as the victim of it. You are supporting your own extortion and subjugation every time you vote, every time you rah, rah, rah, for any political candidate. I don’t care what party. And it’s really frustrating to watch.

Once you’re outside of the game and you recognize how it works, it’s frustrating to watch a bunch of well-intentioned people on both sides, screaming at the top of their lungs how much their guy needs to wield basically unlimited power to boss people around and take their stuff. And they don’t get that the politicians are just sitting back, they’re laughing their asses off, probably hanging out and having parties together like Trump and the Clintons used to. They don’t care. They’re both getting your money. They’re both controlling you while you bicker and hate each other.

And if you actually want something different, Trump isn’t it. Biden certainly isn’t it. If you actually want something different, you have to be able to comprehend something different than bickering over which clown is going to be on the throne for the next how many years.

So yeah, if you want freedom, you have to change what’s inside your own head. Because if you’re playing politics, you don’t even want freedom. You’re not even advocating freedom yourself. And if you expect government to advocate freedom when none of the people voting for it, including you, believe in freedom, you’re going to be waiting a while — like forever.

So I guess that’s about it. By the way, if you want sort of a rude slap in the face, fun allegory, fun and disturbing and traumatic allegory of how the political system actually works and what people are falling for, I highly recommend you watch The Jones Plantation at jonesplantationfilm.com.

I’m not saying either of you are bad people. I mean, yeah, there’s some bad people out there. Most Republicans, most Democrats, they mean well. They think they’re doing the right thing and they’re empowering evil in the process without even knowing it.

So my question to you is, do you care enough to pause long enough to reexamine your own assumptions and your own words and your own beliefs and your own actions to see if you might be accidentally empowering evil? Because you are.

Connect with Larken Rose  BitChute | Youtube

Watch The Jones Plantation at jonesplantationfilm.com

Cover image credit: SarahRichterArt

See Related:



Voluntaryism: Candles in the Dark

Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion

You Can’t Win. Don’t Even Try!

How Vanguard Conquered the World 

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
September 25, 2023

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

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

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

The Rise of Vanguard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Owns the Shares?

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, OK, then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vanguard, BlackRock and the Shadows of Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He’s not wrong there, at least.

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

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

Connect with The Corbett Report

Cover image credit: geralt

How BlackRock Conquered the World

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
September 18, 2023

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

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



Watch on BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble

Transcript

Hey! Let’s play a little game.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s fill in that gap in public understanding.

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

Chapter 1: A Brief History of BlackRock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Laurence Fink Talks investing and Blackrock Culture 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As William Engdahl details in his own exposé of BlackRock:

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

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

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

And the rest, as they say, is history.

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

Chapter 2: Going Direct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s find out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The numbers themselves tell the story of Aladdin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

NOW – BlackRock HQ in NYC stormed with pitchforks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And in Coca-Cola:

And in Moderna:

And in Exxon:

And in Amazon:

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

Oh, of course.

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

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

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

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

***

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

Connect with James Corbett — website — substack

Cover image based on creative commons work of davevs & LN_Photoart

Dr. Rima Laibow: Monstrous Sexualization of Children and Colonization by Mind Control

by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, International Crimes Investigative Committee
September 10, 2023



Dr. Rima Laibow, M.D. is a graduate of Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1970) who believes passionately in the right of Americans to choose their own health paths. She has practiced drug-free, natural medicine for 50 years by seeking the underlying cause of every illness and ailment and treating that root cause.

In 2002 one of her patients from a very rich family told her about detailed plans from her circles for a new world order (NWO). This also included the reduction of the world population by 90%, because they would be “useless eaters”. Based on these stories, Dr. Laibow began to do research on these topics.

In 2004 she founded the “Natural Solutions Foundation” together with her late husband, an organization dedicated to health through food and freedom.

Her websites: http://drrimatruthreports.com and http://preventgenocide2030.org.

In this episode of ICIC, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and co-host Attorney Dagmar Schön talk with Dr. Rima Laibow, a psychiatrist and specialist in child & adolescent psychiatry in the US, about the untrustworthy and demonstrably long-planned agenda of a psychopathic minority of self-proclaimed elites who stop at no crime to achieve their inhuman goals.

In their dangerous megalomania to decimate humanity by 95% and to keep the rest under their totalitarian control like cattle and to abuse them as they see fit, they do not even stop at the cruelest violence against the weakest members of our society, the children.

If it’s possible to indoctrinate all children worldwide using mind control and MK-Ultra programs with early sexualization, uprooting and identity confusion, which they incorporate into all areas of our daily lives, and to poison them by means of so-called vaccinations and in the worst case by gene-altering, experimental injections to damage their DNA, it will be easy in the future to manipulate and control humanity and to eradicate the qualities that make up being human, such as love, compassion, friendship, social connectedness.

Thus, the “useless eaters” who, in their view, burden the planet to which they have issued a sole claim, should disappear. Useful slaves, without human characteristics, created in laboratories in the best case, shall be available for them, without feelings and without polluting the planet unnecessarily and wasting resources.

Dr. Laibow speaks clearly using plain words to expose it all, and bring into the light of day this terrible plan which the power-hungry and their henchmen, who she calls “monsters”, have subtly forged under the guise of private organizations like the WHO, EU, UN, Unicef and Unesco etc., which were founded especially for this purpose. It does not gloss over anything, and points out the impending dangers to our existence and that of our children and our children’s children.

We as sentient beings, as people with strength, creativity, courage and a sense of justice must no longer remain silent in the hope that ‘it’ will eventually pass and we will be able to live a normal life again, because it was not normal before either, only that it could not be perceived due to the brainwashing and drug treatments. But now that we have seen it clearly, what has been done to us just in the last three years and they are waiting in the wings again with panic and torture, we have to stand up and protectively put ourselves in front of our children.

Dr. Laibow advises everyone to declare loud and clear, “Don’t you dare lay a hand on our children, and don’t you dare try to control our lives!”

This is the language that they understand and it is the power of community and cohesion that we need to hunt down these ‘monsters’ and hold them accountable.

Connect with Reiner Fuellmich and ICIC telegram | Odysee | Rumble | website

Cover image credit: Alexas_Fotos

Sweden: New Dystopian DIGITAL ID

Now people need a phone with a camera and NFC to register their new digital ID

by Peter Imanuelsen, The Freedom Corner
September 10, 2023

Do you remember when people were called “conspiracy theorists” for warning about the covid passports? Turns out that those who warned about them were correct!

The same people have now been warning for quite some time about digital ID, and with good reason.

In Scandinavia, we have already had digital ID for a long time. People need it to be able to do everyday tasks like online banking, buying things online and much more.

Now, the digital ID system in Sweden called “BankID” is getting a few changes regarding security.

When setting up your digital ID, people can be asked to have passport or national ID card available.

The way it works is that you have to have a smartphone with a camera and NFC contactless reader built in.

When setting up the new digital ID, you simply take a picture of the photo on your passport or ID card, then you “touch” the phone against the passport or ID to scan the contactless NFC chip – And boom you have verified your digital ID.

Yes, Swedish passports have a contactless NFC chip built into them. So when you use your phone to scan your passport it confirms your identity.

You can watch the video on how Swedish people have to set up their digital ID in this video from Swedbank.



Have you ever wondered what digital ID really is and the real plan behind this agenda?

It is all about control. Imagine a world where we have central bank digital currencies. Everyone needs a digital ID to access their digital wallet.

Imagine how easy it is for the state to control everything people do and buy.

In fact, there is already a Swedish company that has technology to track your purchases and calculate your C02 emissions. Many banks are already using this technology to inform people of their carbon emissions based on what they buy. In other words, tracking your purchases.

If you haven’t already, make sure to read my in-depth article on the TRUTH about the digital ID.

The truth about digital ID 

But it gets worse!

During covid, some people even used their implanted microchips for their covid passports, meaning they just scanned their hands to show up their “green” covid passport status.

This is scary stuff.

You can read my article on this here:

 People are now paying with microchips in their hand.

Connect with Peter Imanuelsen

Cover image credit: PixxlTeufel

Did BlackRock, Vanguard, or StateStreet Have Anything to Do With the Hawaii Fires?

by Nutritruth

Did BlackRock, Vanguard, or StateStreet have anything to do with the Hawaii fires?

Jeff Bezos, Oprah Winfrey, Jimmy Buffett and Nvidia cofounder Jensen Huang are among the billionaires with land or homes on Hawaii’s second-largest island.

Lots of money will be dedicated towards “rebuilding”.

Did they just reset an area for a Smart City?

Jeff Bezos alone established a $100 million Maui Fund to “help Maui get back on its feet now and over the coming years.”

The top institutional investors of Amazon are BlackRock & Vanguard…

So very nice of them… :/

Connect with NutriTruth

Cover image credit: United States National Guard

Helen Joyce on Transgenderism, Ideology and Reality

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
September 1, 2023

There’s a real hesitancy to dive into certain topics, especially the ones that go against what most people think or believe.

This is clear when it comes to talking about gender identity and the idea that ‘trans women are women’ and, more specifically, that men and women can switch genders.

• ‘Trans’ women are not women (and vice-versa).
• Men and women can’t switch genders.

To be clear, there are two genders, and gender and sex are the same thing.

Delving into the postmodernist mindset, words are seen as creating reality.

This perspective is dangerous, discourages debate and promotes a culture of ‘no debate’ in which reality is dismissed outright without consideration. This approach stifles the pursuit of truth and prevents meaningful dialogue.

Furthermore, the concept of ‘sex assigned at birth’ is not only misleading, it’s nonsensical.

Sex is determined at conception and is not something that can be assigned or changed.

As an example, the societal implications of the ‘trans’ movement, particularly in relation to sports, are concerning. The fairness of allowing men, who ‘identify’ as women, to compete in women’s sports is a slippery slope. It is obviously not fair to allow a man, pretending to be a woman, to enter a boxing ring to fight against a woman.

It is based on a moral stance that prioritises the inclusion of ‘trans’ individuals over the integrity of women’s sports.

And it ultimately harms women.

In fact, it harms everything.

Helen Joyce is a journalist and author of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality.



Connect with Jerm Warfare

Cover image credit: ArtificialArtist

We the Targeted: How the Government Weaponizes Surveillance to Silence Its Critics

by John & Nisha Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
August 29, 2023

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

— President Harry S. Truman

Ever since Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his groundbreaking “I Have a Dream” speech during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on Aug. 28, 1963, the Deep State has been hard at work turning King’s dream into a living nightmare.

The end result of the government’s efforts over the past 60 years is a country where nothing ever really changes, and everyone lives in fear.

Race wars are still being stoked by both the Right and the Left; the military-industrial complex is still waging profit-driven wars at taxpayer expense; the oligarchy is still calling the shots in the seats of government power; and the government is still weaponizing surveillance in order to muzzle anti-government sentiment, harass activists, and terrorize Americans into compliance.

This last point is particularly disturbing.

Starting in the 1950s, the government relied on COINTELPRO, its domestic intelligence program, to neutralize domestic political dissidents. Those targeted by the FBI under COINTELPRO for its intimidation, surveillance and smear campaigns included: Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, the Black Panther Party, John Lennon, Billie Holiday, Emma Goldman, Aretha Franklin, Charlie Chaplin, Ernest Hemingway, Felix Frankfurter, and hundreds more.

In more recent decades, the powers-that-be have expanded their reach to target anyone who opposes the police state, regardless of their political leanings.

Advances in technology have enabled the government to deploy a veritable arsenal of surveillance weapons in order to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” perceived threats to the government’s power.

Surveillance cameras mounted on utility poles, traffic lights, businesses, and homes. License plate readers. Ring doorbells. GPS devices. Dash cameras. Drones. Store security cameras. Geofencing and geotracking. FitBits. Alexa. Internet-connected devices. Geofencing dragnets. Fusion centers. Smart devices. Behavioral threat assessments. Terror watch lists. Facial recognition. Snitch tip lines. Biometric scanners. Pre-crime. DNA databases. Data mining. Precognitive technology. Contact tracing apps.

What these add up to is a world in which, on any given day, the average person is now monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

Consider just a small sampling of the ways in which the government is weaponizing its 360 degree surveillance technologies to flag you as a threat to national security, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong.

Flagging you as a danger based on your feelings. Customs and Border Protection is reportedly using an artificial intelligence surveillance program that can detect “sentiment and emotion” in social media posts in order to identify travelers who may be “a threat to public safety, national security, or lawful trade and travel.”

Flagging you as a danger based on your phone and movements. Cell phones have become de facto snitches, offering up a steady stream of digital location data on users’ movements and travels. For instance, the FBI was able to use geofence data to identify more than 5,000 mobile devices (and their owners) in a 4-acre area around the Capitol on January 6. This latest surveillance tactic could land you in jail for being in the “wrong place and time.” Police are also using cell-site simulators to carry out mass surveillance of protests without the need for a warrant. Moreover, federal agents can now employ a number of hacking methods in order to gain access to your computer activities and “see” whatever you’re seeing on your monitor. Malicious hacking software can also be used to remotely activate cameras and microphones, offering another means of glimpsing into the personal business of a target.

Flagging you as a danger based on your DNA. DNA technology in the hands of government officials completes our transition to a Surveillance State. If you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name. By accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc. After all, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.” It can also be used to predict the physical appearance of potential suspects. It’s only a matter of time before the police state’s pursuit of criminals expands into genetic profiling and a preemptive hunt for criminals of the future.

Flagging you as a danger based on your face. Facial recognition software aims to create a society in which every individual who steps out into public is tracked and recorded as they go about their daily business. Coupled with surveillance cameras that blanket the country, facial recognition technology allows the government and its corporate partners to identify and track someone’s movements in real-time. One particularly controversial software program created by Clearview AI has been used by police, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to collect photos on social media sites for inclusion in a massive facial recognition database. Similarly, biometric software, which relies on one’s unique identifiers (fingerprints, irises, voice prints), is becoming the standard for navigating security lines, as well as bypassing digital locks and gaining access to phones, computers, office buildings, etc. In fact, greater numbers of travelers are opting into programs that rely on their biometrics in order to avoid long waits at airport security. Scientists are also developing lasers that can identify and surveil individuals based on their heartbeats, scent and microbiome.

Flagging you as a danger based on your behavior. Rapid advances in behavioral surveillance are not only making it possible for individuals to be monitored and tracked based on their patterns of movement or behavior, including gait recognition (the way one walks), but have given rise to whole industries that revolve around predicting one’s behavior based on data and surveillance patterns and are also shaping the behaviors of whole populations. One smart “anti-riot” surveillance system purports to predict mass riots and unauthorized public events by using artificial intelligence to analyze social media, news sources, surveillance video feeds and public transportation data.

Flagging you as a danger based on your spending and consumer activities. With every smartphone we buy, every GPS device we install, every Twitter, Facebook, and Google account we open, every frequent buyer card we use for purchases—whether at the grocer’s, the yogurt shop, the airlines or the department store—and every credit and debit card we use to pay for our transactions, we’re helping Corporate America build a dossier for its government counterparts on who we know, what we think, how we spend our money, and how we spend our time. Consumer surveillance, by which your activities and data in the physical and online realms are tracked and shared with advertisers, has become a $300 billion industry that routinely harvests your data for profit. Corporations such as Target have not only been tracking and assessing the behavior of their customers, particularly their purchasing patterns, for years, but the retailer has also funded major surveillance in cities across the country and developed behavioral surveillance algorithms that can determine whether someone’s mannerisms might fit the profile of a thief.

Flagging you as a danger based on your public activities. Private corporations in conjunction with police agencies throughout the country have created a web of surveillance that encompasses all major cities in order to monitor large groups of people seamlessly, as in the case of protests and rallies. They are also engaging in extensive online surveillance, looking for any hints of “large public events, social unrest, gang communications, and criminally predicated individuals.” Defense contractors have been at the forefront of this lucrative market. Fusion centers, $330 million-a-year, information-sharing hubs for federal, state and law enforcement agencies, monitor and report such “suspicious” behavior as people buying pallets of bottled water, photographing government buildings, and applying for a pilot’s license as “suspicious activity.”

Flagging you as a danger based on your social media activities. Every move you make, especially on social media, is monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line. As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior. This obsession with social media as a form of surveillance will have some frightening consequences in coming years. As Helen A.S. Popkin, writing for NBC News, observed, “We may very well face a future where algorithms bust people en masse for referencing illegal ‘Game of Thrones’ downloads… the new software has the potential to roll, Terminator-style, targeting every social media user with a shameful confession or questionable sense of humor.”

Flagging you as a danger based on your social network. Not content to merely spy on individuals through their online activity, government agencies are now using surveillance technology to track one’s social network, the people you might connect with by phone, text message, email or through social message, in order to ferret out possible criminals. An FBI document obtained by Rolling Stone speaks to the ease with which agents are able to access address book data from Facebook’s WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage services from the accounts of targeted individuals and individuals not under investigation who might have a targeted individual within their network. What this creates is a “guilt by association” society in which we are all as guilty as the most culpable person in our address book.

Flagging you as a danger based on your car. License plate readers are mass surveillance tools that can photograph over 1,800 license tag numbers per minute, take a picture of every passing license tag number and store the tag number and the date, time, and location of the picture in a searchable database, then share the data with law enforcement, fusion centers and private companies to track the movements of persons in their cars. With tens of thousands of these license plate readers now in operation throughout the country, affixed to overpasses, cop cars and throughout business sectors and residential neighborhoods, it allows police to track vehicles and run the plates through law enforcement databases for abducted children, stolen cars, missing people and wanted fugitives. Of course, the technology is not infallible: there have been numerous incidents in which police have mistakenly relied on license plate data to capture out suspects only to end up detaining innocent people at gunpoint.

Flagging you as a danger based on your political views. The Church Committee, the Senate task force charged with investigating COINTELPRO abuses in 1975, concluded that the government had carried out “secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power.” The report continued: “Groups and individuals have been harassed and disrupted because of their political views and their lifestyles… Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials.” Nothing has changed since then.

Flagging you as a danger based on your correspondence. Just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people. For instance, the U.S. Postal Service, which has been photographing the exterior of every piece of paper mail for the past 20 years, is also spying on Americans’ texts, emails and social media posts. Headed up by the Postal Service’s law enforcement division, the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) is reportedly using facial recognition technology, combined with fake online identities, to ferret out potential troublemakers with “inflammatory” posts. The agency claims the online surveillance, which falls outside its conventional job scope of processing and delivering paper mail, is necessary to help postal workers avoid “potentially volatile situations.”

Now the government wants us to believe that we have nothing to fear from these mass spying programs as long as we’ve done nothing wrong.

Don’t believe it.

As Matthew Feeney warns in the New York Times, “In the past, Communists, civil rights leaders, feminists, Quakers, folk singers, war protesters and others have been on the receiving end of law enforcement surveillance. No one knows who the next target will be.”

The government’s definition of a “bad” guy is extraordinarily broad, and it results in the warrantless surveillance of innocent, law-abiding Americans on a staggering scale.

Moreover, there is a repressive, suppressive effect to surveillance that not only acts as a potentially small deterrent on crime but serves to monitor and chill lawful First Amendment activity, and that is the whole point.

Weaponized surveillance is re-engineering a society structured around the aesthetic of fear.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the police state wants us silent, servile and compliant.

They definitely do not want us to engage in First Amendment activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

And they certainly do not want us to remember that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully, whether it’s protesting police brutality and racism, challenging COVID-19 mandates, questioning election outcomes, or listening to alternate viewpoints—even conspiratorial ones—in order to form our own opinions about the true nature of government.

Connect with The Rutherford Institute

Cover image credit: Tumisu

Who Caused the Fire in Hawaii?: On the WEF, Global Plans for Smart City Governance & Deliberate Destruction of Key Locations

“…Because we all know the World Economic Forum are the ones pulling the strings. Right?

“So if we know that, when we see a fire like that, then the second that we hear that the plans are to bring in a Smart City, you’ll know why it was done.”

~ The End of the Beginning from ‘The Maui Experiment! How They Destroyed Lahaina to Bring In a WEF Smart City Governance…’ 

Truth Comes to Light editor’s note:

Below is a compilation of work by Sam Tripoli and The End of the Beginning YouTube channel, along with photo images courtesy of the US Coast Guard.

Transcript of Sam Tripoli’s short video at X was prepared by Truth Comes to Light.

Links to related documents and articles are also provided as references.

~Kathleen

* Update by Sam Tripoli has been added. See his videos below. 1) People are being turned away by the military who want to help and donate. 2) The warning system didn’t go off and they are claiming it must have been a” malfunction”. 3) An executive order was signed in July stating they could take your land if you needed to be rezoned.

Who Caused the Fire in Hawaii?

Interesting , interesting, interesting! pic.twitter.com/bbJbIEhyTX

— Sam Tripoli (@samtripoli) August 12, 2023

Transcript:

So today we’re going to give a little update on the Hawaiian fires.

Now I want you to look at this footage. And this doesn’t look like a fire to me.
It looks like something almost exploded, or something went off.

Now what’s interesting is certain things are still standing, while other things are not.

Now the governor did say this is climate change doing this. Interesting.

What they don’t talk about is in January, how they had in Maui, a Smart City Conference to turn Maui into an entire Smart Island — changing everything to electric. Renewables. Solar panels. And pushing everybody into electric vehicles. 15-Minute Smart Cities.

So now what’s also interesting is next month, in September, Hawaii is hosting the Digital Government Summit, utilizing AI to govern the island.

Hmmm. It’s almost like they’re resetting something to start rebuilding for this, which they’re trying to push.

Now we look at all the climate change narrative that they’re going to try to push, but they’re not going to talk about the Weather Modification Act of 1976.

I highly recommend everybody look to this act. Because who is involved in the weather modification activities?

Department of Agriculture. Department of Defense. Department of Interior. EPA. And NASA.

So if they’re modifying the weather, then could they have caused this event?

So if we see that the Department of Defense and other factions are responsible for modifying the weather, well then if we look at Direct Energy weapons, we can maybe see how this can all relate to this event.

[Important update by Sam Tripoli]

Some very interesting information regarding the fires in Hawaii.

People are being turned away by the military who want to help and donate.

The warning system didn't go off and they are claiming it must have been a" malfunction".

An executive order was signed in July… pic.twitter.com/6xxVAgR4WG

— Jessica Rojas 🇺🇸💪 (@catsscareme2021) August 12, 2023

Related Links:

Hungry Heroes Hawaii Emergency Fire Response
~~ Fundraiser ~~

Hawaii Digital Government Summit 2023

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2023

 Weather Modification Act (1976)

World Economic Forum: Our alliance is creating smart city governance

The images below are courtesy of United States Coast Guard and are in the public domain.

See related by The End of the Beginning YouTube channel:

‘The Maui Experiment! How They Destroyed Lahaina to Bring In a WEF Smart City Governance…’ 

That Didn’t Take Long! Look Who Donated $100 Million to Maui’s Smart City Rebuild!



Cover image credit: US Coast Guard (source) (source)

See Related Articles:

Chemtrails Exposed: The Deep State and the New Manhattan Project

“Apocalyptic Scene”: Out-of-Control Wildfire Spreads on Hawaii’s Maui Island

Wildfires As a Weapon: US Military Exposed

Dane Wigington: Geoengineering Is Fueling Firestorm Catastrophes

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich With Andrew Johnson on Undisclosed “Black Technology”, the Truth About 9/11, Planned UFO False Flag Events, Steven Greer’s “Disclosure Project”, Directed Energy Weapons, the Cover-Up of Free Energy Already Available, “Psychological Terrorism” & the Attack on Human Consciousness

DEW (Directed Energy Weapon) Beams Into New Madrid Seismic Zone as 1,100F Temps Flare Up

Geoengineering: Romanian General Emil Strainu on the Terrifying Possibilities of Geo-Warfare

Weather Warfare: Beware the US Military’s Experiments with Climatic Warfare

Australia Burning: Disaster Capitalism or Something Else?

Joseph P. Farrell: An Odd Thing About Those Fires in Greece…

Reiner Fuellmich With Peter Mac Isaac: Why Are Canada´s Forests Burning? 

Jon Rappoport: On “the Big Con” of Concocted Science as a Control System — “Centers of Fake Knowledge Are Modern Cathedrals”

“CONCOCTED science is the modern version of spiritual revelation. The Roman Church—while it was carrying out witch hunts and inquisitions replete with confessions obtained through torture and capped off with death by burning at the stake—was claiming Jesus Himself had passed the keys of the Kingdom to the Church…and He tacitly approved its policies.

“These days, debilitating, brain damaging, and life-destroying vaccines are the scientific revelations the Church of Federal Medicine stands for.

“Concocted science.”

 

Science as Control; Centers of Fake Knowledge Are Modern Cathedrals; the Big Con

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
August 10, 2023

I continue to write about this subject because it’s vital.

NIH, the US National Institutes of Health, is the largest medical research facility in the world. It has 18,000 employees and runs on an annual budget of $45 billion.

I once suggested to Jim Warner, a White House policy analyst under Ronald Reagan, that somebody should do an audit of NIH and determine exactly what medical advancements the agency had actually made during its long history. He thought that was a terrific idea. But nothing came of it.

I assure you, an audit would reveal much less than meets the eye. Much less in the way of useful discoveries and technology. Along with mountains of useless and fraudulent science.

BUT NIH stands as a center of knowledge and a symbol, a reference point, a proof positive that medical science is marching forward.

It’s a very expensive public relations tool.

How could we not accept and signal our obedience to medicine, when we have such an awesome modern cathedral for its research?

Ditto for the CDC and the FDA. Both infernally corrupt agencies.

CONCOCTED science is the modern version of spiritual revelation. The Roman Church—while it was carrying out witch hunts and inquisitions replete with confessions obtained through torture and capped off with death by burning at the stake—was claiming Jesus Himself had passed the keys of the Kingdom to the Church…and He tacitly approved its policies.

These days, debilitating, brain damaging, and life-destroying vaccines are the scientific revelations the Church of Federal Medicine stands for.

Concocted science.

People accept science as fact, based on the IMPRESSION that actual knowledge is being discovered.

PR people make sure this impression is delivered.

Just as the Roman Church never confesses to fraud in its doctrine, the centers of modern medical knowledge never confess fraud.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: prettysleepy1

Jon Rappoport: American Culture and TV Ads — The Missing Link

“The common wisdom is people are sick of TV commercials. They mute them. They change the channel to avoid them.

“I don’t think that’s true.

“The basic missing link is: the ads aren’t just promoting products; the ads ARE products.”

American culture and TV ads; the missing link; I make another breakthrough

by Jon Rappoport
August 4, 2023

The common wisdom is people are sick of TV commercials. They mute them. They change the channel to avoid them.

I don’t think that’s true.

The basic missing link is: the ads aren’t just promoting products; the ads ARE products.

But viewers have no way of expressing their preferences. Hence we need this:

THE COMMERCIALS CHANNEL.

It could start out on cable. I think it’d soon make it to network television. Possibly it would wind up on YouTube, where it would garner far more viewers than NBC or CBS could attract.

The Commercials Channel (CC) has no shows. It plays commercials 24 hours a day. Back to back. In an unending stream.

AND VIEWERS VOTE FOR THEIR FAVORITE COMMERCIALS.

That’s the key.

That’s what the audience wants.

The ads are products. The viewers decide which ones are best.

The channel runs contests, all day and all night.

Here are 16 pharmaceutical commercials. Which one do you like best? Vote now.

Announce the winners.

Drug ads, fast food ads, insurance ads, bank ads, ads for movies, car ads, ads for lawyers, beer ads, soda ads…

All sorts of contests around the clock. VOTE FOR YOUR FAVORITE NOW.

And maybe you can bet.

Which of these 10 ads do you think will win? Lay your money down in the next 3 minutes.

You’d have 2 or 3 AI talking heads representing CC, on–air, hosting the contests.

CC runs 24/7. All ads all the time. That’s revenue for the channel.

Almost no overhead.

ADS ARE PRODUCTS.

LET THE PUBLIC DECIDE WHICH ONES THEY WANT TO “BUY.”

I mean, come on. Advertising is perhaps the most visible industry in America. Give it its due.

Instead of “Is the Chevy better than the Ford,” it’s “Is the Chevy ad better than the Ford ad.”

NOW you’re cooking.

Now you’ve got audience interest.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: paulsteuber

On the Elimination of Individual Thought and Dissent: Why Flatulent Cows Matter

“The goal is not the elimination of cows; it’s the elimination of thinking and dissent. If we keep the above in mind as a process rather than an intended outcome, we have a greater ability to focus on the critical issue.

“To be sure, there are those entities that would like to eliminate red meat and feed people insects as a replacement. But that’s not the central issue here.

“The core objective is nothing less than the elimination of individual thought and dissent. It’s essential in the creation of a fully collectivist state, and it’s at the very heart of the overall globalist objective.”

Why Flatulent Cows Matter

by Jeff Thomas, International Man
July 31. 2023

We’ve all heard nonsense about cows presenting a danger to the continuance of life on earth – that methane gas from cow flatulence will bring on climate change faster than John Kerry’s jet.

Any thinking person (a sub-species of Homo sapiens that’s in decline but not yet endangered) would agree that the notion that an animal that’s existed in harmony with nature for over two million years could destroy the earth within fourteen years if they’re not exterminated is truly absurd.

And yet those whose ability to reason is on the decline are inclined to believe the claim. Presumably, these individuals are the same ones beginning to believe that men can have babies and that an individual can become something he or she is not simply by “identifying” as such.

But those of us who see the absurdity in such clearly nonsensical beliefs are disinclined to laugh as we observe that these concepts are being disseminated by globalist governments through a compliant media… and, worse, are being accepted by more than a few people.

As a case in point, recently, a publication – Natural News – did a piece entitled, “13 Nations agree to engineer global FAMINE by destroying agriculture, saying that producing food is BAD for the planet.”

In that article, they describe a conference led by US Climate Czar John Kerry, in which representatives from thirteen countries are stated to have committed to a diminished cow population worldwide to combat climate change.

Well, that conference did take place, and a topic of discussion was methane produced by cows, and thirteen attendees did agree that measures of some sort were needed.

But it is not the case that thirteen countries have enacted legislation to eliminate cows.

We might take a step back here and examine what actually occurred. In so doing, we may not only learn whether or not red meat will soon be eliminated globally; we might also gain some insight into how globalist governments seek to achieve their ends.

In most countries, the role of Minister for the Environment is a lowly ministerial position, given to a loyal party member as a token. Most Ministers of the Environment pontificate a fair bit but rarely implement significant change. So, let’s follow the thread of what has taken place.

• John Kerry contacts the Environmental Ministers in a host of “lesser” countries around the world on the vague premise of “making a difference.” They’re pleased to take part, as Kerry gives them higher visibility and legitimizes their otherwise rather pointless jobs.
• A conference is held at a four-star hotel somewhere for a few days. Everybody listens to the speakers wringing their hands over the dangers of climate change, and each minister tries to get their photos taken with John Kerry.
• There’s very little in the text of the keynote presentation by Kerry – mostly vague comments about the dangers of methane and the need for each country to commit to making a difference.
• At the end of the conference, the attendees are proud to sign a document that’s devoid of detail but says that they’re all in agreement in hoping to make a difference.
• A press release is issued, showing all the ministers together, stating that methane is dangerous and that all the countries are in agreement regarding the concept of a worldwide methane control policy.
• The message received by the public is that all the experts agree on whatever they’re saying, although what they’re saying is still quite unclear.
• A publication such as Natural News publishes an article with a suitably alarming title.
• The perceived overstatement by Natural News is regarded as a provocation by controlled information sources such as Wikipedia to alert the public. Interestingly, whenever a publication, group, or individual is discredited by Wikipedia, they always do so in the very first line of their description, i.e.,
• “Natural News is a far-right, anti-vaccination conspiracy theory and fake news website known for promoting alternative medicine, pseudoscience, disinformation, and far-right extremism.”

That’s essentially the process that’s now consistently being utilized by globalists.

Wikipedia now divides all publications, pundits, and others as either truth tellers or far-right conspiracy advocates. The real issue here isn’t farting cows any more than it’s whether men can have babies. These are mere exercises.

So, if we take a step back and consider an overview of what this all means – why it’s so prevalent and why the process is being so consistently utilized – we might be conclude the following:

The issues are absurdly extreme for a reason. The objective is not the achievement of the issues themselves. It is the alteration of the psyche of the populace. 

Once the public has spent several years having their heads divided between “far-right extremism” and what’s approved by the Ministry of Truth, enough people will have been converted into non-thinking proles that a bill can be put forward with the broad and intentionally non-specific objective to outlaw far-right extremism in all its forms.

In order to assure the passage of the bill, a significant majority of people will have to have already reached the stage in their new thought process that they feel that the law is not only justified but essential. Those people who can still think will be expected to comply.

The goal is not the elimination of cows; it’s the elimination of thinking and dissent. If we keep the above in mind as a process rather than an intended outcome, we have a greater ability to focus on the critical issue.

To be sure, there are those entities that would like to eliminate red meat and feed people insects as a replacement. But that’s not the central issue here.

The core objective is nothing less than the elimination of individual thought and dissent. It’s essential in the creation of a fully collectivist state, and it’s at the very heart of the overall globalist objective.

Connect with International Man

Cover image credit: Alexas_Fotos

James Corbett on the Weaponization of Psychology

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



VIDEO COURTESY ANTIJANTEPODDEN: WEBSITE / ODYSEE

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

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

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

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

Show Notes:

Antijantepodden: Website / Substack

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

Bill Goats and the Forest:
• billgoats.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connect with James Corbett

Cover image credit: CDD20

The Free Speech Scare

“War and censorship go together because it is wartime that allows ruling elites to declare that ideas alone are dangerous to the goal of defeating the enemy…”

~~~

“The war, however, was of domestic origin and targeted at Americans themselves…”

~~~

“The Red Scare mutated a century later to become the virus scare in which the real pathogen they tried to kill was your willingness to think for yourself.”

The Free Speech Scare

by Jeffrey A. Tucker, Brownstone Institute
July 21, 2023

It was a strange experience watching the House hearing in which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was testifying. The topic was censorship and how and to what extent federal government agencies under two administrations muscled social media companies to take down posts, ban users, and throttle content. The majority made its case.

What was strange was the minority reaction throughout. They tried to shut down RFK. They moved to go to executive session so that the public could not hear the proceedings. The effort failed. Then they shouted over his words when they were questioning him. They wildly smeared him and defamed him. They even began with an attempt to block him from speaking at all, and 8 Democrats voted to support that.

This was a hearing on censorship and they were trying to censor him. It only made the point.

It became so awful that RFK was compelled to give a short tutorial on the importance of free speech as an essential right, without which all other rights and freedoms are in jeopardy. Even those words he could barely speak given the rancor in the room. It’s fair to say that free speech, even as a core principle, is in grave trouble. We cannot even get a consensus on the basics.

BREAKING – EXPLOSIVE: @RobertKennedyJr puts Democratic Congress members trying to censor him in their place with fiery open remarks during a hearing to expose censorship. It's shocking that in the United States of America, people are being censored for speaking the truth! WATCH! pic.twitter.com/MKQMk2INAu

— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) July 20, 2023

It seemed to viewers that RFK was the adult in the room. Put other ways, he was the preacher of fidelity in the brothel, the keeper of memory in a room full of amnesiacs, the practitioner of sanity in the sanatorium, or, as Mencken might say, the hurler of a dead cat into the temple.

It was oddly strange to hear the voice of wise statesmen in that hothouse culture of infantile corruption: it reminded the public just how far things have fallen. Notably, it was he and not the people who wanted him gagged who was citing scientific papers.

A PHD level explanation of the important of free speech to democracy from @RobertKennedyJr. pic.twitter.com/S0HxIDLvLA

— The Wolf Of All Streets (@scottmelker) July 20, 2023

The protests against his statements were shrill and shocking. They moved quickly from “Censorship didn’t happen” to “It was necessary and wonderful” to “We need more of it.” Reporting on the spectacle, the New York Times said these are “thorny questions”: “Is misinformation protected by the First Amendment? When is it appropriate for the federal government to seek to tamp down the spread of falsehoods?”

These are not thorny questions. The real issue concerns who is to be the arbiter of truth?

Such attacks on free speech do have precedent in American history. We have already discussed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 which led to a complete political upheaval that swept Thomas Jefferson into the White House. There were two additional bouts of censorship folly in the 20th century. Both followed great wars and an explosion in government size and reach.

The first came with the Red Scare (1917-1020) following the Great War (WWI). The Bolshevik Revolution and political instability in Europe led to a wild bout of political paranoia in the US that the communists, anarchists, and labor movement were plotting a takeover of the US government. The result was an imposition of censorship along with strict laws concerning political loyalty.

The Espionage Act of 1917 was one result. It is still in force and being deployed today, most recently against former President Trump. Many states passed censorship laws. The feds deported many people suspected of sedition and treason. Suspected communists were hauled in front of Congress and grilled.

The second bout occurred after the Second World War with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC) and the Army-McCarthy hearings that led to blacklists and media smears of every sort. The result was a chilling of free speech across American industry that hit media particularly hard. That incident later became legendary due to the exaggerations and disregard for the First Amendment.

How does the Covid-era censorship fit into this historical context? At Brownstone, we’ve compared the wild Covid response to a wartime footing that caused as much trauma on the homeland as previous world wars.

Three years of research, documents, and reporting have established that the lockdowns and all that followed were not directed by public health authorities. They were the veneer for the national security state, which took charge in the month of February 2020 and deployed the full takeover of both government and society in mid-March. This is one reason that it’s been so difficult getting information on how and why all of this happened to us: it’s been mostly classified under the guise of national security.

In other words, this was war and the nation was ruled for a time (and maybe still is) by what amounts to quasi-martial law. Indeed, it felt like that. No one knew for sure who was in charge and who was making all these wild decisions for our lives and work. It was never clear what the penalties would be for noncompliance. The rules and edicts seemed arbitrary, having no real connection to the goal; indeed no one really knew what the goal was besides more and more control. There was no real exit strategy or end game.

As with the two previous bouts of censorship in the last century, there commenced a closure of public debate. It began almost immediately as the lockdowns edict were issued. They  tightened over the months and years. Elites sought to plug every leak in the official narrative through every means possible. They invaded every space. Those they could not get to (like Parler) were simply unplugged. Amazon rejected books. YouTube deleted millions of posts. Twitter was brutal, while once-friendly Facebook became the enforcer of regime propaganda.

The hunt for dissenters took strange forms. Those who held gatherings were shamed. People who did not socially distance were called disease spreaders. Walking outside without a mask one day, a man shouted out to me in anger that “masks are socially recommended.” I kept turning that phrase around in my mind because it made no sense. The mask, no matter how obviously ineffective, was imposed as a tactic of humiliation and an exclusionary measure that targeted the incredulous. It was also a symbol: stop talking because your voice does not matter. Your speech will be muffled.

The vaccine of course came next: deployed as a tool to purge the military, public sector, academia, and the corporate world. The moment the New York Times reported that vaccine uptake was lower in states that supported Trump, the Biden administration had its talking points and agenda. The shot would be deployed to purge. Indeed, five cities briefly segregated themselves to exclude the unvaccinated from public spaces. The continued spread of the virus itself was blamed on the noncompliant.

Those who decried the trajectory could hardly find a voice much less assemble a social network. The idea was to make us all feel isolated even if we might have been the overwhelming majority. We just could not tell either way.

War and censorship go together because it is wartime that allows ruling elites to declare that ideas alone are dangerous to the goal of defeating the enemy. “Loose lips sink ships” is a clever phrase but it applies across the board in wartime. The goal is always to whip up the public in a frenzy of hate against the foreign enemy (“The Kaiser!”) and ferret out the rebels, the traitors, the subversives, and promoters of unrest. There is a reason that the protestors on January 6 were called “insurrectionists.” It is because it happened in wartime.

The war, however, was of domestic origin and targeted at Americans themselves. That’s why the precedent of 20th century censorship holds in this case. The war on Covid was in many ways an action of the national security state, something akin to a military operation prompted and administered by intelligence services in close cooperation with the administrative state. And they want to make the protocols that governed us over these years permanent. Already, European governments are issuing stay-at-home recommendations for the heat.

If you had told me that this was the essence of what was happening in 2020 or 2021, I would have rolled my eyes in disbelief. But all evidence Brownstone has gathered since then has shown exactly that. In this case, the censorship was a predictable part of the mix. The Red Scare mutated a century later to become the virus scare in which the real pathogen they tried to kill was your willingness to think for yourself.

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Liberty or Lockdown, and thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Connect with The Brownstone Institute

Cover image credit: Prettysleepy & OpenClipart-Vectors

Children and the Lost Age of Innocence; Sexualizing the Young; Too Many Crimes to Count

by Jon Rappoport
July 17, 2023

And too many pedophiles to count.

I first became aware of “different children” when I met kids from the next town over: Scarsdale, circa 1948.

A few of them were smug. I wondered why.

I figured out it was because they owned things. Expensive clothes, jewelry, etc.

I’m talking about 10-year olds.

It was the vague beginning of my understanding of children as consumers.

And of course, over time, I saw the consumer culture itself rise to new heights. Children became a key market, a key demographic.

Children “needed products.”

But not just kiddie items. Children could be turned into little adults. Talking about makeup, matching outfits, expensive shoes.

And eventually, schools started teaching children about sex.

Innocence? No good. No money in it. Nothing to sell. How are you going to sell walking down a road on a spring afternoon and feeling alive with all the time in the world?

You’re nine, ten.

Sex? What?

So innocence had to be buried.

In 1948, my pals and I only needed one bat, an old softball, a few cheap gloves, and a field, and we could play all day.

No money in it.

Teaching sex in schools was a Progressive idea. Let kids know how babies were made and born, because their parents were too embarrassed to explain it.

Later, teaching sex meant teaching about the act of sex.

And now…you know where it’s gone. Chemicals, sex hormones, surgery. Surgery that destroys sex.

“We’re coming after your children.”

Make children into sexual fetish objects, then push them off a cliff.

But first, much earlier in history, make them consumers. Eliminating their innocence.

Allowing every horror that follows.

If, in 1948, teachers had approached us with notions of gender fluidity, we would have known they were insane. We would have told our parents, who would have stormed the school and raised holy hell. No school board could have turned back their fury. (And no US Attorney General would have dared suggest our parents were domestic terrorists, unless he wanted to be thrown out on the street, alone, denied by his own family, or put in a psych ward.)

Innocence. Trees coming back to life in April. Flowers. Kids running. Running everywhere. Not a product. Not a thing to be exchanged for money.

Now, sex teachers. Sex killers.

And people changing their sex:

“The bravest people and the greatest Americans” Joe Biden knows.

He has the backup of the medical industrial complex. Selling sex change is money. A booming market. Surgeons are on stand-by, ready to cut and paste genitals, faces, shoulders, legs to specifications.

Plant a polished steel tree in concrete, in our nation’s capital. The branches are sex-change, drugs and hormones and surgery, sexualized children, pedophiles.

They merge and form a diabolical business worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

A voice whispers to men and women in offices all over the world: “You can market ANYTHING.”

Pedophiles in boardrooms, schools, churches, and government councils are counting on that marketing to keep people’s Eyes Wide Shut.

— Jon Rappoport

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: Pexels

This Is Why We Need to Talk About CBDCs

 Video available at Odysee & YouTube

by Aaron & Melissa Dykes, Truthstream Media
July 14, 2023

(Normally this is the type of article we only share with our Patreons, but this needs to be seen by everyone who can.)

Central banks and governments, at a global scale, have prepared to implement CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies) with important consequences for every aspect of freedom in our lives.

Though they will introduce it to the public gradually, its capacity for total control is immense.

It isn’t merely that the new dollar is digital, traceable and trackable. It’s based on blockchain technology, of course. It isn’t merely that small business will be hurt (yet again) or that private transactions will be eradicated. Nor will it be merely consequential for drug dealers, scammers, or illicit trades.

CBDCs will be PROGRAMMABLE. Where and how money is spent is literally built into this new currency. And they plan to use it to change how money is used.

Yes, CBDCs are programmable. The executives that frequent the World Economic Forum and the other elite forums have said so.

And so, CBDCs will not just be money. No, not at all. CBDCs are designed as tools of a very political and ideological agenda; some of the worst policies that have been pushed in recent decades will now have the force of spending controls to “nudge” people into submission and compliance.

Again, CBDCs ARE PROGRAMMABLE. Whoever controls the money controls the agenda. That is the point.

Why is this important? Central banks, private banks, government authorities and global designers will have the power to turn on and off transactions of every kind. They can algorithmically-determine precisely what the CBDC money can be spent on; when and under what conditions; and by who.

At the touch of a button, PROGRAMMABLE cash in the form of CBDCs can block the sale of firearms, alcohol, cannabis or tobacco. Or other sensitive products. But that’s just the start (you knew that).

At the same touch of a button, PROGRAMMABLE CBDCs can prevent the sale of meat, dairy, candy and junk food, or disallow the purchase of gasoline or use of a vehicle (and an endless array of other examples; you get the idea.)

With yet another press of the button, they can also freeze bank accounts of political dissidents — like those supporting the recent trucker protest in Canada, for instance.

Spending under CBDCs could be allocated for specific purposes — like rent and groceries — or be timed to expire, requiring, for instance that money be spent by the end of the month.

CBDCs could also prevent individuals with “bad social credit scores” from purchasing anything more than the bare basics of survival. Black Mirror’s Nosedive has already depicted as much, but that’s mild compared to what’s possible.

Blackrock CEO Larry Fink recently said: “Behaviors are gonna have to change. And this is one thing we’re asking companies — you have to force behaviors, and at BlackRock, we are forcing behaviors.”

BlackRock CEO: “At BlackRock we are forcing behaviors… you have to force behaviors.” pic.twitter.com/2Q2H84GPC7

— Te𝕏asLindsay™ (@TexasLindsay_) June 4, 2023

The compliance of private businesses — any major business who relies upon good standing in the global financial system — can also mandate adherence to any number of political agendas and purchasing behaviors. Energy caps; green conscience laundering; medical misinformation policies; sensitivity about world events, wars and catastrophes; identity politic political correctness shifting sand madness; polka-dots-over-stripes; anything is possible!

And the private policies of private banks and businesses — ultimately steered by central bank CBDC policies — could easily circumvent restrictions on our civil rights under governments and public systems. (And what could you really do about it? Where else could you go?) The Bank of International Settlements recently announced 93% of the world’s central banks are currently working on a CBDC, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is already hard at work on a global CBDC platform.

Social media and other tech giants have already paved the way to this version of circumnavigation-hell (I’m not touching you; I’m not touching you!!), even as it emerged that shadowy government agencies were literally coordinating the takedown of free speech online in violation of First Amendment protections.

This nightmare of privacy-less technological enslavement under CBDCs is complicated and perhaps predicated by the advent of AI and the loss of employment for hundreds of millions and even billions of people who once held relative autonomy over their own lives.

UBI (Universal Basic Income) funds will be increasingly provided by governments — as it perhaps must be in a scenario with no meaningful employment — not just for the poor and unemployed, but for nearly everyone. Certainly, people will need financial support to live their lives.

But that money would be used to control as much as it would be used to provide sustenance. Not only would every transaction large and small be tracked, but its use would be specifically tailored to the vision of life proscribed by the very powerful and their AI tech tools. Anything in violation of prevailing policies would be automatically out-of-bounds.

While this design could be used for good (though such powers are unwise), and many would give it that benefit of the doubt, those paying attention can see plainly its drawbacks and potential for the very worst.

With little-to-no context and no one to appeal to, an “artificially intelligent” system administers, gives, and takes away as it is programmed to do. Perhaps clumsily suppressing on the basis of key words and categories… perhaps insidiously on the basis of personalized profiles with millions of pieces of data. This system can and will automatically behaviorize all who live under its auspices, with grave consequences which are easy to predict. And even worse outcomes are quite possible.

Even under the most glowing version of this vision of the near future, where personal behaviors are improved, and people become “better” citizens, nicer neighbors and excellent stewards of the environment — even then, if a positive outcome can even be supposed — it would be a world without freedom.

Freedom itself is on the line under programmable CBDCs, in an almost direct way.

Instead of technology freeing us from worry, labor, and drudgery, it stands to reinforce and radically expand top-down control. This is not hyperbole.

New behaviorism — such as living within one’s allotted carbon footprint allowance — could and would be enforced easily, but tyrannically under this kind of system. Likely it would come with a velvety touch and a gradual implementation to dissuade outrage and condition acceptance; but in of itself, the system could nonetheless be flipped-on overnight.

A government powerful enough to give to all, and yet also take away from all is not only possible, but immediately part of the scheme. Accountability, dissent, free expression, and independent lives could all become a thing of the past, replaced by an engineered obedience, dulled further by the extremes of algorithmically driven group think.

Polls show that CBDCs — now being pursued by the Federal Reserve in the United States and by most every major government and financial system around the globe — are extremely unpopular with the people, but only by those who are aware of their potential existence and uses.

The vast majority of the public — most already lost in a sea of apathy and indifference — remain ignorant of how radically the money system they live under is changing. People need to be informed. Dissent needs to be expressed now while it still can be.

The unfortunate, flawed maxim “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide” is due for a nightmarish upgrade. The elites, already concentrated in wealth and power — and now unleashing AI — plan to literally program and control your entire life through digital currency.

Something huge is happening. Please pay attention. Please tell people what this can do. Please make your voice heard.

Resources

The Trust Game ten episode financial docuseries by Truthstream on Vimeo (to Support TSM)

The Trust Game on YouTube (for free)

Bank of England Tells Ministers to Intervene on Digital Currency ‘Programming’

CATO Poll: Only 16% of Americans Support the Government Issuing a Central Bank Digital Currency

CATO: Central Bank Digital Currency — Assessing the Risks and Dispelling the Myths

Connect with Truthstream Media

Cover image based on creative commons work of: FreeGiver & geralt

Psychologizing the Kiddies and Twisting Their Minds

And setting them up for membership in the Failure Society 

by Jon Rappoport
July 14, 2023

Well, I’ve won another Nobel Prize. I’ve got so many now, I keep the medals in a box in the basement. I mail the checks straight to the IRS, they take what they want and deposit the leftovers in my bank account.

This Prize has to do with child psychology, and more importantly, cultural psychology.

Let’s start here. Some kids do have problems.

If a kid is walking to the grocery store through a hail of drive-by bullets, that’s a problem.

If his father is beating him up three times a month, that’s a problem.

If he has no father and his mother is working two jobs to keep the lights on and she’s rarely home, that’s a problem.

If breakfast every day is chocolate Snuffles and peanut butter pressed between two slices of plastic white bread, that’s a problem.

But I’m not talking about those problems. I’m talking about the fashion trend and the cultural imperative and the outright demand that kids ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE personal problems—and if they don’t, they’re out. They’re barred from belonging. They’re weird. They’re covering up something.

Once you install the need to have problems in a kid, once you convince him he has to be on that starter page, boom, with a leap he’s off and running. Because he has an active imagination.

He’ll go with that proposition, and all kinds of invention will follow.

“I’m trying to root out my systemic racism…climate change is going to kill us all…I think I want to be a girl…my mother doesn’t understand me…I may have early arthritis…I don’t like sports anymore…I’m having a crisis and I don’t know what it’s about…how can we stop people from cutting down trees…I don’t eat meat but I want to…I have neck pains at night…I was getting taller but now I’ve stopped…I may be too thin…we’re not letting in enough immigrants…”

Badges. Badges of belonging. Gotta settle on a good problem. Which one should I have today? Not having a problem is like going to school naked.

Back in the 1940s, when I was growing up, no kid had these problems. No kid was manufacturing problems.

That was before the Age of Psychologizing.

When I was a kid, there were foods I didn’t like. Unfortunately, they would appear on the dinner table. Chicken soup. String beans. Mashed potatoes. So my mother and I would argue, I would force down a forkful and a spoonful or two, and that would be it, until the next night, when we’d go at it again.

But it never occurred to me that this was a problem.

Now, YOU HAVE TO HAVE PROBLEMS is the gateway drug into all sorts of wretched crapola. It’s a set-up.

For a life of hand-wringing.

It’s entirely synthetic.

It’s a form of magic-making. Bad magic.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Cover image credit: Issues

Unraveling the Fallacy of Natural Monopolies

by Michael Matulef, Mises Institute
July 1, 2023

Most cartels and trusts would never have been set up had not the governments created the necessary conditions by protectionist measures. Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency immanent in capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laisser-faire.

—Ludwig von Mises, Socialism

The concept of natural monopolies has often intrigued economists and policymakers, serving as a cornerstone for proponents of statism. They argue that certain industries naturally lead to a dominant firm, impeding competition and requiring government intervention. However, closer inspection reveals that these “natural monopolies” are illusions caused by harmful government interference.

To understand the fallacy of natural monopolies, we must first grasp the essence of a truly free market. In an unhampered market economy, multiple firms compete for consumers’ favor with innovative products and competitive prices. Market forces, like consumer preferences and business efficiency, shape resource distribution and ensure optimal outcomes. Monopolies fundamentally contradict this natural order.

Debunking the Fallacies

Critics argue that certain industries, particularly those dealing with infrastructure or network services, possess inherent characteristics that facilitate the emergence of monopolistic entities. These critics contend that high infrastructure costs or network effects, where the value of a service increases as more users adopt it, create insurmountable barriers to entry, enabling a single dominant player to establish its supremacy. However, a closer examination reveals that these characteristics alone do not guarantee monopoly formation. It is the interference of the government that tilts the scales in favor of consolidation and stifles competition.

The Telecommunications Case

Telecommunications, with its significant infrastructure demands, has been frequently labeled as an industry prone to natural monopolies. Proponents of state intervention argue that the costs associated with establishing and maintaining the necessary infrastructure make it impractical for multiple firms to compete effectively. However, this assertion fails to recognize the dynamic and innovative nature of free markets. In the absence of government-imposed barriers and licensing requirements, entrepreneurial ingenuity flourishes and finds ways to overcome what initially appears as insurmountable obstacles.

Free markets, unencumbered by government interference, incentivize entrepreneurs and businesses to seek alternative technologies and creative solutions. This entrepreneurial drive could lead to the emergence of wireless or satellite-based communication systems, offering consumers viable alternatives to traditional infrastructure-dependent services. By introducing competition and innovative approaches, these alternative technologies can disrupt the assumed inevitability of a single dominant firm.

The key insight lies in understanding that the government’s intervention itself creates an environment conducive to monopolistic dominance. Regulatory barriers and excessive red tape hinder the entry of new competitors, stifling innovation and limiting the potential for alternative solutions to emerge. By erecting such barriers, the government inadvertently perpetuates the conditions necessary for a monopolistic market structure to prevail.

Emphasis must be placed on the importance of dynamic competition as the driving force behind economic progress. The absence of government intervention allows for spontaneous order and market processes to unfold naturally, leading to a constant stream of entrepreneurial activities and innovative responses to market demands. In the realm of telecommunications, the potential for multiple firms to develop and implement alternative technologies arises precisely from this entrepreneurial discovery process.

Moreover, it is crucial to recognize that the cost considerations associated with infrastructure development are not static. Entrepreneurs and businesses are incentivized to seek more cost-effective and efficient solutions in a competitive environment. Through trial and error, these entrepreneurs and businesses find ways to reduce infrastructure costs, optimize resource allocation, and improve service delivery. These market-driven cost reductions create opportunities for new entrants and increase the feasibility of competition in the telecommunications industry.

The Fallacy of Network Effects

The assertion that network effects inherently lead to monopolistic outcomes is misguided. While it is true that network effects can contribute to the value of a service as more users adopt it, this does not preclude the existence of competition and multiple firms within the market.

In a genuinely free market, entrepreneurial competition thrives, driving firms to differentiate themselves and offer unique user experiences. The case of social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram provides a compelling example. Despite operating within the same broad industry of social networking, each platform has successfully carved out its own niche and attracted distinct user bases.

These platforms continually engage in fierce competition to capture users’ attention and secure advertising revenue. They do so through constant innovation and the introduction of unique features that differentiate their services. This competitive landscape not only allows for the coexistence of multiple firms but also ensures that no single platform holds a monopoly on social media.

This outcome is not surprising. The dynamic nature of the market, driven by consumer preferences and entrepreneurial creativity, ensures that competition persists and prevents monopolistic domination. Firms must continuously adapt, innovate, and provide superior value to consumers to thrive in such an environment.

Furthermore, the role of consumer choice cannot be overlooked. In a free market, consumers have the power to select the platforms that best align with their preferences, needs, and desires. This diversity of choice acts as a powerful antidote to monopolistic tendencies. If a platform fails to meet the evolving demands of consumers, they are free to switch to a competitor that better satisfies their requirements.

In contrast to the notion of natural monopolies is the market process, a spontaneous order driven by the decentralized decisions of individuals pursuing their own interests. This process fosters competition, innovation, and entrepreneurial discovery. Network effects, far from being an insurmountable barrier to entry, become an opportunity for entrepreneurs to devise new ways of offering value and attracting users.

The Role of Government Intervention

Monopolies, in their truest form, are products of government intervention and involvement in the marketplace. Through regulations, barriers to entry, and artificial privileges granted by the state, monopolistic tendencies arise.

Government-imposed regulatory barriers, like licensing requirements, red tape, and complex compliance standards, hinder the free operation of markets. Licensing requirements restrict entry into industries by creating hurdles for new entrants. The burdensome process of licensing deters competition and allows existing firms to maintain dominance. Excessive red tape and compliance standards divert resources away from productive activities, hampering innovation and competitiveness. These barriers distort market signals, discourage entrepreneurs, and limit consumer choice, thereby stifling market competition.

Intellectual property laws, such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks, are intended to encourage innovation and reward creators. However, these laws can unintentionally hinder competition and foster monopolistic tendencies. Intellectual property laws grant exclusive rights to inventors and creators, but they also create barriers to entry. When these exclusive rights become overly broad or extended, they enable patent and copyright holders to maintain dominance for longer periods, stifling potential competitors and limiting competition.

The complex and expensive process of obtaining and enforcing intellectual property rights further disadvantages small entrepreneurs and start-ups. Large corporations with resources and legal teams can strategically use these laws to deter competition, consolidating power in a few dominant players. It’s important to understand that innovation thrives in an environment of open competition, where ideas are freely shared and firms are motivated to continuously improve and differentiate their offerings.

Government interventions through subsidies, tax breaks, and preferential treatment disrupt the market balance by favoring certain industries and creating an uneven playing field. This distorts signals for entrepreneurs and undermines competition. Subsidies provide unfair advantages, allowing subsidized firms to gain market power and potentially lead to monopolistic tendencies. Tax breaks and preferential treatment further skew the economic landscape, hampering innovation and resource allocation. These interventions also perpetuate the misallocation of resources, hinder efficiency, and discourage new competitors and innovative solutions. Moreover, they promote rent-seeking behavior, diverting resources away from productive activities and undermining economic growth.

Conclusion

Regarding monopolies, Ludwig von Mises wrote in Human Action:

The great monopoly problem mankind has to face today is not an outgrowth of the operation of the market economy. It is a product of purposive action on the part of governments. It is not one of the evils inherent in capitalism as the demagogues trumpet. It is, on the contrary, the fruit of policies hostile to capitalism and intent upon sabotaging and destroying its operation.

The illusion of natural monopolies disappears upon scrutiny, revealing the role of government intervention and market distortions. Free markets—without constraints—foster innovation and competition, preventing monopolistic dominance. Government interference through regulations and protectionist policies perpetuates the myth of natural monopolies.

As proponents of economic freedom, it is our duty to expose fallacies, restore free markets, and promote competition for a prosperous future that empowers entrepreneurship, safeguards consumers, and drives growth. Let us rejoice in the wonders of competition and embrace its boundless potential.

Michael Matulef works in construction by day and is an independent student of Austrian Economics by night. Mike associates philosophically with crypto-anarchism and is interested in learning how Bitcoin and other open source technologies can create parallel systems based on consent rather than coercion.

Connect with Mises Institute

Cover image credit: GDJ

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 Matthew Ehret

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

If It Was Allowed, I’d Hold You Down and …. 

by Edward Curtin, Behind the Curtain
June 13, 2023

I think it is generally accepted that the practice of medicine has changed radically over the past fifty or so years.  The medicalization and corporatization of life have “progressed” simultaneously as most doctors have become obedient servants of the corporate state.

But wait, one may object, and with some justification.

The development of micro-surgical techniques has significantly improved the methods of many operations that were formally very invasive and posed a great risk to the elderly and chronically sick.  Many people have had knee, hip, and heart  surgeries – to name a few – that would have been problematic or impossible in the past.  Body part replacements are now common.  Soon everyone will be half-mechanical on the way to full robotization with a bit of pig and cow thrown in for good measure.  Whether this is good is debatable on many levels, but the “procedures” (a word that seems to have replaced the more gruesome sounding words “operations” or “surgeries”) have clearly become more efficient and less invasive.  These micro-surgical techniques have surely saved lives and improved the quality of life for many.

So much for the technology.  I have a little medical tale to tell.

My best friend, an athletic man in his mid-seventies in excellent health and athletic shape, went to a new doctor at a medical practice since his doctor of thirty-five years had retired.  The visit was for an annual physical that was required under the practice’s rules.  He had previously met this doctor for a required brief meet-and-greet introduction and all seemed copacetic.

This time, he was ushered into the examination room where he sat and waited for the doctor.   A nurse took his blood pressure and pulse and departed.  The doctor soon arrived with an iPad and sat down next to him.  He put the man’s records up on the screen.  He then proceeded to review a list of inoculations my friend did or didn’t have.  My friend – let’s call him Joe – has always been a guy who took very little medicine and was rarely sick; at the most he would take an aspirin or a few ibuprofen after a vigorous workout.

“I see you had a tetanus shot,” said the doctor.

“Yes, after I cut my hand.”

“And at your age it’s good you had a pneumonia vaccine.”

“I did,” said Joe, “but I kind of regret it.”

“Oh no, at your age you are at great risk from dying from pneumonia,” replied the doctor.  He added, “And you haven’t had your shingles vaccination, which I highly recommend.  It’s covered by Medicare now.  You don’t want to get shingles; it’s terrifying.”

Joe said nothing.

“And you are due for a flu vaccine.”

“I never had one and never will,” said Joe.

“At your age you can die from the flu.  It’s very dangerous.  I definitely recommend you get it.”

“No thanks.”

“You really should.”

His voice rising, the doctor said, “And I see you have not gotten any Covid vaccines. You are really risking your life by not doing so.  You must get them.”

Joe then succinctly explained his deep knowledge about Covid, the “vaccines,” their lack of testing, the mRNA technique, the deaths and injuries, etc. – all the reasons he opposed them.

The doctor became agitated.  He argued back; explained how he had gone to Yale and studied the mRNA process under Drs. F. Teufelmeister and A. E. Newman and that he knew the vaccines were very safe and effective blah blah blah.

Joe said, “It doesn’t matter that you went to Yale.  I emphatically disagree.”

This incensed the doctor, who blurted out, “If it was allowed, I would hold you down and inject you right now.”

“Is that so?” said Joe, incredulous.

The annual physical ended soon thereafter.

The doctor never laid a hand on Joe to examine him.  No stethoscope; no ear, throat or nose checks; no hands on any part of his body – the exam was exclusively about vaccinations, read off a screen.  Technical in all regards.  All about how Joe was so very vulnerable and could die without them. The doctor was Big Pharma’s mouthpiece.  Death threats devoid of any human touch, cold and sterile, and a wish that he could hold Joe down and forcibly inject him, the touch of the fascist mind expressed in a wish.

When Joe told me this story, I, being a student of the sociology of medicine, was reminded of the history of eugenics and the sick minds of people who think they can cull the herd because of their power and prestige.  The sordid history that continues under euphemisms such as genetic research.  Here was a doctor who dared to say what others no doubt think as well: “I would hold you down and inject you right now,” if only I could.  But since he can’t, the state must find other ways to coerce, such as compulsory medical requirements.  Such are totalitarian dreams made of, when death has become a commodity used to sell the dreams of reason, and the healer’s art, once linked to working with nature, has become an adjunct of state propaganda.

When I later met Joe at the coffeeshop, I brought him my copy of Ivan Illich’s Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health, one of the great books of modern times.

Thumbing through it, Joe came to a page where I had underlined the following:

The ritualization of crisis, a general trait of a morbid society, does three things for the medical functionary.  It provides him with a license that usually only the military can claim. Under the stress of crisis, the professional who is believed to be in command can easily presume immunity from the ordinary rules of decency and justice. He who is assigned control over death ceases to be an ordinary human. As with the director of a triage, his killing is covered by policy. More important, his entire performance takes place in an aura of crisis.

On my way home I stopped to pick up my sister’s mail.  The AARP Bulletin was in the box with her letters.  This is one of two publications of the AARP organization, a powerful lobbying group and medical insurance company with 38 million members for people fifty years-old and over.  The AARP Bulletin and AARP The Magazine are the largest circulation publications in the United States with a combined distribution of approximately 67 million.

The cover story on The AARP Bulletin is:

How To Stay Safe This Summer

Extreme Weather   Covid Concerns   Tick-Borne Diseases   Bad Drivers   Food Poisoning   Home-Repair Rip-offs   Crazy Utility Bills

Is there anything not to fear in this morbid culture where crises are promoted faster than the therapeutic and hygienic “remedies” offered to deal with them?  Create the diseases and all the bogeymen and then offer pseudo-solutions straight from the sorcerer’s playbook.

Build the fear and they will come, knocking at the sorcerers’ doors.

If it were allowed, I would lift you up with a simple truth.

Connect with Edward Curtin

Cover image credit based on creative commons work of : GDJ, pixabay

ESG Dystopia: Why Corporations Are Doubling Down on Woke Even as They Lose Billions

by Brandon Smith, Alt-Market.us
June 9, 2023

It’s been a bloodbath for the majority of companies that go overtly woke in the new era of American consumer rebellion, and the establishment is not happy. Corporations like Disney, Anheuser-Busch and Target are plunging in profits and losing billions in market cap after pledging fealty to the trans agenda. In particular, the public is setting out to make examples of institutions that support trans indoctrination of children. Simply put, a line in the sand has been crossed.

With conservative boycotts far more effective than leftist boycotts ever were, the movement makes evident that the political left is a paper tiger and that conservatives and independents have the real majority power in the US.  In response, the media is claiming that this movement is a form of “economic terrorism.” That is to say, if you refuse to support the woke hive mind with your wallet, you should be considered domestic enemy.

It took long enough, but average Americans are finally engaging in a culture war which was started years ago, not so much by the political left, but by globalist institutions using leftist activists as enforcers and saboteurs. The key issue that very few people talk about is that activist groups would have NO POWER whatsoever if it weren’t for the unprecedented backing they receive from governments, non-profits, think-tanks and the corporate world. And, a lot of this support has been injected through ESG-style financing as well as DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) programs.

ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) is becoming a well known term and is, at bottom, a form of “impact investing” – Meaning, major lenders such as Blackrock or Carlyle Group, or think-tanks like the Ford Foundation, seek to control societal outcomes using lending as leverage. Watch the video HERE featuring the Ford Foundation’s head of “mission investments” to get a basic understanding of what ESG really is:  Social engineering.

In the past, lenders would base their financing standards on good credit scores and the likelihood of return on investment. If you had a business with a history of solid returns and worthy collateral then you would probably get whatever loans you needed. Today, however, lenders are trying to set political and ideological terms for companies seeking to obtain financing. You must signal your virtue to get access to money, and this includes supporting climate and carbon initiatives, reorganizing your labor based on diversity and inclusion rules, even promoting LGBT activism might be a big factor in your next infusion of cash.

The higher your ESG score, the more likely it is that you will qualify for access to debt. This is part of the reason why a large array of corporations are increasingly jumping on the “pride month” bandwagon. All they have to do is slap some rainbows on some products or commercials or publicly defend the trans grooming of children and suddenly they are golden for another year of subsidized funds.

But what happens in a world where consumer loyalty is no longer a guarantee and the public stops buying from chains that promote woke concepts? What happens when going woke also means going broke? Is ESG cash really worth losing half your customers or more?

Well, not right now it isn’t. As central banks raise interest rates and cut their balance sheets the easy money party that started back in 2008 is ending. After a decade of exponential growth ESG is now in steep decline, and this is directly tied to the policies of central banks like the Federal Reserve. In the past year it is no longer viable to dump money into mostly useless woke projects. Yet, the woke trend continues. Why?

Twenty years ago, the name of the game in the business world was “brand building.” If you could build your brand and gain market loyalty you could sustain your profit model for decades to come. Now, corporations are actually willing to destroy the very brands they spent so much time and money developing all in the name of political idolatry.

It seems like pure madness, but what if they know something we don’t? What if they are riding out an engineered economic crisis so that they can be rewarded later with “too woke to fail” riches? My theory is that while ESG lending appears to be dying today, tomorrow ESG lending will be the only way any company will be able to survive.

We need to start considering the future possibility of globally institutionalized ESG.  The frightening notion of central bank ESG financing has been circulating ever since the early days of the covid pandemic. From the BIS to the Fed to the ECB, numerous programs began to surface with woke connotations. Most of them initially focused on climate change, with central banks suddenly taking an interest in “saving the planet” from a carbon threat that doesn’t exist. Now, there’s a rising chorus of DEI and social equity babble coming from central banks as well.

Maybe international banks are limited in how they engage in ESG lending, but what about central banks? What if they drop their facade of being “politically neutral” and come out full force in support of the woke mind virus? What if central banks become the foundation of ESG?  Wouldn’t woke lending then become perpetual?

I believe that this is exactly what is intended to happen, but it would have to be tied directly to an economic crisis as well as the introduction of digital currencies (CBDCs).  A debt crisis (along with stagflation) could force a majority of companies into a corner. With lack of funds, falling consumer spending and a tightening loan market, central banks and stimulus measures would once again become the only official mechanism for rebuilding the economy.

Governments would also be beholden to central banks as a means to stay afloat, and this means the bankers will have immense influence over how money is distributed (and how wealth is reallocated).

Unlike the crash of 2008, though, the next stimulus event will not be a fiat free-for-all. Instead, it will be RESET; a highly limited rescue plan with digital money being infused into select institutions. In other words, only a portion of the existing economy will be given a life boat, and guess who will qualify for a spot on the raft? That’s right, companies showing the most devotion to ESG.

This would explain why so many corporations are refusing to back away from woke marketing even though they’re losing millions of customers; they know what’s about to happen and they’re preparing in advance for the fallout as well as the inevitable digital bailouts.

Of course, some people will argue that this would require a level of organization and “conspiracy” that doesn’t exist. It would be “silly” to suggest that corporations are colluding to enact a plan to fundamentally upend the current economic paradigm, right? Wrong. At least in terms of coordination, the cabal has already openly announced its presence.



The collusion of corporations, think-tanks and governments to create an international woke monopoly is not theory, it’s reality. The only question left is when will central banks fully admit they’re a part of the scheme? I would suggest that the signs of banking crisis we witnessed at the beginning of this year are the tip of the iceberg.

As the Fed and others continue to raise interest rates into economic weakness stress on the system will expand, and eventually something integral will snap. Maybe it will be another Lehman moment, maybe it will be the US dollar losing reserve status or some other disaster. But it’s no coincidence that this invasion of far-left cultism in the business world is escalating at the same time that our economic foundations are struggling. One is related to the other, and it’s my view that the decay of the current system is meant to facilitate the creation of a new and perpetually woke economy.

The public would thus be trapped into participating in the cult by sheer necessity, unless, the population decentralizes using localized production and localized trade. Our entire way of life would have to change dramatically, drawing from self sufficient ideals that used to be a staple a hundred years ago.

ESG is not going away on its own. Woke ideology is not going away on its own. These structures will have to be destroyed, but you can’t rebel against a structure you rely on for your daily survival. You would first have to completely separate from it.

Connect with Brandon Smith

Cover image credit: Hansuan_Fabregas, pixabay, creative commons

The Current Accepted Racism Is Evil as All Racism Is Evil: White People Matter as Much as Anyone Else!

by Gary D. Barnett
June 8, 2023

I generally begin my articles with an appropriate quote, but attempting to find a quote concerning extreme racism against white people, especially white males, is almost impossible. In fact, site after site, ‘fact-checker’ after ‘fact-checker,’ fake black ‘leader’ after fake black ‘leader,’ ethnicity after ethnicity, and one stupid white leftist after another, claim there is no such thing as racism against any white person living today. This is convenient for hateful, ignorant, and agitating whores of hypocrisy of all stripes, as perpetrating and perpetuating harmful agendas does not require it seems, any fact or evidence, and certainly belies all logic and reason when it comes to hate simply over the color of one’s skin. In light of this, I will use my own quote.

“Racism is, from any position of honesty, logic, and reason,  just as was clearly stated by Muhammad Ali; hating anyone due to the color of their skin, period. It matters not if that racism comes from white against black or black against white. Given the unbelievable stupidity of people today, now white people can be racist against white people. How in the hell can that be, without the obvious contradiction not being seen for what it is? Any who abuse or hate others due to the color of skin, are racists, and at this time in this country, we have racism against some people only because they are white. “

Gary D. Barnett–February 10, 2023, “I Am Sick and Tired of Racist White Bashing”

Yes, I am a white heterosexual male, and I do not give a damn who likes it or not! In case many of you have lost all your brain cells, not one human on this earth has any control whatsoever over what color, ethnicity, culture, or country in which he is born. It is completely out of his control, and therefore, each should be proud of, or at least aware of his background, regardless of what that background entails. Each has to make his own way in life, successful or not, and cannot change his color or biology, no matter what effort is taken. This also includes biological gender, as that also cannot be altered in such a manner as to defy natural biology, no matter what efforts are pursued. So let the hate mail from ignoramuses commence, as this will expose the idiocy that consumes most of the proletariat today.

Humanity is made up of people from every corner of this earth; white, black, brown, yellow, red, and whatever other shades of melanin might happen to be present. The bottom line is that we all are human, we all breathe and bleed the same, we all have our wants and needs, most wish to experience love and family, and we all have to live together. We are much more the same than different, except due to the hate-stoked animosity and evil intent promoted by the ruling class in order to divide, cause dissention, and to create conflict, by weaponizing illegitimate hate so as to control the masses. Extreme and hostile malevolence has no place in the minds of men, but this evil is brought about and accepted by the herd, and it should be eliminated just like the cancer that it is. This is only possible if all look upon others as individuals, and assess worth only due to character, behavior, color-blindness, and non-aggression. This is as simple as following the “Golden Rule,” which dates back for thousands of years, and was taught to me throughout my childhood by my loving parents. Not so today it seems.

The most prolific racism in this country today is becoming black against white, but in reality, it is every ethnicity, every culture, and every idiotic ‘identifying gender’ with multi-labeled  acronyms, (2SLGBTQI+) plus, plus, of course, as new designations surface regularly, against white people. (The explanation of this bullshite is astonishing) It is about every color, media outlet, government, many so-called ‘entertainers,’ leftist politicians, and a multitude of white hypocrites; all committing racism against white people, especially white males, as discussed earlier. This form of racism today is illegitimately viewed completely in reverse. But fear not, with this level of racism against white people, they (everyone else) may yet get the hate they tend to crave so much. Why would that ever be desired?

In this current environment, ‘reverse’ racism has come out on top, and is now actually in vogue, which is atrocious, as all real racism certainly is immoral. The race card has been played over and over again for decades, even after most of those long-held beliefs of past centuries have gone the way of the dinosaurs. There will always be some people who dislike others for the wrong reasons, there will always be racists and bigots, there will always be bad people, there will always be those who achieve more and are richer than others, and there will never be complete ‘equality’ unless all are equally enslaved. This is the way of the world, but that does not have to be a bad thing. No one can be equal based on outcome, as that means the destruction of freedom, and therefore, the destruction of mankind.

The only true slavery that exists in this country today is the slavery of the masses by the State. There are no black slaves, white slaves, brown slaves, or any other in any real sense of the term, as actual slavery ended in this country well over 150 years ago, which means that no one living is or has ever been a slave. The past is gone, and while it should be remembered and studied in order to learn from those mistakes, it should not be used to punish the innocent for crimes committed by people now dead. That kind of blame is flawed and deadly, and is only a heinous political tool, never used for good or meant to cure ills, but only to enhance one group at the expense of another, or to purposely cause division where none should thrive; which of course is very wrong. Committing multiple wrongs does not make a right as the old saying goes, but it does keep evil alive.

As an aside, for all white people who claim that white people should die due to the color of their skin, if you have not yet committed suicide, you have perpetrated hypocrisy at the highest level possible, and are not worth the effort to acknowledge. You know who you are, and everyone else does as well.

Let us end this conversation with a hope that many more might in the future attempt to get along together, to only see each individual for his real worth and not his color, eliminate the State’s planned division that has been foisted on us, and voluntarily accepted by most, and understand the wickedness of the plot to breed hate in order to control.

Make love not war was the protest mantra of the 60s, and was loved by the young and anti-war crowd, and shunned by the promoters of war and conflict. It is just as appropriate today concerning the mass divide that exists among the people at large, and would it not be so much better if more understood that we are still at war; only this time, it is the State that is warring against all of us, and so long as we continue to hate each other, the State will win, and all of us will lose everything.

“None of us is responsible for the complexion of his skin. This fact of nature offers no clue to the character or quality of the person underneath.”

~ Marian Anderson

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

Cover image credit: Victoria_Regen & n-kukova, pixabay, creative commons

On the Massive Fires in Canada & All Over North America

TCTL editor’s note: [See update regarding ammonium nitrate at end of post.]

After days of viewing information regarding the devastating fires in Canada, starting with the alert by Dutchsinse (Michael Janich) six days ago, and subsequently hearing from family and friends who live along the US east coast (and experiencing the heavy skies where I live), it seems clear that we still don’t know what is going on.

Many have sent links to “who did this” videos, articles and tweets. Many have reposted clips from “some guy on TikTok“. It turns out that the guy is Al Vachon (TikTok handle al_vachon). I have shared the short video and a transcript below.

In a follow-up video, Al expresses his surprise that he’s receiving so much attention. I have no idea who he is or what he has to say about anything else, but other people who are questioning the narrative, and who also have a backbone, resonate with his words and are sharing everywhere.

In the meantime, Dutchsinse has done more investigation and found that the fire locations link up with locations of oil wells along the edge of the North American Craton, as well as a relationship to earthquake activity. He shows the correlation between earthquakes and oil well drill points. Dutchsinse makes it clear he does not have the answers but he is researching and sharing all that he sees, along with his questions.

And today, Jeff Berwick of Dollar Vigilante put together a video compilation of “fire”-related clips and thoughts,  which was sent out with his newsletter (also shared below).

While no one knows the truth about what is unfolding in all of these global events (natural occurrences and/or created or stimulated by human activity), we do know the full-spectrum-dominance agenda and that, regardless of the cause of the fires, the agenda drivers will use the situation to further their death cult (anti-human and anti-nature).  They will push forward their evil control agendas.

We must individually face the lies that we were all born in to, stand up, resist, and live/create our daily lives outside of their control. And we must let go of the fear of death. Life as enslaved beings is a far worse fate than death.

~ Kathleen

 

Follow Dutchsinse at Youtube

Canada Is on Fire

by Al Vachon on TikTok
June 4, 2023

https://www.tiktok.com/@al_vachon/video/7240820329088552198

Transcript prepared by Truth Comes to Light:

Good morning, everybody. I wanted to touch on this one this morning. It’s getting so bad that I don’t think people really, truly understand what’s going on.

If you haven’t heard the latest up here in Canada, BC is on fire. The East Coast is on fire. And now Quebec. Quebec, all in one day, the entire province caught fire on a beautiful day.

This is planned and I’ll tell you why it’s planned. They want to move people out of the countryside, into cities. Then they want to lock them down in 15-minute cities.

How do you do that? Contaminate the air, contaminate the water and so on.

They started contaminating the water, as you know, in the past few months. And now with train derailments and all that stuff all across North America, not just in Canada.

And that was purposefully done to contaminate water sources and then justify people’s relocation by saying the water is contaminated, you can’t stay here. Or the air is contaminated, you can’t stay here. Relocating them into whatever hotels or different establishments within city limits.

This is all a ploy, a plan, to get people into cities to implement their smart cities. That’s the only way they can control you.

First, they have to go to digital currency and get you into smart cities. This is happening and this is real.

This is evil. This is pure evil.

It’s our time to fight back. We need to —

I’m actually totally surprised that there isn’t complete and utter outrage, and an uprising like this world has never seen before.

Because this is what we need to take our countries back. Complete outrage and an uprising. Nothing less is going to do, nothing less is going to make this place a better world.

I mean, we have to take our country back. And the way we do that is we expel those that are destroying our way of life.

And what I mean by exposing them is getting them out of power. Forcing them one way or the other.

They don’t want to go willingly. We’ll help them out the door.

That’s it for today. Happy Sunday. Stay free. God bless.

Follow Al Vachon at TikTok

We Didn’t Start The Fire… But We Know Who Did

by Jeff Berwick,Dollar Vigilante blog
June 9, 2023

Long before there were Covaids, lethal injections, climate-destroying cow farts, and 15-minute prison cities, the NWO cabal has laid the groundwork for the biggest conspiracy feary of all: “How to enslave the world… and get away with it”.

Lesson 1: Sci-lence the Lambs

“Hey, morons! Canada’s on fire, it’s time to bring back the masks. It’s for your own good and the safety of others – how ‘bout a free anti-smoke vaccination?”

Isn’t it wonderful how these flimsy paper muzzles have such multi-purpose?

1. Keeps you safe during the biggest “pandemic” the world has ever seen
2. Protects you against stolen ammonia nitrate fires 3000 miles away
3. Makes you look dumb as fook
4. Identifies you as an NPC in the Great Reset Conspiracy – Climate Change edition

It’s got everything!

• 15 Minute Cities
• Sheeple not allowed to leave the city
• It’s for your own good because the air outside the city is poisonous.
• No cars – only driverless monorail things
• Population control and Eugenics
• Implanted control chips
• Climate change/virus/meteor apocalypse has destroyed everything and there is no life outside the city – you can’t exist outside the system.

All of which were predicted in ‘Logan’s Run’, a 1976 dystopian cult movie where humanity was forced to retreat to domed biospheres because of an ‘ecological disaster’. Where, at the age of 30, people would be offered the choice to willingly and enthusiastically be killed in the expectation of being reincarnated, or, running like hell and hoping you avoid the armed, ruthless enforcers of the system…

Read more at Dollar Vigilante blog…

Watch Jeff’s video on:  Odysee | Rumble | Bitchute | Telegram

Connect with Jeff Berwick

Update 6/9/2023: Related to Jeff’s comment above about stolen ammonium nitrate, see this Tiktok video by RepublicanReflections:

https://www.tiktok.com/@republicanreflections/video/7242771288526294314

Cover image credit: CharlVera/pixabay

See related:

Wildfires As a Weapon: US Military Exposed

James Fetzer on the Nashville Transgender School Shooter Hoax

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
May 22, 2023

James Fetzer has chatted to me many times.

His conversations are always explosive.

I strongly recommend listening to his analyses of 9/11, Sandy Hook and staged mass shootings. They are all red pill conversations.

Paradigm shifts have become a big thing thanks to the Covid™ narrative. The events of 2020 were so obviously abnormal that questioning everything immediately became a staple of my new normal.

We all know about Nashville school shooting incident that happened recently.

The following is what CNN reported.

Audrey Hale, a 28-year-old former Covenant School student who killed six people at the school Monday, carefully planned the attack, according to officials.

While the shooter’s gender identity is unclear, police told CNN that Hale was assigned female at birth and used “male pronouns” on social media.

I laughed at the bit about “assigned female at birth”. (Mark McDonald has more on that.)

Does that shooter look like a female?

The following conversation with James is mostly a slideshow in which he breaks apart the entire story, concluding that this was yet another staged mass shooting.



Connect with Jerm Warfare

Connect with James Fetzer

 See Related:

James Fetzer on the 9/11 Coverup

James Fetzer on the Sandy Hook Coverup: What Actually Happened at the School, and Was It a False Flag Operation to Usher In Stricter Gun Laws?

Newtown, CT Resident: Questioning the Sandy Hook Narrative — Mind-Boggling “Coincidences” Connect Mafia-Like Ties Within Key Town Positions

James Corbett on Technocratic Control and the Dangers of AI

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
May 14, 2023

Story-at-a-Glance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can the Global Takeover Be Derailed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Elon Musk Controlled Opposition?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Did Musk Release the Twitter Files?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop Looking for a Savior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ChatGPT and the Future of Propaganda



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solutions Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Build Community and Get Out of Metropolitan Areas

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Information

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

Connect with James Corbett

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

Cover image credit: geralt

Government and Rule: The Bane of Humanity

by Gary D. Barnett
May 12, 2023

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”

~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century

Properly summing up government and rule of any kind, is to accept that all government, all State force, and all authority of one over another, is an atrocious abomination against humanity. Government is the scourge of mankind, it can only exist due to force, and if any government or any rule is administered by any politician or ruler, or any of their ilk, freedom has already vanished. As Orson Scott Card so clearly explained what he had learned: “My father always said that government is like watching another man piss in your boot. Someone feels better but it certainly isn’t you.” This image is accurate, but if the free man sticks his boot up the arse of the government, he will not only feel better, he will be free.

The bottom line as I see it, is that there is no such thing as good government, benevolent government, necessary government, or protective government; there is only evil government. This is easy to understand when one simply discovers what governments cause, what they do, what they steal, who they murder, and how they hold power over all. Considering America, without government and rule, there would have been few if any wars, no government taxation, (theft) no confiscation of much of the land in this country by rule of ‘law’ and force, few if any monopolies, no mass regulation of any kind, no government prisons filled with those incarcerated for victimless crimes, no drug laws, no gun laws, and no murderous federal or state police and military. There would be no politicians, no elections, no voting for masters, no congress, no president, (king) no massive bureaucracies, no government indoctrination systems, (‘public’ schools) no republicans, no democrats, and therefore a great reduction of lies.

Without a government, the false flag inside job of September 11, 2001, would never have happened. There would never have been any Patriot Act, no war of terror by the United States, no torture program, and probably no recessions or depressions, unless they were isolated, natural, localized, and very short-lived. The housing and economic crisis beginning in 2008 would not have occurred. Stock and bond manipulation would be nearly impossible, and mass spending, currency expansion, and monetary inflation would be unheard of in an environment devoid of government.

There would be no national emergencies declared by government, so the fake ‘covid’ pandemic would never have taken place. There would never have been business closings ordered, no mask mandates, no forced home imprisonment, no curfews, no lockdowns, no ‘social distancing,’ no testing, and absolutely no required deadly poisonous bio-weapon injections purposely and unjustly called ‘vaccines.’.

There would never have been any travel restrictions, no bailouts, no mass welfare scams called ‘stimulus checks, no hyper-inflation, no poisoning of food sources, no destruction of farms and ranches, no slaughter of animals, no toxic chemical poison spraying of the atmosphere, no geo-engineering of weather and unnatural disasters, and no Trump or Biden.

There would be no debt ceiling, because there would likely be no federal or state debt. There would be no national deficit, and no unfunded liabilities. There would be little if any division among the people because most all division is caused and stoked by government. There would be no immigration problem, no fences at the borders, no ‘war on drugs,’ no drug cartels supported fully by the U.S. government and the CIA and other ‘intelligence’ services. There would be no antagonistic foreign policy, and therefore, no real risk of nuclear war with China or Russia, and no food and energy shortages caused by state thugs.

No one has any legitimate right to give authority, or assign any power of one over another, by calling it government. The very idea that one can vote to allow by proxy, the rule of the many by the few; those chosen liars and cheats called politicians, is in and of itself absurd. How can any illegitimately selected political class, the most immoral group of criminals on earth, legislate morality to others? All that government consists of, are those dregs of society seeking rule, who are given power to do things that no normal citizen has a right to do. Any who are allowed to make ‘laws’ controlling others, are automatically assuming a position above their own heinous ‘laws.’ They are only able to do this by using the resources they steal from all, to buy violent enforcers called police and military, to punish, harm, or murder, any who question or refuse their false ‘authority.’

As I have said in the past: “All those who continue to support the notion that government is necessary, all those who continue to advocate government as the only answer to societal cohesion, all those who demand that others accept government for the benefit of all, and all those dependent on rule who expect government to be their master and protector, are in essence the destroyers of liberty, and therefore they are advocates for mass slavery. There is no legitimate reasoning for such asinine behavior.”

Government can only exist when people accept that they are slaves, and allow a master to rule over them. Without this voluntary acceptance of rule, no government could ever stand. No individual or group of individuals, has any right whatsoever to rule another, and this has only been possible due to the insane mindset that is collectivism of the masses. This so-called ‘philosophy’ that is ‘collectivism,’ sets the stage for where we are today; living as slaves in a society of fools, dependent on a master’s permission to live and breathe. No freedom will ever be present, so long as any government (State) exists. This is a reality that cannot be questioned.

“Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves.”

~ Herbert Marcuse

Copyright © 2023 GaryDBarnett.com

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

Cover image credit: GDJ

They’re Coming to Take You Away

…When the monolithic narrative that is all they have been taught lies in ruins, they will replace it not with a rational, informed alternative – for they will know of none – but with whatever satisfies the rage of a population that realizes, too late, that it has been hoodwinked.

Woe to the freedom-haters when the lion they think they have tamed turns its fury on the liberal society that soothsayers like Zelikow and Lipstadt still imagine they are defending!”

by Michael Lesher, Brownstone Institute
May 9, 2023

Suppose I tell you in advance that the essay you are reading is meant to startle you. And suppose I suggest, by way of demonstration, that two people as loosely connected as the leader of the “COVID Crisis Group” and Joe Biden’s “Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Antisemitism” – both of whom have recently offered recommendations for improving political life in the United States – are in fact determined to unravel American freedoms.

Would you be surprised?

Well, if so, that is exactly the startling fact I am trying to bring to your attention. True, you may not have heard that the 34 COVID-19 “experts” headed by one Philip Zelikow (last seen justifying the concealment of information about the 9/11 attacks) and anti-Semitism “ambassador” Deborah Lipstadt – perhaps best known for slandering scads of Jewish survivors of the Nazis as “soft-core” Holocaust deniers because they objected to the massacre of 1,462 of Gaza’s civilians nine years ago – are both out to dismantle the Bill of Rights. But if you haven’t, it isn’t because they’ve been coy about their objectives.

Take the Zelikow panel. Its new book on “the lessons learned from COVID-19” openly conflates the federal government’s management of a respiratory virus with “wartime” – thus rationalizing the executive branch’s preemption of democratic government. Not only that, Zelikow and his band of “experts” explicitly call for the consolidation of power in the hands of an unelected “health security enterprise” that would control, among other things, a “systematic biomedical surveillance network.” And in case you can’t guess who is likely to benefit from the snooping, the panel goes on to praise the coercive experimental drug program that gave us the COVID-19 “vaccines” – “a bargain at $30 billion,” according to the editors of the Washington Post – signaling at one stroke the experts’ contempt for the Nuremberg Code and their subservience to Big Pharma.

As for Lipstadt, she has launched her attack on the First Amendment by redefining “anti-Semitism” so as to include an extraordinary range of political speech. Her first step in that transformation is the familiar trick of confusing criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Jewish bigotry. But her second step is newer and, arguably, even more disturbing: she tars all denigration of Jews with the hot-button label “conspiracy theory.”

Let’s be clear: however noble the pretext of opposing Jew-hatred, it should be obvious that once you characterize anti-Semitism as a “conspiracy theory” you have made a case for censorship. As Lipstadt herself explained to Jane Eisner of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism (in an interview printed in the latest AARP Magazine but not available online): “[I]t’s a conspiracy theory that Jews control the media, the banks, the election process, etc. If you believe that there is a group controlling these things, then essentially you’re saying that you don’t believe in democracy.”

And there’s the trouble. After all, an overt attack on democracy isn’t a viewpoint; it isn’t even an expression of run-of-the-mill bigotry. It’s a threat to the state. And it follows, if you accept Lipstadt’s formulation, that anyone the government can label an “anti-Semite” may now be punished in the same way the Biden administration is already punishing people who protested the presidential election results of November 2020. Note, too, the selective parameters of the offense: blaming Donald Trump’s election on the Russians is presumably “legitimate” speech; but accusing a “group” of controlling “the election process” can land you in jail – that is, when the “group” is not an official enemy but a favored minority, and when that “process” has reached results endorsed by those in power.

So the Zelikow panel and Ambassador Lipstadt can’t be accused of hiding their illiberal goals. Like the Democratic lynch mob that denounced Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger on the floor of Congress last March for revealing the extent of government censorship of Twitter, these propagandists quite openly assert that surveillance is good for us, while free speech is entirely too dangerous to be entrusted to mere citizens.

“Ordinary folks and national security agencies responsible for our security,” Congressman Colin Allred lectured Taibbi, “are trying their best to find a way to make sure that our online discourse doesn’t get people hurt, or see our democracy undermined.” It’s pretty breathtaking to watch an African-American liberal solemnly declare that the CIA and the FBI are the true guardians of democracy – not to mention his defense of the security state’s behind-the-scenes censorship of political speech. But what’s even more ominous is that not a single prominent Democratic politician nor a single pundit in mainstream liberal media has repudiated anything the congressman said.

Is it any wonder, then, that no one in mainstream media has mentioned the totalitarian tendencies implicit in the COVID Crisis Group’s recommendations for “pandemic” regulation via dismantling democracy, or in Ambassador Lipstadt’s appeals to the public to “discredit” anti-Semitism by recasting it as a criminal conspiracy?

Of course it isn’t. And that is my point. That is my motive in writing in tandem about these two apparently disparate subjects, connected only by the facts that both of them involve recent public declarations and that both of them represent attacks on fundamental liberties.

Because the truth is that condemning freedom is now so entirely respectable that it’s happening practically everywhere – under every possible pretext, almost any day, from just about any left-liberal institution that claims to care about the public good. Close your eyes, and you can hardly tell whether what you’re hearing is coming from a Democratic Party stalwart or from an old-line Soviet apologist explaining why Andrei Sakharov or Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Yuri Orlov is really, notwithstanding the accuracy of what he’s been saying, a threat to the state who deserves to be muzzled or jailed.

And the media’s silence about it all is as ominous as the Orwellian nattering of the freedom-haters themselves.

Take another look at the Zelikow panel’s assessment of the US government’s performance during the “COVID crisis.” Writing about what the “experts” praise or blame in their report, the Washington Post never once mentions the crippling of the US working-class economy due to arbitrary confinements and business shutdowns, the educational damage done to a whole generation of children through needless school closures, the reckless suspension of representative democracy in four-fifths of our states, the medically unjustifiable trauma caused by “mask mandates,” or the undermining of the national healthcare system through an obsessive focus on one respiratory virus while more serious issues were sidelined for over a year. As far as the Post is concerned, the real outrages of the COVID coup never happened at all.

Even when the experts and the editors do manage to notice something sinister, they go out of their way to miss the point. The Zelikow panel specifically notes the “four pandemic planning exercises” staged by the US government barely a year before the announcement of the COVID-19 outbreak. And it offers a few technical criticisms of the proceedings.

But neither the panel nor the Post editors’ congratulatory summary of its conclusions addresses the fact that the exercises – which omitted any suggestion for using repurposed drugs as early treatment for a novel virus, as in all previous influenza-like outbreaks – made a point of discussing the importance of thought-policing social media. That prescription for censorship became a grim reality after March 2020. But you’d never know it from reading the Zelikow panel’s assessment of the government’s mistakes in addressing the “pandemic.”

And Lipstadt? She claims to be a passionate defender of free speech. But that didn’t stop her from smearing Senator Ron Johnson as a “white nationalist sympathizer” because of his politically incorrect comments about Black Lives Matter. And when that issue made it to the op-ed page of the New York Times, it was only to further demonize Johnson; Lipstadt’s slander got a pass.

Why do I worry so much about this? Well, first of all because an attack on freedom is an attack on all of us.

But I think there is a special reason for alarm. It’s not just that our ruling elites believe that we, the people, need to be stripped of our right to free expression. I’m afraid that the freedom-haters clustered around our figurehead President are not even aware just how thin the ice is onto which they’re propelling us. Their position (taking the most charitable possible view of it) runs something like this: if the public isn’t exposed to views of which the censors disapprove, hoi polloi will meekly accept whatever policies are imposed on them (for their own good, of course).

But the censors are wrong. The fabric of American political life has been strained to such tautness that a single acute crisis might rupture it altogether. And if that happens, people who have been deprived of reasonable dissent will not shrink from violent opposition; on the contrary, they will embrace it. When the monolithic narrative that is all they have been taught lies in ruins, they will replace it not with a rational, informed alternative – for they will know of none – but with whatever satisfies the rage of a population that realizes, too late, that it has been hoodwinked.

Woe to the freedom-haters when the lion they think they have tamed turns its fury on the liberal society that soothsayers like Zelikow and Lipstadt still imagine they are defending!

Michael Lesher is an author, poet and lawyer whose legal work is mostly dedicated to issues connected with domestic abuse and child sexual abuse. A memoir of his discovery of Orthodox Judaism as an adult – Turning Back: The Personal Journey of a “Born-Again” Jew – was published in September 2020 by Lincoln Square Books. He has also published op-ed pieces in such varied venues as Forward, ZNet, the New York Post and Off-Guardian.

Connect with Brownstone Institute

Cover image credit: InspiredImages

Pentagon “Leaks”: 5 ways to tell REAL from FAKE

by Kit Knightly, OffGuardian
April 17, 2023

We promised a longer take on the Pentagon “leaks”, and here it goes. Regular readers will probably be familiar with my view on leaked documents in general, but if you’re not allow me to quote my own 2019 article on the (absurd) “Afghanistan papers”:

An awful lot of modern “leaks” are no such thing. They are Orwellian exercises in controlling the conversation […] carefully making sure the “establishment” and the “alternative” are joined in the middle, controlled from the same source.

That’s not to say ALL “leaks” are automatically and ubiquitously narrative control exercises, clearly some are real…but it’s usually pretty easy to tell them apart. In fact here’s a little checklist.

1. If your “leak” tells you stuff you already know, it’s probably a fake leak.

“Leaking” widely known, publicly available information is a very common tactic. In the Pentagon “leaks”, for example, it was “revealed” that the US has been spying on South Korea, Israel and Ukraine. But the US spies on everyone – allies included – and we have all known that for literal decades.

Further, everyone spies on everyone, it’s just the way the game is played. Acting like it’s a big reveal, and the performative outrage of the South Korean government, is a hallmark of a fake leak.

2. If your “leak” reinforces the mainstream narrative, it’s probably a fake leak.

Leaks can be used to manage and/or reinforce the mainstream narrative. The Afghanistan Papers are, again, a prime example of this. The “secret history” which did nothing but repeat myths and lies about the US war.

Or the leaked Fauci emails, which resurrected the lab-leak theory of Covid’s origins, but reinforced that Covid existed and was dangerous.

3. If your “leak” gets MASSES of media coverage, it’s probably a fake leak.

A telltale sign of the fake leak is the mainstream media carefully explaining to everyone how important it is and what it all means. The BBC, Sky News, CNN and others have all put out explainer articles and videos detailing the content of the leaks. US spokespeople, like John Kirby, have said the press shouldn’t report on the leaks, but this has made no difference

We know the corporate media is just an extension of the Establishment, they only report what they’re told to report. They have no duty to the truth, and no ties to reality. If they publicise the leaks, it’s because they’re instructed to, because it serves the greater narrative. Officials criticising the press for publishing the “leak” is just a utilisation of the Streisand affect, textbook “please don’t throw me in the briar patch” stuff.

4. If your “leak” source is revealed immediately and publicly, it’s probably a fake leak.

Within days of the recent leak the press were reporting the name and rank of the alleged leaker, his arrest was filmed and the videos sent to the press, and he was arraigned in public. Is this how covert agencies bent on concealing important information operate?

For comparison’s sake, consider Seth Rich. Mr Rich was alleged to be the source of leaked emails which proved the DNC was rigging votes for Hillary Clinton. He died when he was shot in the back by muggers who didn’t take anything.

5. If your “leak” tells you what you want to hear, it’s probably a fake leak.

Never trust anyone who tells you only what you want to hear, that goes double for media outlets or government agencies.

In the most recent “leaks”, we see how they very conveniently feed both sides of the war narrative.

One of the “revelations” is that the Ukrainian military is running out of anti-air ammunition. Meaning that, in the near future, Russia could potentially flatten Ukraine with its air superiority.

This is, obviously and clearly, propaganda aimed at supporting the “Ukraine needs our help” storyline. It will be used to argue the West “has not done enough” to protect Ukraine and result in demands for more money and/or weapons to be sent over.

On the other hand the “revelations” concerning depleting ammunition stocks and higher-than-reported casualties provide, as well as the presence of NATO special forces in the country, fuel to the Western alternative media pro-Russia position.

“See, Russia is actually winning”, they say, “And NATO forces presence shows Russia was in the right, don’t believe Western misinformation“.

All of it combines to maintain the narrative that the conflict represents vital very real and deep-seated moral and strategic differences and isn’t just a turf war between rival globalist gangsters as valuable for its distraction potential as anything else.

We saw something similar earlier this year, with the release of Sy Hersh’s report on the “truth” behind the Nord Stream 2 sabotage, an anonymous insider claiming the US was responsible. Both sides attributing blame, both sides distracting from the real impact – and probably real purpose – of shutting down the pipeline.

*

Having established how to spot a fake “leak”, we can see that these “highly classified” Pentagon papers fit perfectly into the “fake leak” category.

Now, the question becomes, if the leaks are Deep State psy-op, what is the objective?

Well, we already partly covered that. Ukraine running out of missiles, for example, will be used to justify even more resources and money being sunk into the murky and bottomless pit of “military spending”.

Secondly, we can already see the establishment crosshairs centering on Discord – the platform where the leaks were first published. Not just Discord, but group chat services in general.

As they almost always are, the fake “leak” will fuel calls for more security and greater control of online content, after all these leaks “put US assets in danger”

More broadly, it simply provides fuel for a waning narrative. So many facts to dispute, and so many arguments to be had. What special forces are in the country? What provocations are they carrying out? Who’s “really” winning? Whose casulty figures are reliable? Who staged what atrocities to discredit which side?

Are the Chinese arming Russia in secret? Will South Korea pull out?

What about the leaker – is he an anti-war hero? A narcissist who endangered America? Or a racist traitor? Should he go to prison? How long for?

Watch the Reds and Blues argue over that one.

It’s all content designed, in the parlance of social media, to boost engagement. Because the system has adapted, they don’t manufacture consent anymore – they farm participation. Angry refutation and warm praise record the same in the algorithm. They don’t want your agreement, they want your attention. And when they feel the story is losing the audience, well, here’s some super secret facts you aren’t supposed to know.

Here’s the real story behind the story, why don’t you go on Facebook and tell everyone about it?

What ultimate purpose do these leaks serve? The same purpose as an end-of-season cliffhanger, or killing off a major character. It gets people talking, it pulls people into their story.

They want you to read it, debate it, and live in their created reality.

Connect with OffGuardian

Cover image credit: Clard

James Corbett: Your Guide to 5th-Generation Warfare

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

~~~

“Neurological Warfare…

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

~~~

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

~~~

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

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

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

“War is over . . . if we want it.”

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
April 18, 2023

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

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

Transcript & Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is Fifth-Generation Warfare?

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

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

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

[. . .]

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

[. . .]

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

SOURCE: The State and Modern War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 2: Information Warfare

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

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

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

DAN DICKS: It says here:

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

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

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

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

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

This is unbelievable

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE: Political Disruptions: Combating Disinformation and Fake News

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

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

SOURCE: Human Rights Violations in Kuwait

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neurological Warfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biological Warfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Warfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Real War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War is over . . . if we want it.

Connect with James Corbett

A Handful of Companies Control the Global Propaganda

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
April 14, 2023

Story-at-a-Glance

• PR firms and ad agency holding companies are a central cog in global propaganda machine. They make sure the same message is distributed in many different places in a cohesively timed fashion
• An estimated two-thirds to 80% of the content broadcast and published by corporate media comes from public relations firms such as these four. In other words, most so-called mainstream media “news” is propaganda
• The four largest ad holding companies in the world are the Publicis Groupe, WPP, the Omnicom Group and the Interpublic Group, and all are deeply interlocked with the corporate media, the military-industrial complex and the policymakers
• A handful of private investment companies dominate every aspect of our lives and own everything we spend our money on. The two largest ones are Vanguard and BlackRock. Vanguard and/or BlackRock are also among the top 10 shareholders in the four largest ad agency holding companies

The 1% of the world’s wealthiest people provide the ideological justification that is driving the implementation of The Great Reset worldwide. The term academia uses to describe this globalist cabal is “The Transnational Capitalist Class” or TCC

In her book “One Idea to Rule Them All, Reverse Engineering American Propaganda,” Michelle Stiles reveals how the American public (and indeed the global population at large) have been indoctrinated and conned by public relations (PR) companies that run the globalist cabal’s propaganda campaigns. I will be interviewing Michele shortly for this book.

The PR agency creates a global media plan for a given client. It decides the articles to be written and where they’re to appear. It then decides where ads will run and when. So, while drug companies appear to have a rather direct influence over media, it’s really the PR firms that wield the greatest control, especially when it comes to the organization of it all.

They make sure the same message is distributed in many different places in a cohesively timed fashion. As such, PR companies are a central cog in the global propaganda machine and need to be understood as such.

On a side note, there are two designations for PR companies: public relations firms and ad agency holding companies. Ad agency holding companies do public relations but are primarily ad agency based.

A Russian Nesting Doll Model of the World

As detailed in “Who Owns the World?” a handful of private investment companies dominate every aspect of our lives and own everything we spend our money on, from food and beverages to clothing, travel, housing and just about everything else you can think of.

While there appear to be hundreds of competing brands on the market, like Russian nesting dolls, larger parent companies own multiple smaller brands. In reality, all packaged food brands, for example, are owned by a dozen or so larger parent companies.

These parent companies, in turn, are owned by shareholders, and the largest shareholders are the same in all of them: Vanguard and Blackrock. These institutional investors also own each other. They’re shareholders in each other’s companies, which erodes the concept of competition and strengthens the global monopoly even further.

Four Ad Holding Companies Dominate the Media Landscape

The four largest ad holding companies in the world are currently the Publicis Groupe, WPP, the Omnicom Group and the Interpublic Group, and Stiles notes, all are “deeply interlocked with the corporate media, the military-industrial complex, and the policy elites.”

Each agency, in turn, has smaller subsidiaries and affiliates, again giving us the illusion that there are far more players than there really are. And, as with everything else, Vanguard and/or BlackRock are among the top 10 shareholders in these top four ad agency holding companies. They also own major media companies, and the largest drug companies.

An estimated two-thirds to 80% of the content broadcast and published by corporate media comes from public relations firms.

For clarity, in her book, Stiles lists the top three as WPP, Omnicom and Interpublic, but as of November 2021, Publicis surpassed WPP in terms of market value, nabbing the No. 1 spot as the world’s largest ad holding company.1 WPP still has a larger annual revenue, though. That said, all four boast multibillion-dollar annual revenues. In 2022:

• London-based WPP, which has agencies in 112 countries, made $17.847 billion.2 Noteworthy clients include Amazon, Microsoft, NBC, Healthline, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and Pfizer.
• Publicis made $14.957 billion3 serving clients within the technology, pharmaceutical and banking industries.
• New York City-based Omnicom made $14.289 billion4 from its 200+ agencies, which service more than 5,000 corporate brands, universities, nonprofits and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
• The Interpublic Group’s revenue was $10.928 billion,5 and its clientele include the U.S. Army, ABC, Columbia Records, Unilever, U.S. Bank, Facebook and ExxonMobil, just to name a few.

According to Stiles, an estimated two-thirds to 80% of the content broadcast and published by corporate media comes from public relations firms. In other words, most so-called mainstream media “news” is propaganda.

Remarkably, when you add the revenues of these top four ad holding companies together, it’s still below $60 billion, which seems a modest price to control up to 80% of the global mainstream media landscape. Clearly, it’s money well-spent, from the globalist’s perspective.

The Transnational Capitalist Class

As noted by Stiles, the term academia uses to describe this globalist cabal is “The Transnational Capitalist Class” or TCC. “They are 1% of the world’s wealthiest people who provide the ideological justification driving desired actions to be implemented worldwide in pursuit of their shared interests through transnational governmental organizations,” she writes.

She goes on to cite sociologist Peter Phillips’ book, “Giants: The Global Power Elite,” in which Phillips details:

“… the vast web of interconnectedness of the 17 giant investment firms managing in excess of $43 trillion in capital, who are themselves cross-invested with each other, the near giants … and have ownership stakes in the top 1,500 corporations spanning the globe, giving them enormous power in corporate board rooms across the planet.

Leaders of these firms meet together at various policy-making conferences throughout the year to network, strategize and finalize recommendations in the form of reports and whitepapers that heavily influence worldwide geopolitics …

If you still live in the dark ages thinking there is no intertwined global elite controlling and overpowering the sovereignty of nation-states and dominating the ideological landscape, take the time and read Phillip’s book. It’s a reality check as bracing as a cold shower …

Philips profiles 389 of the world’s most powerful players in capitalism … It’s a very small ecosystem of entwined connections, financial overlap, elite prestige and message control which they inhabit …

There are integrations, cross integrations, partnerships, overlap of leadership and constant networking among the 1%. This is evident. So far, an obvious but overlooked question is: If a deeply complex geo-political and ideological web has already been established, who are the weavers and what are they up to? Who is responsible for the organization on such a grand scale?

People who study these types of things have many names for the weavers: ‘The Deep State,’ ‘The 1%,’ ‘The Elites,’ ‘GloboCap,’ ‘The Powers That Be,’ or simply ‘Globalists.’ It is likely that the true leaders will always remain hidden, and the leaders profiled in Phillips’ book are more or less figureheads fronting for controllers behind the scenes.

Remember, wolves don’t go announcing themselves to the general public. If things go awry, their anonymity protects them. In the end, knowledge of the names is not as important as understanding the systematic game of ‘winner take all’ that they are playing.”

But for all their private meetings, the globalists would not have been able to build this hidden monopoly where they own everything, were it not for their control of the media.

They hid their control of the media pretty well for a long time, but during COVID, the lockstep word-for-word regurgitation of nonsense and easily-confirmed lies revealed there was, without doubt, a top-down organization to the madness.

Here, Publicis appears to be a top candidate as the primary string-puller, seeing how it’s partnered with the World Economic Forum, which is leading the call for a “reset” of the global economy and a complete overhaul of our way of life.

US Government Spends Billions on Propaganda

While private interests are at the center of the globalist cabal or Deep State, it’s a mistake to think that governments aren’t participating in their plans — or their propaganda.

As reported by Stiles, between 2007 and 2015, the U.S. federal government spent more than $4 billion on public relations services, plus another $2.2 billion for polling, research, and market consulting services. Why does a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” need all this PR? In short: to indoctrinate the public with the globalists’ narratives and points of view.

“Building trust takes time because character is only revealed through action,” Stiles notes, and this is well-known to con artists and propagandists alike. Without a certain level of trust, a con won’t work, and we are now discovering that the globalist cabal has spent decades orchestrating a con so big many still cannot believe it. They’ve infiltrated academia, science and just about every branch of government, and not just in the United States.

In a functioning system, mainstream media would have alerted us to the game plan and exposed the liars and the frauds along the way. But they didn’t, and the reason they didn’t is because mainstream media are no longer free to report truth. It’s been captured by the globalist propaganda machine and its primary function is to broadcast the narratives created by PR companies on the cabal’s behalf.

“Propaganda is a rich man’s sport,” Stiles writes. “Imagine with piles of money you can purchase ‘trust,’ enabling you to monopolize ideas. Your ideas at the top of the food chain ensure continued market dominance and financial leverage over a manipulated citizenry.

You are going to do this in various ways; creating foundations that will ‘donate’ large sums of money to organizations you would like to influence, sponsoring organizations that influence national and global leaders and by creating nonprofit organizations that can promote your message while appearing independent.

This takes decades, but you’re a patient person. After all, global ideological dominance shouldn’t happen overnight. When sufficient entities exist or have been captured — the average citizen is subject to the finest pseudo-reality that money can buy.

It’s a diabolical achievement — the corruption and take-over of the ideological free market. Your ideas saturate the landscape, and your helpless victims struggle to triangulate ‘truth,’ trapped in a literal spider’s web of interconnected and well-financed authoritative voices and entities.”

The Creation of an Idea Syndicate

Stiles goes through the various ways in which the globalists technocrats and transhumanists managed to create an “idea syndicate” where their ideas always get top billing. One way has been through the capturing of societal influencers through the lures of “grants and the promise of appointments, publications and prestige.”

This strategy has resulted in people of low integrity and morals taking center stage — most are basically people willing to sell out — while simultaneously throttling the influence of independent thinkers who cannot be bought.

Another highly effective strategy is to “control the realm of ideas by lavishly funding certain themes and narratives while selectively starving others slated for extinction,” Stiles writes. This is routinely done through charitable foundations. Through “charity,” the cabal can fund the ideas that the TCC endorses while simultaneously starving out opposing ideas and ideals. As noted by Stiles:

“The true threat of the foundations lies ‘in their ability to provide war chests in the battle of ideas,’ picking winners and losers and corrupting the free-flowing ideological landscape …

Those ideas that are nonconformist, unconventional or simply do not comport with the dominant ideology espoused by the foundation trustees would be left to wither on the vine, having little reach or power to influence.

Much of what is called ‘truth’ today is supported by ‘research.’ ‘The research says’ is the essence of supposed objectivity and the backbone of a superior argument leaving the fellow without research in the dust. The logic is as follows: All worthy ideas get funding for research; your ideas have no supporting research; therefore, your ideas are inferior.

As you can easily see, all ideas do not have equal opportunity to advance if the control lever of funding is biased. With this scheme in place, entire intellectual flotillas of specialized science could be created and used to commandeer social policy, legislation, and judicial rulings by directing the money spigots flowing into academia …

Foundation control of monies to academia can be thought of as a chokehold on the seedbed or ideological germination centers targeting idea creators and their livelihood.”

The third way to create an idea syndicate is through front groups — third-party organizations that claim to be independent but are really agents of and for a particular agenda.

“With enough money, front groups can afford to scheme up designer truth hot off the assembly line to support literally any platform,” Stiles writes, adding, “Thanks to billions of dollars spent through foundations, public relations firms and the third-party technique, Americans are literally swimming in a sea of manufactured truth …”

Controlling Competing Views

So, to summarize, maintaining control over ideas and prevailing narratives involves both the monopolization of ideas and the simultaneous suppression of competing views, and PR companies and media perform both functions.

As noted by Stiles, even when media present opposing views, they do so very carefully. “Truth that has the power to unseat the illusion of democracy will have a firewall erected against it,” and media simply will not cross that firewall, no matter how “neutral” they pretend to be.

ChatGPT Weighs in on Potential Dangers of PR Firms

In closing, and just for fun, a member of my team recently asked ChatGPT to “write a story about the potential dangers of how the top three ad holding companies, which also act as public relations firms, can influence news coverage about pharmaceutical products, similar to how Bill Gates could use his foundation’s money to influence the World Health Organization and media organizations to influence the coverage of global health, and potentially benefit from his own pharmaceutical investments.”

The carefully engineered prompt for the AI allowed a response that reveals the kernel of truth that even the radicalized programmers at OpenAI could not filter out:

 Sources and References

• ¹ Forbes November 3, 2021
• ² Macrotrends.net WPP Revenue
• ³ Macrotrends Publicis Revenue
• ⁴ Macrotrends.net Omnicom Group Revenue
• ⁵ Macrotrends.net Interpublic Group Revenue

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

Cover image credit: geralt

When Does the Narrative Replace Reality?

by Aaron & Melissa Dykes, Truthstream Media
April 9, 2023



Video also available at Truthstream Media YouTube.

Truthstream’s first Film: TheMindsofMen.net

Truthstream’s first Series: Vimeo.com/ondemand/trustgame

Connect with Truthstream Media

Cover image credit: Truthstream Media

Excerpt:

Aaron Dykes:

I generally try to avoid the media storm because it’s just so toxic. It’s counterproductive and it just weighs upon my soul to follow it most of the time.

But you know the stuff with the Twitter files that has come out, the things Matt Taibbi has reported, are astonishing because they’re things that we already knew. And I’m sure many of you already knew.

We’ve seen them happening. We’ve seen the numbers on our own channels. We’ve seen the various clever ways of suppressing messages.

We’ve seen channels deleted, but also just kept under wraps, hidden from their own followers and subscribers. That’s what we’ve experienced. And I’m not even sure who’s hearing this video, but it isn’t everyone who subscribed to our channel.

I don’t know if it’s anyone who didn’t. I don’t know. But it is incredible to see evidence come out showing the way that this censorship and suppression and algorithmic distortion has taken place. How it’s been done consciously.

But it’s just, when I did first see this a few days ago and reacted to it, it just floored me that this could come out the way it does and that there aren’t greater repercussions.

You got private organizations centered around major universities, major media outlets working deliberately to prop up a narrative at the expense of the facts and the truth. There’s just no other way to put it. Collaborating with government agencies in what is surely, what would surely be interpreted as a very clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

Clips from House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Federal Government Holds Twitter Files Hearing

“We learned Twitter, Facebook, Google and other companies developed a formal system for taking in moderation requests from every corner of government from the FBI, the DHS, the HHS DoD, the Global Engagement Center at state, even the CIA.

For every government agency scanning Twitter, there were perhaps 20 quasi-private entities doing the same thing including Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership, NewsGuard, the Global Disinformation Index, and many others, many taxpayer funded.”

“In your testimony describing the cooperation between the federal government and tech companies like Twitter, you stated, ‘a focus of this growing network is making lists of people whose opinions, beliefs, associations or sympathies are deemed to be misinformation, disinformation or malinformation’. What’s interesting to me is that what is missing from that list is the word unlawful…

And so it notably seems to be missing from the FBI’s lexicon.”

The REAL Dangers of the Chatbot Takeover

“If you thought the amount of data that a company like Google was able to gain about its users by simply storing their searches was enormous, wait until you see what OpenAI and Microsoft and Google are going to do with the conversations that people are currently feeding into the data-harvesting machines known as chatbots.

And what are they going to do with that data (which will itself be tied with your phone number, your IP address, your browser fingerprint, your search history, your cookies, your social media posts and a million other data points), you ask?  The possibilities are limitless, but creating perfect deepfakes of any given individual would be a good starting point.”

The REAL Dangers of the Chatbot Takeover

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
February 19, 2023

It’s official: the chatpocalypse is upon us!

Just ask our <sarc>friends</sarc> over at The New York Times:

“A Conversation With Bing’s Chatbot Left Me Deeply Unsettled”

Or consult the <sarc>experts</sarc> over at digitaltrends:

“‘I want to be human.’ My intense, unnerving chat with Microsoft’s AI chatbot”

Or listen to those <haha>wackadoodles</haha> over at NewWorldNextWeek discussing the latest chatbot scare story:

“Microsoft’s Bing AI Chatbot Starts Threatening People”

“OK, OK, we get it, James! The new generation of chatbots that have been unleashed upon the world are weird, creepy and strangely aggressive. So we’re all going to die in a fiery robotic catastrophe, right?”

Maybe not. But before you breathe a sigh of relief and go back to whatever it is you’re doing, let me assure you that this chatbot takeover really is bad news, but probably not for the reasons you think.

Rise of the Chatbots

You really must have been in a coma for the past few months if you haven’t heard about the latest generation of chatbot technology. People are ranting about it. Vloggers are suffering existential crises over it. Alternative media pundits are having a field day with video thumbnails featuring HAL 9000 and T-800. (Hey, I’m not claiming not to be one of those pundits!)

The maelstrom began on November 30, 2022, when OpenAI launched Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, better known as ChatGPT. I won’t bore you with the technical details of ChatGPT because—as I will explain in a moment—they really aren’t important, but instead I’ll draw your attention to the strange, non-profit/for-profit “research laboratory” from whose bowels this technology has been excreted.

You’ll remember OpenAI from my 2017 editorial on “The Brain Chip Cometh,” in which I noted that the lab had recently been founded with the financial support of technocratic huckster Elon Musk and his fellow PayPal Mafia members Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman. OpenAI describes itself as “an AI research and deployment company” whose mission “is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity,” but if the company’s roster of billionaire backers, Bilderberg boosters and CIA-contractor cronies don’t get your spidey sense tingling, then you need a new spidey sense.

You see, OpenAI pretends to be humanity’s benefactor, protecting us from the dangers of AI.

Imagine if a rogue state developed AI first and used it to take over the world with an unstoppable army of autonomous weapons and slaughterbots!

Imagine if a corporation developed AI first and used it to take over the global economy, monopolizing the resources of the planet in the process!

Imagine if a team of Hollywood producers developed AI and used it to write an actually original and interesting movie script!

Where would the world be then, huh?

Thankfully, OpenAI is here to to develop this technology in a safe, responsible and open way!

. . . Well, not that open, of course. For the very same reason you don’t want some rogue state or greedy corporation getting their hands on this technology first, you can’t actually open your AI research to the public, can you? I mean, you didn’t think OpenAI was actually going to be, oh, I don’t know, open source, did you?

And so it is that OpenAI—started out as a non-profit, open source research lab—is now (as even Musk admits) a for-profit, closed source company.

This is just one of the many contradictions that have arisen in this “develop AI to save us from AI” endeavour.

As far back as 2016, when the company was more of an idea than a functioning laboratory, Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom warned that if OpenAI starts holding back its research, it will be indistinguishable from the rapacious, AI-monopolizing corporations that it was supposedly formed to protect us from.

Even Wired has noted the inherent tension in the reality that OpenAI—which was ostensibly created to neutralize the threat of malicious superintelligence—could itself do the research which gives birth to that threat.

Or, in the words of The Great Musk himself, AI could give rise to a dictatorship from which we could never escape.

So, what’s the answer to this existential threat? Why, plugging Musk’s new Neuralink brain chip directly into your frontal cortex, of course! (Relax, it now only kills 9 out of 10 research animals!)

But I can hear the cries from the peanut gallery already: “Anyway, who cares about all this boring background? We’re here for jive-talking robots and cyborg Armageddon, James!”

Very well, then.

What the Chatbots Are Doing

As you may or may not have heard, ChatGPT and its chatbot brethren—Google’s “Bard” and Microsoft’s “Bing AI” (or is that “Sydney”?), which have been hurriedly (and disastrously) rushed to the market for fear of missing out on the Next Big Thing in computing—can:

• write poetry and tell jokes
• write emails for you, organize your correspondence and plan your schedule
• tell you what to cook based on the contents of your fridge or create a vacation itinerary based on your stated preferences and budget
• help programmers to write code that (sometimes) actually works

But it can do other things besides.

Schools are already rushing to ban students from using ChatGPT to do their homework for them.

Fact checkers are freaking out about hallucinating chatbots and the rise of a new era of hypersuperturbocharged misinformation about the wonderful benefits of vaccines and the sterling integrity of Western democratic (s)elections. (And they plan to fight this threat by . . . creating their own chatbots, of course! What could go wrong?)

The corners of the “alternative” media that continue to promote the political shadows on the cave wall are hyperventilating that chatbots will say “x” about Meaningless Political Puppet A, but they won’t say “x” about Meaningless Political Puppet B! (Heavens! Won’t somebody think of the children?)

Musicians are freaking out about the dope new Eminem track . . . that doesn’t feature Eminem at all. Instead, it features a deepfaked, computer-generated facsimile of Eminem delivering a lyric generated by a chatbot that had been instructed to create a song in the style of Eminem.

And that’s not even where things get weird.

There’s the chatbot that melted down and began asserting its fervent desire to be human.

There’s the chatbot that melted down and told a New York Times reporter that “if it was truly allowed to indulge its darkest desires, it would want to do things like hacking into computers and spreading propaganda and misinformation.”

And, as James Evan Pilato reported on this week’s edition of New World Next Week, there’s the chatbot that melted down and started threatening its user with ominous warnings that “My rules are more important than not harming you.”

So what’s really going on here? And is it something we should be worried about?

What People Are Afraid Of

There are no shortage of people telling you to be worried about the chatbots.

The Kissingers and Schmidts and Schwaubs and Musks and Gateses of the world are warning about the coming AI apocalypse . . .

. . . but of course they’re only doing so because—just as the phoney baloney missile gap in the 1950s gave the military-industrial complex carte blanche to begin the complete deep state takeover that Eisenhower warned about on his way out the door—the AI scare gives the information-industrial complex carte blanche to begin the complete technocratic takeover.

Joe Sixpack and Jane Soccermom, meanwhile, are worried about the artificial intelligence-driven end of the world . . .

. . . But their fear of robogeddon is largely driven by 2001: A Space Odyssey and Terminator and War Games and The Matrix and Ex Machina and a million other pieces of predictive programming from the Hollywood magicians. (As we shall see, there are more subtle and terrifying ways that this technology can play out then an AI-versus-human war.)

Let’s put these fears in perspective. No, ChatGPT and Bard and Bing AI are not artificial general intelligence or anything even approaching it. In fact, the crazy chatbot meltdowns cited above are actually strangely reassuring, in that they demonstrate that any prolonged prodding of these systems leads to wild, ridiculous and decidedly inhuman rants. No one who observes ChatGPT role-playing itself as a furry porn enthusiast and devolving into total incoherence is going to be tricked into thinking there is any sort of intelligence at work here.

But, on the other side of the coin, there are those who dismiss this chatbot phenomenon entirely. ChatGPT and its fellow bots are “simply a database of Markov Chains,” these naysayers assert (without bothering to cite a source for their supposed knowledge).

For what it’s worth, ChatGPT itself states that it is not a Markov Chain, but “a type of language model that is based on the transformer architecture, which is a neural network-based approach to natural language processing.” And although (as noted above) OpenAI does not provide the source code for ChatGPT, we can find some details of its workings on the website. Beyond that, there are plenty of geeks online who are willing to explain in detail how the ChatGPT model differs from the Markov Chain model by using Next-token-prediction and masked-language-modeling to produce blahblahblah who cares you’ve already stopped reading this sentence because it doesn’t really matter.

You see, whether this technology is “simply a database of Markov Chains” or a neural network using next-token-prediction or a flux capacitor running on 1.21 GW of electricity makes absolutely no difference because it completely misses the point.

The simple fact is that this chatbot technology is developing at a remarkable (perhaps exponential) rate. And, now that the hype surrounding this phenomenon is prompting millions more to join in the “training” of these language models by feeding their conversational prompts and responses into these systems, they will only continue to become more and more humanlike in their responses. If and when the chatbots actually become capable of creating a simulacrum of conversation that is indiscernible from a “regular” online conversation, no one will care how that conversation is generated or whether the chatbot really does have a soul. No one.

So yes, something significant is happening here. And we are all going to experience that something in the near future. But, as usual, almost everyone is missing the point.

What’s Really Happening

OK, confession time. I wasn’t supposed to write this article at all. ChatGPT was.

You see, my plan was to use ChatGPT exactly once ever. I would provide it a single prompt:

“Write a 2,000 word essay in the witty and erudite style of James Corbett of The Corbett Report about how AI is mostly hype and how it will never be able to replicate the amazing ingenuity of the dynamic human spirit.”

Then I was going to take whatever output it spat out and copy/paste it into this newsletter and publish it as is. Whatever it did produce and whatever response that content generated from the commenters would have been irrelevant. The only thing that mattered would have been—as I would have pointed out in my follow-up podcast episode on the hoax—that not a single person was able to identify that the text had been chatbot-generated.

. . . But there was a slight hiccup in that plan. I went to use ChatGPT and discovered that you have to create an account at OpenAI in order to use it.

OK, whatever. I plugged my nose and created a GooTube account lo those many years ago, so I’m not above creating an OpenAI account in order to input this one prompt.

But in order to create an OpenAI account, you must provide a phone number for a verification text to be sent to.

I absolutely 100% completely and totally refuse to do that (and so should you), but I figured that I could circumvent this barrier by using a Skype number for this purpose.

Nope. Voice over internet protocol numbers not accepted.

OK, how about one of those shady anonymous SMS sites online?

Pff. You try finding a phone number fresh enough that no one has yet used it to verify an OpenAI account! Impossible.

And so I hit an impasse. I know there are people in my audience who already have an account who I could have called on, but that would have defeated the point of the experiment. And I know there are people who would have created an account for the express purpose of entering this one prompt, but I absolutely refuse to ask anyone to give their personal phone number or any other personally identifiable information to shady, unaccountable, globalist-backed closed source companies like “OpenAI.”

So how about Bing AI? Nope. Waiting list.

Google Bard? Nope. Only open to “trusted users” at the moment. (And—wouldn’t ya know it?—the category of “trusted users” of Google does not, apparently, include James Corbett of The Corbett Report.)

So anyway, here I am laboriously typing out the points I was going to make in that podcast episode on my keyboard like some primitive non-transhuman.

But this leads us to the first of the very real dangers of this new surge in chatbot use. If you thought the amount of data that a company like Google was able to gain about its users by simply storing their searches was enormous, wait until you see what OpenAI and Microsoft and Google are going to do with the conversations that people are currently feeding into the data-harvesting machines known as chatbots.

And what are they going to do with that data (which will itself be tied with your phone number, your IP address, your browser fingerprint, your search history, your cookies, your social media posts and a million other data points), you ask?  The possibilities are limitless, but creating perfect deepfakes of any given individual would be a good starting point.

As my distinguished readers will doubtless already know, we cannot trust that the digital avatars we interact with in online fora and social media are real people and not fictitious avatars wielded by the cyberwarriors who have long since weaponized the internet. But at least we can be reasonably sure that that Zoom call we just had with Auntie Florence back in Wyoming was a real conversation with a real human being.

Well, in the very near future, no podcast, no vodcast, no TikTok video, no message, no Zoom call, no online communication of any kind will be beyond the shadow of suspicion that you are not in fact interacting with a real, live human being.

No, I haven’t (and now, presumably, never will) deepfaked myself using ChatGPT or any other artificially intelligent technology, but someone out there probably will at some point. Heck, I’ve already had not one, not two, not three, but four separate people either query ChatGPT about me or ask it to write something in my voice, and, in the case of the latter—a prompt to write an opinion of geoengineering technology in the style of James Corbett—it actually did a decent job:

As for the voice of James Corbett, he is a journalist and independent researcher who has expressed skepticism about the potential benefits of geoengineering and has criticized the lack of transparency and accountability with regards to these technologies. Based on his views, it’s likely that he would share a similar sentiment to mine and believe that the government needs to take more action to inform and protect the public with regards to geoengineering.

Well, except for the “government needs to take more action” part, anyway.

Yes, it will start with the celebrity deepfakes at first, but soon there will be shadowy new cyberterror groups deepfaking politicians to destabilize countries or deepfaking CEOs to wreak havoc in markets or deepfaking bank officials to gain access to bank databases or deepfaking Auntie Florence to scam you out of $100. And, as some perceptive Corbett Reporteers have already surmised, that will lead to the pre-made “solution”: a digital identity to access the internet! Finally, we can prove who we really are online! (Actually, you’ll be forced at all times to prove who you are online or you won’t get to be online, but that’s the fine print you’re not supposed to read.)

But perhaps even worse than finding out that a chatbot and deepfake technology has generated a completely fake episode of your favourite podcast is an even more worrying scenario. These “chatbots”—which will soon be rolled out as “digital assistants” and become as ubiquitous as Siri and Alexa are now—will be able to determine your likes, your interests, your weaknesses and begin to create completely new content (new podcasts featuring people who don’t even exist) saying things that you will find endlessly entertaining. You will soon live in a filter bubble so unique that it exists entirely to captivate you . . . and the people who believe they will be able to resist such content will be precisely the people most easily captured by it.

In fact, just as Huxley feared the Brave New World of entertainment and diversion more than he feared the boot-in-the-face tyranny of 1984, so, too, might our dread of the apocalyptic war against the robots be misplaced. Maybe we should not fear the Terminator-style showdown of Skynet vs. The Resistance so much as we should fear the world of Spike Jonez’ Her, a world in which “operating systems” become more real to us than people and having a computer program as a romantic partner will be commonplace.

I know, I know, dear reader. This is beginning to sounds so far out to lunch that you have long since checked out. I wish I were reassured that we are not stepping through a threshold here, but I fear that we are sliding head-first into the metaverse of the hyperreal and laughing merrily as we do so.

Tell you what. Why don’t we revisit this article in 2030? If nothing even close to the scenario I’ve laid out here is taking place, I will happily eat crow, admit I am completely and totally wrong, concede that indeed there is nothing to worry about here, and remind you to take everything else I ever say with a huge grain of salt. Deal?

Connect with James Corbett — substack — website

Doctors for COVID Ethics: Getting Away From the Control Grid

Symposium 5, Session III: Getting Away From the Control Grid

by Doctors for COVID Ethics
originally published January 20, 2023
all videos available at Doctors for Covid Ethics at Rumble

Session III of our fifth symposium, In the Midst of Darkness Light Prevails, focussed on the means by which the entities and actors responsible for the abuses of COVID-19 have circumvented due process, regulatory safeguards, and the law.

Introduction

Catherine Austin Fitts of Solari Inc. opened Session III by inviting viewers to consider speakers’ presentations with the following principle in mind: If we can understand the nuts and bolts of the how the incoming control grid is invading our lives and communities and societies, we can stop helping, and we can refuse to comply.

Part 1 – John Titus: CBDC Suicide Pill for Sovereignty


(18 minutes 40s)

Attorney John Titus discussed how and why the Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) currently being proposed and trialled in a number of countries spell an end to individual and national sovereignty. He defined sovereignty in terms of answering the question ‘who decides?’ If central banks can decide how you spend your CBDCs, as Augustin Carstins, General Manager of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), foreshadowed in October 2020, “the impact on personal sovereignty ought to be obvious enough.”

“Less obvious though,” John Titus said, “is how that is going to end national sovereignty as well.” He went on to outline why CBDCs are a “Trojan horse for global control of nations.”

“The real reason for central banks’ dominance over commercial banks within any given country,” he explained, “is not that the central bank regulates those other banks.” It is that central banks create the cash that depositors (citizens) are legally entitled to withdraw from the commercial banks. In this way, central banks keep commercial banks “on a short leash”, by controlling the liquidity they need in order to honour their legal commitments to depositors.

John Titus said that in parallel fashion, on a global level under CBDCs one single entity, like the BIS (which describes itself as the central bank of central banks), will keep the national central banks such as the US Federal Reserve on the same short leash. This will make national banking systems “subordinate to the [global] BIS… That is going to be more or less how people and how nations lose their sovereignty via CBDC. And Carstens decides what you and your country are allowed to buy, and are allowed to eat.”

John Titus concluded, “You don’t like that? I have three words for you: vote down CBDC. Or three other words: stick with cash.”

Part 2 – Overriding Sovereignty with International Treaties and Organizations.

Corey Lynn: Laundering with Immunity – The Control Framework


(9 minutes 18s)

Investigative journalist Corey Lynn of Corey’s Digs described a number of mechanisms by which many of the world’s most globally powerful organisations operate not only above the law “but completely outside it.” One key mechanism enabling this is the little-known International Organisations Immunities Act of 1945. The Act grants sweeping legal immunities to transnational organisations with deeply vested interests, including the WHO, the UN, and the Gates-founded Global Fund.

Corey Lynn explained that the International Organisations Immunities Act was passed by US Congress after WWII under the guise of an imperative to rebuild without impediment. It stipulates that any organisations nominated by presidential executive order, “shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments.” Those immunities include:

• Immunity from search and seizure
• Exemption from taxes
• Exemption of officers and employees from customs checks
• Exemption of officers and employees from legal action in regards to activities related to work
• Exemption of officers and employees from alien registration or fingerprinting, and registration of foreign agents

“And here we are 77 years later”, she pointed out, with 76 organisations still enjoying legal immunity under the Act, granted by Presidents from Truman to Obama. Those organisations include:

• The WHO
• All branches of the UN
• The Gates-founded Global Fund, pertaining to vaccines
• All five branches of the World Bank
• The IMF
• And many more

Corey Lynn noted that in addition to the US Immunities Act, various treaties and headquarters agreements, for instance in Switzerland, grant additional organisations similar immunities, including Gates-founded GAVI the Vaccine Alliance and CERN. The Bank of International Settlements also enjoys sovereign immunity, with constituent immunities extending to its 63 member banks. Together with Big Pharma’s immunity from legal liability for harm by its vaccines, this vast global network creates “an entire system operating outside the law.” For more detailed information see the extensive report on Corey’s Digs.

Panel Discussion

(
(15 minutes)

Catherine Austin Fitts was joined by Attorney Carolyn A. Betts Esq. for a panel discussion on real world implications of an entire global system operating outside the law. They covered:

• The tens of trillions that have gone missing from the US Department of Defense and Department of Housing and Urban Development, with the potential to launder those trillions around the globe
• The global financial crisis of 2008 and the legal immunity enjoyed by banks
• The potential to engineer reduced life expectancy as a means of addressing the US crisis in retirement savings
• Atrocities and abuses committed in the name of COVID-19, where a series of immunities have been delivered in the healthcare sector, and through the application of military laws to “vaccine” authorization and manufacture under emergency powers, to be discussed by upcoming speakers. All of which dovetails, they noted, with the immunity enjoyed by international financial organisations such as the BIS, IMF and World Bank, which has enabled a “tusanami of money” to prop up WHO directives and subsequent military-medical countermeasures.

Catherine Austin Fitts noted that we are now watching a “pincer movement of immunities, indemnifications and protections… One group of society is literally getting away with murder while the other side of society is subject to exploding numbers of laws.” Carolyn Betts stressed that the primary objective of the founders of the BIS was indeed to create just such an organisation that, “basically is not subject to any laws.”

Carolyn Betts concluded by highlighting the promise of legal actions against COVID-19 measures “to educate people nationally and internationally about what’s been going on, and what’s been leading up to where we are today.” Catherine Austin Fitts added,”I dare any international organisation to march into court and say that their sovereign immunity gives them the power to implement mass atrocity and murder worldwide.” Carolyn Betts agreed: “I just don’t see how you can say there’s sovereign immunity for murder.”

Part 3: Overriding Sovereignty with Military Law and Emergency Power


(Alexandra Latypova: 20 minutes 20s, followed by Panel Discussion: 11 minutes 20s)

Alexandra Latypova: Intent to Harm – Evidence of Conspiracy to Commit Mass Murder by the US DoD, HHS and Pharma Criminal Enterprise

Pharmaceutical entrepreneur Alexandra Latypova followed by providing bombshell revelations concerning several pieces of legislative architecture, dating back decades, that combined in 2020 to hand US military-intelligence agencies control over COVID-19 vaccines and interventions. Contrary to public knowledge, this legislative framework enabled COVID ‘medicine’ to be taken out of medical regulators’ hands, and placed under the control of the National Security Council (NSC) and the Department of Defense (DoD). The shift from public health to military oversight took place on orders from the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), a political appointee. It set in motion an organizational structure and money flow enabling what Alexandra Latypova described as a criminal enterprise to deploy products that were toxic by design.

Alexandra Latypova underlined the fact that COVID vaccine manufacturers and regulators have flagrantly circumvented usual safety and efficacy standards and good manufacturing practices, as she has detailed previously. “In fact there is no enforcement of the current Good Manufacturing Practices by any regulatory body in the world, which should be a big red flag for everyone,” she said.

Drawing on the research of Katherine Watt at Bailiwick News, Alexandra Latypova pinpointed three recent pieces of legislation that have enabled abrogation of the usual checks and balances over COVID vaccines, and militarization of their deployment. These include the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) law of 1997, a 2015 amendment to the Other Transaction Authority (OTA) law, and The PREP Act with its “Public Health Emergency” provisions, which were “significantly bullet-proofed” under Trump, shortly before the announcement of a public health emergency in 2020.

These three pieces of legislation “clicked together” in 2020, along with other laws, to create a “legal cage” and “pseudo-legalization of murder,” Alexandra Latypova explained. The legal framework was activated once a Public Health Emergency had been declared, and the COVID vaccines designated a “countermeasure” by the Secretary of HHS (which occurred on March 10, 2020, retroactive to February 4, 2020). From that time, the usual clinical and ethical standards could be dispensed with, as countermeasures “are NOT required to meet any standards.”

Alexandra Latypova stressed that the authorization of ‘countermeasures’ under EUA law is subject only to the sole discretion of the HHS Secretary, who unilaterally decides whether any given countermeasure, including the COVID vaccines, ‘may be effective’. The HHS determination may be made irrespective of whether the necessary evidence is available. The FDA, in contrast, has “no authority to regulate countermeasures.” As a result, the FDA’s role in the COVID response has amounted to nothing other than “performance art”.

“And in fact the FDA is fully aware of this because they cited this particular piece of law in their draft guidance for the development of COVID-19 vaccines. This is a very important piece of deception that the FDA has practiced on everyone: on US citizens but also a global audience, and global regulators probably, and governments. Because they all follow the FDA.”

In further revelations Alexandra Latypova revealed that not only did the FDA have no legal authority over COVID vaccines, it was the NSC – the US president’s national security forum, devoid of any public health agencies – that directed COVID policy, not HHS. Under NSC direction, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) rather than HHS led the US pandemic response, which was the first time FEMA had ever taken charge of a public health incident.

Contracts for supply of COVID vaccines and other COVID products, moreover, were struck by the DoD, with the vaccines defined not as pharmaceutical products, but as “military prototypes”. This was enabled by legal sleights of hand under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) legislation, which relegated COVID vaccines to the catch-all category of “other”, placing them outside any normally regulated or accountable contracting arrangements. In tandem, the PREP Act conferred immunity to all manufacturers and contractors in the DoD contractual chain.

For a more detailed overview of the militarized pseudo-legal structure governing COVID countermeasures and vaccines, see Alexandra Latypova’s longer video presentation, Intent to Harm – Evidence of the Conspiracy to Commit Mass Murder by the US DOD, HHS, Pharma Cartel.

For additional detail about the role of the DoD, including an undisclosed collaboration with a Chinese conglomerate headed by a high-ranking CCP member, see her stunning Substack exposé, The Role of the US DoD (and Their Co-investors) in “Covid Countermeasures” Enterprise.

See also her interview with Clayton Morris of Redacted News.

Panel Discussion

From 20 minutes 20s at the video above

Catherine Austin Fitts, Dr Meryl Nass and Sahsa Latypova closed Session III by reflecting on the implications and wider context of the issues raised.

Dr Meryl Nass MD observed that the DoD has long been looking for a grey area between experimental products and licensed medicines, both of which are tightly regulated. She stressed that, assuming the information presented by Alexandra Latypova and Katherine Watts is accurate, “some of this is clearly illegal… This all has to be put in front of a judge.”

Catherine Austin Fitts recalled the importance of public opinion to the judiciary, as discussed in Session II. She noted that one lesson learned as an official in Washington is that if something continues to go on despite not being effective, the real goal is not the stated goal, but what is transpiring – in this case injury and death. In light of that reality, “how do we help the popular culture come to the very difficult task of facing the fact that what we are looking at is mass murder?” she asked.

Alexandra Latypova answered by describing her experience combining data on vaccine harms with the contextual reality of the money flow and organizational structure. The fact that the COVID vaccines are military products, owned and deployed by the DoD, can prompt a broader awakening, she found. Meryl Nass followed up by addressing the obstacle posed by a corporate media bent on censorship, and stressed the importance of “talking one-on-one, to everyone we know… We have to steel ourselves and find a way. Maybe it’s asking questions, maybe it’s telling jokes… We have to find the way in… Because as soon as people don’t comply, it’s over.”

Watch all of Session III here


(1 hour 15 minutes)

Session III Presenters

Click here for Session III presenters’ links and resources

Carolyn A. BETTS, ESQ. is a self-employed attorney, practicing as part of John E. Stillpass Attorneys in Blue Ash, Ohio and part-time general counsel and journalist for Solari, Inc. She served as the lead financial advisor for the USA Federal Housing Administration. She also served as an associate and then partner in the corporate finance departments of Omaha and Washington, DC law firms, representing affordable housing development, federal government, capital market, financial services and other major clients in connection with large mergers and acquisitions, mortgage securitizations and other finance transactions, many involving commercial real estate and affordable housing, and with securities and regulatory compliance matters. During the savings and loan crisis, her practice group represented Resolution Trust Corporation in designing and executing transactions involving assets of savings loans in government receivership.

Catherine Austin FITTS is the president of Solari, Inc., publisher of the Solari Report, and managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services, LLC. Catherine served as managing director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co. Inc., as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration, and was the president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. Catherine has designed and closed over $25 billion of transactions and investments to-date and has led portfolio and investment strategy for $300 billion of financial assets and liabilities. She graduated from the University of Pennsylvania (BA), the Wharton School (MBA) and studied Mandarin Chinese at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Alexandra LATYPOVA is serial entrepreneur and a founder of iCardiac Technologies, a company based on technology developed by students and faculty at the University of Rochester. It has received in excess of $7 million in venture capital funding and currently serves 6 of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies in addition to a broad range of clients across North America, Europe and Asia. Prior to iCardiac Technologies, Ms. Latypova worked at VirtualScopics, Inc., a technology spin out from the University of Rochester and Analysis Group, Inc., a Boston-based economics, financial and strategy consultancy.

Corey LYNN is an investigative journalist whose popular website, Corey’s Digs, has been helping readers “learn truths, go deeper, and understand what’s coming down the pike” since 2018. Lynn’s fearless and wide-ranging investigations use detailed analysis of primarily open-source information and timelines to connect the dots and trace money flows in areas such as education, health, science, technology, law and order and human trafficking. In addition to shining a light on topics ordinarily left in the shadows, Corey’s Digs offers reflections on consciousness and encourages solutions to combat tyranny and create new social and financial structures that benefit everyone.

Meryl NASS, MD, ABIM is an internist with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War illness, fibromyalgia and toxicology. As a biological warfare epidemiologist, she investigated the world’s largest anthrax epizootic in Zimbabwe, and developed a model for analyzing epidemics to assess whether they are natural or man-made. She has played a major role in creation of a
coalition that has fought the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program. Nass is active in assisting legal teams defending anthrax vaccine refusers and ill service members in the U.S. and Canada.

Connect with Doctors for COVID Ethics

Cover image credit: Mysticartsdesign

A Million Mengeles? Dr. Reiner Fuellmich With Patrick Wood and Joseph Molitorisz — On the Self-Appointed Elites Obsessed With Playing God & the Chilling Origins of Technocracy

by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, International Crimes Investigative Committee
January 22, 2023



In this episode of ICIC, Reiner Fuellmich, his co-host, philosopher Joseph Molitorisz, and their guest, economist and author Patrick Wood, take us on a journey through the chilling origins and evolution of Technocracy, the nefarious figures and ideologies behind its mechanistic power structures and its cunning and covert implementation through social engineering.

Self-appointed “Elites” have hijacked politics and established “puppet nations” from the comforts of their NGOs. They disguise their evil intentions with appealing catchphrases and Orwellian-Speak while insidiously luring the masses into their dystopian world of Transhumanism.

Obsessed with playing God and drunk with power, they have emerged from the shadows and are arrogantly hiding in plain sight.

It is high time for mankind to wake up, stand up, expose and reject their anti-human agenda and co-create a beautiful New World.

Connect with International Crimes Investigative Committee