Speaker 1: I think it's just going to get weirder and weirder
Speaker 1: and weirder, and finally it's going to be so weird
Speaker 1: that people are going to have to talk about how
Speaker 1: weird it is. Eventually people are going to say, what
Speaker 1: the hell is going on? It's not enough to say
Speaker 1: it's nuts. You have to explain why it's so nuts.
Speaker 1: The invention of artificial life, the cloning of human beings,
Speaker 1: possible contact with extraterrestrials, the systems which are in place
Speaker 1: to keep the world saying are in utterly inadequate to
Speaker 1: the forces that have been unleashed.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to Forbidden Knowledge News. I'm your host Chris Matthew.
Speaker 2: Today my guest is James Corbett. Be sure to check
Speaker 2: out my films. Doors of Perception is on Amazon Prime.
Speaker 2: I'll call it Louisiana's on to be Roku Channel, Apple
Speaker 2: A and or. We are booking guests for December. If
Speaker 2: you have suggestions or you'd like to be a guest,
Speaker 2: email me forbid Knowledgenews at gmail dot com. Today, I
Speaker 2: want to welcome James Corbett. He is an author, journalist,
Speaker 2: and curator of The Corbett Report. James, Welcome, How you doing.
Speaker 3: I'm doing all right.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me, Thanks so much for coming on.
Speaker 2: Been looking forward to this. Today we're going to be
Speaker 2: discussing your documentary, Descent into Madness. I really enjoyed it.
Speaker 2: It does an amazing job outlining the ongoing gas lighting
Speaker 2: and psychological operations implemented by our own government against our
Speaker 2: own people. Freethinkers are quickly becoming the new and visible
Speaker 2: boogeyman and are being painted as domestic terrorists, and this
Speaker 2: documentary not only gives a great history of psychological operations
Speaker 2: against the people, but an analysis of the psychotic nature
Speaker 2: of our ruling class as well. I highly recommend everyone
Speaker 2: going check out the film. I'll have links in the description.
Speaker 2: There's a lot to get to with this, and we
Speaker 2: have a limited amount of time, and this is your
Speaker 2: first time on. First, tell the audience a little bit
Speaker 2: about yourself and let them know how they can find
Speaker 2: out more.
Speaker 3: Sure. My name is James Corbett. I am a podcaster,
Speaker 3: which I didn't even think was going to be a
Speaker 3: profession when I started this, but here it is.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 3: I started the podcast back in two thousand and seven.
Speaker 3: It's called The Corbett Report, and I've been doing that
Speaker 3: now for eighteen years, and it is, yes, now my
Speaker 3: full time job and profession if you can believe it,
Speaker 3: and I scarcely can I talk about politics and science
Speaker 3: and history and philosophy and psychology and whatever else stickles
Speaker 3: my fancy. And I've been doing that unreservedly and unabashedly
Speaker 3: for nearly two decades, which has gotten me canceled off
Speaker 3: of YouTube and other places at various points throughout this career.
Speaker 3: And the ride isn't over yet. So if people want
Speaker 3: to find out more about that, they can find my
Speaker 3: work at Corbettreport dot com. Everything I do is for free,
Speaker 3: so I hope people use it as a resource.
Speaker 2: Your new documentary, Descent into Madness? What brought you to
Speaker 2: produce this particular film?
Speaker 3: Well, as I say, I've been doing this research now
Speaker 3: for nearly two decades, and in that time I've accrued
Speaker 3: quite a bit of knowledge about psychological operations, psychological warfare,
Speaker 3: various psychological experiments that have been done, and the results
Speaker 3: of those experiments and the kind of insight that they give,
Speaker 3: not only for would be social engineers who want to
Speaker 3: engineer the population into believing this or that or disbelieving
Speaker 3: this or that, but also potentially the utility of such
Speaker 3: information for people like ourselves, people who presumably want to
Speaker 3: inform the public about the truth about what's really happening
Speaker 3: in the world. Maybe there are insights that we can
Speaker 3: gain from these types of psychological experiments that tell us
Speaker 3: more about how the human mind operates and how we
Speaker 3: can best disseminate our information.
Speaker 2: I thought maybe we could dissect a little bit of
Speaker 2: the information that you were presented in the film, starting
Speaker 2: with the origins of this kind of psychological manipulation, starting
Speaker 2: with Soviet psychiatry. Talk a little bit about.
Speaker 3: That, right, I start by citing that specifically, because back
Speaker 3: in the early nineteen eighties and in the nineteen seventies
Speaker 3: and into the early nineteen eighties, it was a talking
Speaker 3: point in the ongoing Cold War that look at them,
Speaker 3: their Soviets, those did darn kamis, look at what they
Speaker 3: do to their population, and they would point to the
Speaker 3: fact that there was basically made up illnesses sluggish schizophrenia
Speaker 3: and other things that political dissidents within the Soviet Union
Speaker 3: were diagnosed with, which allowed them to be forcibly confined
Speaker 3: to mental institutions and forcibly drugged and so there was,
Speaker 3: for example, as I cite in the documentary, there was
Speaker 3: a big write up about this in the New York
Speaker 3: Times in the early nineteen eighties, talking about Soviet psychiatry
Speaker 3: and the dangers of a system in which political dissent
Speaker 3: is made into some sort of pathological mental illness, and
Speaker 3: what can be done to dissenters in such a system.
Speaker 3: And I point that out because well, yes, I mean,
Speaker 3: I think that is right. The Soviets truly did employ
Speaker 3: that against their own citizens. But as I go on
Speaker 3: to demonstrate, it's not that it was just the Soviets,
Speaker 3: and it wasn't just the Imperial Japanese government, or it
Speaker 3: wasn't just the Nazis in Germany, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 3: It's almost every government at one point or another has
Speaker 3: applied some of these principles against their own citizens. And
Speaker 3: so I start to cite examples of, say even the
Speaker 3: American context, the American Psychological Association and others, who have
Speaker 3: found ways to pathologize political descent.
Speaker 2: And starting from the very beginning, the use of different
Speaker 2: types of drugs and theogens was a huge and very
Speaker 2: important part of implementing some of these mind control programs
Speaker 2: and the psychological operations that even we see today, right.
Speaker 3: Yes, And of course the obvious and the most well
Speaker 3: known example of that is of course the CIA's MK
Speaker 3: Ultra program and the various subprograms and other things that
Speaker 3: it was running under, and the Operation Midnight Climax and
Speaker 3: others unknowingly dosing people with various substances LSD and other
Speaker 3: things in order to gauge their effects and potential usefulness
Speaker 3: as truth serums and or discombobulating agents, etc. So again,
Speaker 3: there's been a great deal of study on that particular subject,
Speaker 3: and it does continue to this day because as I
Speaker 3: point out, for example, just as one example, there's a psychologist,
Speaker 3: Martin Seligman, who did some pioneering work on the concept
Speaker 3: of learned helplessness and also on learned optimism, which people
Speaker 3: spend less time concentrating on. But for those who don't know,
Speaker 3: learned helplessness stems from experiments that I believe were originally
Speaker 3: performed in the nineteen fifties in which it was demonstrated
Speaker 3: that dogs could be made to essentially take and even
Speaker 3: accept electric shocks when they could easily escape them by
Speaker 3: a process of conditioning. A conditioning process by which they
Speaker 3: were first shocked in a way in which they could
Speaker 3: not escape the electrical shocks. They were harnessed in a
Speaker 3: way that they were forced to take these electrical shocks,
Speaker 3: and then eventually the harness was released and the barrier
Speaker 3: that was preventing them from jumping out of the electrified
Speaker 3: area was lowered, etc. To the point where eventually they
Speaker 3: would be easily able to escape the electric shocks. But
Speaker 3: they had been so thoroughly conditioned that there was nothing
Speaker 3: they could do to escape the shocks that when they
Speaker 3: started getting shocked, they would just lie down and take it.
Speaker 3: And that is a profound in site into psychology, not
Speaker 3: only of canines, but unfortunately of humans that can be
Speaker 3: led into essentially accepting even incredibly horrible conditions that even
Speaker 3: potentially they could escape from, but they have been conditioned
Speaker 3: to expect that nothing they can do can actually change anything.
Speaker 3: And so there was this doctor, the psychologist, one of
Speaker 3: the people who was pioneering this field, Martin Seligman, who
Speaker 3: was researching about this and also about what could be
Speaker 3: done to overcome this learned optimism. And in his speeches
Speaker 3: as he was talking, there happened to be at one
Speaker 3: of his speeches someone in the audience who was associated
Speaker 3: with the CIA and worked with them during their war
Speaker 3: of terror in the post nine to eleven world on
Speaker 3: developing better ways of using torture against detainees, and he
Speaker 3: started to use some of those psychological insights, for example,
Speaker 3: to find out how to more effectively torture detainees. Effectively
Speaker 3: in this case, of course, does not mean to actually
Speaker 3: get real true information from those detainees, but simply to
Speaker 3: essentially get them to say whatever you want them to say,
Speaker 3: which was really the point of the CIA torture program
Speaker 3: there in the early two thousands. So that's another example
Speaker 3: of how this type of psychological research can be weaponized
Speaker 3: against us, or we could take the other tack and
Speaker 3: start to recognize how those insights could be used to
Speaker 3: find out more about the world that we're in and
Speaker 3: how we can escape the shocks.
Speaker 2: So to spey, I definitely want to explore some solutions
Speaker 2: and how we can navigate all this. Before we do,
Speaker 2: I want to explore a bit more of the history
Speaker 2: of weaponize psychiatry. You were just mentioning some of the pioneers.
Speaker 2: Another one, Benjamin Rush, was essentially making up disorders to,
Speaker 2: as you say, pathologize dissent. Talk a little bit about
Speaker 2: this man and his contributions.
Speaker 3: Yes, to the extent that people encounter Benjamin Rush these days,
Speaker 3: they might hear him discussed as one of the founding
Speaker 3: fathers of psychology in the United States. He's officially recognized
Speaker 3: by the American Psychiatric Association as the father of American psychiatry,
Speaker 3: and so he is still well talked about in such circles.
Speaker 3: But certain aspects of what he talked about at the
Speaker 3: time are less remembered by history, for reasons that should
Speaker 3: be obvious. For example, one of the illnesses that he
Speaker 3: came up with, essentially was a narchia, which he defined
Speaker 3: as an excess for the passion of the passion for liberty,
Speaker 3: which could not be removed by reason nor restrained by government,
Speaker 3: and threatened to render abortive the goodness of heaven to
Speaker 3: the United States. As in, after the Revolution the United
Speaker 3: States was founded, these people were still a bit uppity,
Speaker 3: and they still believed a little bit too much in
Speaker 3: this freedom and independence thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: No, we fought the war for independence and now we
Speaker 3: have this new government, so you should submit to the
Speaker 3: new government. Is essentially what Benjamin Rush believed, and he
Speaker 3: started to enforce that through this pathologization of people, like
Speaker 3: for example, in the Whiskey Rebellion and other things that
Speaker 3: we saw after the creation of the new US federal
Speaker 3: government that people were still a little bit too interested
Speaker 3: in this liberty thing, so we better tamp that down
Speaker 3: and pathologize that descent. So for people that he characterized
Speaker 3: with various psychological diseases, he employed such techniques for breaking
Speaker 3: their spirits, essentially as darkness, solitary confinement, and a special
Speaker 3: technique of forcing the patient to stand erect for two
Speaker 3: to three days at a time, poking them with sharp
Speaker 3: pointed nails to keep them from sleeping, which was a
Speaker 3: technique he had borrowed from a British technique for taming horses,
Speaker 3: which again should show some of the mentality of the
Speaker 3: people who are weaponizing these things. Again, whether it's the
Speaker 3: shocks against dogs or techniques for taming horses, essentially, they
Speaker 3: are looking at ways to treat us like livestock or
Speaker 3: cattle or animals to be manipulated one way or another,
Speaker 3: and Benjamin Rush was no exception with that art.
Speaker 2: You also discuss a very important tool that was developed
Speaker 2: for weaponized psychiatry. Essentially, that's the DSM, the Diagnostic and
Speaker 2: Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which basically provided guidelines for
Speaker 2: diagnoses and was a major stepping stone for Big Form
Speaker 2: to start distributing their drugs.
Speaker 3: Yes, so for people who do not know, the American
Speaker 3: Psychological Association, the APA puts out their their psychological Bible,
Speaker 3: the DSM, which a lot of countries around the world
Speaker 3: use as a basis for their own national programs for
Speaker 3: coming up with manuals for disorders. And essentially this is,
Speaker 3: as you say, it's an attempt to create diagnostic tool
Speaker 3: for creating categories of mental illness essentially, and the necessarily
Speaker 3: political nature of this. This is not a scientific document.
Speaker 3: This is a political document, and we can see that
Speaker 3: from the development of the DSM. As one of the
Speaker 3: guests that I talked to in this documentary, doctor Bruce Levine,
Speaker 3: points out back prior to the nineteen seventies, the DSM
Speaker 3: had homosexuality listed as a mental disorder and there were
Speaker 3: a lot of protests about that. There was a civil
Speaker 3: rights movement that was protesting against that, and eventually, of
Speaker 3: course they did change that, and now sexuality is not
Speaker 3: listed as a mental disorder. Whatever you think about that diagnosis,
Speaker 3: the point is that it is necessarily and inherently a
Speaker 3: political diagnosis. It will be put in or taken out
Speaker 3: depending on which way the political winds are blowing, rather
Speaker 3: than any fundamental change in the nature of human consciousness.
Speaker 3: And unfortunately it doesn't just end there. There are many
Speaker 3: examples of that. I point, for example, to the oppositional
Speaker 3: defiant disorder, which was introduced I believe in DSM four.
Speaker 3: They are now up on DSM five, the fifth edition
Speaker 3: of this manual. But in that oppositional defiant disorder, essentially
Speaker 3: any child who is a little bit too questioning of
Speaker 3: authority or reticent to go along with authority, it can
Speaker 3: be diagnosed with ODD and of course drugged, which is
Speaker 3: generally the way that psychology has developed, certainly in the
Speaker 3: American context, a lot of the answers to these psychological problems,
Speaker 3: which again are more politically based than they are scientifically based,
Speaker 3: are treated with drugs and pharmaceuticals. And that leads to
Speaker 3: one of the big problems with the DSM. When you
Speaker 3: start to look at the task forces that put together
Speaker 3: the various sections of the manual. For example, there's one
Speaker 3: on sleeping disorders or what have you. You start to
Speaker 3: find that the members of those various task forces, these
Speaker 3: scientists and researchers who compile this information and come up
Speaker 3: with these diagnostic labels, are themselves riddled with conflicts of interest,
Speaker 3: with most of these task forces consisting in the majority
Speaker 3: some cases, in the plurality or in the totality, of
Speaker 3: people who have connections or financial relations to the very
Speaker 3: pharmaceutical companies that then provide the drugs that supposedly cure
Speaker 3: these illnesses that they themselves are creating or diagnosing into existence.
Speaker 3: So that should, at the very least, I think if
Speaker 3: anyone could pause for concern about how this process works
Speaker 3: and whether these labels. I am not saying there is
Speaker 3: no such thing as mental illness or mental health, but
Speaker 3: I am saying that those categories are much less scientific
Speaker 3: then I think the public is led to believe.
Speaker 2: You briefly mentioned mk Ultra earlier.
Speaker 1: We all have heard.
Speaker 2: Essentially about the horrific experiments that people were subjected to,
Speaker 2: and I have to wonder how much of that is
Speaker 2: actively being implemented today as an ongoing operation. Essentially that
Speaker 2: the experimentation was done to test the drugs that the
Speaker 2: kids are on these days, we can see how modern
Speaker 2: psychiatry was infiltrated to create a generation of the younger
Speaker 2: people that we are subjected to now.
Speaker 3: Yes, so for people who don't know well, I would
Speaker 3: say that the official line, of course is that mk
Speaker 3: Ultra ended, it is no longer an active program. And
Speaker 3: maybe that is true in the sense that there is
Speaker 3: no longer a program under that name that is currently
Speaker 3: running under the CIA, But one has to work under
Speaker 3: about the truth of such a statement, especially given the
Speaker 3: fact that the fact that we know anything about mk
Speaker 3: Ultra at all only happened essentially by fluke, by the
Speaker 3: fact that certain documents, that all of the mk ultradocuments
Speaker 3: were supposed to be destroyed, certain ones managed to evade
Speaker 3: that destruction and were discovered, and from that we learned
Speaker 3: about this program. And then there were the Church committee
Speaker 3: hearings and other things that started to flesh out more
Speaker 3: information about them. We still probably only know a fraction
Speaker 3: of what was really going on behind the scenes there,
Speaker 3: with a lot of the documents having been destroyed, But anyway,
Speaker 3: what we do know is horrific enough, and to think
Speaker 3: that there, yes, maybe that particular program under that particular
Speaker 3: designation may have wrapped up. But the idea that psychological
Speaker 3: operations are not being employed is well palpably and flatly untrue.
Speaker 3: And we can see that from, if nothing else, the
Speaker 3: recent commercials that the US Psychological Operations forces have made
Speaker 3: for their psychological warfare care campaigns. And I'm going to
Speaker 3: forget the name of the recent campaign that they had,
Speaker 3: but showing you know, spooky images and having spooky sounds
Speaker 3: and other things, and making it sound as if it
Speaker 3: would be so cool, wouldn't you like to be a
Speaker 3: psychological warrior manipulating the population. So the US military even
Speaker 3: openly brags about it at this point. So those types
Speaker 3: of operations are still underway. And yes, with regards specifically
Speaker 3: to the drugging of children, the mass medication of children
Speaker 3: under the name of stopping these oppositional defiant disorder or
Speaker 3: whatever other pathologization of normal human behavior they come up
Speaker 3: with next, there's a number of things to be said
Speaker 3: about that. One is just the sheer numbers of it,
Speaker 3: and the number of children that are now being medicated
Speaker 3: for those psychological conditions again should give anyone, i think,
Speaker 3: at least pause for concern because we've lived, however, many
Speaker 3: thousands of generals before this point without the use of
Speaker 3: such pharmaceuticals. But now suddenly there's a significant percentage of
Speaker 3: the population that just must have these pharmaceuticals in order
Speaker 3: to survive. Are we expected to believe that? But even
Speaker 3: it gets even worse because as I talk about in
Speaker 3: one of my interviews with doctor Bruce Lovine, this wasn't
Speaker 3: in the documentary itself, but I do have other interviews
Speaker 3: with him in my archives at Corporate Report. We talk
Speaker 3: about the fact that although people have been led to
Speaker 3: believe and still many people I think in the general
Speaker 3: public do believe the chemical imbalance theory of psychological disorder,
Speaker 3: where oh, you have a chemical imbalance, that's why you
Speaker 3: have depression or whatever it may be, So you take
Speaker 3: this medication and it will restore the right balance. The
Speaker 3: truth about that is that it was never really seriously
Speaker 3: believed by the medical profession, and at this point it's
Speaker 3: actively disbelieved. No one who's an actual medical professional, research
Speaker 3: or clinical psychologist actually believes in the chemical imbalance theory.
Speaker 3: That is a bunch of hogwash, that is, but for
Speaker 3: some reason, everyone tends to believe it, and that is
Speaker 3: why a lot of people do take SSRIs or other
Speaker 3: types of psychologically active drugs, is because they believe they're
Speaker 3: restoring chemical balance to their brain. I also have in
Speaker 3: my archives, Again I didn't go into it in this
Speaker 3: documentary in detail, but I do have in my archives
Speaker 3: work on the connection between SSRIs and mass shooters. I mean,
Speaker 3: it just is a connection that there are a number
Speaker 3: of mass shooting events where the mass shooter was on
Speaker 3: ssriys or was coming off of SSRIs at the point
Speaker 3: at which they started their mass shooting. There may be
Speaker 3: a number of reasons for that correlation, could be causational,
Speaker 3: but at any rate, there is a connection.
Speaker 2: Right, It's extremely concerning. Let's talk a little bit about
Speaker 2: the modern attempts to pathologize conspiracy conspiracy theorists. They've had
Speaker 2: conspiracy hit pieces throughout modern in history, people being called
Speaker 2: tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists, all the names that we've
Speaker 2: been called, all the gas lighting and the severity seems
Speaker 2: to come and go. We seem to be in an
Speaker 2: era where it is back in full fledge. We have censorship,
Speaker 2: domestic terrorism because of people's thoughts and freethinking and opinions,
Speaker 2: and there seems to be a flat out attack on
Speaker 2: freethinkers right now, but this is something that has been
Speaker 2: seated for a very long time, at least since the
Speaker 2: Kennedy assassination. When they coin the term conspiracy theorists right.
Speaker 3: More or less yes, So for people who don't know,
Speaker 3: the document number is one zero, three five tosh nine
Speaker 3: nine zero. Please somebody fact check me on that. I'm
Speaker 3: going off the top of my head. But there is
Speaker 3: a CIA memo that was sent out during in nineteen
Speaker 3: I believe sixty seven, and it was sent out to
Speaker 3: operatives around the world to give them an idea of
Speaker 3: how to respond to critics of the Warren Commission. And
Speaker 3: within that document they do raise the concept of conspiracy.
Speaker 3: These conspiracy theorists like to do this, but we can
Speaker 3: counter them this way. The point is, yes, that the
Speaker 3: word conspiracy theorist as a phrase was not uttered for
Speaker 3: the first time in the nineteen sixties, but it was
Speaker 3: weaponized there in the nineteen sixties, and from that point
Speaker 3: onward we can see a sharp increase in the use
Speaker 3: of that term conspiracy theorist as a pejorative to put
Speaker 3: down people who are questioning the official government narrative on
Speaker 3: things like the jfk assassination. So it was clearly weaponized
Speaker 3: by the CIA, and it has been an incredibly effective
Speaker 3: weapon because I don't know about your experience, but certainly
Speaker 3: my experience growing up in Canada, throughout my life, certainly
Speaker 3: I heard anyone questioning various things referred to disparagingly as
Speaker 3: you're one of those tinfoil conspiracy weirdos. And that is,
Speaker 3: of course the image that has persisted, given that there's
Speaker 3: always been I think an underground of people who are
Speaker 3: resistant to that categorization, that label, who will continue to
Speaker 3: persist in such areas, And it has been, as you say,
Speaker 3: an ebb and a flow in terms of the conversation
Speaker 3: around it. I note, of course, the I want to
Speaker 3: Believe poster right there behind you, which of course was
Speaker 3: part of the nineteen nineties conspiracy culture, which was interestingly
Speaker 3: implanted by LA and Hollywood and Chris Carter. And we
Speaker 3: could talk about the Loan Gunman spinoff pilot episode and
Speaker 3: nine to eleven and all of that kind of stuff.
Speaker 3: But I would say we are perhaps going through another
Speaker 3: era like that where conspiracy is becoming cool and and
Speaker 3: I think being co opted at the same time by
Speaker 3: mainstream forces. That yes, I certainly experienced it myself in
Speaker 3: the two thousands twenty tens, as I was talking about
Speaker 3: things like nine to eleven truth and of course being
Speaker 3: cast aside as some kind of conspiracy weirdo. I would
Speaker 3: say there's a lot more room for that type of
Speaker 3: discussion even in more mainstream circles now, and we see
Speaker 3: relatively mainstream, high profile people now openly talking about things
Speaker 3: like nine to eleven truth. However, that does raise, in
Speaker 3: my mind, of course, the question of the extent to
Speaker 3: which this conversation is being steered, controlled, directed, et cetera,
Speaker 3: into safe areas versus actually dangerous areas. There's a lot
Speaker 3: to be said about that, but yes, the conspiracy theory term,
Speaker 3: at any rate, has been an incredibly powerful tool for
Speaker 3: controlling the discourse on a number of se.
Speaker 2: You mentioned nine to eleven since that time period. That
Speaker 2: seems to be a very important turning point in the
Speaker 2: collective consciousness how we viewed our government and corruption. Twenty
Speaker 2: twenty was another one. With the onset of the COVID operation.
Speaker 2: This is a huge one. It really started getting people
Speaker 2: looking at corruption and the nature of reality in different ways.
Speaker 3: It certainly did. And it's an interesting, perhaps ironic point
Speaker 3: about the nature of false flag events or psychological operations
Speaker 3: that yes, they can be obviously extremely effective, as nine
Speaker 3: to eleven obviously and demonstrably was. There are at least
Speaker 3: a million debt of rakis to speak to that fact,
Speaker 3: let alone all the other dead that have resulted from
Speaker 3: those lies. So yes, unfortunately it can be extremely effective. However,
Speaker 3: when there is such a spectacular event like that, it
Speaker 3: does certainly draw attention and start waking people up, as
Speaker 3: the phrase goes, and that is essentially the case with me.
Speaker 3: It was nine eleven truth that got me researching in
Speaker 3: the independent media in the first place. Is the first
Speaker 3: thing that really started to send me tumbling down that
Speaker 3: rabbit hole. And I imagine, I'd like to imagine anyway,
Speaker 3: over the past five years, people who were caught up
Speaker 3: in the scandemic and suddenly realizing, oh hey, whoa something
Speaker 3: really weird is going on here, probably started researching and
Speaker 3: finding out more and now as a result, I mean,
Speaker 3: who would have thought even a few years ago there'd
Speaker 3: be mass protest movements against the who or people would
Speaker 3: be angry at you know, Anthony Fauci or something that
Speaker 3: would have been unthinkable a decade ago, it's thinkable now
Speaker 3: because of an event like that. So although these events
Speaker 3: can be very effective for the would be controllers in
Speaker 3: forwarding their agenda in various ways, they also simultaneously can
Speaker 3: be very effective in waking a lot of people up
Speaker 3: and at least getting people more curious about what's really
Speaker 3: going on in the world around them. So it is
Speaker 3: a double edged sword one that I am. I would
Speaker 3: like to bet that the social engineers probably take that
Speaker 3: calculus into calculation when they're deciding on what operation to do.
Speaker 3: Is it worth it to push this far, this fast,
Speaker 3: this hard, or should we ease off of it? As
Speaker 3: for example, we're seeing with the biosecurity state. A few
Speaker 3: years ago, have the entire existence of the human civilization
Speaker 3: rested on you locking yourself in your home? But now,
Speaker 3: oh yeah, well, oh there was some kind of COVID thing. Whatever,
Speaker 3: it's over. You don't have to worry about You got COVID.
Speaker 3: Who cares.
Speaker 2: It's very interesting to see how the collective reacts and
Speaker 2: recovers from certain psychological operations. As far as people's reactions
Speaker 2: to this and the believability of some of these conspiracies,
Speaker 2: so many people will refuse to look at it, and
Speaker 2: it will just remain some kooky conspiracy in their mind
Speaker 2: until they're actually affected by something. You cite a few
Speaker 2: stories of people who were arrested, who had their freedom's
Speaker 2: taken away, and this could be coming to our doorstep
Speaker 2: very soon, especially with the moves that have been made
Speaker 2: by this current administration as far as law enforcement, AI,
Speaker 2: the technological implementations to our government, things of this nature.
Speaker 2: But let's talk about some of the stories that you
Speaker 2: cite in the documentary, like Claire Sweeney's story.
Speaker 3: Right, So it was over a decade ago. It was
Speaker 3: probably a decade and a half ago. I interviewed Claire Sweeney,
Speaker 3: who was a journalist in New Zealand who in two thousand,
Speaker 3: I want to say two thousand and six, I don't
Speaker 3: remember the exact year at this point, but she was
Speaker 3: forcibly confined to a medical mental evaluation against her will
Speaker 3: and forced drug for having dared to talk about nine
Speaker 3: to eleven as an inside job. And there was a
Speaker 3: series of events that led to this, but eventually she
Speaker 3: ultimately got simply confined to medical detention against her will
Speaker 3: and against actually the actual laws of New Zealand, which
Speaker 3: specifically do not allow for anyone to be forcibly mentally
Speaker 3: confined for expressing a political opinion, which was exactly what
Speaker 3: she was doing. But at any rate, this is what happened,
Speaker 3: and as I point out in the documentary, that this
Speaker 3: happened at all is concerning enough that had happened five
Speaker 3: years after the events of nine to eleven. That it
Speaker 3: happened in New Zealand, halfway around the world from the
Speaker 3: United States is baffling until we understand it in that
Speaker 3: general context of all political dissent can and will be
Speaker 3: pathologized by people who find it convenient to lock away
Speaker 3: people who are saying inconvenient truths and to force drug them.
Speaker 3: Another example that I go through I briefly mentioned doctor
Speaker 3: Merril Nass, who is someone that I've talked to many
Speaker 3: times in the past who had her medical license suspended
Speaker 3: by the Board of Licensure in Medicine in Maine for
Speaker 3: the temerity of suggesting the alternative treatments for COVID. I
Speaker 3: also talk about doctor Thomas Binder, who was talking about
Speaker 3: the craziness of the scandemic and walking people away in
Speaker 3: all of these sorts of things, and who got then
Speaker 3: swarmed by sixty sixty armed police officers showing up based
Speaker 3: on a tweet that he made that went viral or
Speaker 3: a blog, I can't remember the exact post, but basically
Speaker 3: questioning the masking and what was going on and saying
Speaker 3: that there's no scientific validity to this. He was then
Speaker 3: accosted by sixty armed police officers with the Anti Terrorism
Speaker 3: Unit of Switzerland who did take him in. He was
Speaker 3: actually diagnosed with corona insanity, which is not an actual diagnosis,
Speaker 3: that does not exist in any manual DSM or otherwise,
Speaker 3: but that was his diagnosis and then he was force
Speaker 3: drugged as a result of that. So absolute craziness. That
Speaker 3: doesn't make any sense unless we put it in that
Speaker 3: context of governments can, will and are weaponizing the pathologization
Speaker 3: of descent, trying to make descent into a mental illness.
Speaker 3: And it is interesting, for example, in doctor Bender's case,
Speaker 3: how that intersects with the anti terrorism idea, so that
Speaker 3: the idea that domestic terrorism and these other terms that
Speaker 3: are being thrown around are being linked to mental illness.
Speaker 3: And of course we have heard in the American political
Speaker 3: context for years now about the crazy woke leftist agenda
Speaker 3: and how that rhetoric is now being weaponized, and there
Speaker 3: have been various proposals at state levels and others to
Speaker 3: literally make wokeism some sort of mental disease that can
Speaker 3: then be pathologized and treated, which, again, whatever side of
Speaker 3: whatever political aisle you claim to be on, we should
Speaker 3: all be concerned when the government starts taking into its
Speaker 3: own hands the power to label political dissenters as mentally
Speaker 3: ill and then start to.
Speaker 2: Tusk, especially because the pendulum always swings back the other way.
Speaker 2: And when we look at what's happening here in the
Speaker 2: United States with the new law enforcement AI infrastructure under
Speaker 2: the guise of protecting against the evil illegal aliens that
Speaker 2: are invading our country. What happens four years from now
Speaker 2: if the pendulum swings the other direction. Do we really
Speaker 2: think they're gonna just get rid of all that infrastructure
Speaker 2: that is there right now to surveil the people and
Speaker 2: have complete control over everyone. I don't think so. I
Speaker 2: think they're going to utilize it for their benefit.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, I tend to concur with that, and hey, maybe
Speaker 3: that's only my supposition, but I think it's an informed
Speaker 3: supposition based on history and everything that we know. And
Speaker 3: it does play into that phenomenon that I've discussed on
Speaker 3: my programs that people are all too happy to support
Speaker 3: their person in power, having whatever power that he or
Speaker 3: she wants in order to implement the good agenda, the
Speaker 3: agenda that we know is good and right. And then
Speaker 3: four or eight years or however many years down the road,
Speaker 3: when the other team gets in power, oh my god,
Speaker 3: how did they get all these powers? It is a
Speaker 3: stupid and self defeating game that people are playing because
Speaker 3: I think they are caught in a false paradigm in
Speaker 3: which they think they are voting for this or that
Speaker 3: team to win in this team sport. But the reality is, yes,
Speaker 3: maybe there are two teams on this playing field that
Speaker 3: are playing this game. But what you don't see is that, oh,
Speaker 3: these teams have owners, and the owners actually sit on
Speaker 3: a board in a league, and they can you know,
Speaker 3: their they're business partners, and they go camping and you know,
Speaker 3: drinking together and whatever. They're they're friends. Behind the scenes.
Speaker 3: We never see that level of it. No, we're just
Speaker 3: caught up in the in the game that's on the
Speaker 3: field that we're taught is the entirety of the political universe.
Speaker 2: And from what I understand, there's some extremely concerning legislature
Speaker 2: and agendas coming out in Canada that have already begun
Speaker 2: to affect the citizens over there. I heard recently about
Speaker 2: the banning of guns almost completely.
Speaker 1: Is this right?
Speaker 3: I will confess ignorance on this. I have heard seen
Speaker 3: some of the headlines on this. I have not looked
Speaker 3: into this story. It wouldn't surprise me. I believe there
Speaker 3: is some sort of gun whatever, buyback, confiscation, something that's
Speaker 3: going on. I would need to look into the details more.
Speaker 3: But unfortunately, as a Canadian who now lives in Japan,
Speaker 3: has lived here for over twenty years. But as a Canadian,
Speaker 3: I can test that it is not surprising to me
Speaker 3: that enough of the Canadian public would go along with
Speaker 3: such schemes to make them viable, because the Canadian public,
Speaker 3: by and large, at least as in my my experience,
Speaker 3: tends to be trusting of the government. The government is yeah,
Speaker 3: sometimes it's incompetent, sometimes it fails, but generally it is
Speaker 3: well meaning and don't worry. In the end, it will
Speaker 3: keep you safe. And unfortunately, with that mentality, a lot
Speaker 3: of people can be let into the most Drkonian schemes
Speaker 3: because ultimately the politicians have our best interests in mind.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, let's talk a little bit about the psychotic
Speaker 2: nature of our rulers. Unfortunately, it seems that psychopaths tend
Speaker 2: to gravitate to those positions, and that is what we
Speaker 2: end up having to be subjected to because no one
Speaker 2: else wants those positions for some reason, and we end
Speaker 2: up with our global leaders essentially what you would call psychopaths,
Speaker 2: and this is measurable by their behavior. And you did
Speaker 2: a great job citing some documentation and studies that have
Speaker 2: been done that point out this very truth.
Speaker 3: Yes, there has been a lot of research on the
Speaker 3: area of sociopathy and psychopathy. Having said that, even those
Speaker 3: terms themselves are somewhat open to debate, because what defines
Speaker 3: a sociopath versus a psychopath or are they the same
Speaker 3: thing or what? And there are different ways of defining
Speaker 3: and labeling these things. There are also different tests that
Speaker 3: can be used to actually diagnose someone with this diagnosis.
Speaker 3: And some people, even in my own audience, think that
Speaker 3: it is some sort of contradiction that this documentary talks
Speaker 3: about the ways that political diagnosis about odd etc. Can
Speaker 3: be wielded as a weapon. And yet, but James, you're
Speaker 3: relying on diagnosis of psychopathy or what have you. I
Speaker 3: don't think of that as a contradiction. I do think
Speaker 3: that there are some measurable disiness differences in the brain
Speaker 3: functioning of a certain percentage of the population. It's been
Speaker 3: estimated differently by different people in different times. For example,
Speaker 3: I talk about Andrew Lobatchevsky who was working initially doing
Speaker 3: his research behind the Iron Curtain in the old Soviet Union,
Speaker 3: managed to escape without all of his notes and documentation,
Speaker 3: but managed to recompile a lot of that, and he
Speaker 3: was talking about something I believe it was on the
Speaker 3: order of three to five percent of the population being psychopaths.
Speaker 3: And again variation, there are variations in the definition of that,
Speaker 3: but essentially people who have no remorse, no conscience, no guilt,
Speaker 3: no sense of shame. It's a condition in which we
Speaker 3: use metaphors that are because it's almost incomparable, incomprehensible, I
Speaker 3: should say, for people who are not that way inclined
Speaker 3: to put their mindset, to put their minds into that mindset.
Speaker 3: So we talk about them as reptilian or something. They
Speaker 3: know they're not human. Because for you and me, and
Speaker 3: presumably most of the people listening to our conversation, yes,
Speaker 3: you might stay up at night thinking about that stupid
Speaker 3: thing that you said to that person in you know,
Speaker 3: seventh grade, and oh my god, why did I say that?
Speaker 3: Or having those moments where you think about things that
Speaker 3: you're remorseful for, regretful for. You have a sense of shame,
Speaker 3: et cetera. So it's impossible to imagine not having that.
Speaker 3: But if you were to imagine someone who did not
Speaker 3: have that, and who could slip on the mask of
Speaker 3: sanity as it's been called, by emulating and preying on
Speaker 3: our sympathies and emotions and empathy that we have as
Speaker 3: normal functioning human beings, imagine how far you could progress
Speaker 3: up the ladder of power. Because positions of power generally
Speaker 3: are obtained by people who are ruthless. If you are
Speaker 3: ruthless in the pursuit of power, you can generally accrue
Speaker 3: more power. And the thing, the inhibition that stops most
Speaker 3: people from ruthlessly stepping over their own grandma in order
Speaker 3: to you know, become more powerful, is that we have
Speaker 3: a sense of shame and guilt and remorse, and we
Speaker 3: don't want to inflict pain on other people, et cetera,
Speaker 3: et cetera. But for people who are not burdened by
Speaker 3: that that natural, inbuilt moral safeguard, they are able to
Speaker 3: progress up the ladder. And that creates an incredibly important
Speaker 3: problem that identifying the documentary the problem of the creation
Speaker 3: of pathocracy, because it is not just then that the
Speaker 3: psychopaths and cold blooded killers essentially get into those positions
Speaker 3: of power, but then they start shaping and molding the
Speaker 3: institutions that they are controlling in their own image. These
Speaker 3: institutions start to become psychopathic, so that people who want
Speaker 3: to make their way even just go along to get
Speaker 3: along in the institution itself, or make their way up
Speaker 3: that ladder, if they are not themselves psychopathic, can become sociopathic.
Speaker 3: This is one way of defining sociopathy. Not that you
Speaker 3: are born literally with that brain function in which you
Speaker 3: cannot feel remorse or guilt or what have what have you,
Speaker 3: but that you start to adopt the psychopathic mindset and
Speaker 3: you start to function in a more psychopathic manner because
Speaker 3: you are placed in the environment in which that will
Speaker 3: be most conducive to your well being, and we've seen this,
Speaker 3: for example, in things like the Abu Grabe prison torture.
Speaker 3: The absolute disgusting nature of what occurred there.
Speaker 1: It was just.
Speaker 3: Ordinary men and women from you know, Nebraska or Idaho
Speaker 3: or whatever it is, getting shipped off to Iraq and
Speaker 3: suddenly they're participating in these group torture and humiliation rituals
Speaker 3: and all of these things. How and why did this happen? Well,
Speaker 3: one way of looking at that is the sociopathic nature
Speaker 3: of people who are caught up in an institution, in
Speaker 3: a system in which they are being incentivized and making
Speaker 3: their way up the career ladder by being sadistic, by
Speaker 3: being by turning off their emotions. They will eventually start
Speaker 3: to do that, or at least some percentage of people
Speaker 3: will start to do that, and those people will then
Speaker 3: be promoted. So you start to develop this pathocracy in
Speaker 3: which there is this entire system which is being created
Speaker 3: by the most ruthless, the most sadistic, the most uncaring
Speaker 3: human beings that there are, because those are the ones
Speaker 3: who get to the positions of power, and that becomes
Speaker 3: an incredibly well. As we can see around us an
Speaker 3: incredibly overwhelming problem that starts to shape society itself. Yeah,
Speaker 3: perhaps the entire culture around us in that psychopathic immit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it has this trickle down effect to even the normal,
Speaker 2: everyday person that is trying to keep their job in
Speaker 2: following orders. We saw this during the COVID era with
Speaker 2: people ratting on their neighbors and calling the authorities for
Speaker 2: people who weren't wearing masks. Crazy stuff that was occurring.
Speaker 2: But there's also this aspect of glamorizing horrible behavior in humans.
Speaker 2: It's almost like things like pedophilia and murder is being
Speaker 2: normalized in a sense more and more with each decade
Speaker 2: that goes by. There seems to be a level of
Speaker 2: intentionality behind that as well.
Speaker 3: Yes, can you elaborate where you're going with that?
Speaker 2: Well, if you look around where people's morality is, where
Speaker 2: the collective morality is compared to even ten years ago,
Speaker 2: there seems to be this degradation, But it seems to
Speaker 2: be engineered in a way by of course, Hollywood and
Speaker 2: what we're subjected to with social media, and the younger
Speaker 2: generations adopt this behavior more and more and it just
Speaker 2: becomes more and more normalized. I mentioned the pedophilia being normalized.
Speaker 2: This is something that we have seen a lot through
Speaker 2: our entertainment industry and what's being portrayed on TV and
Speaker 2: especially in social media. This is something that's become obvious
Speaker 2: in my perspective.
Speaker 3: What are your thoughts? I think you are right, and
Speaker 3: I think there's a number of things that are coming
Speaker 3: together to make this phenomenon, some of which may be organic,
Speaker 3: just as a result of the media landscape in which
Speaker 3: we find ourselves now. The nature of media, it's so changed.
Speaker 2: He throws up there for about thirty seconds. You're back now, though.
Speaker 3: Okay, let me start that again. I would say that
Speaker 3: there is the media itself has changed over the course
Speaker 3: of the past few decades of the Internet era, so
Speaker 3: that the old media oligopoly that controlled what we were
Speaker 3: seeing and hearing reading on a daily basis, obviously, that
Speaker 3: doesn't have the same control as it did before. Now
Speaker 3: more people are getting their information from online social media,
Speaker 3: which presumably theoretically is you and me and average people.
Speaker 3: Well yes, well, okay, algorithmically highly manipulated obviously, so that
Speaker 3: you will see what the big tech overlords want you
Speaker 3: to see on a daily basis. If you are relying
Speaker 3: on those algorithms to serve you your news. But it
Speaker 3: creates a number of interesting effects, one of which is that,
Speaker 3: as people may or may not have had cause to
Speaker 3: notice over the past few decades, there is a difference
Speaker 3: between online discourse and real world discourse. And online you
Speaker 3: have flame wars, and you have trolls, and you have
Speaker 3: those types of phenomenon people just going in trying to
Speaker 3: stir things up and make a problem, etc. And laughing
Speaker 3: at the results, doing it for the lulls, all of
Speaker 3: that type of behavior, which I think is a highly
Speaker 3: online manifestation of behavior. But since now we have a
Speaker 3: generation of digital natives growing up having been steeped in
Speaker 3: that type of discourse their whole lives, perhaps even more
Speaker 3: so than the real world discourse they have with their friends.
Speaker 3: People are more and more embedded in their devices. I
Speaker 3: think they start to think of that as real discourse.
Speaker 3: That's how people really interact with each other. And then
Speaker 3: that starts to manifest in the real world, and so
Speaker 3: you start to have real world communication now not being
Speaker 3: like real world discourse where you talk to someone and
Speaker 3: try to understand their position, et cetera. Now it is
Speaker 3: like having flame wars and trolls and things in real life,
Speaker 3: and that becomes normalized because we all see it on
Speaker 3: the screen, so why don't we do it in real life?
Speaker 3: And so we start to see behaviors I think changing
Speaker 3: over the past couple of decades, and there are a
Speaker 3: lot of different ways that this happens, some of them
Speaker 3: seen rather benign, like flash mobs, you know, that phenomenon
Speaker 3: that occurred, you know, a decade decade and a half ago,
Speaker 3: as people started to realize, oh, we can just get
Speaker 3: a bunch of people to all come together to you know,
Speaker 3: dance and sing at this spot or whatever. Oh, isn't
Speaker 3: that a fun viral video?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Hey.
Speaker 3: However, of course flash mobs can then be weaponized if
Speaker 3: one is so inclined to do so. And again, there
Speaker 3: are so many different aspects of this online behavior that's
Speaker 3: manifesting in the real world that can and presumably is
Speaker 3: being not only studied but actively weaponized by the admitted
Speaker 3: social engineers, like the psyops warriors in the US military,
Speaker 3: who are literally bragging about manipulating human events.
Speaker 2: This is something that I am constantly shocked by the
Speaker 2: level of theatrics that were subjected to on a daily
Speaker 2: basis through what we're seeing on television and social media.
Speaker 2: Basically everything we're presented in my perspective has some level
Speaker 2: of manipulation, some level of theatrics, especially if it's coming
Speaker 2: from the news media on TV. It becomes very difficult
Speaker 2: to navigate what is real and what isn't in your perspective,
Speaker 2: how much of what we're experiencing with politics and even
Speaker 2: high impact events, recent events, assassinations, how much of this
Speaker 2: is theatrics compared to organic events?
Speaker 3: And where do you draw the line, because theatrics can
Speaker 3: play into organic events, and organic events can play into theatrics,
Speaker 3: and it can become a feedback cycle. So yes, it's
Speaker 3: a good question. Perhaps this goes to some of the
Speaker 3: questions that happen in the independent media space that we
Speaker 3: keep coming back to about the extent to which this
Speaker 3: or that event was manulated and controlled or whether it
Speaker 3: was organic, et cetera. And to some extent, maybe sometimes
Speaker 3: that is actually decidable and we actually can come to
Speaker 3: a conclusion on that. Sometimes maybe we can't. We just
Speaker 3: don't have enough information to be able to sort out
Speaker 3: the difference. But sometimes maybe the difference isn't even the
Speaker 3: point really, because The point isn't necessarily the event itself.
Speaker 3: The point is the reaction that that event provokes, and
Speaker 3: the reaction itself is real. Whether or not the event
Speaker 3: was fake or staged or manipulated or organic or whatever,
Speaker 3: the reaction can be quite real. Unfortunately, often because the
Speaker 3: reaction can be as we saw, for example, after the
Speaker 3: horrific events of nine to eleven, well we better go
Speaker 3: bomb the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya
Speaker 3: and Syria, whatever. Let's just get them all as a
Speaker 3: result of, you know, a spectacular event like that. So, yes,
Speaker 3: sorting out the theatrics from the organic. I mean, it's
Speaker 3: a good question, and sometimes in specific cases we can
Speaker 3: do that, But I again, I think it's more the
Speaker 3: way that any event can be used to forward an agenda.
Speaker 3: And one example I like to give is, Okay, so
Speaker 3: after nine to eleven, this, even just accepting the official
Speaker 3: explanation of that day, this horrific and terrible failure of intelligence,
Speaker 3: the intelligence agencies that are out there to keep you safe,
Speaker 3: Oh they failed. So okay, let's just accept that narrative
Speaker 3: as is. So what are the two possibilities here? The
Speaker 3: one and the only one that was ever presented to
Speaker 3: us by the authorities, by political institutions, by the media
Speaker 3: was Oh, it failed because they didn't have enough money,
Speaker 3: they didn't have enough power, they didn't have enough data
Speaker 3: sharing between themselves, they didn't have enough ability to spy
Speaker 3: on you. They didn't have enough ability to round people up.
Speaker 3: So we need to give them more power and more control.
Speaker 3: They failed, so we better reward them. Was the only
Speaker 3: option that was ever presented to the public, whereas it
Speaker 3: seems to me perfectly logical that the other response to
Speaker 3: that would be, oh, no, they failed us, so get
Speaker 3: rid of them. They're done. They do not deserve a
Speaker 3: second chance. No, the failure on that level, no thank you. Again,
Speaker 3: even just accepting the official story as it is, should
Speaker 3: we should have been presented with at least those two options, right,
Speaker 3: But for some reason we only get the one option.
Speaker 3: So again, regardless of the event itself, it's the reaction
Speaker 3: that is the real point of events like that, and
Speaker 3: you better believe that they always have a reaction that
Speaker 3: will fall on their side of the agenda. So maybe
Speaker 3: we should be thinking about, well, what would be our side,
Speaker 3: what should we be pushing the event of any event,
Speaker 3: real staged fake, manipulated, or otherwise.
Speaker 2: Do you think the ideal end goal for the parasitic
Speaker 2: ruling class would just be essentially a lower population with
Speaker 2: the ability to come completely surveil and control and possibly
Speaker 2: even predict crimes with artificial intelligence, and have artificial intelligence
Speaker 2: be the base for governance. Yes.
Speaker 3: I think all of that is unfortunately already starting to manifest.
Speaker 3: We are seeing the formation of allegocracy rule by algorithm,
Speaker 3: and people are being prepped for the idea that AI
Speaker 3: would make a much better governing system than having these silly,
Speaker 3: you know, chimps in suits trying to make laws for us. No,
Speaker 3: we need AI that will tell us what to do.
Speaker 3: And you know, Joe Rogan and others floating that very
Speaker 3: idea to the general public and a lot of people
Speaker 3: starting to think about it. So yes, clearly, I think
Speaker 3: that is the direction in which we're heading. And if
Speaker 3: we are opposed to that, the question is then what
Speaker 3: is our alternative? Are what direction should we be heading in?
Speaker 3: My answer is always freedom is the answer. What's the question?
Speaker 3: I always think decentralization of control in every way possible
Speaker 3: is the way forward for us as free humanity, because
Speaker 3: we will sort out our problems better than the top
Speaker 3: down system of authoritary and control ruled by AI bots
Speaker 3: programmed by big tech overlords. Ever, will and you know,
Speaker 3: I'm willing. I'm willing to put myself on the line
Speaker 3: for that one, because I think that this is potentially
Speaker 3: the end of humanity. You talk about what the end
Speaker 3: goal might be, and yes, I think for a long
Speaker 3: time the end goal has been to have that perfectly
Speaker 3: serviceable tax cattle population that can be farmed and fleeced
Speaker 3: as needed by the controllers. They are the working class
Speaker 3: that you know, maybe makes the world run, but we
Speaker 3: control them, We fleece them as necessary. They're completely ours
Speaker 3: and having digital ID tags in their ears or whatever.
Speaker 3: You know, that's the system. But unfortunately, we're now even
Speaker 3: looking on the doorstet of the idea of having a
Speaker 3: genetically controlled or manipulated subspecies that would then be even
Speaker 3: more serviceable and compliant, or maybe even just eradication altogether.
Speaker 3: Maybe these tech overlords are high on their own supply
Speaker 3: and genuinely believe they're just going to upload their consciousness
Speaker 3: to the cloud and live as silicon bodies in the future,
Speaker 3: you know, utopia, transhuman utopia. I don't know, personally, I
Speaker 3: don't believe it, but I think there might be people
Speaker 3: out there who genuinely do believe in that and are
Speaker 3: working towards it.
Speaker 2: People hear this and information like this, and they wonder
Speaker 2: what can they do as an individual. Many may think
Speaker 2: the system, the parasitic ruling class and the machine is
Speaker 2: too big to fail, and we've already gone too far.
Speaker 2: How can we fight against it? Let's offer some solutions.
Speaker 2: In my perspective, you can't play the game and when
Speaker 2: you have to check out of as much as possible
Speaker 2: and not participate with the things that don't serve humanity.
Speaker 2: But what would you offer as some solutions to navigate
Speaker 2: the madness.
Speaker 3: Well, here's a very simple, everyday kind of solution that
Speaker 3: doesn't seem like much on the individual level, but I
Speaker 3: really think could add up. I recently wrote about a
Speaker 3: trip that I took to Malaysia where I had this
Speaker 3: whole ordeal just trying to buy breakfast because there was
Speaker 3: a number of places that were cashless payment only, but
Speaker 3: all I had was cash, so I guess I can't
Speaker 3: pay with this paper money anymore?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 3: Okay? Or places that had the QR code scanning system
Speaker 3: for their menu, but I don't have cell service here
Speaker 3: in Malaysia, so how am I going to use? Are
Speaker 3: there any waiters? Can I actually flag a human being? Anyway?
Speaker 3: It was just an insight for me into how far
Speaker 3: along we are into this digital ID panopticon surveillance state
Speaker 3: and where we're going with it and the Again, this
Speaker 3: is not going to sound like a wonderful, amazing solution
Speaker 3: to people, but the solution that we have at our
Speaker 3: fingertips is, at the very least, as this agenda starts
Speaker 3: to roll out and as more businesses start to play
Speaker 3: into this, do not patronize those businesses that are going
Speaker 3: into this agenda. Oh your cash list payment only, well goodbye.
Speaker 3: It was nice knowing you. And that is one of
Speaker 3: the things that I think was kind of the bright
Speaker 3: spot of the whole scandemic is that, at the very least,
Speaker 3: it gave people a chance to see, for example, those
Speaker 3: businesses in their local area that wouldn't allow them into
Speaker 3: their store without dotting the mask or taking the vaccine
Speaker 3: or what have you, versus those businesses that were happy
Speaker 3: to have you as a customer, Which business would you
Speaker 3: rather support? I mean, I get the idea, oh we
Speaker 3: should be protesting because this supermarket won't let me in
Speaker 3: without the mask or whatever. But maybe that's a sign
Speaker 3: that you shouldn't be supporting that supermarket because you really
Speaker 3: want them to have your money. This is the point
Speaker 3: that I keep coming back to, is that the whole
Speaker 3: system all of this. I mean, I know that the
Speaker 3: Wizard of Oz is sitting there. Oh, I am the
Speaker 3: great and powerful wizard, and you cannot defeat me. And
Speaker 3: people start to internalize that, oh my god, it's so overwhelming,
Speaker 3: we'll never be able to defeat it, without realizing that
Speaker 3: we already have everything that we need. Because all of
Speaker 3: this is predicated on our participation literally our dollars or
Speaker 3: whatever it is that we're contributing, our time or energy,
Speaker 3: our resources. We are building up this world and putting
Speaker 3: ourselves into this system of top down technocratic control. Whereas
Speaker 3: we could build up a world with each other. We
Speaker 3: could just support each other in this enterprise and start
Speaker 3: building up the community networks and ultimately expanding that into
Speaker 3: a real alternative to this system of control. I know
Speaker 3: it seems pie in the sky, and I know there
Speaker 3: will be people out there and say, well, no one
Speaker 3: in my area believes what I believe or what have you.
Speaker 3: But I guarantee there's some pocketive resistance out there somewhere
Speaker 3: that you can start linking up with. There's some farmers
Speaker 3: market or whatever it is that you can start using
Speaker 3: to start circumventing the systems of control. And it is
Speaker 3: like a muscle. You gotta work it. You got to
Speaker 3: keep flexing it. You got to keep building it up,
Speaker 3: and it will get built bigger over time. And it's
Speaker 3: a slow process and it won't always function flawlessly. But
Speaker 3: that's reality. And unless we get used to that. Because
Speaker 3: I know people are waiting for the silver bullet whatever,
Speaker 3: something from the sky that's going to magically solve everything.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry I can't give that to you. All I
Speaker 3: can say is, yeah, if you work towards building up
Speaker 3: the world that you want, we already have the power.
Speaker 3: It's already ours. We just got to take it into
Speaker 3: our own hands.
Speaker 2: On James, thank you so much. This was great. Definitely
Speaker 2: gonna have to have you back on in the future.
Speaker 2: Before I let you go, remind the audience how they
Speaker 2: can find all your content and more about you.
Speaker 3: My name is James Corbett. I am at Corbettreport dot com.
Speaker 3: Crb ett Report dot com. I have eighteen years of
Speaker 3: archives of audio, visual and textual material. It's all there
Speaker 3: for free, so I hope people will use it as
Speaker 3: a resource. If you're interested in the Descent into Madness
Speaker 3: documentary in particular, you can go there directly Corporate report
Speaker 3: dot com slash Madness and you get the entire documentary
Speaker 3: and entire hyperlinked transcript audio download. However you want to
Speaker 3: imbibe it, I hope you do. And again, the hyperlink
Speaker 3: transcript has links to all of the source documents, absolutely
Speaker 3: everything that I talk about in sight in the entire documentary,
Speaker 3: so you can go and start researching it for yourself.
Speaker 3: If you are so inclined and you want to get
Speaker 3: even further into the question of psychology and weaponization of psychology, etc.
Speaker 3: I have an online course at my open Source Education
Speaker 3: dot online website that's opensource education dot online. I have
Speaker 3: an entire psychology course which consists of several podcasts and
Speaker 3: videos and interviews and articles that I've done over the
Speaker 3: years on this subject. If you want to start exploring more.
Speaker 2: Excellent James, thank you so much. Like I said, We'll
Speaker 2: be doing this again the future, and until next time,
Speaker 2: everyone have an excellent evening. We'll talk again tomorrow.
Speaker 1: We'll see you then.
Speaker 2: Hello, friends, I am so excited to tell you about
Speaker 2: Independent Media Token. Independent media Token is a brand new
Speaker 2: way to show your support for independent media without having
Speaker 2: to donate a dime. Independent media Token is a cryptocurrency
Speaker 2: on the Soalana blockchain designed to generate funds to promote
Speaker 2: and foster the growth of independent content creators, allowing them
Speaker 2: to engage in their art without having to worry about
Speaker 2: being demonetized through a network of media partners of which you,
Speaker 2: yourself can become a part of. Independent Media Token's goal
Speaker 2: is to ensure the powers that be can never cut
Speaker 2: off all of our areas of funding and censor the
Speaker 2: only free voices left in the world. Join the movement today.
Speaker 2: You can pick up Independent Media Token and using Phantom
Speaker 2: wallet or the Salana wallet of your choice, where you
Speaker 2: can easily swap your Salana for IMT. Grab some IMT
Speaker 2: today and remember to always know your team. To learn more,
Speaker 2: visit independentmediatoken dot com or use the link right in
Speaker 2: the description.