InnerLight

This highly detailed and high integrity analysis provides a massive amount of insider information and privileged data, as well as a motherlode of whistleblower disclosures. Only by understanding the crucial interconnection between the complex web of financial transactions and security swaps, DOD fund losses and gold thefts, can one of the main reasons for the 9/11 terror attacks be correctly understood. For anyone who wants to comprehend the enormity and profundity of the 9/11 black operation, this video offers an indispensable perspective. Simply put, it lays bare the now indisputable conspiracy that existed among these essential collaborators: the U.S. Federal Government, the U.S. Armed Forces, numerous Transnational Corporations, the Mainstream Media, various Scientific Research Institutions, as well as other entities which were critical to the effective coordination, execution and cover-up of the 9/11 false flag attacks. Special thanks to Michael C. Ruppert, Mark H. Gaffney, and Kevin Ryan for solving the crimes of 9/11 with their amazing research. This video is a compilation of evidence they have uncovered. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk - "Crossing the Rubicon" - The Decline of American Empire at the end of the age of oil http://www.fromthewilderness.com "Black 911" by Mark H. Gaffney: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/25/black-911-a-walk-on-the-dark-side-part-3/ Was 9/11 an Inside Job? http://web.archive.org/web/20160219051204/http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20521.htm A guide to 9/11 Whistleblowers https://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm Project Hammer https://decryptedmatrix.com/bushs-project-hammer/ WTC 6 http://web.archive.org/web/20230928212054/http://www.whale.to/b/wtc_6_h.html SEC Act Section 12(k)2: https://www.sec.gov/rule-release/34-44791 Richard Grove's testimony (complete transcript) http://web.archive.org/web/20120412164926/www.freewebs.com/abigsecret/grove.html "Collateral Damage" by E.P. Heidner https://www.wanttoknow.info/911/Collateral-Damage-911-black_eagle_fund_trust.pdf The CIA's forty-year complicity in the narcotics trade by Alfred W. McCOY http://web.archive.org/web/20130117051648/www.cob.sjsu.edu/facstaff/davis_r/fallout.htm Executive Order 12333 created an agreement between the CIA and Justice Department (DEA) to look the other way on Government Drug Trafficking: https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/eo/eo-12333-2008.pdf AIG and Drug Money http://web.archive.org/web/20111109152552/http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070105_target_aig.shtml Maurice Greenberg's report for the CFR http://www.fas.org/irp/cfr.html Richard Armitage, Frank Carlucci, Herbert Winokur, and company https://digwithin.net/2012/04/08/911-as-a-sequel-to-iran-contra/ Post 9/11 Promotions: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/911-incompetence-sabotage-and.html 9/11 Gold Theft and other smoking guns: http://web.archive.org/web/20120114070200/http://killtown.911review.org/oddities.html#February26,1993-WTC_gold http://web.archive.org/web/20120112114248/http://killtown.911review.org/oddities.html#February26,1993-WTC_bombed Kevin Ryan's landmark article on who had "Demolition access to the WTC Towers": Tenants: http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html Security: http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html Convergence: http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/carlyle_kissinger_saic_halliburton.html Clean Up: http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials, The Environmentalist, Volume 29, Number 1 / March, 2009, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4 Kevin R. Ryan, The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nanothermites, Journal of 9/11 Studies, July 2008, http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf Website for In-Q-Tel http://web.archive.org/web/20120216082112/http://www.iqt.org/technology-portfolio/index-by-practice-area.html Website for In-Q-Tel, http://www.iqt.org/technology-portfolio/index-by-practice-area.html Wikipedia page for Jerome Hauer, http://web.archive.org/web/20120124011949/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Hauer Peter Jennings interview with Jerome Hauer, ABC, on 9/11, 14:53, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj0Rz9ZsDAg Taku Murakami, US Patent 5532449 - Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete, https://patents.google.com/patent/US5532449A/en Albert Gibson et al, Integral low-energy thermite igniter, US Patent number: 4464989, https://patents.google.com/patent/US4464989A/en?oq=4464989 http://web.archive.org/web/20120124011940/http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=rKl1AAAAEBAJ&dq=US+4464989 Michael C. Ruppert, Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA's Highest Ranks, October 9, 2001 https://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html Kevin R. Ryan, Mahmud Ahmed's itinerary from his Washington DC visit the week of 9/11, 911blogger.com, 11/27/2009, http://web.archive.org/web/20120109095400/http://911blogger.com/node/21978 The agreement between LLNL and Savannah River can be found here http://web.archive.org/web/20120113114946/https://www.llnl.gov/str/News597.html Savannah's reference to developing sol-gels can be found here http://web.archive.org/web/20120112173015/http://srnl.doe.gov/mat_sci.htm SEC document for Washington pre-payments http://www.secinfo.com/dRqWm.4G1Vx.c.htm The Ties That Bind, Descended from family business empires, six huge business groups dominate the Japanese economy, Multinational Monitor, October 1983 https://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1983/10/ties.html Securacomm Consulting Inc. v. Securacom Incorporated, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, January 20, 1999, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1444; 166 F.3d 182, http://web.archive.org/web/20090311035627/http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1099498 Wikipedia page for Stratesec, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratesec SEC filing for Stratesec, May 2, 1997, http://www.secinfo.com/dS7kv.82.htm Kroll Inc website, https://www.kroll.com/en/about-us Transcript 0:00 in September 1991 shortly after the end of the Cold War a cabal of elite bankers 0:06 and intelligence spooks led by George HW Bush financed a 240 billion dollar 0:11 covert operations war chests through the purchase of ten-year securities that as it happened were scheduled to come due 0:18 on September 12 2001 project hammer was undoubtedly used for a wide variety of 0:24 illicit intelligence operations but mainly was used to finance a covert economic operation against the 0:30 collapsing Soviet Union where by unknown Western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry with a focus on oil and 0:37 gas crashing the Russian economy looting at Central Bank orchestrating what became known as the great ruble scam and 0:44 a wide variety of other clandestine state-assisted operations designed to thoroughly prevent Russia from ever 0:49 contesting the US as a world superpower well in the process lining the pockets of these economic hitmen who swooped in 0:56 to devour the collapsing Russian economy after the fall of the Soviet Union a spectacular investment for all 1:02 at least until money-laundering investigations began tracing all the money or when the 10-year deadline came 1:08 up in the securities became due and began the routine process of authenticity and ownership checks 1:13 evidence shows that several federal and private investigations had already stumbled upon the hammer fund that were 1:20 compiling evidence on it up until the 9/11 attacks these included the Office of Naval 1:25 Intelligence or O&I which was moved to the outer earring of the recently renovated section of the Pentagon that 1:31 was targeted and destroyed on 9/11 according to EP Haider the O&I had been 1:36 investigating crimes associated with the plundering of Russia 39 out of the 40 1:42 people who worked in those offices were killed on 9/11 including the entire chain of command the Pentagon's Financial Accounting 1:48 offices in that same wing were also an obvious target as were the passengers on board flight 77 many of them 1:55 coincidentally held top-secret clearances and were connected with pentagon black operations agents of the 2:01 Office of Naval Intelligence had also been investigating financial transactions which were linked to 2:07 securities being managed by those securities dealers in the World Trade Center that were all targeted 31% of the 125 fatalities in 2:16 the Pentagon were from the Naval Command center that housed the Office of Naval Intelligence 41% of the fatalities in 2:22 the Twin Towers came from two companies that managed US government securities Cantor Fitzgerald and Euro brokers there 2:30 were three major security brokers in the World Trade Center Cantor Fitzgerald Euro brokers and Garmin intercapital 2:36 at 8:46 on the morning of September 11th flight 11 flew directly into Marsh & 2:41 McLennan secure computer room in the North Tower right below the floor on which candor Fitzgerald was situated 2:47 Cantor Fitzgerald was the largest security dealer in the u.s. shortly 2:52 after that a massive explosion went off just under the FBI offices in the North Tower on the 23rd floor fires were 2:59 reported on the 22nd floor at 8:47 there were also explosions and subsequent fires reported at Garban 3:05 intercapital on the 25th floor and in the basement of Tower one as well shortly thereafter at 9:03 flight 175 at 3:13 the South Tower right below the floors on which Euro brokers was situated in all three cases in the explosive fiery 3:19 destruction consumed the offices in these several floors above destroying files and trapping victims inside in the 3:27 midst of all this building six was destroyed by an explosion that took place before either tower fell this 3:33 secondary explosion took out a portion of the building which just happened to include the eldorado task force's 3:39 offices the Eldorado task force was an interagency money-laundering watchdog group responsible for coordinating all 3:46 major money-laundering investigations in the u.s. in the immediate aftermath of September 11th these groups would be 3:52 redirected to investigate terrorist financing building six was located directly between the North Tower and 3:59 World Trade Center building 7 while large portions of World Trade Center 6 were gutted by explosions and later by 4:05 falling debris from the North Tower the building itself did not suffer a global symmetric collapse at near 4:11 freefall acceleration as did buildings 1 2 & 7 fema photographer and 9/11 4:16 whistleblower kurt sun field took some interesting pictures of the US Customs vault in the basement of World Trade 4:22 Center 6 which was found completely empty and left with the door wide open all of 4:27 its contents appear to have been looted during the attacks there is also evidence that gold was being looted from 4:33 the vaults beneath World Trade Center for there are several early reports of a ten wheel truck packed with stolen 4:39 bullion caught fleeing World Trade Center five when the vehicle and becomes stuck on a collapsed ceiling brace 4:45 forcing the driver to flee the scene many researchers have stumbled across one or two of these anomalies from time 4:51 to time the empty vaults the secondary explosions the fireproofing upgrades and the exact floor is coinciding with 4:56 failure and impact in the towers the suspicious power downs and evacuation drills the World Trade Center tenants 5:02 and security firms like AIG Marsh & McLennan and Kroll and their close ties with the intelligence community etc etc 5:09 these anomalies are not unrelated but nevertheless became lost inside the chaos of that September morn the 5:16 aftermath and subsequent cover-ups okay so what does all this mean overall a 5:22 critical mass of brokers from the major government security brokerages and the twin towers had to be eliminated to 5:28 create chaos in the government securities market a situation needed to be created where in 240 billion dollars 5:35 of covert securities could be electronically cleared without anyone asking questions which happened when the 5:42 Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its emergency powers that very afternoon on September 14th the 5:48 Securities and Exchange Commission declared a national emergency and for the first time in US history and invoked 5:54 its emergency powers under the Securities Exchange Act section 12 K and eased regulatory restrictions for 6:00 clearing and settling security trades for the next 15 days these changes would 6:05 have allowed the estimated 240 billion in covert government securities to be cleared upon maturity without the 6:11 standard regulatory controls around identification of ownership the towers needed to be demolished to create a big 6:18 enough mess that the illicit activities taking place behind the scenes that morning could be hidden in the confusion 6:24 of that day okay now let's talk a little bit about who did it and how 9/11 6:30 whistleblower Richard Andrew Grove was a software salesperson for a company called silver stream silver streams 6:36 technology was on the cutting edge of internet solution offering software to web-enabled the critical business functions of Fortune 6:43 500 companies basically integrating and making available on the web the disparate lazy applications and 6:49 mainframes will simultaneously streamlining workflow and traditional paper processes with an end result being 6:55 a lower cost of operation and more efficient transactions Silverstream had built internet transactional and trading 7:01 platforms for Merrill Lynch Deutsche Bank Bankers Trust Alex Brown and Morgan Stanley to name a few leading up to 9/11 7:08 silverstein was designing specialized accounting software for a major client Marsh in McLennan Marsh is the world's 7:15 largest insurance brokerage and was located right below Cantor Fitzgerald in the North Tower approximately 295 Marsh 7:23 employees were murdered that morning along with other innocent victims and employees who either knew too much or 7:28 too little about their chosen work environment but most importantly Silverstream provided a specific type of 7:34 connectivity that was used to link AIG and Marsh & McLennan the first two commercial companies on the planet to 7:40 employ this type of transaction what then were Martian AIG doing and why did 7:46 they need to leverage technologies that no other commercial entity on the face of the earth needed to use to conduct 7:52 business they recovered hard drives from the World Trade Center combined with Richard groves testimony give us some 7:58 intriguing clues Grove discovered that Silverstream was overbilling marched to the tune of 7 million extra dollars for 8:05 fictitious and onions hardware he also became aware of an exploitable flaw in 8:10 the accounting software that had been sold to a variety of Martius clients and partners when he brought this up to his 8:16 superiors at Silverstream and others at Marsh he was told to keep quiet and not to worry about it but other friends of 8:23 his at Marsh were also getting concerned and began documenting what was going on in raising concerns within the company 8:29 at last they were finally granted a hearing with one of Marcia's high-ranking executives and were told to 8:34 bring all their evidence to a hearing scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on September 11th 2001 on the 93rd floor the 8:42 high-ranking member of Marsh who grove did not name would participate via teleconference from the safety of his 8:47 home while Marsh employees and potential whistleblowers Gary Lascaux Katherine Lee Ken rice 8:53 richard brew hard and john oates hopper who died in the meeting room in the north tower with all their evidence when 8:58 American Airlines flight 11 would impact that very section of the building Richard Grove fortunately got stuck in 9:05 traffic that morning and didn't make it computer hard drives recovered from the World Trade Center show a spike in 9:11 suspicious transfers that took place within the World Trade Center as the 9/11 attacks were unfolding Richard 9:17 groom is convinced that these suspicious money transfers were performed electronically using Silverstream 9:23 software and that the over billion of marsh was hush money for the operations it would certainly have helped clear up 9:29 that 240 billion in securities and make it look like any of those companies might have done it the recovered hard 9:36 drives and financial transactions from 9/11 all show clear evidence that something was going on that morning 9:41 Marcia's CEO at the time was Jeffrey Greenberg the son of Maurice Greenberg of AIG most insurance companies were 9:48 hurting badly in late 2001 after 40 billion dollars in insurance settlements had been paid out for the devastation 9:54 caused by the 9/11 attacks yet one insurance company did not suffer quite 10:00 the same losses as the other companies did American International Group or AIG as it turns out is much more than 10:07 insurance company with its long ties to the intelligence community AIG was founded by OSS operative 10:13 Cornelius v-star to ours the uncle of Clinton's friend Kenneth Starr AIG 10:19 currently operates a complex network of shell companies and other entities which operate internationally and have been 10:25 used for clandestine intelligence gathering and other covert activities for decades the company that ran 10:31 security in the World Trade Center Kroll Associates was owned by AIG the CEO of 10:39 AIG on 9/11 was a guy named Morris Greenberg who was actually nominated for the position of Director of Central 10:46 Intelligence after he authored a report for the Council on Foreign Relations of which he's a high ranking member where 10:51 he advocated that FBI and Drug Enforcement Agency agents operating abroad should not be allowed to act 10:57 independently of either the Ambassador or the CIA lest pursuit of evidence or individuals for prosecution caused major 11:04 foreign policy problems or complicate ongoing intelligence and diplomatic activities of course this 11:11 type of policy is essentially a continuation of things like executive order one two three three three and the 11:18 CIA assisted contra cocaine trafficking that went on as an immediate result these backdoor agreements open the 11:25 floodgates for government drug money laundering and narco trafficking former LAPD narcotics detective turned 11:31 whistleblower Michael Bruton has written a series of excellent articles documenting AI G's involvement in drug 11:36 money laundering undoubtedly revealing yet another motive for the invasion of Afghanistan a country which currently 11:43 produces over 90% of the world's heroin supply drugs are arguably the most 11:48 profitable commodity on the entire international market and drug money was undoubtedly a motive behind the invasion 11:54 of Afghanistan and consequently the 9/11 attacks well companies like AIG launder 12:00 the drug money for big banks the actual drug production and trafficking can be traced back to the same iran-contra 12:06 affiliates like Richard Armitage and Frank Carlucci unfortunately that rabbit hole is a bit 12:11 too deep and off-topic to get into here I will mention that DynCorp was heavily involved as well as Stewart Air Force 12:18 Base in upstate New York where the two flights out of Boston crossed paths simultaneously and shut off their 12:24 transponders before making their way to the Twin Towers many researchers believe that the Mena operation was moved to 12:30 Stewart Air Force Base after Barry seal got whacked Richard Armitage was the Deputy Secretary of State on 9/11 and 12:37 according to whistleblower Michael spring Minh he was the man responsible for granting visas to 15 out of 19 of 12:43 the 9/11 hijackers allowing them to enter the u.s. and pursue flight training Frank Carlucci is the chairman 12:49 of the Carlyle Group and was in Washington DC on 9/11 having just met with George HW Bush and the brother of 12:56 Osama bin Laden on Carlyle Group business Frank Carlucci was also the chairman of BDM International the 13:03 company that served as a front for State Department black operations Frank carlucci's employees at BDM 13:09 international left to take charge of stratesec the World Trade Center and airport security firm corporate 13:14 operating officer Barry W McDaniel and ex-military expert in logistics and material 13:20 distribution and CEO work Dexter Walker the third who is a distant Bush cousin from the Herbert Walker line with an 13:26 extensive history of managing CIA front companies Marvin Bush the president's brother was 13:33 also a board member at stratesec although stratesec maintained contracts for security upgrades which were set to 13:39 expire on September 11th 2001 they were not the company officially charged with World Trade Center security this role 13:46 was assigned to a risk management firm called Kroll Associates Kroll's chairman 13:51 Jerome Hauer was a longtime personal friend of X FBI counterterrorism expert John O'Neill and was responsible for 13:58 O'Neill's appointment as head of security for the World Trade Center just a few days prior to the 9/11 attacks 14:03 O'Neill is the world's leading expert on Osama bin Laden and al-qaeda and was a potential 9/11 whistleblower with hard 14:10 evidence of White House complicity in the protection and shielding of the 9/11 hijackers from all means of federal 14:15 investigation al Qaeda hijacking suspects were flagged by the able danger terrorists tracking program which was 14:22 also shut down by the White House able danger whistleblower Anthony Shaffer claims the US government destroyed over 14:28 six terabytes of data related to able danger which he also claims identified 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta as early as 14:35 February of 2000 those atop the chain of command and the White House military and 14:40 intelligence establishment deliberately ignored all the warning signs of an impending attack a clever strategy of 14:46 plausible deniability which also served to portray those in charge as incompetent rather than complicit in 14:53 every major head throughout the chain of command on 9/11 from NORAD to the military we see a repeated theme of 14:58 complicity through negligence or incompetence after 9/11 failure and incompetence was rewarded and 15:04 whistleblowers were silenced combined with the fact that six corporations control ninety percent of the media and 15:11 CIA operations like Mockingbird admit to taking over and subverting our US media 15:17 we can understand how such a big lie could have been kept from the American public for so long but if you stop and 15:23 take the time to do your research you'll find all the evidences they're hidden beneath a mountain of disinfo and lies 15:30 it's been 10 years since 9/11 happened and we are with hundreds if not thousands of 15:35 unanswered questions about the 9/11 attacks a transparently fraudulent 9/11 Commission report which purposely failed 15:42 to even mention the collapse of World Trade Center seven and a host of ridiculous so-called 15:47 debunking websites forms and other literature which have done absolutely nothing over the past ten years to 15:53 debunk anything other than cleverly selected Strom Ian's arguments and have failed to stem the constant flow of new 15:59 9/11 information which researchers have been uncovering and bringing out to the public instead they continue to label 16:07 truth seekers including family members of people who died on 9/11 as conspiracy 16:12 theorists and devise clever propaganda designed to prevent the general public from looking any further into the 16:18 evidence or the actual claims of the so called conspiracy theorists in this 16:23 video we will take a deeper look into the so called investigations which have provided us with the official story and 16:29 why they deserve a more thorough examination the Bush administration stalled government investigations into 16:36 9/11 for over 400 days a week after 9/11 letters containing anthrax spores were 16:42 mailed to several news media offices and two senators who were perhaps a bit too vocal about opening an official 16:48 investigation into 9/11 the anthrax used in the attacks was identified as an Ames 16:53 strain which means it had to have come from the US Army Medical Research Institute of infectious diseases at Fort 16:59 Detrick Maryland a member of that Institute Jerome Hauer managed the National Institute of Health response to 17:06 the anthrax attacks coincidentally Hauer also warned the White House to start 17:11 taking cipro an antibiotic which is effective against anthrax a week before the attacks Jerome Hauer also happened 17:18 to be a managing director at Kroll Associates which ran security at the World Trade Center up until the weekend 17:24 before 9/11 when that role was personally handed off by Hauer to FBI agent John O'Neill who would later die 17:31 in the attacks drawing strong suspicion that he was set up due to his knowledge of al-qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers whom 17:37 he was blocked from investigating while he was working at the FBI in January 17:42 2002 President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom to limit the congressional investigation 17:49 into the events of September 11th the Bush administration only formed the 9/11 17:54 Commission after being prodded by the victims families who lobbied Congress for over a year to open the 17:59 investigations when the Bush administration finally did open a 9/11 investigation it was described by some 18:05 members as set up to fail the president has said only a minority of the 18:11 Commission can see a minority the documents and then they have to clear what they're going to say to the rest of the Commission with the White House 18:17 you're one of those four that gets to see these documents would that change your opinion no they don't want any more 18:23 eyeballs to see their documents then they could possibly get away with it's a scam it's absolutely disgusting 18:30 they even attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger a known cover-up mastermind as 18:35 head Commissioner he resigned after victim's family members asked him sensitive questions about his connections to the bin Laden family and 18:42 the Carlyle Group Phillip is Ella Cao wrote the conclusions for the report before the investigation ever began and 18:48 even then any areas which did not support the official story where neither mentioned nor investigated by the 9/11 18:54 Commission six out of ten members of that commission have discussed on record how the government lied about the 19:00 official story and 70% of the questions posed by the victims families were never 19:05 answered or officially investigated it's important to look at what happened to the evidence from 9/11 the day of 9/11 19:11 most of the FBI was in Monterey California on an agency retreat let's go 19:16 to our State Department correspondent Andrea Mitchell Andrea what can you tell us well this from the FBI the State Department has 19:23 been evacuated there was a meeting going on in the Operations Center other top officials were in the Situation Room at 19:28 the White House : Powell is in Bogota Colombia on a two-day trip but this very 19:34 interesting information in Katie Matt and Tom from the FBI they had been operating a massive exercise from their 19:42 hostage rescue unit all of their top teams about 50 personnel helicopters equipment we're in Monterey California 19:48 for the last two days scheduled to fly back today commercially so all of those people are out of place it's fair to say 19:55 according to sources that we've talked to here at NBC that the FBI rescue operations and other FBI 20:02 operations are really in Paris right now because they can't reach their officials in New York all of their phone lines are 20:08 down and now you've got all of their special experts on this struck in Monterey California trying to get a 20:14 military flight back because there are no longer commercial flights so they are seriously out-of-pocket and there is a 20:20 real breakdown of the FBI anti-terror coordination team which is of course the 20:25 principal team that would lead any effort and was so effective under Jim Kallstrom in New York City for the World 20:31 Trade Center bomber bombing and the TWA explosion which of course turned out not to be true and this was essential for 20:40 keeping the more experienced and honest members of the agency as far away from the crime scene as possible while other 20:45 agency insiders could be assigned to the investigations before their counterparts returned federal authorities such as FEMA and the 20:52 CIA took immediate control over the crime scene and began whisking away evidence that very same night 20:57 Turner construction one of the primary contractors at Ground Zero occupied the 30th floor of the North Tower 21:04 and was involved in performing the fireproofing upgrades inside the towers it has been noted that these upgrades 21:09 were completed in the three years before 9/11 on floors that match up almost identically to the floors of impact and 21:16 failure on 9/11 once the cleanup was fully coordinated the operations were 21:21 consolidated under the control of two primary contractors a MEK construction management and bovis lend-lease these 21:28 are the two companies that were originally assigned to the areas of Ground Zero that included the North Tower a MEC and the South Tower bovis a 21:35 truly surprising fact is that at the time of the attacks on 9/11 a mech had just completed a two hundred and fifty 21:42 eight million dollar refurbishment of wedge one of the Pentagon which is exactly where American Airlines flight 21:48 77 impacted that building arguments over the size of the whole of the Pentagon 21:53 and whether it was a plane or a missile are in my opinion a convenient distraction from the much bigger picture 21:58 of why that section of the building was targeted and by whom on September 10th 22:03 2001 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that 2.3 trillion dollars and unadjusted funds were 22:10 missing from the Pentagon budget the very next day the offices whose responsibility it was for tracking that 22:17 money down were destroyed when American Airlines flight 77 impacted that very section of the building the only 22:23 off-site backup for the Pentagon's black budget financial records was a secure federal office building in the World 22:28 Trade Center complex strangely it too was destroyed on 9/11 World Trade Center 22:34 7 was the largest CIA headquarters outside of Langley Virginia and housed offices involved in several large-scale 22:40 federal investigations into massive stock market and accounting fraud not surprisingly World Trade Center 7 was 22:47 the first to be cleaned up and the evidence destroyed at Ground Zero so if the twin towers and building 7 were 22:52 brought down in a controlled demolition and the scientific evidence points to nano-thermite then who could have 22:58 produced this and who could have put in the buildings and how did they get it there in the impact zone of the North 23:04 Tower was a company called Marsh & McLennan which at the time was the world's largest insurance brokerage 23:10 company one of Marcia's executives was a guy named L Paul Bremer who was also the 23:15 chairman of the Congressional National Commission on terrorism from 1999 to 2000 and the US ambassador at large for 23:23 counterterrorism from 1986 to 1989 instead of going to work on the day of 23:28 9/11 and dying inside the towers with hundreds of his employees Bremer decided to go on MSNBC and tell the world that 23:34 Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks and possibly Iraq and Iran and then he demanded the most severe military 23:41 response we can come up with L Paul Bremer was called away from Marsh in 2003 to become the Iraq occupation 23:47 governor a role he has been widely criticized for so Bremer not only worked inside the buildings but had offices 23:53 directly in the impact zone of the South Tower where flight 175 would hit he missed work on 9/11 to give us the 23:58 official story on national television and went on to be the Iraq occupation governor you really can't get more 24:04 connected to 9/11 than that oh wait you can sorry I forgot to mention that Bremer was also the former manager for 24:10 Kissinger associates he was a member of the board for Akzo Nobel the parent of international paint company which 24:16 produced a fire proofing application for skyscrapers called inter charm Bremer was also on the international advisory 24:23 board for the Japanese mining and machine company Komatsu which at the time had been involved in a joint venture 24:29 agreement with dresser industries the oil services intelligence front where Prescott Bush Senior and George HW Bush 24:35 got their start with Neal Mallon anyway the Komatsu dresser mining division operated from 1988 to 1997 and 24:42 in July 1996 it patented a nano-thermite demolition device that could quote 24:47 demolish a concrete structure at high efficiency while preventing a secondary problem due to noise flying chips and 24:54 dust and the like as many of you know residues of thermite a highly energetic chemical mixture have been confirmed in 25:01 samples of World Trade Center dust and the use of thermite at the World Trade Center was also revealed by 25:06 environmental data see the description for more links and sources scientific applications international corporation a 25:13 defense contractor with expertise in thermite related technologies played a large part in the NIST World Trade 25:18 Center investigation a few other names and companies inside the twin towers also worthy of further investigation 25:23 include Craig Stapleton who is married to Bush's cousin Dorothy Walker Bush Stapleton was the president of marsh 25:30 real estate advisors from 1982 to 2001 he was a member of the board of directors for Sun Dan that was charged 25:37 with massive accounting fraud in 1998 and went on to join Winston Partners a privately owned investment firm founded 25:43 in 1993 and led by george w bush's brother marvin other very powerful and 25:48 well-connected people worked in senior management at marsh these included stephen friedman a senior principal at 25:54 marsh capital and former partner at goldman sachs who later became george w bush's top economic adviser friedman was 26:02 also a member of the Brookings Institution the Bilderberg Group the foreign intelligence advisory board and 26:07 the board at in-q-tel the investment firm founded by the CIA in 1998 in-q-tel 26:13 invests in state-of-the-art technologies related to defense and intelligence work including Nano and chemical technologies 26:19 according to its website in another interesting coincidence Friedman belonged through Cornell University to a 26:25 secret society called quill and dagger the membership of which includes Paul Wolfowitz sandy Berger and Stephen 26:32 Hadley Wolfowitz the neocon Deputy Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration was the author in 1992 of 26:38 the wolf it's doctrine of pre-emptive warfare he also made comments about a surprise like Pearl Harbor months before 9/11 and met 26:46 with Pakistani ISI general Mahmud Ahmed in the week before 9/11 burger the 26:51 national security adviser to President Clinton was later caught stealing documents from the 9/11 Commission 26:56 investigation Berger was also the boss of White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke and together with Hadley 27:03 who was Condoleezza Rice's deputy was responsible for delaying or obstructing Clark's plans to stop al-qaeda in 27:09 January of 2001 Jeffrey Greenberg resigned from Marsh & McLennan after 27:14 being accused of serious financial crimes the first plane of 9/11 flew directly into his company's secure 27:20 computer room in the North Tower Jeffrey Greenberg is a member of the Brookings Institution and the Trilateral 27:26 Commission Jeffrey Greenberg rose quickly through management at marsh having come there directly from AIG in 27:32 1995 and then becoming CEO just four years later at Brookings Greenberg 27:38 hobnobbed with Lee Hamilton co-chair of the 9/11 Commission there's also Jim Pierce another Bush 27:45 cousin who was managing director of a on corporation who according to the NIST report modified unknown sections of 27:51 floor 83 in the South Tower in 1997 Jim Pierce had arranged a meeting on the 27:56 105th floor of the South Tower for that morning Pierce survived that day despite the fact that 12 people came to the meeting 28:03 in the South Tower and 11 of them died the location of the meeting had been changed the night before to the 28:09 Millennium Hotel where Pierce watched the South Tower as it was hit by the aircraft apparently the meeting attendees were 28:15 not all notified of the change in location another interesting character is joseph kasputys of baseline financial 28:22 service which occupied the impact zone of the South Tower on floors 77 and 78 were United Airlines 175 impacted 28:30 kasputys has a history of being well connected to the highest levels of government as well as to the defense and 28:36 intelligence industries kasputys worked from 1972 to 1977 for the US Department 28:41 of Commerce and defense he was also the deputy director of Nixon's White House Task Force that dealt with the Arab oil 28:48 embargo of 1973 and was instrumental in the creation of the Department of Energy kasputys 28:55 went on to run a large corporation called Primark that had offices in both towers on 9/11 one of the subsidiaries 29:01 of Primark the analytical Sciences Corporation ta SC worked with so-called 29:07 black or top secret programs TAS C also worked closely with the National 29:12 Institute of Standards and Technology kasputys was also a member of the logistics management Institute LMI whose 29:20 members included Paul Kaminski of in-q-tel in General Dynamics Charles DiBona of Halliburton skullenbones 29:27 member Joseph Samuel Nye and Michael Daniels of scientific applications international corporation alum i's 29:34 self-proclaimed role is advancing the science of government kasputys connections to the D OE from 1977 29:42 through at least 1997 are interesting considering that the do-e was developing thermite ignition devices as early as 29:48 1983 joseph kasputys went on to become the CEO of baseline financial services 29:54 which was directly in the impact zone on the 78th floor of the South Tower according to NIST kasputys baseline 30:01 financial modified the southeast corner of floor 78 in 1999 exactly where the 30:07 aircraft hit on 9/11 floor 77 and 78 were upgraded for fire proving in June 30:13 and April of 1998 respectively another company of interest on floor 91 just 30:19 above the impact zone for the South Tower was Washington Group International this company was known primarily as a 30:25 construction and mining firm and it had just acquired Raytheon engineers in July of 2000 in 1996 Washington took over 30:33 Morrison Knudsen an engineering and construction firm that had a history of working on large-scale projects around 30:39 the world including in China Iran Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia the Army 30:44 Corps of Engineers hired Morrison Knudsen to demolish over 200 buildings in 1995 one of the do-e facilities for 30:52 which Washington was responsible well before 9/11 was the Savannah River Site near Aiken South Carolina in February of 30:59 1997 Lawrence Livermore National Labs and the Savannah River Site signed an agreement of cooperation to share 31:05 technology Savannah went on to add developing sol-gel technology for fuels and other 31:10 applications to its portfolio sol-gel technology is utilized by Lawrence 31:15 Livermore National Laboratories for making nano thermite's in another coincidence savannah river technology 31:21 staff participated in the search and rescue operations at ground zero by providing unique tools just before 9/11 31:29 washington was going through a tough time financially and sought chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Securities and 31:36 Exchange Commission documents show that Washington made court-ordered prepetition payments as part of these 31:41 proceedings to a number of companies including Komatsu Washington also made payments to greenhorn and O'Mara whose 31:48 employee Theresa McAllister was a lead author of the FEMA and NIST reports on the World Trade Center disaster and to 31:54 Sumitomo Bank which was closely allied with Komatsu building 7 was a 47 story 32:00 federal office building in the World Trade Center site which collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on the afternoon of 9/11 this 32:06 building was home to the CIA in fact the largest CIA headquarters outside of Langley Virginia it also housed offices 32:13 for the Secret Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission one of the most interesting tenants however 32:19 was then mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor this 32:26 floor received fifteen million dollars worth of renovations including independent and secure air and water 32:32 supplies and bullet and bond resistant windows designed to withstand 200 mile-per-hour winds 32:37 mayor Giuliani was a former US prosecutor for the South District of New York from 1983 to 1989 who is in charge 32:44 of investigating the terrorist financing bank of credit and commerce international after he left his job as a 32:50 prosecutor to start a political career he worked for a law firm called white encase that actually represented BCCI so 32:58 he went from prosecuting the BCCI to working for a law firm which defended the BCCI this was likely his foot in the 33:04 door of this underground corporate criminal network Giuliani would later help to destroy all the crime scene 33:10 evidence from ground zero Giuliani sidekick on 9/11 was police commissioner Bernard Kerik who appeared 33:17 to be coaching some of Rudy's actions that day keeping him away from the media and even answering questions for him about 33:23 explosives in the buildings in fact Bernard Kerik gave us the first official government pronouncement that no 33:28 explosives were involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings Carrick's department was also 33:34 the same one that found that pristine completely undamaged hijackers passport which survived a plane impact and 33:40 fireball which destroyed two titanium black boxes and three towers yeah carick 33:45 would later receive a nomination from President Bush to become director of Homeland Security which he declined for 33:51 personal and political reasons and instead took a job training the Iraqi police force in Iraq alongside L Paul 33:57 Bremer both men are credited for turning Iraq into the unwinnable quagmire it is today in February of 2010 Carrick was 34:05 sentenced to four years in federal prison for conspiracy and fraud charges unrelated to the crimes of 9/11 34:11 unfortunately but it still goes to show you what kind of person he is definitely the kind of person you'd want inside the 34:17 New York City police force during a staged event like 9/11 and lastly we have the Pentagon it's certainly 34:23 peculiar to say the least that al-qaeda terrorists hell-bent on destroying the USA would not crash their plane into the 34:30 north wing of the Pentagon where all the most important offices were like Donald Rumsfeld John Ashcroft etc and that they 34:37 would instead choose to target the one section of the Pentagon that had most recently been refurbished to withstand 34:42 missile impacts it's also interesting to note that the company which completed the 258 million dollar refurbishment to 34:49 which one of the Pentagon was also hired as a contractor to clean up Ground Zero in New York City wedge one also 34:56 coincidentally housed the Pentagon's budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 35:02 trillion dollars that was reported missing by defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a press conference the day 35:07 before 9/11 the Pentagon's comptroller in charge of that money at the time was an interesting fellow named Dobbs ACK 35:13 I'm a member of the Council on Foreign Relations the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a contributor 35:20 to the neocon think tank project for the new American Century Zak I'm helped write the P nak document rebuilding 35:27 America's defenses in which he is credited for the line which states for the process of transformation even if it 35:33 brings revolutionary change is likely to be a long one absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl 35:39 Harbor several members of the Bush administration including President Bush himself would later refer to 9/11 as a 35:46 new Pearl Harbor a respected and established voice in the intelligence community his views were eagerly 35:52 accepted and Daath went from his position at systems Planning corporation to become the Comptroller of the 35:58 Pentagon in May of 2001 perhaps not so coincidentally it was an SPCC Thierry 36:03 tried out a corporation that oversaw the investigation after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 36:08 1993 SPC according to their official website specializes in many areas of 36:14 Defense technology production and manufacture including a system developed by their radar physics group called the 36:20 flight termination system or FTS this is a system used to destroy target drones craft that would be fired on by test 36:28 aircraft or weaponry and the event of malfunctions or misses this highly sophisticated wargame technology allows 36:34 the control of several drones from a remote location on varying frequencies and has a range of several hundred miles 36:40 this technology can be used on many different types of aircraft including large passenger jets according to the 36:46 SPC website a recent customer at that time was Eglin Air Force Base located in Florida Eglin is very near another Air 36:53 Force Base in Florida MacDill Air Force Base were rid of zakian contracted to send at least 32 Boeing 767 aircraft as 37:01 part of the Boeing Pentagon tanker lease agreement as the events of September 11th 2001 occurred little was mentioned 37:08 about these strange coincidences and the proximity of Dobbs akka and his group since there was little physical evidence 37:14 remaining after the events investigators were only left with photographic and anecdotal evidence this is a photograph 37:20 of the flight termination system module from their site known it has a cylindrical shape and is consistent with 37:27 the size and shape of the object observed under the fuselage of flight 175 the Boeing leaf steel involved the 37:35 replacement of the aging kc-135 tanker fleet with these smaller more efficient that boeing 767s which were to be leased 37:42 by Dobbs Atkins group the planes were to be refitted with refueling equipment including lines and 37:48 nozzle assemblies in this enlargement of flight 175 we can clearly see a cylindrical object under the fuselage 37:54 and a structure that appears to be attached to the right underside of the rear fuselage section 38:10 when seen in comparison it is obvious that the plane approaching the Trade Center has both these structures the FTS 38:17 module and the midair refueling equipment as configured on the modified Boeing 767 tankers of particular 38:23 interest is the long tube-like anomalous structure under the rear fuselage area of 175 this structure runs along the 38:30 right rear bottom of the plane the equipment attached to the underside of the plane which hit the World Trade 38:36 Center is identical in every single way to the Boeing 767s issued by dog 38:41 Sackheim bring it back the video you're 38:48 watching now came from this change 1st edition you catch that it appears to 38:57 show the FT s paw and feet self-destructing just before impact also 39:07 notice that the flash is reflected in the fuselage of the plane flash is also 39:14 present before shaking like evan fairbanks 39:20 jennipher spell the sienna al-qaeda 39:31 certainly could invented this equipment at Logan International Airport and even if they did the flight crew would have 39:38 noticed it so where did this plane come from another interesting piece of 9/11 39:44 evidence is the last 12 seconds of ua 175 since every amateur videographer in New 39:50 York City had their cameras pointed up at the burning Tower one the second plane strike was filmed from nearly every conceivable angle expert analysis 39:58 of this plane leads to some startling revelations first there is the expertly controlled flight characteristics of 40:04 this plane during its last 12 seconds of flight you a 175 made a single corrective maneuver so perfectly timed 40:10 and executed that it's unlikely it was piloted by human hands one of the things that jumped out at me when I looked at 40:16 the the footage of the video of flight 175 as it went into the World Trade Center is it appeared to me that there 40:24 was something on the under fuselage of that aircraft that did not belong there at least not with a commercial airliner 40:30 now I'll tell you where I have seen attachments that that look like that on 40:37 military aircraft so the question we have to answer now is was that the 40:43 commercial airliner that hit the World Trade Center or possibly was it an aircraft that looked very similar but 40:49 was a military type airplane 40:55 all the recorded sources all the different photographic evidence that was 41:01 produced by CNN and ABC they all show this pod that's there you can see it 41:07 with your own eyes and in my professional opinion that there was a pot attached to that the bottom of that 41:13 aircraft and therefore was not United Airlines flight 175 if you take a 41:21 careful look at the flight paths of American Airlines 11 and UA 175 the two flights that took off from Boston's 41:27 Logan Airport and crashed into the Twin Towers you'll find a major clue not only did both these planes cross 41:33 paths directly over Stuart Air Force Base but they did so at the exact same time another odd synchronicity is flight 41:40 93 which had been sitting on the tarmac delayed at the airport for nearly 40 minutes with no explanation originally 41:46 scheduled to take off at 8:01 a.m. it was delayed until the moment that flight AAA 11 crashed into the North Tower 843 41:53 a.m. another interesting piece of evidence that ties Stuart Air Force Base to the center of this 9/11 conspiracy is 41:59 the White mystery plane spotted over Washington and the Pentagon through careful investigation we've been able to 42:05 map out the flight paths of these two ominous aircraft which have been identified as efore bees a type of 42:10 aircraft that the military uses as mobile command posts what concerns me is that both of these aircraft took off 42:17 from and landed at Stuart Air Force Base another interesting coincidence I found 42:22 was that flight 93 turned around directly over Hopkins Airport and flight 42:27 77 turned around directly over tri-state Airport webster tarpley has done some of 42:34 the most thorough research into the war game exercises that were taking place on the day of 9/11 but this white mystery 42:42 plane the Doomsday plane what was it doing over the Pentagon in the White House on 9/11 who was flying in that 42:48 plane what were they doing being the comptroller for the Pentagon 42:53 and the chief financial officer you have to kind of wonder what Dobbs a crime was 43:00 doing on 9/11 and what his connections were the 2.3 trillion dollars that were 43:05 missing from the Pentagon the day before 9/11 if anything the individuals and 43:12 organizations outlined in this video are at least as suspicious as the nineteen hijackers themselves

Dissolving Illusions With Dr. Suzanne Humphries From ‘calling the shots’ to calling out their safety and efficacy — Dr. Suzanne Humphries is one of the countless conventionally-trained physicians who dug into the research on pharmaceuticals rather than blindly prescribing them and “saw something that they thought was worth risking everything for.” But what would a world without these products, such as vaccines, look like? Dr. Humphries and Dr. Thomas discuss, this week, on ‘Pediatric Perspectives.’ Source: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/pediatric-perspectives-with-paul-thomas/dissolving-illusions-with-dr-suzanne-humphries/ Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History By: Suzanne Humphries MD , Roman Bystrianyk Dissolving Illusions details facts and figures from long-overlooked medical journals, books, newspapers, and other sources. Using myth-shattering graphs, this book shows that vaccines, antibiotics, and other medical interventions are not responsible for the increase in lifespan and the decline in mortality from infectious diseases. If the medical profession could systematically misinterpret and ignore key historical information, the question must be asked, “What else is ignored and misinterpreted today?” https://www.docdroid.net/3SovGQj/dissolving-illusions-disease-vaccines-and-the-forgotten-history-pdfdrive-pdf Resources Vaccines - "Honesty Versus Policy" | YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJCweKhuGLY The Gary Null Show - 07/03/12 | YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DssLvTdYycw Graphs & Images | Dissolving Illusions https://dissolvingillusions.com/graphs-images/#Charts Dissolving Illusions https://dissolvingillusions.com/ Grains and Scruples | The Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)48437-0/fulltext

The conversation between Naomi Wolf and Karel van Wolferen was ready to go live, but YouTube had already referred to minute 45, in which Naomi makes the link between Pfizer's research results and reduced fertility in women, so YouTube removes the video before it has been posted. https://gezondverstand.eu/2024/03/28/naomi-wolf-en-karel-van-wolferen-interview “Van Wolferen and I (Naomi Wolf) had a robust two-hour discussion, including a debate, about the state of civil liberties. We disagreed about China, and a few other points; but the exchange was illuminating. I was honored to see that his magazine had several times featured the WarRoom/DailyClout Volunteers’ work on the Pfizer Papers — indeed, I appeared in one number in a cartoon. I was relieved that the work was being reported. We labor away in the United States, siloed by the algorithms that divide us; and we do not know if the freedom movement in Europe knows anything about our work. By the same token, the great work of the freedom movement in Europe is also concealed from us, by similar algorithms.” “Van Wolferen had written many books — a massive bestseller was The Enigma of Japanese Power.” Outspoken with Dr Naomi Wolf - Letter from Amsterdam https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/letter-from-amsterdam?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 DailyClout “Our mission is to empower all people with information, facts and opinion from all viewpoints, that when combined with DailyClout’s proprietary platform, enables them to be well-informed and to exercise their rights to directly weigh-in on issues and legislation so that their voices are heard at the local, state or federal level.” https://dailyclout.io/our-story/ 'Facing the Beast', Marlies Dekkers in conversation with Naomi Wolf • https://odysee.com/@dknl:8/dekkers_wolf:c • https://twitter.com/De_NieuweWereld/status/1773325174483390717 "The Covenant of Death" https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/the-covenant-of-death?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/dear-friends-sorry-to-announce-a Facing the Beast: Courage, Faith and Resistance in a New Dark Age https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/facing-the-beast-courage-faith-and

This film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past. Why then, are we told, again and again, that ‘catastrophic man-made climate-change’ is an irrefutable fact? Why are we told that there is no evidence that contradicts it? Why are we told that anyone who questions ‘climate chaos’ is a ‘flat-earther’ and a ‘science-denier’? The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It describes the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis. It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism. But the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to, and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government. This is the unspoken political divide behind the climate alarm. The climate scare appeals especially to all those in the sprawling publicly-funded establishment. This includes the largely publicly-funded Western intelligentsia, for whom climate has become a moral cause. In these circles, to criticise or question the climate alarm has become is a breach of social etiquette. The film includes interviews with a number of very prominent scientists, including Professor Steven Koonin (author of ‘Unsettled’, a former provost and vice-president of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (formerly professor of meteorology at Harvard and MIT), Professor Will Happer (professor of physics at Princeton), Dr John Clauser (winner of the Nobel prize in Physics in 2022), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics), professor Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph), Willie Soon and several others. The film was written and directed by the British filmmaker Martin Durkin and is the sequel of his excellent 2007 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Tom Nelson, a podcaster who has been deeply examining climate debate issues for the better part of two decades, was the producer of the film. Many of the scientists interviewed in Climate: The Movie have done lengthy interviews for the Tom Nelson Podcast. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfZS_wFmJCXqPr4MYtAIN6w #ClimateTheMovie will be available for free at many online locations starting on March 21 2024. Subtitles for numerous languages are currently being created by the Clintel Foundation. Follow @ClimateTheMovie and @ClintelOrg for updates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Tfxiuo-oM https://vimeo.com/924719370 - Transcript 0:04 People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. 0:09 We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money, 0:15 and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you ! 0:26 This is the story, of how an eccentric environmental scare, grew into a powerful global industry. 0:33 It's a wonderful business opportunity, okay ? You want climate, we'll give you climate ! 0:38 There's a huge amount of money involved. This is a huge big money scam. 0:43 There are not just now billions, but there are trillions of dollars at stake. 0:50 It's a story of self-interest, and big government funding. People like me, our careers 0:56 depend on funding of climate research. This is what I've been doing, just about my whole career. 1:02 This is what the other climate researchers are doing with their whole career They don't want this to end. If CO₂ isn't having the 1:09 huge negative impacts that we claimed it was having originally. How are we going to stay in business ? 1:15 A lot of people's livelihoods depend on it. They're not gonna give that up. This is the story, of the corruption of science. 1:23 There's no such thing as a climate emergency, happening on this planet now. It's ... there's no, no evidence of one ! 1:29 The climate alarm is nonsense you know. It's a hoax. I've never liked "hoax." I think "scam" is a better word, 1:36 but i'm willing to live with "hoax." It's a story about the bullying and intimidation of 1:41 anyone who dares to challenge the climate alarm. To speak up against or about climate change 1:48 in any sort of skeptical way, was essentially career suicide. Activists are even calling 1:54 for any skepticism to be criminalized. It's the story of an assault 2:01 on individual freedom. It's a wonderful way to increase government power 2:06 if there's an existential threat out there that's worldwide. Well, you need a powerful worldwide government, 2:13 you know, to cope with it. We see all these kind of authoritarian measures 2:19 being adopted, in the name of saving the planet. You've suddenly got the population 2:24 under control all over the world. 2:33 We called it industrial progress. Since the industrial revolution, the development 2:39 of free market capitalist mass production, has made ever more goods, ever more affordable, 2:44 to ever larger numbers of people. Mass production marched hand in hand with mass consumption. 2:51 In the modern age, ordinary people enjoy a level of prosperity never before achieved in human history. 2:58 But all the while we're told we were destroying the planet. 3:05 Computers have calculated what is in store for us as we produce and consume ever more. 3:11 The weather will get worse. The planet will boil. We greedy humans must accept 3:16 limits on our lifestyle. Consume less. Travel less. Those who deny the climate crisis 3:23 are not just wrong ... They're dangerous ! Spreading the poison of doubt, among a gullible population. 3:29 These deniers should be shunned, and shamed, and censored. For these climate deniers are flat-Earthers. 3:37 They are anti-science. 3:43 Teaching at New York University is one of these climate deniers. Professor Steven Koonin, is one 3:48 of America's leading physicists. He was a science advisor to President Obama, 3:54 and both Vice President and Provost of Caltech, one of the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. 4:04 I teach climate science to my students at NYU. 4:09 And I always tell them: Check the data or the papers yourself. 4:14 And they all come out of that course with their eyes wide open. 4:21 Professor Koonin's best selling book "Unsettled," argues that mainstream scientific studies 4:26 accepted by official agencies do not support the notion that there is any kind of climate crisis at all. 4:34 Of course I've been called a denier. And my response is: Tell me what I'm denying. 4:40 Because I'm quoting for you directly, from the official UN scientific reports. 4:48 Dick Lindzen also dismisses the claims of climate alarmists. He's one of the world's leading meteorologists. 4:54 He was Professor of Meteorology at both Harvard University and MIT, and has served on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel 5:01 on Climate Change, or IPCC. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 5:09 If you go to their section, of Working 1 ... Group 1, which is the science: 5:16 They don't support any of these claims. And I assure you, having served on it ... it's biased. 5:23 But you couldn't get any real scientists to agree some of the nonsense that's being promoted. 5:29 Will Happer is also a denier, and is another of america's leading physicists. He has been science advisor to three Presidents, 5:37 and Professor of Physics at both Columbia and Princeton University. There's this mischievous idea that's promoted, 5:44 that scientific truth, is determined by consensus. In real science, you know, there are always arguments. 5:51 No science is ever settled you know, it's just ... it's absurd when people say the science of climate is settled. 5:57 It's not ... there's no such thing as "settled science." Especially climate ! 6:03 Dr John Clauser is one of the most respected scientists in the world. In 2022, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics. 6:11 The science that's being done, is appallingly bad in my opinion. There are a large number of scientists 6:16 who are in violent disagreement. They refer to themselves as skeptics. Since I am no longer worried about 6:23 losing funding, or a job whatever ... I call myself a climate change denier. 6:30 These very eminent and respected scientists and others like them, are not flat-Earthers. 6:35 They do not deny science. So what's the evidence that has caused them to dismiss the climate alarmist's nonsense? 6:50 We are told, that current temperatures are unprecedented, and dangerously high. 6:55 It's possible to check if this is true, because we have evidence of Earth's climate history, dating back hundreds, thousands, 7:02 even millions of years. The desert of Judea, by the Dead Sea. 7:08 Professor Nir Shaviv from the Racah Institute of physics, has come here looking for clues. 7:14 Thousands of years ago this place was underwater, and etched into the rocks are lines, 7:20 which, if you know how to read them tell a story of Earth's climate history. 7:25 And here's the climate: We're at the ake bed of what used to be Lake Lisan. 7:32 It’s a lake that existed until the end of the last ice age. Back then, the lake level was maybe 7:39 a hundred meters above where we're located. When we want to reconstruct the climate of the past, 7:45 we have to look for evidence, for clues. And when the lake existed, it had deposits ... 7:53 and by looking at these layers here, we can actually reconstruct how the climate has changed. 8:00 Warmer water, means more life: The accumulation of more shells and bones from sea creatures, 8:06 and other changes, that are reflected in the ancient layers of the lake bed. 8:12 The lines act, as a kind of thermometer. And this is just one way geologists can reconstruct past climate. 8:18 In other places, we can go to stalagmite caves and see the annual rings that we have in the stalagmites, 8:25 or we can drill cores from the bottom of the ocean and then look at layers there, 8:31 or many other places. But here, I think this is one of the nicest places, because you can actually see, 8:37 you can actually see, how the climate has changed. 8:43 So, when we look back in time, what do we find? 8:51 For 200 million years, dinosaurs roamed the Earth. An Earth marked by fertile dense forests, teeming with life. 9:01 And at no time during those 200 million years, were temperatures as cold, as they are today. 9:08 If you go back let's say ... 200 million years, it was maybe 13 degrees warmer, than it is now. 9:16 So, on the geological perspective, this is not at all unprecedented. 9:23 For the last 500 million years, temperatures have varied greatly. But for almost all that time, 9:29 the Earth was much much warmer than today. Compared to the last half billion years, 9:35 the Earth right now, is exceptionally cold. In fact, there are very few times, when it's been this cold. 9:42 We're relatively cold. Maybe not quite the coldest it's been, in 500 million years, but pretty close to it. 9:50 We are in a remarkably cool period, if we look over the last 550 million years. 9:56 In fact, in only one other time period in that last 550 million years, was the temperature as cool as it is now. 10:03 The mammals who now inhabit the Earth began to evolve around 60 million years ago, when the world was much warmer than today. 10:11 If we just look at the last 65 million years. So this is, after the dinosaurs go extinct. 10:16 Mammals really start to take over and our evolutionary ancestors start to live on the land. 10:22 Any time period, within the last 65 million years was warmer than it is essentially today. 10:28 The Earth's mammals, humans included, appear to thrive when it's warm. Warmer than it is now. 10:34 There is no doubt, that warm is better than cold and geological history. We are a tropical species. 10:40 A human being in the shade naked dies at 20°C, from hypothermia. 10:47 We evolved on the equator in Africa. And the only reason we were able to get out of there eventually, 10:54 was fire, shelter, and clothing. 10:59 Over the last 50 million years, temperatures steadily declined, plunging the Earth, into what geologists call 11:06 the Late Cenezoic Ice Age. We are still in that ice age. The reason there's all that ice on the poles, 11:13 is because we're in an ice age. Everybody knows that, who knows anything about the the history of the Earth. 11:18 This is an ice age. We're at the tail end of a 50 million year cooling period, and they're saying it's too hot. 11:26 If we zoom in on the past few million years, we see temperatures sinking. And as they do, fluctuating between 11:33 extremely cold periods and slightly milder periods. The extremely cold periods are called glacial maxima,. 11:40 when the planet is mostly covered in ice. And the slightly less cold, are called glacial minima, 11:46 when there's just ice at the poles. For the past 10,000 years fortunately, we've been in a 11:52 slightly less cold glacial minimum known as the holocene, 11:58 With milder weather, humans began to emerge from their caves, and several thousand years ago, 12:04 we see the rise of the first great civilizations. In a blissful period which according to many studies 12:09 was considerably warmer than today. This is known as the "holocene climate optimum." 12:16 It was called an optimum, because people thought that warmer was better. Since then, temperatures have declined 12:22 and begun to fluctuate. In Roman times, there was a blissfully warm period, 12:28 followed by a brutal cold period and the dark ages. Then came the balmy Medieval warm period, 12:34 according to many studies, as warm or warmer than today, followed by an especially cold period, 12:41 known as the Little Ice Age, possibly the coldest in the last 10,000 years. 12:46 And here it is: The Roman warm period ... the cold dark age ... the Medieval warm period 12:51 and then the very cold Little Ice Age from which, for the past 300 years or so, we've been recovering. 13:00 The longest instrumental record of temperature in the world comes from central England, and this is what it shows: 13:06 Since the worst of the little ice age from 1650 ... the temperature has risen, gently, 13:11 by little more than 1 degree Celsius. The central England record of temperature 13:18 is a world treasure, you know. It's the longest continuous record that we have, and it's certainly not a very alarming record. 13:26 It began in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and so you can see the slight warming that followed the little ice age 13:34 and there's certainly nothing very alarming that's happening today, at the very end of the record. 13:39 Most of the warming that we're observing today is the recovery from the Little Ice Age, whatever caused that. 13:46 Well you know, we're talking over the entire industrial period ... of about 1 degree centigrade. 13:55 To put this one degree in perspective, let's look at New York Central Park. Records show, that there has been no 14:02 overall change in temperature here, since 1940. But from one year to the next, the average temperature can vary by 3°C, 14:10 without many New Yorkers even noticing. In fact between the warmest year in the 1960s, and the coolest in 2000, 14:17 there's a difference of 5°C. The average temperature on this day, 14:22 in this year, might be 5 degrees different, from the average temperature 14:28 a year ago, or two years. You know, when I hear people pontificating about 14:34 1.5 degrees leading to the end of civilization, I think, what have they been smoking, 14:39 you know, are you crazy? According to thermometer readings since 1880, 14:45 there's been a very mild increase in temperature. Only by stretching the Y-axis on this graph, 14:51 is the increase noticeable. This is the rising line used by official agencies as proof of global warming. 14:58 But is it accurate? Professor Ross McKitrick is an expert 15:05 in statistical analysis, at Guelph University. He noticed something odd about 15:10 modern thermometer records. Thermometers even in the same region, give out very different readings, 15:16 depending on where they're located. I was interested in the question of how do you explain the spatial pattern of warming. 15:22 So some places warm a lot, some places don't warm much. And it turns out tightly correlated with the spatial pattern of economic activity. 15:31 Where there are more people, and there is more human activity, there's more heat. This is known as the urban heat island (UHI) effect. 15:39 Urban heat island effect is essentially London right. You pick London, with buildings, with a lot of activities, 15:46 tend to be of a few degrees, I mean we're talking now Celsius, right. Even 4 or 5 degrees Celsius warmer, than outskirts. 15:52 This is a phenomenon of urbanization. These days, the obvious effect is actually concrete retaining heat. 16:00 This can be illustrated with the satellite heat map of Paris. The center of Paris can be as much as 16:06 five degrees Celsius warmer, than the surrounding countryside. 16:12 Paris, London, Beijing, Shanghai ... you name it ... New Delhi ... all of them, 16:19 absolutely demonstrated those effects. So how has this affected the official temperature record? 16:25 In the early part of the 20th century, it was normal to erect weather thermometers just outside towns. 16:31 Close enough to check every day, but away from the heat of urban life. But over the 20th century, those towns have expanded. 16:39 Suburbs have spread. There are more roads, more cars. Thermometers which were once OUTSIDE towns, 16:45 are now surrounded, by shopping malls, offices, factories, and houses. 16:52 These towns, and all the locations where thermometers are located on average, 16:57 they've all grown in population, let's say since 1880. You've got buildings growing up around the thermometers, 17:04 you've got parking lots, so you've got all of these non climate influences, which are 17:09 affecting the temperatures which raises questions about the quality of thermometer data for monitoring global warming. 17:16 To correct for this corruption of the data, an obvious solution, is to use only records from rural weather stations, which have been 17:23 less affected by urban development. This has now been done by a team, led by Dr Willie Soon. 17:29 We combined all the best rural stations. Any .. anything that we can correct for, we correct for. 17:35 And we show, if you don't use this dataset, and use only rural, you .. you get 17:40 a very different kind of picture. According to rural temperature records, 17:45 temperatures rose from the 1880s but peaked in the 1940s. Then, there was a marked cooling until the 1970s. 17:53 After that, temperatures recovered, but are still today barely higher than they were in the 1940s. 18:00 What we see is that basically, you have a warming, from the 1900s, 1850s or so 18:06 to the 1930s and 40s and started to warm and then cool, in a substantial way, to the 70s about 76 or so. 18:13 Instead of a long term systematic warming trend, it has a variability. Multi-decade, or like 18:19 every 50 - 60 years or so kind of a variation. 18:24 It's not just rural thermometers that show little warming. Merchant ships and other naval vessels have been measuring 18:31 the temperature of the sea since the 19th century. In red, we see the land temperature record, since the 18:38 1860s which has been inflated by urban thermometers. But in blue, is the ocean temperature record. 18:45 From around 1900, the two begin to diverge. Ocean records show far less warming in the 20th century, 18:51 and the pattern more closely resembles the rural temperature record. 18:58 Sea is not supposed to be "contaminated" by urban heat island effect. Am I right, yes ? So, when we compare the two records, within 19:05 the range of uncertainty: this behavior actually fits. Scientists have also studied temperature change, 19:11 by looking at tree rings, which again shows very little warming. There's a gentle rise till the mid 20th century, 19:17 a cooling to the 1970s, followed by a mild recovery. Once again it shows, temperatures today, 19:24 are barely different to those of the 1930s and 40s, and the pattern closely resembles rural temperatures. 19:34 Satellites too, seemed to be telling a different story. Our ability to measure global temperature accurately 19:41 took a leap forward, when satellites began to orbit the Earth. One of the scientists who pioneered 19:48 the use of satellites to measure temperature, is Dr Roy Spencer, who, in the 1980s, was senior scientist for climate 19:54 at NASA's Marshall space flight center. We were discussing over lunch: 20:00 isn't there some way we can use satellites to monitor global temperatures. Because, as you know the temperature network 20:07 of thermometers is pretty skimpy around the world. So it's kind of hard to get a global temperature. 20:15 Dr Spencer's development of weather satellites was revolutionary. He, and his colleague, Prof John Christy have been awarded 20:21 NASA's medal for exceptional scientific achievement. Our satellite data begins in January of 1979. 20:28 That's when we had complete global coverage, and we have it right up to the present. 20:35 There was one critical question about temperature, that satellites were singularly well equipped to answer. 20:41 Has there been a spurious warming that has crept into the global temperature record over land, 20:48 that's just a result of an increase in population ? And that's something that we've been analyzing, 20:54 and working a lot on lately, and we're finding that, especially in urban areas ... It's large ! 21:00 And since 1880, most the warming, it looks like, is due to the urban heat island effect. 21:06 We're lucky to have a few independent scientists, like John Christy and Roy Spencer, 21:12 with their satellite measurements of temperature. You know, before they started releasing this, 21:19 ground based temperature records were going wild. And they were going up, you know, Like crazy. 21:26 with no bounds, but now they have to contend with the fact that there's this independent, 21:31 and probably better way of measuring, the whole globe's temperature, which is not alarming at all. 21:40 Evidence from multiple sources now agree, that the official global temperature record as used by world governments 21:46 and reported in the world's media, is showing far too much warming over the last 120 years, 21:52 artificially inflated ... by urbanization. You look at the weather balloon record, the satellite record, the rural record. 21:59 The ocean record doesn't warm nearly as much as land. All of these indications show that the, like ... 22:05 the big warming pulse in the record, is the northern hemisphere land record. And that's also, where most of this 22:12 data contamination is happening. But, of the mild warming that has taken place in the last three to four hundred years, can any of it 22:20 be attributed to human emissions of CO₂? 22:31 Professor Henrik Svensmark is visiting the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and taking a stroll in the evolution garden, dedicated to 22:39 preserving the oldest surviving plant species on Earth. These plants aren't just pleasing on the eye. 22:46 They can also tell us about levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere in Earth's geological past. 22:52 What we have here is a Ginkgo tree, and it's actually a living fossil in the sense that this 22:58 type of tree first appeared about 270 million years ago. 23:04 On the underside of the leaf, there are what we call stomata, the cells, where they can uptake CO₂. 23:11 So they're actually measuring how much CO₂ is in the air, and then they adjust the number 23:17 of these stomata, to how much CO₂ there is. And by looking at fossils, and measuring 23:23 how many there are at a different time, it says something about what was the level of CO₂ back in time. 23:32 So, when we look back in time, what do we find? Over almost all, of the last 500 million years, 23:38 the level of CO₂ in the atmosphere has been far, far higher than it is now. Even with modern industry's contribution to CO₂ levels, 23:46 by geological standards, the level of atmospheric CO₂ today is close to being as low, as it has ever been. 23:55 At present, we have about uh, 400 parts per million. Fifty million years ago, 24:01 it might have been 2000 parts per million. So, a much much higher concentration of CO₂. 24:09 I think current estimates of global CO₂ is 423 or so parts per million today. 24:15 If we look through the phanerozoic the last 550 million years, we would see CO₂ on the order of 7000 parts per million. 24:25 CO₂ is plant food, and the result of much higher levels of atmospheric CO₂ in the past, was a much, much greener world. 24:33 Periods of elevated CO₂ tend to be time periods of huge biodiversity on the planet. 24:40 In fact, we're in a CO₂ famine if we look over the last 550 million years. 24:47 At the depths of the most recent glacial maximum, the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere sank so low, 24:53 all life on Earth came close to extinction. They say CO₂ is higher than it's been 24:58 for one 100 thousand years, but what they don't tell you in that period they're talking about, is that CO₂ sank so low, that all life on Earth nearly died. 25:06 20,000 years ago, CO₂ is at the lowest level it has ever been in the history of the Earth, 180 parts per million. 25:14 If it had gone down another thirty parts per million, we'd all be dead. 25:19 There is a low point of CO₂, where photosynthesis becomes so inefficient, 25:24 that plant life would die. Then everything else starts to perish after that. 25:30 During the last glacial maximum, there's good evidence that, in many parts of the world 25:36 there was plant starvation, from not enough CO₂. So, we should be very grateful that CO₂ levels are 25:44 beginning to go back up. We're still far from the historical norms which would be several thousand parts per million. 25:50 There's not enough fossil fuel to get there, but at least we're making a start. 25:57 But has the small recent increase in CO₂, affected the temperature? 26:02 We would now show you a picture of CO₂, but we can't, because it's invisible. CO₂ makes up a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere. 26:10 Just 0.04 of a percent. It is just one of 25 different greenhouse gases, 26:17 which taken as a whole, form only one part of Earth's complex climate system. 26:22 So what evidence is there, that this trace gas is having any noticeable impact on the climate? 26:29 If it were true, that high levels of CO₂ caused higher temperatures, we should be able to see that in Earth's climate history. 26:37 Here, scientists are drilling into ancient ice cores. These cores tell us both about past temperatures, and CO₂ levels. 26:45 Scientists have indeed found a link between temperature and CO₂. The trouble is, it's the wrong way around. 26:53 Though it's true over the last few million years of the ice age we're in now, that CO₂ and temperature are correlated. 27:01 But if CO₂ is the driver, it has to change first. and the temperature has to change second. 27:07 In fact, when you start to look at the data very specifically you see the exact reverse. Temperature starts to rise first, and then, 27:14 on the order of a century to a few centuries later, we start to see us a rise in CO₂. 27:19 it's long been known that the temperature actually moves first. So, temperature goes up, CO₂ goes up after that. 27:27 Temperature goes down, CO₂ goes down. Ice ages start when CO₂ is at it's maximum, and ice ages end, 27:36 when CO₂ is at its minimum, which is the exact opposite of what would occur 27:42 if carbon dioxide was controlling the temperature. The question of whether CO₂ drives the climate is easily resolved. 27:47 You can look back in time over hundreds of millions of years, CO₂ levels have changed radically many times. 27:53 Does this cause temperature change? No! Absolutely not! CO₂ has never driven temperature changes in the past, never. 28:01 Nor is it clear in recent times, that CO₂ is having any effect on temperature. Here we see industrial output of CO₂ since 1750. 28:10 From the mid 19th century, to the mid 20th century, there was only a slight increase. It's not until the 1940s, that industrial production 28:17 of CO₂ begins to take off. But this doesn't match the temperature record. 28:22 According to rural thermometers, most of the warming in the past 200 years, occurred before the 1940s, 28:28 and have barely changed since then. One of the embarrassments, 28:33 that IPCC doesn't like to talk about, was that the 1930s, when human influences were much smaller, 28:41 were particularly warm. That's the puzzle that the first early part, where we have such a sharp warming, 28:47 from the 1900s and 1930s and 1940s ... the CO₂ could never cause that temperqature rise. 28:54 That the 1930s and early 40s was so hot, is puzzling. More puzzling still, is what happened next. 29:02 By the end of World War 2, CO₂ was really going up. And yet, the temperature was going down. 29:09 From 40 to 70, while the CO₂ do continued to rise, this thing started to cool ... What happened? 29:15 Journalists were writing about the coming ice age. It was on the cover, of Time Magazine. 29:22 The 1970s new ice age was the big story. And how about since the 1970s? 29:28 According to computer climate models, over the past half century, rising CO₂ should 29:33 have led to this increase in temperature. But, according to multiple satellite and balloon 29:39 measurements, what actually happened was this. Well what we've found from the satellite 29:45 data, is that the global atmosphere is not warming up as fast, as the climate models say it should be. 29:54 There's a couple dozen climate models now that have been worked on for decades. 30:00 You know, billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars have been invested in these climate modeling efforts, 30:05 and we find that generally speaking, virtually all of the climate models produce too much warming, 30:10 over this period, since 1979 up to the present. Now, even if we say the surface thermometers are correct. 30:19 They still don't produce as much warming, as most of the climate models say there should have been, 30:25 let's say in the last fifty years. The models, individually and even collectively, when you average over all of them, 30:32 in so-called ensembles: They don't get it right. You can already see, that the main 30:39 support of the climate alarm movement which are these enormous computer models, 30:44 They're clearly wrong! They don't agree with what we observe. And they .. they're all running much too hot. 30:51 They don't get the geographical distribution of temperatures anywhere close. 30:57 They don't get El Niño, La Niña cycles. They're just ... nonsense. 31:03 All climate models are based on the assumption, that CO₂ drives temperature change. 31:08 But actual observations and historical evidence, clearly suggests that it doesn't. 31:13 Yes I assert, that there is no connection whatsoever, between CO₂ and climate change. 31:20 It's all a crock of crap in my opinion. There is no truth to the idea, that 31:26 the Earth is warmer now, than it has been in the past. It's a lie. There is no truth, that CO₂ 31:32 is higher than it should be. That is a lie. Earth's climate has changed many times, 31:39 over the course of its long history, and will continue to change, without any help from us. 31:44 Climate always changes, you know. Who denies climate change? It's always changing. 31:50 But if CO₂ doesn't drive climate change, what does? 32:01 In Earth's atmosphere, there are powerful forces at work. And perhaps the most powerful of all, are clouds. 32:09 CO₂ is quite unimportant, in controlling the Earth's climate. What is important is clouds. 32:16 Clouds don't absorb any energy at all. They simply reflect all the sunlight, back out 32:23 into space. Big bright white clouds. If you look at the Earth, you see lots and lots of them, 32:29 and they vary dramatically, from one day to the next. That is hundreds of times more powerful, 32:37 than the trivial effects of CO₂. But what controls the number and density 32:44 of clouds on Earth? Professor Henrik Svensmark from the Danish National Space Institute is in Jerusalem 32:51 with the astrophysicist Nir Shaviv. Together, they've been exploring cloud variation, 32:57 and it's effect on climate. And strangely, they found a link between clouds and exploding supernovae, far off in our galaxy. 33:06 When we have big stars, they don't live very long, and relatively, only maybe, a few million years, 33:14 up to forty million years. But they end their life in a huge explosion which we called a supernova. 33:25 An exploding supernova sends out vast quantities of debris. Tiny charged subatomic particles, known as 33:32 cosmic rays, traveling almost at the speed of light. And as they hit Earth, they develop into seeds 33:39 which attract water vapor, and form clouds. 33:45 Professor Shaviv noticed, that the amount of cloud cover on Earth, is related to our journey around the Milky Way. 33:52 As our solar system orbits the galaxy over millions of years, It passes through the galaxy's spiral arms, 33:59 dense clusters of stars. As it does, we are exposed to more or less 34:04 cloud forming cosmic rays. And this corresponds, to historic temperature changes on Earth. 34:11 The really mind boggling thing, is that using geology, you can reconstruct 34:17 the climate on Earth over the past billion years, and you can reconstruct our galactic journey. 34:23 And both tell the same story. But what about temperature change on shorter timescales? 34:32 The Sun, our source of heat and light. A seething mass of gigantic magnetic storms, 34:38 which vary in strength and number over time, and which affect us directly and indirectly. 34:45 When it is very active, the sun sends giant gusts of solar wind through the solar system. 34:54 The solar wind warms us indirectly, by acting as a barrier, limiting the number of 34:59 cloud-forming cosmic rays reaching Earth. So, from the sun, we have 35:05 the solar wind, that carries the sun's magnetic field. Out to a large distance, and it works 35:10 like a shield, against the cosmic rays. That when the sun is more active, 35:16 you have a stronger solar wind. You have less cosmic rays reaching 35:21 the inner solar system, and reaching the atmosphere, and the clouds, which are then formed, are less white. They reflect less of the sunlight. 35:29 Which means, that it's going to be warmer here on Earth. Here's a proxy reconstruction of ocean 35:36 temperatures, over thousands of years. And here is one of solar activity, over the same period. 35:42 What is causing the ocean temperature to change is clearly variations in solar activity. 35:51 Because IPCC is determined to go on a narrative, that only CO₂ can drive the climate system, 35:57 they turn off the sun essentially, right? Because the sun is just a background thing for them, that it doesn't do anything. 36:04 Astrophysicist Willie Soon decided to look again at the rural temperature record for the past 150 years. 36:12 Then he looked at a record of changes in solar activity over the same period. To Dr Soon, it was obvious that it was 36:18 the sun, not CO₂ that was driving temperature. WILLIE SOON - As of 2023, IPCC says this, 36:26 that the sun has absolutely zero chance to explain the changes of the climate system, on a broad scale. 36:33 Let's say global warming in the northern hemisphere. We say no! We can easily demonstrate it. 36:40 All of it has zero for the CO₂, 100% for the sun, how's that? 36:46 Why are these and other studies never reported in the mainstream media? And if climate change is natural, what are we to make of 36:53 the alleged terrifying increase in extreme weather events? Of the heat waves and hurricanes? 36:59 Of forest fires, droughts and the rest? 37:08 My first instinct as a scientist, and what I teach my students is, well let's look at the data. 37:14 And when you do that, you discover, as you can read in the IPCC reports themselves, that it's pretty hard 37:22 to find trends in extreme events, much less attribute them to human influences. 37:29 You now had decades of putting the idea in people's heads, that anytime the weather's bad, 37:35 It's climate change and greenhouse gases. So I think people at this point can't help themselves. If you have a heatwave, immediately everybody's thinking: 37:43 "Oh, what have we done to the weather?" If somebody says in the news "This is the warmest day since 1980" or something, 37:52 well you can look up the temperature records, and see for yourself, whether it was in fact, warmer in the 1930s, as it often is. 38:01 US temperature records are the best in the world. And here is the official U.S. government record 38:07 of heatwaves in the U.S. over the past century. It shows very clearly that the 1930s were far more 38:14 prone to heat waves, than we are today. Not only were there more heatwaves in the 1930s. 38:20 The heatwaves then, were much hotter than those of today. Likewise, official figures show, that the number 38:27 of hot days in the U.S. has markedly declined. 38:33 The United States was much hotter in the 1930s. North Dakota reached 121°F (49°C). South Dakota 38:41 was 120°F (49°C). Wisconsin was 114°F (46°C). These sort of temperatures are just completely out of range 38:49 of anything people experience now. A common mistake is to suppose, that higher average 38:56 temperature will mean more hot weather, but this isn't true. Here again, is the central England temperature record, 39:03 the longest instrumental temperature record in the world. Summer temperatures, over the past 300 to 400 years, since 39:09 the end of the Little Ice Age, have barely changed at all. It is winter temperatures, that have been slightly rising. 39:16 The Earth's climate has not been getting hotter, it's been getting milder. 39:21 That's certainly been observed all over the world. If you look at temperature records, high temperatures are almost unchanged. 39:28 But cold temperatures at night or during the winter, are going up a little bit. Not very much but you can measure it. 39:36 When the average goes up, It's really more due to the coldest temperatures getting warmer. 39:44 So the temperature's getting milder, rather than getting hotter. 39:50 What about the increasing number of wildfires we're often told about ? If you look at the actual 39:56 number of forest fires, from satellite observations, the actual number's going down. 40:02 Here's an estimate of global wildfires since 1900. It shows a clear decline. 40:08 And here is record of areas affected by wildfires in the U.S. It shows that wildfires were far, far worse in the 1930s. 40:17 From 1930s and 1920s when you have data, the thing was huge! Five to ten times bigger than the current level. 40:25 How about hurricanes? The U.S. has by far, the best record of hurricane activity in the world. 40:32 Over the past 120 years, there is no overall change. In fact, the trend is slightly down. 40:41 When you look at the data for hurricanes, technically tropical cyclones, you see, that there is no long term trend. 40:50 How about the rest of the world ? Here is a chart of global hurricane activity over the past forty years. 40:57 Hurricanes have been around forever, you know. We've got good proxy records of hurricanes, 41:02 and there's been no change in their frequency. Even the IPCC admits that. 41:09 How about melting ice caps and drought? Here's a satellite record of temperature in Antarctica, 41:15 since the late 1970s. It shows no increase whatsoever. And here is record of global drought since 1950. 41:23 There is no observable increase at all. Polar bears are meant to be going extinct, 41:30 but studies suggest, their numbers are growing. The great barrier reef too, has recently reached record levels. 41:39 There's no such thing as a climate emergency happening on this planet now. It's ... there's no evidence of one. 41:45 Yeah, the extreme weather event story is, is just absurd. There's no basis to it at all. It's just based 41:51 on propaganda. The actual data shows the opposite. I've shown you the official data, 41:57 the official science. Tell me, what I'm denying. The climate alarm is nonsense you know, it's a hoax. 42:05 I've never liked "hoax." I think "scam" is a better word. But I'm willing to live with "hoax." 42:14 But why are we told, again and again, that manmade climate chaos is an undisputed 42:19 scientific fact, beyond question, beyond doubt? 42:25 To answer this, we must examine the so-called consensus on climate change. 42:33 Until the 1980s, global warming was little more, than an eccentric scare story, put about by radical environmentalists. 42:40 But then, the cause was picked up by an ambitious young Senator, Al Gore, who would soon become Vice President. 42:46 A billion dollars a year of public money was made available, for research into climate change. 42:51 This quickly rose to two billion Up to that level ... Academic researchers in various disciplines, 42:57 began to apply for this climate funding. If you want to qualify for money, 43:04 that's labeled "climate." Well, you take whatever you're doing, and you add a little bit of "climate speak" to it, 43:12 and away you go. You're dealing with the sexual habits 43:17 of cockroaches. You'll add ... add the impact of climate. So all I have to do, is add a little 43:25 wrinkle to my grant application to explain how, well I'm worried that climate change will mean the death of 43:30 all the maple trees, and so right away, you qualify for funding. Academics of every kind, lined up for climate funding. 43:39 Climate, became an exciting new area of interest, for sociologists, biologists, Professors of English literature, 43:46 lecturers in gender studies, and many more. And it also served to create a community. 43:54 I mean, you know, you've become a climate scientist now. Even though you know nothing, about the physics of climate. 44:02 Thousands of papers were published ... on climate change and prostitution, climate change and beer, 44:07 climate change and the black death, climate change and disability, climate change and video games, and everything else imaginable. 44:13 There's an almost comical list of studies out there. Just do a Google search on 44:19 "Climate change, AND" and everything comes up. Few of these papers ever questioned, 44:25 whether climate change was actually true. After you've done the research and you write the paper up, sometimes you find 44:33 there's no effect at all, from climate. But you still have to say in your papers, oh yes, climate change is real, 44:39 and we just need to study this some more. Since so few of these so-called climate studies 44:44 challenged the idea of climate change. It was declared, that there was a scientific consensus. 44:50 Climate change must be true. Climate also became a new focus 44:56 for government-funded research bodies. Scientific research in the United States 45:02 tends to be dominantly funded by government grants. And so, whatever government grants are offered, 45:10 sort of determines much of the science being done. It was during the cold war, that many 45:16 government research bodies were set up. But the end of the cold war, and pressure on 45:22 government spending has left many of them struggling to justify their continued funding. 45:29 The United States Congress only funds ... problems. Okay, research into problems. 45:35 Whether it's money that goes to NASA, or NOAA, or National Science Foundation or Department of Energy, 45:41 or any other alphabet soup, you know, organization. It's always been a problem to support 45:46 your research, or your existence, your raison d’etre. And so, climate was a godsend. 45:53 If congress is willing to pay you to find evidence of global warming, by golly, 45:59 as a scientist, we're going to go find evidence of it. Because, that's what we're being paid to do. 46:04 And guess what: If you don't find evidence, or say the evidence suggests, it's not a problem.. 46:09 Your funding ends. This totally corrupts the way we look at the science. 46:16 Who was the famous gangster who was asked "Why do you rob banks?" And he said: "Well, 'cause that's where the money is!" 46:25 The climate alarm brought funds. And the bigger the supposed threat, the more funds seemed to flow. 46:32 The publicly funded science establishment now had a direct financial interest, in playing up the alarm. 46:38 But there's a huge incentive to overexaggerate, or to speak in hyperbole, even if 46:44 the data doesn't support exactly what you're saying, because that's what brings the funds. 46:50 I was in that boat. I was someone that was defending climate change as a grad student quite a bit, 46:55 because, the truth is, I didn't give it too much thought. But I ... I thought: Well, it's getting a ton of attention, 47:01 it brings a ton of money into the Earth sciences. Even if I don't buy all the hyperbole, what's the problem? 47:10 By the late 1990s, what had started as an environmental scare story, was gaining momentum. 47:22 Western governments, and their senior civil servants were more than willing to address the climate problem. 47:28 Green taxes were levied, green regulation expanded, and this in turn, generated more climate related jobs and activity. 47:37 Take the banking sector for instance and say to a banker what we want you to file reports with the 47:43 regulatory commission, on how climate change is going to affect your bank. Well, a banker doesn't know anything 47:48 about this subject. So then, they have to commission studies from academics. And of course, the academics 47:54 are happy to come and tell them: "Well, It's going to be terrible for your bank. It's going to cause all kinds of problems. 47:59 And you need to give us money to research this." Green subsidies and regulation meant, 48:05 there was now money to be made in climate. Renewables firms sprouted, consultancy firms offered advice 48:11 on what they called sustainability, and climate compliance. It's a wonderful business opportunity, okay? 48:18 You want climate. We'll give you climate. The renewables industry alone, now turns over a trillion dollars 48:25 a year, and that's expected to double in the next few years. 48:30 What used to be a cottage industry, has now blossomed, to become a major part of the world economy. 48:38 The growth of this climate industry has seen an explosion of highly paid green jobs, Chief Sustainability Officers, 48:45 Carbon Offset Advisors, ESG Consultants, Climate Compliance Lawyers, and countless others. 48:52 Students started to come in to our departments as Earth science departments ... with a focus on climate. That never happened before. 49:01 But they started to look at their career prospects, and they're smart, and they were looking at who's hiring. 49:08 And the fact of the matter was, that everything in the hiring pool had "climate" somewhere attached to the name. 49:14 I started a few years ago seeing programs like a master's degree in "Climate Finance." 49:20 And, I just thought ... what on Earth is Climate Finance? I'd understand what a master's degree in Finance is. 49:26 Well, now you need a university that’s gonna teach this program. You need "Professors" of Climate Finance. 49:32 Every single school, or university, or business, will have a climate office, or climate officers, 49:40 and a climate program. And you look at any of these institutions, or businesses, you will find they all are 49:47 signed up to it, and anyone who hasn't signed up ... will come under pressure. 49:53 At the last gathering of the publicly funded UN's IPCC, 70,000 delegates flew in, from around the world. 50:01 Government bureaucrats, green NGO's, Carbon Sequestration Consultants, environmental 50:06 journalists, heads of renewables companies. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Many hundreds of thousands of jobs worldwide, 50:14 now depend on the climate crisis. You start building this enormous 50:20 population, whose job is ... to manage the crisis. 50:26 And, and also explicitly, to make sure the people are 50:33 alarmed about the crisis, because this whole industry depends on the existence of the crisis. 50:39 But therein lies, the one great threat to this multi-trillion dollar industry. All the jobs, all of the funding, are 50:46 totally dependent on there being a climate crisis. If CO₂ isn't having the huge 50:53 negative impacts, that we claimed it was having originally. How are we going to stay in business? 50:58 How do we justify our existence, if climate change isn't this existential threat that we claimed it was 51:04 over the last four decades or so? People like me, our careers depend on funding of climate research. 51:12 This is what I've been doing just about my whole career. This is what the other climate researchers are doing with their whole career. 51:18 They don't want this to end. If NASA said: "global warming is not a problem." 51:23 What if their funding disappears, right? So, they can't say that. I mean, you've got the United Nations' Intergovernmental 51:31 Panel on Climate Change: if they said the climate isn't changing, they'd have no reason to exist. 51:38 The IPCC has a self-preservation instinct, to show that climate change is an existential threat. 51:44 Otherwise there's no reason for them to be collecting the money and doing the work in the first place. 51:49 There are not just now billions, but there are trillions of dollars at stake. 51:55 There's a huge amount of money involved. This is a huge big money scam. A lot of people's livelihoods depend on it. 52:03 They're not going to give that up. If suddenly, the notion becomes apparent, that this is not such a problem. 52:12 You're going to see that as an existential threat. Scientists who studied the natural causes of 52:18 climate change, began to be viewed with suspicion, as two Harvard astrophysicists discovered. 52:24 How much does the sun change? And how does it change? And why does it change? 52:30 And then, we didn't even want to get into the temperature record, and this climate thing. Immediately, they will come after us because, 52:36 when we started to estimate that the sun changed by quite ... significantly in terms of climatic sense. 52:43 Immediately they attack us there, because it's not following the narrative. Because they need the CO₂ to be the only one, the only dominant player. 52:51 When you tried to say, we're just looking for the background of natural variability, 52:58 weak ... the response would be: We can't have natural changes. As an effect it has to be human caused. 53:06 And ... some of that was directly stated, but most of it was indirect. 53:11 Your funding for this kind of project will be dropped. This kind of project doesn't go anywhere. 53:18 By that time, anything that contradicted the narrative of global warming, 53:25 as a serious problem, was not going to get funded. 53:31 Editors of academic journals came under pressure not to accept papers, which were deemed to be skeptical of the climate crisis. 53:39 We will not publish anything that questions this. I mean, it's not something surreptitious. 53:47 Scientists who dared to point out in public, that there was no climate chaos, began to be sidelined and shunned. 53:54 If a scientifically qualified person stands up and says: "We don't see an 53:59 upward trend, in the data on Pacific typhoons." Well, suddenly they lose standing, to address 54:05 the topic of pacific typhoons. Not because what they said is wrong, but because it's off message. 54:11 They can marginalize any kind of criticism of the narrative, 54:16 by saying: "You're not qualified to talk about this," because you don't support the narrative. That is then ... 54:23 And then, having marginalized everyone who doesn't support the narrative they can turn around and say: Well, everybody who counts, supports the narrative, 54:29 so he must be right. Environmental journalists ignored skeptics, and instead 54:35 offered headlines to anyone prepared to make the most outrageous claims and predictions about a climate apocalypse. 54:42 It's gotten to where it has nothing to do with the science any more. It doesn't matter, if your alarmist prediction, doesn't come true. 54:50 You're still going to retain your status as an expert, and the media is still going to come and ask you for your opinion, 54:57 even though you were "crazy wrong" about your predictions. 55:05 But the consensus on climate, is not only enforced by those in the climate industry. 55:10 To explain the broader appeal of the climate alarm, we must look at the politics behind climate. 55:26 From the start, the climate scare was political. It came from the environmental movement, 55:31 the sworn enemy, of free market industrial capitalism. 55:37 Finally, we've got them. We can claim, that it is the free markets who are destroying 55:43 the planet, and we need big government to save us. The climate problem, it is said, stems from the 55:51 irresponsible actions of greedy feckless individuals, who have too many babies and drive too much, 55:57 and consume too many products, under the capitalist corporations who pander to their whims. 56:03 The solution is for government to have greater power to regulate private companies, but also to guide and reshape the lives and habits of individuals. 56:12 Policy agenda has sprawled into micromanaging everybody's lives, on the most minute detail. 56:19 What kind of stove you can use, what kind of heater you can have, how much you can set the thermostat at, where you can drive, what kind of car, you can't ... 56:27 According to the the planners, we're not going to have internal combustion engines, an hour from now ... 56:33 All of these things require the government to get involved right? Because the government has to sort-of force changes upon the public. 56:39 If it was up to the public, we wouldn't be buying electric vehicles, because you know, they're impractical. 56:46 Support for the climate alarm is now virtually synonymous with disdain for free market capitalism 56:51 and a yearning for bigger government. It's liberals vs. conservatives in the United States, and generally speaking, liberals are 57:00 worried, that we're destroying the planet. and they're also of course for big government. And then, conservatives are at the other end of the spectrum. 57:08 Where they, a lot of them don't believe, that we're destroying the planet and ... they don't want government involved in their personal lives. 57:15 Paying lip service to the climate alarm has become almost universal among those who depend on government for 57:21 their livelihoods. This includes those in the publicly funded education arts and science establishments. 57:28 Tony Heller recalls his time at Los Alamos labs. The entire county of Los Alamos was kept going 57:36 by government money, that we had the highest incomes in the state. 57:41 So naturally, people who lived at Los Alamos supported big government, because 57:47 that was where their livelihood came from. That was where their good schools came from. Everything good in Los Alamos, came from the government. 57:54 So of course, they were all believers in big government. 58:00 Among the largely publicly funded western intelligencia, support for more government spending and regulation 58:06 is almost a defining moral badge. In these circles, to question the climate alarm 58:12 is socially unacceptable. To be a climate skeptic, is taboo. 58:19 Somebody that goes against it, really does get met with a lot of anger and vitriol and ... 58:26 you know, you're called a denier, the science denier, the heretic. Your colleagues won't engage 58:32 with you anymore. You don't get invited to conferences. Your students may desert you. This is all really terrible. 58:44 Professors Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv, describe what happened, when they published their results, 58:49 on the climatic effects of solar activity. It was like all hell had 58:54 broken loose, because of this work. I had no idea, that the things would escalate as they did. 59:02 And it completely changed my life. Once we said that, people didn't like 59:09 hearing it, and we became "persona non grata." I mean, I have so many instances of people doing 59:16 really nasty things. When I applied for a job. 59:24 A group of scientists write to the university, saying they shouldn't hire me. 59:30 And that's a typical story ... unfortunately. 59:36 If you don't agree with the standard polemic, you become an outcast. You’re shunned, as if you have leprosy. 59:47 For Professor Sallie Balliunas, the personal attacks became too much. 59:54 I retired early. 1:00:00 And my family said, I should have retired even sooner. Years sooner 1:00:05 So, they notice the toll. It took a toll on them ... and me. 1:00:13 Dr Matthew Wileicki, was an Assistant Professor of Geology at the University of Alabama, 1:00:18 when he decided to speak out about the climate scare. As a result of the backlash, he has decided to leave teaching. 1:00:25 To speak up about climate change, in any sort of skeptical way, was essentially career suicide, absolutely. 1:00:31 There was no possible way, that I would ... publish in, quite a few of the mainstream journals, 1:00:37 that I was required to publish in. I essentially isolated myself from many of the funding institutions. 1:00:44 This is one of the reasons, you can build a concensus in a community, is because anybody who is skeptical of that 1:00:51 consensus, essentially gets kicked out of the community. speaking out, in scientific ways 1:00:59 that go contrary to the consensus, I would say, is a career killer for people at the early stage of their careers. 1:01:08 If I were 30 years old in a university, trying to make a career, I would certainly keep my mouth shut. 1:01:15 And in fact, I went to some effort to keep my mouth shut when I was younger. I knew climate was nonsense then, 1:01:22 but I was a little bit careful. If a young person is questioning this. 1:01:28 They can't put that in a proposal. The proposal will be denied. 1:01:34 And they can't effectively publish. Because the gatekeeper will keep them out, 1:01:39 and so it would end their career. You have to go along 1:01:45 with the global warming story. If you don't, you're going to get cut off. You'll lose funding, you're going to get your career ruined. 1:01:52 You're going to be trashed by the community. You'll be despised by your coworkers. 1:01:59 The so called consensus on climate, has itself become a weapon. A form of bullying, intimidation, and censorship, 1:02:06 used against those, who refuse to conform. It's a tool, that people use 1:02:11 to bludgeon their opponents and the skeptics, and to attack their character. 1:02:17 According to it's critics, far from being scientific, the militant, intolerant, climate consensus 1:02:23 represents a devastating assault on free scientific inquiry. I see my job as a scientist, 1:02:30 as just laying out the facts, and letting people decide what they want to do. When you can't talk 1:02:36 about the facts, things become corrupt. If you shut the door on ideas. 1:02:43 If you say, you're not allowed to test it. You're not allowed to have that idea. 1:02:49 You've left the realm of science. I don't think climate researchers 1:02:55 will ever back down from their claim, that increasing CO₂ 1:03:01 is the control knob, on today's climate system. I don't think they will ever back down from that, 1:03:08 no matter what the evidence is. It's clear, it's now a cult! 1:03:13 And completely divorced from science. 1:03:18 But the apparently unstoppable climate scare, does not just represent an attack on science. 1:03:24 It is starting to shape for us, a new kind of society. 1:03:34 Environmentalists like to pose as anti-establishment. But their demands are well received and piously echoed 1:03:42 by king Charles, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the BBC, the UN, the EU, by heads of government, 1:03:48 the World Bank and World Economic Forum. In fact, by the entire state-funded ruling establishment. 1:03:56 Global warming is like the perfect problem that government can get 1:04:02 involved in, to grow the influence of government. It's a wonderful way to increase 1:04:08 government power and, If there's an existential threat out there, that's worldwide. Well, you need a powerful 1:04:17 worldwide government, you know, to cope with it If you're a climate activist, you're actually 1:04:22 facilitating a huge validation, of the government running our lives. 1:04:29 Many environmentalists, most environmentalists, all environmentalists, who consider themselves to be radical progressive alternatives, 1:04:36 are in fact, simply reinforcing the mantras and the mainstream arguments of the entire establishment. 1:04:41 The demands on the government mean, that the government suddenly gains the authority, to interfere into every nook and cranny of our lives, 1:04:49 and how we live. Everything, has a climate narrative attached to it. How much you consume, 1:04:54 where you spend your money, how much you travel, who you interact with, what types of food you eat, 1:05:00 whether you eat meat. Everything, has some sort of aspect, that can be controlled with a climate lens. 1:05:07 Suppose 20 years ago, somebody had hatched the idea that: I would really like to ban cheap energy. 1:05:17 I'd really like to control everybody's appliance purchases. I'd really like to tell everybody where they can go, and 1:05:23 basically, I'd like to have dictatorial control over everything. Well it's not going to fly. No, everybody would think you're a nut, and would ignore you. 1:05:31 But ... fast forward 20 years, that's what's happening. 1:05:36 The publicly funded establishment in the west, is so large and powerful, it is able to impose and 1:05:42 enforce the official consensus on climate, through it's control of schools, universities 1:05:47 government, and much of the media. 1:05:53 State broadcasters like the BBC, exclude climate skeptics. Broadcasting regulatory bodies, forbid private stations, 1:06:00 from disseminating skept

Listen to former German General Harald Kujat at a public lecture in Berlin, Germany how he destroys the false pro-war narrative of the neocons. This talk was held in German and is dubbed into English thanks to the brilliant work of Andreas Voss who makes these translations possible. Shortly before the start of the Munich Security Conference (MSC), the former Inspector General of the Bundeswehr and Chairman of the NATO Military from 2002 to 2005, Harald Kujat, gave a very well-attended lecture on the topic: “The Ukrainian War, the rivalry of the great powers and the self-assertion of Europe”. The think tank “Eurasia Society” invited, which claims to be committed to “peaceful coexistence and cooperative relations between the countries of Eurasia”. The "NachDenkseiten" were there and filmed the lecture. In his lecture, in addition to a comprehensive analysis of the current military situation in the Ukraine war, Kujat devoted himself to possible solutions, took a look beyond the Western-transatlantic horizon and also analyzed the current change towards a multipolar world order as well as the current inability of European elites adapt to this change. Harld Kujat has emerged in Germany as another outspoken critic of the way NATO and the Europeans are abusing Ukraine for the geopolitical benefit of the US. General Kujat is so outspoken that Wikipedia “knows” that he belongs to the inner circle of Vladimir Putin. Ha! There are also a lot of Europeans who see behind the Propaganda and the veil of lies. Many thanks and a shout out to the German portal “Nachdenkseiten” for broadcasting this and to the “Eurasien Gesellschaft” for holding the event. Source: (Neutrality Studies) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U21-RrB8E6Q - German spoken original video: (February, 16 2024) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6dbonhYkDE Nachdenkseiten: https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=111161 Eurasien Gesellschaft: https://www.eurasien-gesellschaft.org - Transcript: so let's just start ladies and gentlemen considering the very different interests the propaganda the disinformation yes I would even say the lies that are intertwined in this war in this Ukraine war and the entanglements in Ukraine by many states but also around Ukraine one sometimes gets the impression that this is an unsolvable gordian knot according to tradition Alexander the Great found the solution to the gordian knot by using his sword he cut through the knot that tied The Chariot of the frian king gordios to the Yoke of the horses thereby beginning his conquest of Asia Minor that is the tradition according according to Plutarch but there is also another tradition which goes back to the Roman historian Lucius flavius arenus according to this Alexander solved the knot through the liveliness of his mind by recognizing the function of the Lynch pin for the resistance of the knot and simply pulling out the pin you surely understand why I mention this here I mention it because West policy follows the path of the sword it follows this path because it lacks what distinguished Alexander the Great the vivacity of the spirit namely to recognize that the key in the Ukraine war is a negotiated peace but let's start with a cursory look at the geopolitical situation and then talk a bit more about the Ukraine war the 21st century is characterized by the rise of China as an economic and Military superpower and by the Rivalry of the great Powers namely the United United States Russia and China the Ukraine war has triggered a new dynamic in the relationship of these great Powers also in their rivalry but it has also created Clarity in an important case only China and not Russia is capable of replacing the United States as the leading world power the current American National Security strategy confirms my assessment as follows I quote the People's Republic of China is the only competitor that both intends to reshape The Intern order and increasingly possesses the economic diplomatic military and technological power to do so Beijing has Ambitions to create an extended sphere of influence in the indopacific and to become the world's leading power and that's why in the Ukraine war the United States aims to weaken Russia its second geopolitical rival politically economically and militarily to such an extent that they can focus on the confrontation with China their biggest adversary to achieve their strategic goal the United States has sought close cooperation with Europe especially in the current federal government they have found not just a willing Ally this Chancellor as his visit on Friday to Washington shows is apparently also ready to take on a leadership role in the Ukrainian proxy war however should be considered that the European allies just like in the Ukraine war are also intended to be involved in a future conflict with China together with Australia Japan New Zealand and South Korea they are supposed to form an indopacific network of Partners and allies against China One might think this is a clever move by the United States to First Strike Russia the weaker of the two geopolitical Rivals and then in a proxy war of course not directly to then turn to China the stronger opponent however like the American strategy expert Haron Olman I believe that the USA is making a big mistake by opening a strategic military two-front confrontation against China and Russia Haron man described this as a ticking Time Bomb therefore the war in Ukraine is a turning point for Europe it demonstrates the determination to embark on the path to geopolitical self assertion politically economically technologically and not least militarily much of what has happened in connection with the war in Ukraine over the last two years becomes understandable when one knows that Germany plays a particularly important role on the geopolitical chess board of the United States especially in its Russia strategy for George fredman a respected American scientist and geopolitician it is clear that Russia and Germany together would represent the only Power that could threaten the United States therefore he says America must ensure that this does not happen the greatest fear of the United States according to fredman is that German capital and German Technologies combined with Russian raw materials and Russian production potential a unique combination that the USA has been greatly afraid of for a century according to fredman after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact Russia sought closeness to Nato the main idea was to achieve close coordination with the alliance regarding the states formerly Allied in the Warsaw Pact and the now independent former Soviet republics especially the Baltic states what Russia had in mind was to solve crises and conflicts together with NATO thereby preventing a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia the NATO Russia founding Act of 1997 and the NATO Russia Council were established as a common basis for this a period of close political coordination and very close military cooperation was initiated China is taking a moderate course regarding the Ukraine war China is convinced that Global risks have increased since the war and that Western countries bear the main responsibility for this this is because they have destroyed the existing International order China promotes cooperation with Russia both want to contribute to the construction of a multi-polar world which according to Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi will lead to the decline of us hegemony the Taiwan issue could become the culmination point of American Chinese geopolitical rivalry in the so-called Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 the United States committed to providing Taiwan with weapons and other Support Services necessary for defense however the agreement is vague regarding the type of support so far all American presidents have left the matter somewhat [Applause] ambiguous this this strategic ambivalence was broken by the current American president he deviated from it when asked whether American forces would defend the island in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan he answered yes if there actually were an unprecedented attack Chinese president XI Jin ping repeatedly stated that China is ready to achieve reunification with Taiwan by peaceful means unless there is no other way than the military I quote him we insist on pursuing the Prospect of peaceful reunification with the utmost sincerity however there is no commitment to refrain from violence and the option to take all necessary measures Remains the complete reunification of the motherland must and can certainly be realized I am convinced that the United States would neither be willing nor able to defend Taiwan this is not only due to China's great geostrategic advantages and the enormously growing conventional strength of the Chinese Armed Forces including the great superiority in strategic technological areas such as Hypersonic weapon systems but also because China has caught up with the two nuclear superpowers the USA and Russia in nuclear strategy Char Richard American Admiral Charles Richard who was then the commander of the US strategic command and thus responsible for the deployment of American nuclear forces said about the Ukraine crisis verbatim the situation we are currently in is not just heating up the major crisis is still to come we will be tested in a way we have not experienced in a long time when I assess the level of our deterrence against China then our ship is sinking slowly but it is sinking the Ukraine war has promoted the formation of competing geopolitical blocks while the United States the European Union and NATO are moving closer together a second geopolitical block has formed around China and Russia the core of this block consists of the so-called bricks countries namely Brazil Russia India China and South Africa as well as the Shanghai cooperation agreement this group includes China India Iran Kazakhstan kyrgystan Pakistan Russia Tajikistan and usbekistan China is working closely with Saudi Arabia in the global oil market and in the use of nuclear energy and has also massively supported Saudi Arab Arabia's accession to the bricks group furthermore China is pushing forward the creation of a commodity-based reserve currency as a competitor to the so-called Petro dollar I.E the dollar also with the goal of establishing a worldwide leading currency based on the gold standard knowing that American power largely rests on the influence of the dollar this is a smart way to gain the upper hand in this rivalry since the beginning of this year Saudi Arabia a formerly very close Ally of the United States as well as Iran the United Arab Emirates Argentina Egypt and Ethiopia have been admitted as new members of the bricks group that's 3.8 billion people of the world's population who have joined together in a common economic Union 3.8 billion and I would like to add that currently 40 more states have expressed interest in joining these include Algeria Indonesia Pakistan Mexico Nicaragua Uruguay Venezuela and even two NATO countries namely Greece and Turkey the fact that the South American states in particular are showing interest is especially painful the Americans are making great efforts for example to prevent Mexico's accession but due to the developments I have just described it is all the more important that Europeans strengthen their ability to assert themselves and become an independent actor in international politics this also includes the ability for conflict prevention and containment a look at the European periphery already shows how necessary a European security and defense capability is there the great Powers have been engaged in a struggle over spheres of influence for years the regional powers are waging a proxy war for regional dominance ethnic and religious minorities are fighting for self-determination and Independence overpopulation religious differences and the destruction of natural habitats through major drought disasters provide fertile ground for islamist and fundamentalist terrorist groups these disasters occur in a zone that stretches from the Middle East to Africa the war in Ukraine has led Europe to a Crossroads this war is not only about the security and territorial Integrity of Ukraine it is also about a European security and peace order in which all states of the European continent have their place moreover the dramatic Economic Consequences of this war for Europe and especially for Germany are becoming increasingly apparent the starting point of a war is always a specific political constellation I do not want to go into detail about the war in Ukraine this evening but it is important to understand that a war does not just happen for example Putin does not decide one morning at breakfast to invade Ukraine a war always has a long history and a war leads to a new political constellation the question of course is what this constellation looks like should it be permanent if that is the case then it must be a solution that is politically agreed upon with both opponents and supporters therefore clausewitz demands and no lecture by a former officer is complete without clausewitz that politics must Prevail in a war and continue despite the hostilities this leads to a dual approach on one hand the necessity of a secured defense capability to defend one's own country and on the other hand the effort to achieve a negotiated peace to end the war if politics and diplomacy are suspended as is the case in this war then the war as clausewitz defines it is an act of violence Without Limits everyone sets the rules for the other this creates an interaction that leads to the extreme what we today call escalation that is exactly what we have seen from the beginning the geostrategic position of Russia and the USA the two main actors in this war could not be more opposite protected by two World oceans with an ally in the north and a friendly state in the South the geostrategic factors of space and time Play No role for the United States and they are also not vulnerable with conventional means the United States is an air and sea power in contrast for Russia because of its large land mass which is surrounded by many states and crisis regions space and time are of existential importance also for historical reasons Russia strives for military security to a special degree I have the impression that Russia is neither willing to shed its history nor can it Escape its geostrategic situation the Strategic turning point in the relationship between the United States and Russia was the year 2002 namely the unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 ABM Treaty on strategic missile defense systems which was enormously important for the nuclear strategic balance between these two superpowers at the same time a missile defense system was being built in Europe which Russia had to understand as a threat to the nuclear strategic balance with the United States in 2019 the INF treaty on nuclear intermediate range missiles which was so crucial for Europe's security was also unilaterally terminated essentially the United States thereby gave Russia the opportunity to legally and in accordance with treaties build a new Euro strategic nuclear threat poti potential against Europe one year later the treaty on open Skies was unilaterally terminated this treaty was very important as it allowed Mutual inspections and ensured transparency as well as predictability of military actions nevertheless in 2021 the agreement on InterContinental strategic Weapons Systems known as the American Russian arms agreement or the new start treaty was mutually extended for 5 years there were even negotiations during the Ukraine war until Russia interrupted them due to the massive support of Ukraine by the United States a security policy turning point was the NATO Summit in 2008 in Bucharest where President Bush tried with great pressure to secure NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine when this failed as usual for Saving Face a vague membership perspective was included in the communic the current CIA director William Burns then the American ambassador in Moscow had previously warned the American government in a telegram he wrote about the severe strategic consequences he emphasized that these cannot be overestimated and that they would create fertile ground for a Russian intervention in Crimea and in the east of Ukraine there is no doubt that Putin will strike back sharply today he is the CIA director however the real turning point was the coup d'a orchestrated by the USA in February 2014 in keev this triggered the Civil War in donbas and the denial of minority rights to the russian-speaking population as you know this was agreed upon in the Minsk 2 agreement which was arranged by Mrs Merkel and the French president after that Ukraine was supposed to carry out a constitutional amendment by the end of 2015 which would Grant the Russian minority the same rights as the Ukrainian speaking citizens in the United States quite a few are convinced that the war could have been prevented this would have been possible if there had been serious discussions about Ukraine's NATO membership and greater autonomy for the russian-speaking population of donbass within the Ukrainian State the war could also have been ended after 6 weeks in the Istanbul negotiations at the end of March 2022 Ukraine and Russia reached a mutually acceptable outcome essentially it was agreed that Ukraine would give up NATO membership and adopt a neutral status in return Russian troops were to withdraw to their positions before the war that is to the status of February 23rd of this agreement was not signed by Ukraine under pressure from the West at the beginning of the third year of war in which we now find ourselves it is obvious that the fate of Ukraine will be decided this year probably sooner rather than later the future of the country lies in the hands of the West Ukraine needs money military equipment weapons and ammunition but above all it lacks soldiers we are literally zalinski dependent on financial support otherwise we lose he declared almost half of the Ukrainian state budget is financed by the West any delay or reduction in the flow of funds could trigger State insolvency although Ukraine has significantly contributed to its financial problems through pervasive corruption and continues to do so as long as the war lasts Ukraine is dependent on comprehensive military support from the west but even many years afterward the Reconstruction and economic recovery of the country require a large long-term commitment especially from Europeans the chancellor has already positioned himself sometime ago at the Forefront of the states that should enable Ukraine to continue the war as long as it deems necessary and he has called on European States for greater willingness to perform the chancellor has apparently played a significant role in getting all EU countries including Hungary to agree to the European financing package however this package is to be distributed over 50 billion EUR from 2024 to 2027 compared to the American Support package of 60 billion EUR that's not much it does not cover the financial needs of Ukraine to maintain government functions or the military support needs however it gives the impression that Europeans might have to complet replace the USA if they drop out as the main supporter this could happen if Congress refuses to release more funds or if support is not only financially but completely discontinued after a change of government due to the difficulties in enforcing the current support package which by the way has passed the Senate today there is some Hope from the USA that it will also pass in Congress this week however I am not entirely sure as many in the United States are skeptical alternative Solutions are already being discussed for example Japan and South Korea which do not deliver weapons to war zones could give weapons to the USA for forwarding to Ukraine another option would be for Europeans to pay for American weapons intended for Ukraine the coordination of support by the United States in the so called Ramstein format here in Germany is to be taken over by nato in the future if you combine these three factors you will find that the europeanization of this war has made a significant step forward however the USA does not only provide money and weapons they also make a significant contribution to training Ukrainian soldiers deliver reconnaissance and Target data to the Ukrainian armed forces in a timely manner and play a decisive role in operational planning these Services by the way with a headquarters for Ukraine that was set up in Vis Boden are located in Germany the European States could not provide the services listed especially the delivery of reconnaissance and Target data the risk that Donald Trump could initiate a radical policy shift after being elected president is high we know him from his time as president therefore it is understandable that European politicians who think exclusively in terms of warfare scenarios are watching Trump's initial successes in the primary campaign with horror on the other hand the willingness to continue the war and to commit financially to it through arms deliveries remains unbroken or even as a CDU politician demanded a few days ago to expand the actions directly to Russia previously he said we are waging the war because ITC turns militia presences in the donbass which to my knowledge are not so overwhelming however it is a reason others including Germans whose names are normally not mentioned have waged wars for similar reasons it is an illusion to claim that currently no side has a military Advantage I would not describe the current situation as a PCT the Ukrainian forces have largely lost the ability to wage an offensive land war after the failed offensive which was celebrated in in Germany and other countries what they are doing now is evading and demonstrating through attacks on Russian territory that they are still militarily capable this includes attacks on the civilian population for example an event in belgrad where 25 people were killed including five children in October the ukrainians attacked the city of detet with American cluster munitions for example the University was also set on fire according to the laws of war under International humanitarian law this constitutes a war crime even if it is directed against one's own population one must not commit war crimes against one's own population since the beginning of October the Russian forces have taken the initiative however they have not like the Ukrainian forces launched a large scale offensive instead they f focus on local points of attack with the goal of consolidating their previous conquests and avoiding larger losses the current Russian focal points are in Aviva where they are already present in the suburbs the complete conquest of aiva would pave the way for the consolidation of the Eastern donbass region in the kupiansk area the Russians have amassed over 40,000 troops apparently to conquer the K region it is likely that the Russians will also take Essa the critical situation in Ukraine has prompted the United States to develop a new strategy the Ukrainian forces are to go into Strategic Defense for the time being similar to the Russians last year the goal is to hold the territory still under their control from well fortified defensive positions and above all to reduce the high Personnel losses this is intended to create the conditions for a long-term strengthening and greater endurance of the Ukrainian Armed Forces as well as for the economy they call this the four-phase strategy fight build recover and reform they are currently trying to bring this strategy closer to president zalinski and above all to convince him that in 10 years the Ukrainian Armed Forces will have significant combat power and a high deterrent Factor by the end of this year the combat power of the Ukrainian Armed Forces should be significantly greater than it is today however this means that the Ukrainian president would have to give up his goal of recapturing all territories occupied by Russia including Crimea because the front is to be stabilized where it is now this strategy which is planned for 10 years envisages that European allies undertake specific commitments for military and economic support these commitments are to be defined in b finding National documents and agreed upon in a bilateral agreement with Ukraine the 10-year commitment serves as a safeguard against the termination of support for Ukraine announced by trump it is also intended to prevent a change of government in a European country from leading to a change of course the United Kingdom has already signed a course responding agreement with the Ukrainian government the federal government is also ready to enter into this 10-year support and assistance Commitment if all NATO States follow this example it could amount to Nato membership through the back door at least in terms of collective defense under Article Five of the NATO treaty therefore there are considerations in the USA to create a mechanism with Ukraine that resembles Article 4 of the NATO treaty this this article provides for member states to consult each other when the territorial Integrity political Independence or security of a member is threatened in this context the rift between zalinsky and the military commander-in-chief General solush is of particular importance leading to Sal's dismissal last Thursday the issue was ultimately about the responsibility for the mobilization of 500,000 soldiers to compensate for the high Personnel losses the question was whether the military I.E soli or the politics should take on this responsibility neither soli nor zinsky wanted to take on this responsibility however fundamental disagreements about the conduct of operations the achievability of political goals in this war and the Public Presentation of military successes were decisive failures when salushi publicly announced at the beginning of November last year that the offensive was a failure he openly contradicted his president the latter consistently presented the situation in an overly positive light and of course received more attention and confirmation from Western politicians and the media for it Sol's dismissal occurred in an extremely critical phase it will soon become apparent that zelinsky's decision was a big mistake by by the way his successor is an ethnic Russian this shows how closely these two peoples are intertwined after the failure of this offensive fear is growing in Europe there is concern that Russia's strategic goal might be the conquest of the entire Ukraine after that the goal could be to attack the Baltic states or Poland and start a war with NATO if you have read the welum sunog then you know that this was described in great detail for some time now the German media has been advocating the thesis that the attack on Ukraine is part of a long-term Imperial strategy the goal is to reclaim the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union since the military situation has clearly turned in favor of Russia so-called military experts are spreading War fear almost hysterically whether this is due to ignorance ideological narrow-mindedness or sheer self-importance I do not know perhaps it's also about the effort to justify the Improvement of the bundes v's defense capability this is not clearly recognizable obviously especially those who predicted a military Victory or War gain for Ukraine some time ago want to mobilize further support for Ukraine without hesitation they claim that a defeat of Ukraine would not satisfy Russia's hunger for power and therefore it would not shy away from an attack on NATO countries Germany and Europe would then face a decade of Confrontation by Russia it is remarkable that politicians justify the demand for a significant increase in defense spending with the Assumption of an allegedly imminent Russian war of aggression for more than a decade German politicians have accepted the Constitutional breach that occurred in 2011 through the so-called realignment of the bundes Weare to make it very clear we do not need a dangerous War history to justify that the bundes fair must be capable of national and federal defense it is entirely sufficient to finally fulfill the Constitutional mandate the question remains whether there's convincing evidence that Russia will not only be capable of attacking nato in a few years but is also preparing for it because Russia intends to do so Putin rejected the accusation that he had set his sights on restoring the Russian Empire saying nobody wants to believe us nobody wants to believe that we are not trying to bring back the Soviet Union he added whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart whoever wants it back has no mind at the last valai Conference in October of last year Putin stated I only quote this to show that there are no clear statements from Russia as they are portrayed by us he said the crisis in Ukraine is not a conflict over territory I want to emphasize that Russia is the largest country in the world we have no interest in reclaiming more territories only one side is always depicted Hegel said the whole is the truth and the half is the untruth I haven't heard the whole story in a long time what does it look like in practice is there even a prerequisite for an attack on NATO States or for the conquest of the entire Ukraine because that would be the prerequisite of theuk in its attack on Ukraine in February 2022 Russia deployed about 19,000 soldiers against a Ukrainian Force more than twice as large this Force had been excellently trained and equipped by the West it must have been clear to the Russian leadership that Conquering the entire Ukraine was impossible even if they are always portrayed as incompetent by the West they still understand basic arithmetic with 19 190,000 men one cannot assume that Russia intended to conquer the entire Ukraine that is simply out of the question moreover a Russian occupation of this large country would require a huge effort in terms of occupation troops for comparison 300,000 Russian soldiers were stationed in the small gdr how many would it have to be in the vast Ukraine another point is that Russia's ambition has always been to have a buffer between Russia and NATO this buffer would be gone if the whole of Ukraine were occupied this would mean that NATO soldiers and Russian soldiers would be directly facing each other the risk that a confrontation could start due to human or technical failure which then could not be politically controlled would be great and we have seen throughout the entire Ukraine war that both Russia and the United States have always tried to avoid a direct confrontation so that was not possible at the Time in the West this was celebrated as a major embarrassment for the Russians because they were unable to assert themselves that's a different story but there's something else I want to quickly mention in the course of the Istanbul peace negotiations at the end of March 2022 Russia then due to the positive course of the negotiations for both sides and as a sign of Goodwill withdrew its troops from the conquered areas around Kiev and contractually assured the complete withdrawal to the status before the start of the attack namely to February 23rd 2022 therefore I assume that the attack on Ukraine is not part of an imperial plan to reconquer the former Soviet spheres of INF fluence or even all of Europe for that matter of course War objectives can change over the course of a war whether the assumptions about Russian attack intentions are correct could be very easily determined by agreeing to a ceasefire followed by peace negotiations moreover as a result of the negotiations Arrangements could also emerge that prevent Ukrainian territory from being used by Russia as a staging area for an attack on Central Europe furthermore agreements could be made with Russia that would primarily increase the security of the Baltic states they could also contribute to Greater stability between NATO and Russia overall for example I am thinking of an updated CFE treaty this would include the limitation of conventional Armed Forces with a new flank Arrangement equally important would be confidence-building military measures these measures would contribute to Greater transparency and predictability of political military actions apparently it is particularly important to Moscow to prevent the expansion of NATO through the membership of Ukraine up to the Russian border Russia has been pursuing the goal since the 1990s of creating a strategic buffer zone to Nato a so-called Cordon saner this idea has been revived recently in the form of of a demilitarized zone on Ukrainian territory recently however Russian operational leadership also shows that Russia is taking precautions these are intended to reduce the risk of Western troops intervening in the war to prevent a total defeat of Ukraine in Germany the fact that an agreement initialed by both sides was reached in Istanbul at the end of March 2022 is suppressed or denied this is the case even though not even the Ukrainian government denies this Ukrainian negotiators have confirmed this publicly on multiple occasions the reasons for this are obvious a closer look at the content of the agreement would show that Ukraine had achieved a very good result a result that would have ended the war on quite acceptable terms for Ukraine after 6 weeks any reasonable person would then ask ask why zalinski was not willing to prevent the death of half a million ukrainians and the destruction of the country by signing it especially after he had spoken positively about the negotiations in Russian media during the talks and any reasonable person would also continue to ask why he and the western states supporting him above all are still not willing to give peace a chance now the politicians who prevented peace between Russia and Ukraine at the beginning of April were obviously convinced that Russia could be defeated by Ukraine with their support that this was a fiction should have become clear to everyone by now the ukrainians have achieved what their armed forces were capable of with Western support the West should therefore no longer burden itself with guilt for the tragic fate of the Ukrainian people Ukraine will never be able to defeat Russia militarily even with Western support through weapons and ammunition supplies and the training of Ukrainian so soers even the delivery of so-called game changers sometimes tanks sometimes something else repeatedly demanded by lay people are not the hoped for miracle weapons moreover others have hoped for miracle weapons before in any case they are not capable of changing the Strategic situation in favor of Ukraine the Ukraine Ian armed forces are in an extremely critical condition after the high losses they no longer have the strength to achieve a strategic turnaround the bitter truth is that despite massive support from the USA and Europe with modern weapons a military defeat of Ukraine is emerging nevertheless our media says that more weapons need to be delivered but weapons cannot replace soldiers therefore it looks as if Ukraine now wants to shift the war to a different level as I have already mentioned thus acting deep into Brussels with weapon systems I think the window of opportunity for a negotiated peace could quickly close if the West does not seriously strive for a negotiated peace the fate of Ukraine will be decided on the battlefield and when the weapons fall silent Ukraine will no longer be what it once was the West might even feel compelled and this is my great fear to prevent a devastating military defeat of Ukraine by actively intervening this would create a real danger of a major European War breaking out on the European continent including the risk of a limited nuclear war although both superpowers Russia and the United States have made great efforts to prevent exactly this it remains to be hoped that it will still be possible to prevent the war from spreading across all of Europe if not now I am back to Alexander the Great through the liveliness of the spirit of a leading politician then perhaps because reason prevails I can't think of anyone at the moment can you think of someone who could be said to have liveliness of spirit I don't understand why government officials are not consulted yes I am alive but not of the spirit so the last point I want to make and I really want to emphasize this to you is the following historians have repeatedly asked themselves how it could happen that the European powers stumbled into the first world war the original catastrophe of the 20th century hopefully historians in the future will not have to ask how the Ukraine war could become the original catastrophe of the 21st century thank you for your patience

Jan Jekielek - American Thought Leaders “Whoever can control the Department of Dirty Tricks is able to use it to remove all opposition,” says Mike Benz. He is the executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online and a former State Department diplomat under the Trump administration. The Twitter Files were just the tip of the iceberg, says Benz, who has been tracking the rise of the West’s censorship industry for years. “22 million tweets were categorized as misinformation for purposes of takedowns or throttling through [the Election Integrity Partnership],” Benz said. “It wasn’t just government individual takedown requests. It was government pressure … to create whole new categories of things to censor and then arming them with the artificial intelligence to then automatically scan and ban the new thought violations.” In this comprehensive two-part interview, Benz breaks down the major players in today’s censorship regime and how tactics once used abroad were deployed to target Americans and so-called election “delegitimization” or COVID “misinformation” online. “Graphika was immediately working with NATO’s essentially psychological warfare branch—the Hybrid Center of Excellence—in January 2020 … They had this sophisticated typography of what right-wing media was saying, what left-wing media was saying, what was being shared, the nodes and links between nodes of all the different narrative discourses on social media.” “They will have a revolving door at the professional level. That is, people who are in government roles, for example, in Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation at DHS, will get their next jobs at the German Marshall Fund or the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab … It is a career path. It is a path to power,” Benz says. https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/mike-benz-part-1-the-wests-burgeoning-censorship-industry-and-the-government-funds-pouring-in-from-dhs-to-darpa-to-national-science-foundation-5026384 https://www.foundationforfreedomonline.com FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Mike Benz, it’s such a pleasure to have you on “American Thought Leaders”. Mike Benz: Thanks for having me. Mr. Jekielek: Mike, in our conversations, you told me that you have a mission of fostering a free and open internet. Where are we at now? You’re basically saying that this is not the case here. Mr. Benz: We’re very far removed from the days of what I consider to be the golden age of the internet between 2006 and 2016, when you had this combination of a mature social media ecosystem where people could share information, basically a pure information meritocracy. After that, the political turbulence of the events of 2016, instituted a revenge of the gatekeepers, an increasingly, incrementally more regimented system of censorship that we are now in the process of negotiating our opposition to. Mr. Jekielek: You’re saying that something profound happened in 2016 that changed the ecosystem dramatically. You said it was political turbulence, but what actually happened? How did the system change? Mr. Benz: There were two enormous and unexpected political events that year. In June 2016, you had Brexit. Brexit at the time was not just a small isolated domestic issue within the United Kingdom, it was viewed as an existential threat to the integrity of the European Union. Because at the time there was a fear that France would then go through Frexit with Marine Le Pen’s movement. Italy would go through Italexit with Matteo Salvini’s movement. You would have Grexit in Greece, and Spexit in Spain. The EU would come undone, and NATO would fall apart. The entire rules-based international order would collapse if something urgent wasn’t done about it. And then, in quick succession, you had a candidate who at the time was an almost 20 to one underdog in the New York Times. On the morning of the 2016 election, you had Trump at about 5 per cent and Hillary Clinton 90 per cent, and a little bit left for the stragglers. But basically, it was this idea that this couldn’t happen, and yet it did. And it seemed like everything was going to fall apart with the rules-based international order unless the information ecosystem was radically and permanently altered. Because both of these events were viewed as being internet elections, if you will. Social media was the reason that Nigel Farage developed the popularity of the Brexit movement. It was through his viral YouTube speeches to the European Parliament. It was the domination of Twitter hashtags and Facebook groups that were responsible for Donald Trump’s popularity at the base level. So, you had an organized effort to contain populism by containing the means through which populists could distribute their messaging and mobilize politically. Mr. Jekielek: Populist seems like a catchall term. Is it actually populists that we’re talking about? Mr. Benz: That’s their terminology. It’s fair to use because it captures the idea that base level opposition to elite institutions can come from both the Right and the Left. It’s not necessarily a Right-wing or a Left-wing thing. Left-wing populists like Bernie Sanders in the U.S. or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK were targeted with equal ferocity. It’s just that they didn’t come as close to power as Trump and the Brexit movement did. Mr. Jekielek: Why don’t we just sketch out where we are today? You describe it as a whole of society effort, which just sounds massive and unbelievable. You’re saying that a lot of people are beginning to understand what this is. They might know, “Oh, the Twitter files have exposed a lot of censorship.” They might have themselves experienced something, but they can’t necessarily see the whole picture. The whole of society, what does that mean? Mr. Benz: That’s actually the terminology of basically every mainstream censorship industry professional. Audio: Addressing disinformation requires a whole of society approach. This information is not going to be fixed by governments acting alone. I think we’ve seen that a whole of society effort is really key to the solution. This is a whole of society challenge. A whole of society approach. This is a whole of society problem. Mr. Benz: This is something that is now such a well-worn phrase within the censorship industry, that they often apologize at conferences for using the term, because it’s so well worn at this point. What it means is four categories of institutions in society all working together towards the common goal of censorship. You’ve got government, the private sector, civil society, and then news media and fact checking. So, let’s break down these four elements. You’ve got DHS, FBI, DOD, the State Department, the National Science Foundation, the CIA, and National Endowment for Democracy. On issue-specific issues like Covid censorship, you’ve got HHS, NIH, CDC, and NIAID, all of these playing various roles at the government level. Then, you’ve got the private sector, and you’ve got the tech platforms where the censorship actually occurs. That is where the button gets pressed, so to speak, or where the algorithms play out. You’ve also got private sector censorship technology development, which is the private companies whose job is to create machine learning and artificial intelligence to incorporate the training data to create the tools that are used for the active censorship. And then, you’ve got corporate social responsibility, the CSR money that pours into it from the private sector. In fact, there’s a whole new impact investing angle, VCs investing in censorship companies, because there’s such a gold rush into this field. On the civil society side, you’ve got universities, NGOs, activists, nonprofits and foundations. And then finally, at the news media and fact checking level, you’ve got the politically like-minded within the media who are propped up by the government, by the private sector, and by the civil society so that they can manage public narratives about various issues and can amplify pressure for censorship, by creating negative press on the tech companies, for example. You’ve got the fact checking conglomerates within those who flag the individual posts for the tech companies to manage. So, all four of those in concert have all been fused into basically the nucleus of a single atom. Mr. Jekielek: It’s hard to conceive how all of this works. Mr. Benz: When they have disinformation conferences, there will be representatives from all four institutions there. They will negotiate what their own preferences and needs are, and they will talk with each other about doing favors for favors. They will work out common terminologies, and common problems that they’re having. They will have a revolving door at the professional level. People who are in government roles in misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation at DHS will get their next jobs at the German Marshall Fund, at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab, or at the Alliance for Securing Democracy. Stanford University has a fellowship there. It is a career path; it is a path to power. We’re now going on essentially year five or six of this industry being created, so it’s reaching a stage of maturity, as it would for a technology space or an energy space. It’s becoming much more seamless as these roles become more interchangeable. Mr. Jekielek: What is it that unites these people, is it ideology? Mr. Benz: Different people are in it for different reasons. What I find most fascinating is the young people. It’s my contention that censorship is the fastest growing major on college campuses for ambitious young people who want jobs in Washington DC, or in Silicon Valley. Often, a top career path was you would go to Georgetown, you would major in international relations, and you would aspire to get a job on the Hill, and then work your way up, and/or maybe you'd start in finance and then transition over. What has happened with the rise of the censorship industry, basically they don’t call it that, you don’t get your degree in censorship, you'll get it in something like computational data science, advanced linguistics, the internet research lab, or the media lab. There are so many different ways to launder the concept, but essentially what they’re doing day-to-day in these majors and in these PhDs is they are fusing the social sciences with the computer sciences to help both Silicon Valley and big government control public discourse and control the political momentum of various ideas. This puts young people right at the nexus of Google, Facebook, Washington DC, and Congress. So, you can shortcut making a tiny salary at the Hill out of Georgetown. You can take that pedigree into long term by going directly over to Google’s content moderation team or public policy team and working directly with Congress there, or essentially working directly with congressional cutouts. It is a path to power that is stunning in both the salaries these folks make and in how glitzy it is. You really do get the cocktail party invitations, you really do get access to a beautiful life, and you get impact. You’re not a sort of desk jockey who’s correcting typos for the first five years of your career, you’re in the action. So, I think it’s very exciting for people, and I think they become very intoxicated with the power, the god-like power, if you will, that total censorship capacity gives you. Mr. Jekielek: As I’m listening to you speak, I’m still having trouble imagining how in 2016 this whole industry suddenly launches or is created. You’re saying it’s not out of nothing. You’re saying it’s maturing at this time, and it happened without most people being entirely aware, even though they were aware that there was more censorship, especially if they were targeted, of course. But you never imagined it would be something so grand as what you’re portraying here. Mr. Benz: These things were not on the front page of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. You pick it up in strange vibrations. For me, I came to it through the artificial intelligence space. I was an avid chess player as a kid, and I lived through that period when computers overtook humans in the capacity to play chess well. I remember all the naysayers saying, “Chess computers will never be able to beat Garry Kasparov,” or “There will always be this ability to have the purity of the human spirit pierce through the dead soul of a chess computer.” And then, I remember the existential dread that came over the chess community when Garry Kasparov lost to Deep Blue, and it was like humans would never be able to compete against computers again. It was like this existential question, “What do we do in a world where you’ve got no hope?” I remember in late 2016, when I first came across literature around the deployment of artificial intelligence for purposes of content moderation, it gripped me. I became fixated at the cognitive level on the existential threat that this posed. Every time I would try to have conversations with folks about it, both socially and politically, nobody took the concern seriously and laughed it off, in a very similar way that people did in 1996 before the Garry Kasparov match. And so, for me, none of what’s happened has been a surprise to me. I only wish that folks had taken the issue much more seriously before the infrastructure became consolidated. Because now, it’s like trying to stop a cancer once it has already metastasized into the brain and the lungs, it’s much harder to do. It’s still essential to do, and that’s what I consider to be my purpose. Mr. Jekielek: What is it that you saw exactly? What did you realize that no one else realized? Mr. Benz: The power of control over words was very similar to the power of control over chess pieces. The way chess computers work for algorithms is they condense everything into a number system, so that you can grade every aspect of a chess position on a number scale to spit out a clean number that tells you who’s winning by and by how much. For example, if the computer says the position is -0.5, it means that the computer assesses the person who’s playing the black pieces to be up by approximately half of a pawn. When I started looking into what was being done with artificial intelligence and natural language processing and machine learning training models that were being developed, they were using a very similar system to map linguistically what was happening in the human language on social media. If someone was talking about a Trump policy, you could map the linguistic topography of that narrative and you could grade all the different words and slogans and memes and concepts into essentially what looked like a chess computer readout for whether you want to play knight to F3 or bishop to C5. The power this gives you is to be able to automatically trip varying levels of interventions, as they call it, which means censoring things. If the threshold goes above 1.5, this thing just gets banned. If it’s between 1 and 1.5, we’re going to shadow ban it. If it’s between .5 and 1, we’re going to just affix a fact checking thing to it. It gives you perfect control over the ability to determine the popularity of a narrative. Mr. Jekielek: Let me talk about the Twitter files. Okay, we’ve known about censorship for a while. At the Epoch Times, we’ve experienced hit pieces, and the deplatforming and demonetization associated with such hit pieces. This is some of what we’ve been talking about here. But what the Twitter files revealed to me was that there is censorship happening. The thing that really hit me at one point as we were looking at these dumps is there is the ability to shape the perceptions of a whole significant portion of society by just excluding information. This is what you’re making me think of right now as you describe this chess analogy. But you say that the Twitter files are just kind of the tip of the iceberg? Mr. Benz: A very tiny tip of it. The fact is, my foundation, the Foundation for Freedom Online, had already covered a lot of the things that ended up coming out in the Twitter files. A lot of this was available just by listening to these folks involved in their own public meetings. A lot of these things were done on YouTube, or were added as Facebook videos, or were on their own websites. What the Twitter files revealed was basically the presence of censorship operatives at virtually every national security-related institution in the U.S. government, as well as in the intelligence and public health spheres. There were Twitter files for the FBI, for the DHS, for the DOD, and for the State Department. I saw that at the State Department myself, everything from funding censorship-themed video games to promoting censorship of populist groups around the world, often with a conscious view of it having a boomerang effect on limiting the popularity of populist groups in the U.S. What the Twitter files tended to focus on, even in their most explosive cases, were one-off requests for censorship takedowns. For example, the FBI would send a message to the Twitter Trust and Safety Team saying, “Here’s a batch of six or seven tweets that we don’t like, and we want you to take down. They violate your terms of service, so you may want to take them down.” That only captures the tiniest fraction of censorship that was actually done in each of the major geopolitical events that we’ve experienced in the past few years. Look at these six or seven takedowns in the context of something like the Election Integrity Partnership [EIP], which had a formal partnership with the Department of Homeland Security to operate as their formerly designated disinformation flagger. 22 million tweets were categorized as misinformation for purposes of takedowns or throttling through the EIP. Compare that to the six or seven tweets highlighted in a Twitter files dump. These are six or seven orders of magnitude, it’s not even the same ballpark. This is because it wasn’t just government individual takedown requests, it was government pressure and coordination with the changing of the policies in the private sector themselves to actually coerce the tech companies to create whole new categories of things to censor, and then arming them with the artificial intelligence to then automatically scan and ban the new thought violations that they themselves had helped install. So, they did a one-two punch behind the scenes that the Twitter files still have not even come close to touching. Mr. Jekielek: How are you cataloging all this? Where are you discovering all this, and the evidence of this happening? Mr. Benz: What we just covered was stated very frankly and directly by an individual named Alex Stamos, who was the head of the Stanford Internet Observatory, the anchor entity of the Election Integrity Partnership. Speaker One: My suggestion is if people wanted to get the platforms to do stuff, first you got to push for written policies that are specific and that give you predictability. And so, this is something we started in the summer in August, is as Kate talked about, Carly Miller led a team from all four institutions to look at the detailed policies of the big platforms and to measure them against situations that we expected to happen. Now, we’re not going to take credit for all the changes they made, but we had to update this thing like eight or nine times, right? And so, like putting these people in a grid to say, “You’re not handling this, you’re not handling this, not handling this,” creates a lot of pressure inside of the companies and forces them to kind of grapple with these issues because you want specific policies that you can hold them accountable for. The second is when you report stuff to them, report how it’s violating those written policies, right? So, there’s two steps here, get good policies and then say, “This is how it’s violating it.” We will have our statistics, right? But I think we were pretty effective in getting them to act on things that they hadn’t act on it before. Mr. Benz: The November 9th, 2022 report has about 20 to 25 embedded videos of censorship professionals confessing what they did. What I just cited here is how EIP, using DHS’s clout and pressure on the backend, coerced the tech companies to create a new category of censorship called delegitimization, which was anything in the 2020 election that delegitimized public faith or confidence in mail-in ballots, early voting drop boxes, or ballot tabulation issues on election day. 100 per cent of their targets were Trump voters and Right-wing populist groups. It was the tech companies that didn’t want to do these policies initially, but they were coerced by EIP and EIP’s friends in the legislature; Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Mark Warner, Adam Schiff, and this whole intelligence committee, foreign affairs committee faction, as well as from others in the DNC to put pressure on the tech companies to create the censorship category. And then, he laid out in that video the two-step process, which is one; you get them to change the policies by putting them in the grid and threatening and then creating negative news media. And then two; you engage in this mass documentation and assist with the actual development of the capturing of all the violations of the new policies you just got put in. Now, the reason they do all these confessions on video is because you have to understand censorship is not just an industry, it is a mercenary business. Everyone in the censorship industry is competing for the same pool of government grant funds and donor dollars. It is a competitive industry at this point, we’re not in 2018, 2019 anymore. It is a mature industry with many players in it. You need to stand out. You need to prove what a good mercenary you are, what a good censor you are, how effective you are at silencing the opposition to the donors and the grant organizations. You need to brag about it on video, so that you are more qualified than your opposition and your competitors at getting more government grants. In fact, right after Alex Stamos made this confession, not just on video, but in a 292-page public report, he, and the lab that he partnered with, got a $3 million government grant from the Biden administration. They became government-funded for the first time ever right after he made that confession. Mr. Jekielek: So many things are coming out of what you just said. But the first one is that this is now actually a competitive market for censorship that you’re talking about. Mr. Benz: It is an industry. It is a business subsidized by the federal government and by large entrenched commercial and political interests who all have varying investment in neutralizing opposition to their concerns, which can be done through censorship. Because social media is the great equalizer when it comes to creating social and political momentum. Mr. Jekielek: What is really interesting is what you’re describing. You’re talking about it in the context of election integrity, you used that term. It also applies directly when it comes to Covid misinformation, similarly. Is it the exact same tools that are essentially being used in the same way? Mr. Benz: Actually, it’s funny you say that, because we just covered the Election Integrity Partnership, EIP. It’s the entity that DHS formerly partnered with as their disinformation flagger. When the 2020 election ended, they had censored their 22 million tweets. They had 120 staffers censoring the Trump supporters for the 2020 election for DHS. There was no more election cycle until 2022, when they came back and partnered with DHS again for the midterms. But in between then, they folded up briefly and then rebranded and renamed themselves as a new entity consisting of the same censorship entities. But instead of calling themselves EIP, they called themselves VP, the Virality Project. They did the exact same system of coordinating the government, the civil society, the private sector, and the news media and fact checking organizations. Instead of doing election censorship, they did Covid censorship, but they did it with the exact same ticketing system. They had the exact same relationships with Facebook, with Google, with YouTube, with Twitter, with TikTok, with Reddit, and with the 15 different platforms they monitored. They had the same system of chopping conceptual opposition, which was in the election context, opposition to mail-in ballots and drop boxes and ballet tabulation. It then became censoring opposition to Covid origins, to vaccine efficacy, to mask mandates, or to narratives about Bill Gates or Anthony Fauci. In fact, in their own after-action report, they detailed how they micro-targeted 66 distinct narratives about Covid and chopped all of them up into all of the different component claims. Then, they basically helped advise on the artificial intelligence censorship, helped the reporting and flagging, and coordinated the censorship army that was trained on censoring Covid. So, it was a seamless transition from election censorship to Covid censorship. Mr. Jekielek: So, basically, all you need to do this is to know what the correct view is. Is this what you’re telling me? And then, you just basically engage the system, and you’re good to go? Mr. Benz: It’s an evolutionary process as well. One of the things that was onboarded several years ago into the censorship industry was this concept of subject matter experts on a narrative-by-narrative basis who can help do the linguistic mapping and monitoring the rise of new memes, and of new ways of talking about an issue, and then continually fold that into the censorship paradigm that you’ve established. I do want to quickly say though, that I highlighted EIP turning into VP for Covid censorship after the 2020 election. But Covid started at the end of 2019, and actually the Covid censorship consortium began immediately, I mean really immediately. For example, Graphika is one of the four component entities of the EIP censorship consortium that DHS partnered with. Graphika is essentially a U.S. Department of Defense-funded censorship consortium. They were initially funded to help do social media counterinsurgency work effectively in conflict zones for the U.S. military. Then, they were redeployed domestically both on Covid censorship and political censorship. Graphika was deployed to monitor social media discourse about Covid and Covid origins, Covid conspiracies, or Covid sorts of issues. In January 2020, they began their first formal domestic campaign. COVID-19 didn’t even have the name COVID-19. In January 2020, it was still called Coronavirus at the time. And yet, Graphika was immediately working with NATO’s psychological warfare branch, the Hybrid CoE, Hybrid Center of Excellence in January 2020. Immediately, they were doing social media network graphs on Right-wing social media, and they did this along political lines. They had this sophisticated topography of what Right-wing media was saying, what Left-wing media was saying, about what was being shared, the nodes and links between nodes of all the different narrative discourses on social media for the purpose of handing that to the government to say, “Here’s what people are saying, what should we do to stop it?” So, the censorship set in right away. Mr. Jekielek: You’re reminding me of something I read that I wanted to get you to comment on, which is the foreign to domestic disinformation switcheroo. It sounds like you’re touching on something about this, so what is that? I think it’s very important to this whole picture. Mr. Benz: This is so important for understanding the history and chronology of how we got here, and it’s something that many commentators to the Twitter files are discovering for the first time now. Matt Taibbi has spilled a lot of ink in the past several weeks talking about how shocking it is, the Russian disinformation predicate, how central that was in retrospect, as he’s been writing about the normalization of domestic censorship. This is something I’ve been screaming about for five years now. What happened was before 2016, the idea of domestic censorship in the U.S. was not just rare, isolated, and frowned upon—it was a sacred existential attack on everything American. Censorship was the one thing that really distinguished at the governmental and at the social contract level the United States of America from every other country on the face of the planet. No other Western democracies have a First Amendment. We look at liberal democracies like Canada or the United Kingdom as being just like America in the Western tradition of governmental democracies. But what makes America distinct is that we have total free speech in this country, at least that’s what it was billed as. Now, we are going directly from that into this system of mass domestic censorship, where if you challenge mail-in ballots in a Twitter post on a Thursday night, the Department of Homeland Security has an entire division sitting there who when they see your tweet will categorize you as conducting a cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure, because you’ve undermined public faith in the elections. This is something that needed an intermediary step, and that intermediary step was the foreign predicate. Now, this is something that the U.S. foreign policy establishment has been doing since time immemorial, but essentially since the 1940s, when the national security state was established and consolidated with the 1947 National Security Act. The American foreign policy establishment basically came to a consensus opinion that if we want the 20th century to be the American century, we’re going to need a Department of Dirty Tricks. We’re going to need to play rougher on the world stage than we’ve been used to. We will still have constitutional protections for Americans, we‘ll still have free speech in America, and we’ll still have due process in America. But we’re going to empower our foreign intelligence in our foreign influence capacities with much more ruthless and dirty capacities than we have at home. This is because it’s a tough world out there. The Bolsheviks are going to do it if we don’t do it. There is this whole new order coming out of World War II that is going to need some tough love to consolidate. Even in the 1960s, when there were opposition movements to the bipartisan consensus on several things, including on war and foreign policy, the counterintelligence division at the FBI often deployed this Department of Dirty Tricks to neutralize anti-war protestors, or some of the more stringent elements of the civil rights protest. Martin Luther King, for example, was targeted by the FBI formally because of his connection to Stanley Levison, who had these affiliations with communism. And so, you could wiretap Martin Luther King’s phone, you could have COINTELPRO [Counterintelligence Program] write nasty telegrams, and death threat letters, because there was a foreign predicate. If you simply conflated the domestic with the foreign, then it wasn’t really the classical type of deprivation of due process, this is just being really aggressive about countering Russian influence. So, it’s a way of laundering, of bringing the Department of Dirty Tricks that’s supposed to stay overseas and bringing it home. If you think of it as a war between two political factions, it’s a sneak attack by bringing in powers that aren’t supposed to be there for this game. They did that in the censorship industry through the creation of a Russian boogeyman that was said to have hacked the 2016 election, that was said to have interfered on U.S. social media, that was said to have created these sophisticated bot farms and troll farms and Facebook pages and this enormous network tapestry that magically disappeared right before the 2020 election. Somehow, in 2016, it was said to be enormous. Of course, all the digital forensics were a total hoax. They were done by the same disinformation experts as Graphika and the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab that ended up becoming massively discredited in subsequent years when they completely made up results. They called real people Russian bots, and those people went on TV and read their name, rank, and serial number. It was a hoax from the start, but it was a useful one, because it allowed the handoff of the censorship infrastructure on the foreign side to be grafted on to the domestic side. We’ve talked about the Department of Homeland Security and how it became this hub within the U.S. federal government for coordinating whole society censorship. At the time, before the Biden administration and for the 2020 election, the only thing that existed at the time to partner with EIP to outsource all this censorship, to coordinate the domestic censorship of the U.S. election in 2020, was technically a group within DHS called the Countering Foreign Influence Task Force. The Countering Foreign Influence Task Force was technically the coordinating wing for censorship of you, and of people in Ohio talking about how it was a little weird that early voting drop boxes were open for six weeks before an election, and you can imagine what might go wrong with that. In the very first week Biden took office, this was in January 2021 before the calendar even hit the word February, one of the first courses of action that Biden’s DHS did was they revamped the Countering Foreign Influence Task Force with the same personnel and the same staffers. They simply went from countering foreign influence to “MDM,” misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation as a general catchall, with no distinction between foreign and domestic. That way it could paper over the fact that they weren’t supposed to be operating on domestic soil. Mr. Jekielek: As you’re describing all this, readers of The Epoch Times and viewers of this program just keep thinking Russiagate, Russiagate, Russiagate. Underpinning Russiagate was this idea that there were Russians who had hacked the election. In fact, there’s still Americans that believe that Russians hacked the 2016 election. And then, there was the whole weaponization of the Pfizer warrants, which is what you’re alluding to and what you’re speaking about. Perhaps this is Matt Taibbi’s realization in the last few weeks—no one imagined that the whole system could be somehow engaged in all of this at the same time. Does this make sense? It’s still straining credulity that everyone, all these different institutions are working in lockstep. Mr. Benz: Unfortunately, real people with real names at real meetings were very cognizant of this. In fact, it’s my belief based on compelling evidence that I’ve assembled that this is actually very conscious from the very start. Take for example, in early 2017, you had the foreign policy establishment trying to reconcile the fact that an essentially uniparty apparatus that had existed from Truman until Trump on foreign policy. It had this shared left-hand, right-hand understanding that there would not be any sort of partisan disagreement on foreign policy grounds. We may disagree on whether it should be high taxes or low taxes, we may disagree on something like pro-life or pro-choice, or civil rights, but when it comes to what are we going to do about Venezuela, what are we going to do about Southeast Asia, there’s not going to be any sort of intense existential Right or Left distinction. Because that’s what keeps Washington unified, and part of that is because of the commercial interest around that. But when populism emerged and became powered by social media, it threatened the very bedrock of those institutions, because now domestic manufacturing concerns may actually impede the political will of these multilateral institutions that form the basis of the consensus architecture. This is what happened when they were negotiating the response to the threat of social media in the very beginning. I'll give an example. Ambassador Daniel Fried is one example of this. Now, I don’t know Ambassador Fried, I assume he’s a very nice person in his personal life. He has a certain grace with which he conducts diplomacy, but he was part of the architecture of the censorship industry’s development on this Russiagate issue in a way that I find to be profoundly disturbing. Ambassador Fried was a 40-year diplomat at the U.S. State Department. He’s on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy. In February 2017, he left the State Department in order to take his talents for coordinating government responses to sanctions. He was the sanctions coordinator for the Obama administration after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. After the Crimea referendum, he did the roadshow in Europe to get all the different NATO countries to pass what were for themselves painful sanctions on Russia over the Crimea annexation. A lot of European countries didn’t want to do these sanctions, because of the economic impact it would have on their own populations. But Ambassador Fried took his State Department and network clout to put pressure on Europe to do sanctions on Russia for purposes of this Crimea response. He then turned around after the 2016 election and took those same connections, those same power networks and organized all these disinformation conferences, these whole of society meetings and mobilizations. The same thing that he did on sanctions coordination, he did on censorship coordination. He was a part of this network that helped pressure and contort the European regulatory climate to passing new censorship laws. Like, for example, Germany’s NetzDG [Network Enforcement Act] passed in August 2017. Germany is the industrial powerhouse of Europe and when they passed NetzDG, it compelled Facebook and YouTube to adopt artificial intelligence censorship techniques in order to comply with $54 million fines for leaving various kinds of content on their platforms that violated this new German law. And so now, Facebook and YouTube had to adopt all this new AI that had an immediate impact on that AI being redirected inward in the U.S. context, and in the UK context to counteract Brexit support. Now, Ambassador Fried was talking openly about this at his own disinformation conferences with European regulators, with national security officials, and with extremely important and influential people. At the time they were saying, “Ambassador Fried, that sounds like a great idea, but it’s just not enough. The Russians are only one component of these populists. They’ve taken on a life of their own, and they seem to have their own independent interests.” Ambassador Fried is in the room telling them, “Listen, I understand, I understand. But in America, we can’t just go from zero to one, we have to boil the frog.” Speaker Two: As an old diplomat, the thing to do is to set up an informal mechanism, maybe formal, but start informally between the U.S., the EU key shareholders and bringing in the civil society. And then use that to have a conversation with the social media companies. Like we’ve got a lot of leverage, we can use it, and they will adjust, their culture is malleable. They will respond to the incentive structure that we set up if we do our job. Mr. Benz: If you do your thing in Europe, it will help the Trans-Atlantic Alliance merge towards a common set of norms and values with respect to social media speech. And in the creation of this counterintelligence infrastructure, it will naturally gravitate, as the Mueller investigation is ongoing, as pro-Trump groups are seen more and more as an arm of Russians themselves, it will be easier to simply consolidate those two concepts into one: Trump, Russia. If you simply create a censorship infrastructure for Russia, as Trump gets merged into Trump, Russia, the two become one and the same. And then suddenly, no one is crying tears if a suspected Russian propagandist who happens to be some 17-year-old high school kid in Wisconsin who has an opinion about the border wall, when they get taken down as part of a 10,000-person roundup of suspected Russians, no one is going to cry tears, because at least you’re aggressively dealing with a national security threat. So, they were aware of this. This is February 2017; this is right at the outset. We should be far past the spotter stage at this point. This transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Jan Jekielek - American Thought Leaders Previously, in part one of my interview with Mike Benz, he explained the existence of a “whole-of-society” censorship industry in the West. Benz has been tracking the rise of censorship for years as executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online and a former State Department diplomat. Now in part two, Benz explains how tools originally developed to promote regime change were deployed against Americans. “What you are doing in a regime-change operation is you are operationalizing huge masses of an indigenous or domestic population in order to create a ground-up overthrow of a sitting government. And in order to do that, you need to control the media infrastructure, you need to control the narratives that people believe. … What was new is that in 2016, this began coming home,” Benz says. Changes in America also corresponded with changes in the broader Western world, Benz says. “There became a whole new military doctrine—it’s not a new concept, [but] I think it was given a new name—called hybrid warfare. NATO declared a new doctrine called ‘from tanks to tweets.’” And a whole new lexicon emerged to describe the new censorship regime, Benz says, from “digital resilience” to “media literacy” to “moderation” and “intervention.” “Whoever can control the Department of Dirty Tricks is able to use it to remove all opposition,” Benz says. Missed part one? You can watch it here. https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/mike-benz-part-2-how-the-department-of-dirty-tricks-turned-on-americans-5032982 https://www.foundationforfreedomonline.com FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: So, a couple of quick thoughts. Number one, Russia essentially became a code word for Trump. The second thing, this was all being done in the name of protecting democracy, if I recall. This is how it’s all being explained. Mike Benz: Right. Democracy is a fascinating word, both historically and in the context of the development of the censorship industry. Obviously, the thing that makes democracy the underpinning of the American governance system is this idea that government exists to serve the people. It’s legitimized and it’s consent by the governed. That is, the government exists because the governed people consent to it, and it is their consensus that they want the government to do what it’s doing that way. That’s how we know that the government is serving us, rather than we are serving an overlord government. Democracy has been a rallying cry for the U.S. foreign policy establishment to use the Department of Dirty Tricks, if you will, for purposes of regime change and regime stabilization as a matter of foreign policy around the world, and as part of the management of the American world empire. By the way, I should say, as somebody who’s had a career in the foreign policy establishment, I do not have a problem with that normatively. There are reasonable opinions on both sides about the necessity of regime change or counterinsurgency in various regions. I don’t go there. My concern is over censorship and digital freedom and when the concept of using democracy as a pretext for regime change comes home and is used as part of a pretext for the regime change of a U.S. president on democracy grounds and using the same toolkit of the regime change context where control over media is absolutely essential. Because what you are doing in a regime change operation is you are operationalizing huge masses of an indigenous or domestic population in order to create a ground up overthrow of a sitting government. And to do that, you need to control the media infrastructure. You need to control the narratives that people believe, because you need them to believe that their government is evil or illegitimate or tyrannical, in order for them to overthrow that government. In that context, when there’s a democracy threat, it creates a predicate for controlling the media in that territory. There are various ways that the U.S. State Department and various assets can be deployed on the media side and in the foreign context. What was new is that in 2016, this began coming home. This foreign to domestic switcheroo was done in the media context through several mechanisms, by the creation and the government funding of these professional censorship groups that were essentially cutouts of the U.S. State Department, or the U.S. Defense Department, or DHS. The so-called threat to democracy from social media fueling populism was a common slogan by which all the different stakeholders in the foreign policy establishment could ban together to say, “There’s a common threat we all face, whether we’re Democrats associated with the National Democratic Institute or Republicans associated with foreign policy links like the International Republican Institute. We’re not threatened by liberalism or conservatism, because that’s a partisan thing.” “But if we’re commonly threatened by democracy, we can use that as our common rallying point for us all to pour those resources in together.” Though what happened was they needed to create this new definition of democracy to justify censoring in the name of democracy. Essentially how they did that was by defining democracy as not being a consensus of individuals, and reflected by how people vote, but rather by defining it as a consensus of institutions. That is, what institutions prefer. This is a conceptual sleight of hand that is extremely dirty if you think about it at any level of depth. And by the way, you‘ll see this in strange places the moment you start looking for it. You’ll see, even early on in 2017, 2018, you had military and intelligence and foreign policy folks writing op-eds that there need to be more guardrails on even who you can make eligible to become president. There should be a 15-person panel comprised of senior military and intelligence folks who vet a person before they can even go through the process of being nominated for president. It was this idea that democracy should not be left up to the masses of people. There should be guardrails that make sure that the national security and the foreign affairs wings of the foreign policy establishment can basically pick the pool of people that the masses can have a say on. That is, the institutions get the first cut, and then the masses get the remnants. This was the redefinition of what democracy means to the foreign policy establishment. The moment you understand that’s how they see things, you can see how they say that social media freedom is a threat to democracy. Because to them it’s not a democracy of what 10,000 people in Wisconsin think. It’s what Harvard and MIT and the Council of Foreign Relations and the Atlanta Council and NATO and the World Economic Forum, and the Department of Homeland Security—it’s what these institutions collectively prefer. And so, threats to the institutional consensus at the individual level are a threat to democracy. This was the predicate by which you had the national security state descend on social media. Mr. Jekielek: I can’t help but think that this all started happening during the Trump administration, which you eventually became part of. Mr. Benz: It did start a little bit before that. I would argue that the infrastructure for the foreign to domestic switcheroo technically started, if you were to pick a clean start point, I would describe it as being right after the Crimean annexation vote in early 2014. That was when the Obama administration’s State Department and Defense Department and the foreign policy establishment decided that internet free speech was a serious problem in a foreign context. That is, hearts and minds in an internet free speech context could decide to vote against American interests. Up until that point, internet freedom had always been something strongly backed by the U.S. government, because it was so instrumental in having low-cost regime change. You simply flood a zone with hashtags and Facebook groups and influencers that have a relationship with the U.S. State Department, and then you’re able to have an instant revolution like the Arab Spring. But what happened in 2014 is that backfired in some respects, and that created a whole new military doctrine. It’s not a new concept, but it was given a new name called hybrid warfare. NATO declared a new doctrine called “From Tanks to Tweets,” saying NATO is no longer about tanks in traditional warfare. It’s about political control over the covert NATO countries. And so, our new remit, and in fact right after the Brexit vote in June 2016, the very month after, in July 2016, at the Warsaw Conference, NATO essentially created an addendum to now engage in hybrid warfare as one of their core capacities. And it was these hybrid war centers that actually became the initial censorship industry professionals. For example, the Atlanta Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab was one of the four entities that DHS partnered with to censor your opinions about the 2020 election. They got their start in that interstitial period between 2014 and 2016, when they were doing early censorship work for NATO as part of the hybrid warfare doctrine. The problem was, in 2016, when Brexit and the Trump election happened, that infrastructure already had two or three years of prior development, and it simply moved westward to Britain and to the U.S. homeland. Now, the Trump administration was not aware of this. And I considered that to be my sacred duty during the Trump administration when I was at the White House. I was doing my morning pilgrimage through the various offices trying to tell people. I remember going over to the budget office and telling the budget folks, “We have to stop the government grants of all these different institutions that are censoring an in-process election. We pulled up the grant pages and everyone said, “Hey, there’s no grants for censorship here. What are you talking about?” I said, “No, look, they’re calling it media literacy and digital resilience.” You have to be able to understand censorspeak to know how they laundered all of this, because they know what they’re doing is dirty. They know that they can’t call it what it is. Part of the function of the academic underpinnings is what Stanford and MIT and Berkeley’s Data Lab does. It is to create a new dictionary of terms that can be used. It’s not censorship. First, it was content moderation. Now, they use a new term called intervention, this idea that we’re actually not censoring what you’re saying, we’re intervening to prevent you from hurting yourself with what you might say. Media literacy is a way of saying, “We’re not censoring you. We’re simply getting you to be literate about what kinds of media you have access to.” For example, if you read CNN” or The New York Times, you’re media literate. If you read, Breitbart or watch Fox News, you are media illiterate. They say, “As part of our media literacy programs, we’re going to help social media companies contextualize low information integrity media literacy threats,” like Tucker Carlson’s show having normal distribution access on Twitter. It’s all done through a laundering apparatus, which by the way is the bread and butter of how foreign policy operations work. When the CIA does an operation in Nicaragua, they don’t come out and say, “Hello, we’re a foreign intelligence service.” The laundering process is when there’s the use of front companies, there’s the use of creative terminology, and when there’s a whole branding and media effort. These are professionals doing a professional job with professional PR, and professional crisis communications. They’re simply doing domestically what they have been empowered since the 1940s to do abroad, except now it’s coming to Boston instead of Baghdad. Mr. Jekielek: As you said during the Trump administration, there was this powerful use of AI, which just hadn’t existed before, where you could stop speech in its tracks basically. Mr. Benz: Right. Technically, that AI was in its early stage of development during that 2014 to 2016 period, for a slightly different reason. In the run up to the Obama administration’s military interventions in Syria, there was a dramatic concern or media escalation of the concept of homegrown ISIS threats, the idea that ISIS was growing in popularity on Twitter and Facebook, and they were recruiting there. At the time, DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], began really pouring money into funding for the use of natural language processing, machine learning, artificial intelligence-powered censorship capacities, and repurposing things that were done in the advertising space. If you’re doing brand analysis, if you’re a high-end luxury brand and you want to know what people are saying about Dior handbags on Twitter, there existed for some time the capacity to essentially scrape public conversations through using keywords, through using mapping networks, and through aggregating big data in order to create network maps of who’s saying what about your brand, and then using that for purposes of ad targeting and attribution. DARPA basically took that commercial concept and said, “Hey, you know what? Let’s use this for counter-terrorism purposes and instead of amplifying or doing ad targeting, we’re going to use that to help do censorship of ISIS on Twitter and Facebook.” And so, universities started receiving a tremendous amount of military funding to have military grade censorship capacities to take out ISIS. What happened was, in 2016, you went straight from ISIS being the target, to MAGA being the target. And it wasn’t just MAGA, I don’t consider this to be a partisan thing. I don’t have empirical evidence that this was used against Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn or Left-wing populist groups, but I would be surprised if that was not the case. But the fact is, the AI story did start before 2016, but the chickens had not yet come home to roost on it. That is, it was still a part of the foreign policy toolkit, the things that we do abroad because it’s terrorism, and because it’s foreign policy. But we don’t do this to Americans because Americans have free speech, and Americans have constitutional protections, and Americans have due process. That social contract was irreversibly broken after the 2016 election. The task now is to create a new social contract that really begins with a reckoning of what has happened. Mr. Jekielek: I definitely want to talk about that, but the obvious thing to talk about is what was being done to prevent ISIS recruitment, which is presumably the purpose of what you’re describing. Basically, there are very real threats out there. We’re in this place, and this is incredibly disturbing now. You have significant disinformation operations coming out of communist China that are targeting Americans specifically, and it’s something that we track. These threats exist and they’ve existed before and there needs to be some way to counter them. And these tools were ostensibly created to deal with that in some way, so it almost feels like an intractable problem. Do we give up on all of that? Mr. Benz: This is why earlier in our conversation here, I said that I tried to be agnostic on that, because it is a very complicated issue. It wasn’t until 2016 that we even had to grapple with the issue of this being so intentionally directed inward. I actually don’t find it to be an ethical quandary, because I don’t consider this to be an edge case. There are edge cases at certain times when the distinction between foreign and domestic is blurred, especially in a globalized world with a totally free and open internet. If someone retweets you from Mexico, that’s not fundamentally different than someone retweeting you from Montana. But what was done in this case was so dirty, so out in the open, and so known at the time that it was a lie. I'll give you a great example. On January 6th, 2017, the Central Intelligence Agency produced their first piece of literature on Russian interference in the 2016 election. This set the stage for this inter-agency consensus that Russia had tilted the election in favor of Trump. Now, this was a highly touted finding at the time. It was all the clout, all the significance, all of the power of the white shoe, top of the food chain foreign intelligence service for the United States of America having an unambiguous, total agency consensus that Russia had interfered in the election with this so-called detailed 15-page memorandum, setting forth all the different ways Russia had done it. I read that report the day it came out. It was totally stunning in its complete absence of any sort of detail. All it had to corroborate all the flowery language and filler talk was an appendix at the very end, which said, RT, Russia Today, and Sputnik, the Russian radio channel, essentially had higher than expected engagement on Twitter and Facebook, and on their YouTube channels. When you compare their growth rates to growth rates at the BBC and other publicly funded national broadcasters of foreign governments, they had high levels of engagement. All the talk about the kinds of interference operations that 14 pages of the memo, 13 pages of the memo had referred to were completely divorced from what they actually put as their findings. It was not true. They didn’t have evidence the entire time. None of this was an edge case. None of this said, “We’ve got evidence that Russia had spent $10 billion on social media.” Even all that was alleged. All that was alleged was a hundred thousand dollars in Facebook ads. That’s less than a single middle class person’s salary in the United States of America. A hundred thousand dollars. Clint Watts, who is the DHS’s advisor on censorship for the 2020 election, gave keynote speeches for CISA [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency]. One of his censorship advocacy pitches was that if we don’t censor social media, people on social media will vote for the wrong president. He said that at a CISA disinformation conference in the fall of 2020. To use that as the predicate for this foreign to domestic switcheroo—I don’t think we need to go anywhere near that ethical quandary. Mr. Jekielek: The implications of having these systems that traditionally would target foreign threats turned inward domestically, means that the whole system has been upended. Is that what you’re saying here? Mr. Benz: What it means is that the foreign policy establishment has seized long armed jurisdiction over all things domestic. What really happens here is whoever can control the Department of Dirty Tricks is able to use it to remove all opposition on the political, social, and cultural side. This is why I come back to the conflict between the foreign policy establishment and populist political forces. Because when you really pierce through to the soul of the funding and the specific types of conferences where censorship thought leadership is done, or consensus building is manufactured, it really is in these trans-Atlantic foreign policy hubs where you’ve got representatives from the national security state, and then from the political and commercial stakeholders in the foreign policy establishment. What populist folks threatened to do as they began to be legitimized through social media in 2016, was to actually have their own domestic concerns addressed at the expense of foreign policy stakeholders. Domestic populists don’t have access to the Department of Dirty Tricks. There’s no domestic central intelligence agency, if you will. There’s no domestic equivalent, other than DHS, you might argue, to the State Department or to various kinds of diplomatic or defense or intelligence spheres. The domestic faction has things like interior, agriculture, labor, housing, and urban development. These are the nuts and bolts of what’s happening on your street corner. You don’t have access to tanks or to advanced logistics or to entire howitzers of media assets. Prior to 2016, the foreign policy establishment wasn’t particularly concerned with what the domestic populace thought about in their own neighborhoods. Before the manufacturing heartland turned into the Rust Belt, there was no real beef between the heartland and the foreign policy establishment when it came to what blue chip companies were doing in China or outsourcing of jobs or manufacturing. It wasn’t really until the 1990s that there became even the beginnings of a financial, a commercial and in some sense a cultural cleavage between the domestic populace and the foreign policy establishment. There was conflict in the 1990s politically on both the Left and the Right, with establishment versus base elements of the Republican and Democrat parties, that was effectively neutralized during the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, and the Obama administration. It came back with a vengeance on both sides of the Atlantic through Nigel Farage’s movement with Brexit and through the Trump movement; the idea of serving the forgotten person, bringing back manufacturing, closing up a border, and having national sovereignty. All of these things had a connected underside at every single level that was consolidating power back into domestic forces, and taking that power from what used to be the domain of foreign policy. What I’m trying to say here is you have a situation where the foreign policy establishment has cracked open that Department of Dirty Tricks. Now, they do care about what domestic populists say about what’s going on in their own neighborhood. They do care about the domestic drivers of that, because if domestic populists get into power, they will vote. If they have any success on any metric whatsoever, it will undermine the political will for the foreign policy side. We see this happening right now with the Freedom Caucus of the GOP. The crux of the speaker’s fight with Speaker McCarthy was Matt Gaetz and the Freedom Caucus folks holding out for days in heated negotiations to get this reduction in military spending, so that it could be repurposed for domestic purposes. The foreign policy establishment didn’t want that. The foreign policy wing of the Republican party didn’t want that. They had to fight to the bone to get that concession on reduced military spending. You can understand from that perspective why certain factions within the U.S. military establishment, the U.S. State Department, and intelligence folks wouldn’t want Matt Gaetz to have any success whatsoever. Because the more he succeeds, the more clout he has, the more pressure he can put on Kevin McCarthy, the less success the foreign policy establishment has. So, that’s a clarifying example. Mr. Jekielek: Since we’re jumping into this, explain to me what is the significance of the subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government, which is a product of what you just described. Mr. Benz: It is long overdue. It’s something I’ve been calling for from within the White House for several years. There’s a certain poetry to this weaponization on a federal government subcommittee that’s being housed within the House Judiciary Committee, and which some people are calling Church Committee 2.0. There’s certain poetry between that and the original Church Committee 1.0 in 1975. You had the development of a powerful and consolidated intelligence capacity in the U.S. government in World War II, and then consolidated through the 1947 National Security Act in 1947. And then, you had 30 years essentially of no brakes on that train. As it accrues more and more power, and you had this statutory grant of power get even more power through things like the NSC 10-2 [National Security Council Directive 10/2], which basically gave it all sorts of teeth. As more and more powers were given to the national security state, more and more abuses started happening to political dissidents domestically from entities that were only supposed to operate on foreign soil. You had situations in the 1960s when the CIA was doing battle with international communism. One of the things that came out was they were actually funding student groups on U.S. college campuses, operating domestically, running student newspapers, paying the National Student Association, and infiltrating college kids. And this was something that there was no oversight for. This capacity existed for 20 years, but there had never been any congressional investigation. There had never been any opening up the box to see all the dirt inside. In the analog sphere, the Church Committee, it’s a complicated topic. There was a lot that was left undone. There are fairly persuasive arguments that some elements of it were incomplete, or you might even argue a whitewash. But the fact is, there was essentially a two-year set of open hearings that were dramatic and powerful. They were so impactful that they actually helped bring Jimmy Carter to power. At the time, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the IRS, which were the four targets of the original Church Committee, were being weaponized against Left wing groups, because they were the ones challenging the foreign policy establishment. They are the ones who would primarily be anti-war protestors, and the anti-imperialists. And so, you had this FBI, CIA, NSA, and even IRS convergence on those groups. It engendered a tremendous amount of political ire in the political Left at the time. They voted Jimmy Carter into power, partially on the basis that Jimmy Carter was going to reign in the intelligence services. And in fact, Jimmy Carter did that. He laid off 33 per cent of the entire operations division of the CIA. The operations division is really the beating heart of our foreign influence capacity. Now, he ended up getting in trouble with the Iran hostage situation in 1979. And then, Ronald Reagan inherited this situation of intelligence still having this sort of dirty name from the Church Committee hearings, but he still wanted to have this powerful foreign capacity. A lot of that was privatized through cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy. We have no Church Committee equivalent for the digital age. In 1991, the world wide web came out. The internet was privatized, and you started to have the intelligence services, the diplomatic spheres, and the foreign policy establishment getting into the internet game. The abuses were really few and far between up until 2016. But we’ve now had many years of this Department of Dirty Tricks operating with no congressional transparency, with no one using subpoena power to pry open the agencies, and with nobody holding up the equivalent of the heart attack gun like Frank Church did with James Angleton during the Church Committee hearing. There has been no equivalent of, “We’re going to show the dirty laundry, not to discredit you, but actually to restore faith in you.” The idea behind the Church Committees was not to disband the FBI and the CIA and the NSA. It was to reckon with where the American people were. “You’re not going to get back our trust unless you come clean about what you’ve done, or at least a substantial portion of it.” This is a difficult thing, because by nature, these are clandestine service operations. And even when what they’re doing is not clandestine in terms of its operational jurisdiction, they’re still under the cloak of secrecy because of national security. Basically, what Congress said at the time is “Because we need you, we need to know your dirty secrets. The American people need you, because otherwise we can’t trust you going forward, so we need tough love, essentially. We need to embarrass you in order to believe in you again.” And it’s my contention that is needed now for the digital age, and that’s really the only way that trust can be restored. Mr. Jekielek: When you were speaking earlier, it sounded like a lot of people were not really listening to you. Has that changed at all? Mr. Benz: I would say so. I do think that some of it just became so self-evident over time, that you really didn’t have much choice. You can believe me or not, if I tell you the oxygen is running out of the room. You get to a point where the air is so thin that you can’t breathe anymore, and that is what’s happening now. But for Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter earlier last year, there were no breaks. Things were getting so bad so fast, and there were no outlets whatsoever. There were no shared internet platforms that had all institutions of society onboard. Even at the commercial level, you started having people who were not political, people who were just cultural commentators, sports figures, and people who didn’t do politics for a living started to lose their bank accounts. They started to not have access to apps like Airbnb or Uber because of their opinions on a public health epidemic. I think people are listening now because the political angle has merged with the social and cultural one in a way that they are now no longer distinct things, such that they are no longer their own fields, in that sense. It is part of how people go through their day, because what they say online could now jeopardize their entire livelihoods. Mr. Jekielek: As we finish up, is this your vision for how to fix things, to have a Church committee 2.0, and then this will solve the issues? Where do things need to go? Mr. Benz: It’s one component of a whole of society approach that has to be taken to internet freedom. Just as a whole of society approach was done on the censorship side, it’s a network attack and it requires a network defense. Strange bedfellows may need to bind together. I forget the quote, it may be from Ronald Reagan, who said during the heat of the Cold War that maybe the one thing that could unify humanity is a new threat from aliens or something that would get everyone together as a common humanity. There is an aspect through which people who believe in freedom are truly going to need to merge elements of government, private sector, civil society, and news media into a common effort to restore free and open internet using any and all assets available, even strange and creative ones that are not normally fit to such purpose. The Church committee 2.0 is absolutely vital and essential, even if only for symbolic purposes, to signal to people throughout civil society, throughout the private sector, and throughout other institutions that Congress is serious and public about this, and that they have your back. Washington is not all against you. Washington is not all on the side of censorship. You have the judiciary, the committee for rule of law who is on team freedom. That’s a very powerful signal, it emboldens people. It makes people take risks for freedom. The people who are afraid for their careers have husbands, wives, children, college funds, cocktail parties that they might lose, uncles who may not talk to them, and friends who might abandon them. It is a hard road to fight for freedom. There is no lobby for the American people. When people take an ideological stance for freedom and for little people, you are on your own in that. Every person who goes through that journey of fighting for that, experiences the isolation of that. To know that you’ve got a chairman like Jim Jordan, you’ve got respected, influential legislators who are going to have your back is vital to that. And I do think having that run as the Church Committee did as a multi-year thing, until we get to the bottom of it, will be a cleansing process. Mr. Jekielek: Given everything you’re describing here, there’s still a substantial portion of the American population who doesn’t see what you’re describing, or maybe doesn’t want to see what you’re describing, and is ready to accept the legacy media narratives on reality. How do we deal with that? Mr. Benz: The free and open internet was a rare instance of true information democracy and meritocracy in world history. Rather than losing hope that this monstrous, tyrannical system is all powerful and has seized control over things as basic as what you can say when you open your mouth, I would say take a minute to appreciate just how incredible it was that these freedoms opened up to the world. You could be some poor kid in Bangladesh who’s got a great idea and if you’ve got access to a free and open internet, you could end up becoming a YouTube influencer with 10 million followers and have a level playing field with institutions like The New York Times in an instant. That’s something that came out of nowhere, essentially, with the development of a free and open internet, and only recently began to be batted back on. What you start to see when you start fighting for this is, although it is a lonely road at times, you make a lot of friends along the way, and often from places that you wouldn’t expect. The process of being proud, and brave, and public in this fight is something that can actually cure the isolation and can cure the feelings of depression or helplessness that can come from simply accepting things the way they are, and feeling like you can’t change it. Mr. Jekielek: Michael Benz, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show. Mr. Benz: Thanks so much for having me. Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Michael Benz and me on this episode of, “American Thought Leaders.” I’m your host, Jan Jekielek.

“A speech like a slap in the face – in truth Alice Weidel hates our country,” headlines the “Focus”, the “Kölner Stadtanzeiger” even speaks of a “hate speech”, the blogger Maurice Conrad writes: “The AfD despises this Country, this democracy, this society and everything it stands for. And they’re not even ashamed to say it openly anymore.” There are a lot of reactions like this to Alice Weidel's speech in the budget debate in the Bundestag. The political-media complex and its cannons are rotating. What could be better than watching the speech yourself? Video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07ri4pzjUDw - Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin! Sehr geehrter Herr Bundeskanzler! Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Die beiden Vorredner haben eindrucksvoll gezeigt, dass es Ihnen an Ernsthaftigkeit für die wahren Belange und Probleme der Bürger in diesem Lande fehlt. Es brennt. Es brennt in Deutschland. Diese Regierung aus überforderter Fehlbesetzung und starrsinnigen Ideologen ist der Brandstifter. Die geschundenen Leistungsträger dieses Landes gehen auf die Straße. Bauern, Handwerker, Mittelständler, Gastwirte, Händler, Transportunternehmer. Sie protestieren weiter, weil sie nicht mehr können. Verschwiegen von den Medien. Drei Viertel der Deutschen stehen hinter den Mittelstandsprotesten. Drei Viertel wünschen sich ein Ende dieser Regierung. Sie ziehen eine Schneise der Verwüstung durch dieses Land. Aber statt zu korrigieren, setzen Sie sich an die Spitze einer beispiellosen – der Kinderbuchautor sitzt da, Frau Esken – Verleumdungskampagne, wie gerade hier eindrucksvoll geschildert gegen die Mittelstandsproteste und gegen die Oppositionskraft, auf die immer mehr Bürger ihre Hoffnungen setzen. Frei nach dem Motto: „Wird der Bürger unangenehm, bezeichne ihn als rechtsextrem.“ Ihre Hilfs-Stasi, Correctiv, eine der vielen Nichtregierungsorganisationen, die von Ihrer Regierung mit reichlich Steuergeld versorgt wird, hat Ihnen dafür die Vorlage geliefert mit unglaublichen Lügen, Verleumdung und übelster Nachrede. Und die Chefin von Correctiv lügt jetzt einfach vor sich hin, sie hätte das Wort „Deportation“ nie benutzt. So weit ist es schon gekommen. Steuerfinanzierte Denunziation gegen eine Konkurrenzpartei. Sie schämen sich nicht einmal. Sie schämen sich nicht einmal, das Demonstrationsrecht zu pervertieren. Ein Freiheitsrecht der Bürger gegenüber dem Staat und nicht umgekehrt. Statt den Menschen zuzuhören, die ihre Not in die Öffentlichkeit tragen, demonstrieren Sie selbst gegen die Opposition. Und Sie finden auch nichts dabei, wenn auf solchen Demos ganz offen Mordaufrufe gegen Oppositionspolitiker zur Schau gestellt werden. AfDler töten, steht dort, und Sie klatschen Beifall. Der Bundespräsident bezeichnet AfD-Wähler als Ratten und die FDP-Spitzenkandidatin AfD-Wähler als Schmeißfliegen. Schämen Sie sich! Schämen Sie sich in Grund und Boden! Mit Ihrer unsäglichen steuerfinanzierten Verleumdungs- und Rufmordkampagne spalten Sie dieses Land und nur, um sich an Ihre eigene Macht zu klammern. Die Reparatur der Reparatur eines missglückten und aufgeblähten Haushaltsentwurfs ist ein Dokument Ihrer Arroganz und Ihres Unvermögens. Sie reden vom Sparen, aber Sie bürden die Lasten allein den Bürgern auf. Die Stimmung bei den Unternehmen ist am Boden. Die Ampel ist das größte Standortrisiko für Deutschland. Mittelständische Unternehmen werfen reihenweise das Handtuch und ergreifen die Flucht. Die Liste der Firmen, die zigtausend Stellen streichen oder ins Ausland verlagern, wird täglich länger. Klangvolle Namen sind darauf von BASF, Bayer und Bosch über Continental, Mercedes und Miele bis SAP und ZF. Deindustrialisierungs-Minister Habeck, der bekanntlich Vaterlandsliebe stets zum Kotzen fand, fordert die Unternehmen nun zum Patriotismus auf, pleite zu gehen. Das ist das Konzept dieser Bundesregierung. Deutschland steckt tief in einer Rezession. Als einziges Industrieland schrumpft es. Dafür trägt weder Putin die Verantwortung noch die Welt, noch irgendeine herbeifantasierte Weltklimakatastrophe. Diese unfähige Regierung trägt als einzige die Verantwortung für das Desaster in unserem Land. Und zwar mit ihrer zerstörerischen Politik der künstlichen Energie, Verknappung und Energie, Verteuerung des unablässigen Drehens an Steuerschrauben, der Verbotspolitik, der Enteignung, der Geldverschwendung, während Sie den Leuten das Märchen vom reichen Land erzählen. Reich ist in Deutschland nur der überfütterte, übergriffige Staat, aber nicht der Steuerzahler. Hunderttausende Deutsche erhalten in diesen Tagen ihre Heizkostenabrechnung und wissen oft nicht, wie sie sie bezahlen sollen. Normalverdiener, Rentner, Familien, Mittelständler, Freiberufler müssen sich Jahr für Jahr mehr einschränken, um noch über die Runden zu kommen. Sie selbst aber denken gar nicht daran, sich einzuschränken. Sie gönnen sich neue Hubschrauber und Fuhrparks. Ihre Kabinettsmitglieder geben Unsummen für Friseure und Fotografen aus. Die Außenministerin fliegt mit großem Tross in peinlichen Missionen weltweit, während der Durchschnittsverdiener nicht weiß, was er sich überhaupt noch leisten kann. Und Sie halten an Ihrem Protzkanzleramt für fast sage und schreibe 800 Millionen Euro fest. Der gigantomanische Erweiterungsbau kostet allein fast so viel wie das jährliche Sonderopfer, was Sie den Bauern abverlangen wollen. Sie haben den Beamtenapparat in nur zwei Jahren um rund 11.500 Stellen aufgebläht. Schön für Ihre Günstlinge, schlecht für die Steuerzahler, denen der ganze Spaß 8 Milliarden Euro kostet. Wo andere Regierungen ihr internationales Engagement überdenken und zurückfahren, drängen Sie sich überall auf mit dem deutschen Steuergeld. Die eigenen Bauern bedrohen Sie in der Existenz, um eine knappe Milliarde zu sparen. Aber für unsinnige Agrarprojekte in der Welt geben Sie weiter hunderte Millionen Euro aus. Die vielzitierten Radwege in Peru sind nur eines von hunderten überflüssigen Entwicklungshilfevorhaben, die in der Summe den Steuerzahler 33 Milliarden Euro kosten. Für nichts, nur für Ihre NGO-Günstlinge. Sie verpulvern dieses Geld ohne Gegenleistung für Öko-Kühlschränke in Kolumbien, feministische Außenpolitik in Südafrika, für die Taliban in Afghanistan und für Hamas-Terroristen im Gaza. Selbst nach Indien gehen Milliarden, obwohl Indien zum Mond fliegt, während bei uns die Infrastruktur zerfällt, die Schulen vergammeln und die Schüler teilweise nicht mehr richtig lesen, schreiben und rechnen können. Gegen die Gesetze der Physik und der Logik treiben Sie das planwirtschaftliche Subventionsmonster Energiewende weiter voran. In der Energiepolitik ist Deutschland der Geisterfahrer der Welt. Die Kosten sprengen alle Dimensionen. Sie sind der Hauptgrund für die Haushaltskrise. Sie summieren sich auf fast 1 Billion Euro. Das ist eine Eins. Mit wie vielen Nullen, Herr Habeck, wissen Sie nicht. Das sind keine Investitionen in die Zukunft. Das ist die teuerste Zerstörung einer funktionierenden Infrastruktur, die die Welt je gesehen hat. Und Sie fluten das Land weiter mit illegalen Migranten. Jeder kann kommen. Keiner muss gehen. Sie bürgern im Akkord neue Wähler ein, verschaffen illegal über das Chancen-Aufenthaltsrecht eine Scheinlegalität. Ihr Abschiebungsbeschleunigungsgesetz ist ein Abschiebungsverhinderungsgesetz. Wenn der Steuerzahler abgelehnten Asylbewerbern auch noch einen Anwalt bezahlen muss, um weiter gegen die überfällige Ausreise zu prozessieren. Mit dieser Politik treiben Sie die Kommunen in die Verzweiflung, sprengen die Sozialsysteme, verschärfen die Wohnungsnot und untergraben die innere Sicherheit. Aber vor allem, Sie nehmen den Deutschen ihre Heimat. Jetzt als Taschenbuch für nur 11,99 € Über 1000 Frauen werden jedes Jahr Opfer sexueller Gewalt durch Zuwanderer. 7000 seit dem Willkommensputsch der CDU-Kanzlerin von 2015. Aber darüber schweigen Sie, darüber schweigen auch die Medien. Unter dem Schwindeletikett Bürgergeld haben Sie einen Migrationsmagneten geschaffen, dessen Kosten längst außer Kontrolle sind. Das nächste Haushaltsloch steht schon vor der Tür. Sie lassen die Bürger im Stich, wo der Staat dringend gebraucht würde. Wo bleibt die Entschädigung an die vielen Impfgeschädigten Ihrer Covid-Impfung? Wo bleibt die eigentlich? Wo bleibt überhaupt die Aufarbeitung dieses ganzen Desasters? Wieder und wieder habe ich hier aufgeführt, was nötig ist, um dieses Land auf Vordermann zu bringen. Noch einmal: Schließung und Kontrolle der Grenzen, Zurückweisung illegaler Einwanderer, Rückführung abgelehnter und krimineller Asylbewerber und jener, die kein Aufenthaltsrecht haben. Das ist die Durchsetzung von Recht und Gesetz. Nach Jahren der Herrschaft des Unrechts. Sie wollen Abschiebungen kriminalisieren! Das haben wir gesehen in Ihrer Kampagne. Stopp der Energiewende, Beschränkung der Staatsausgaben und natürlich Streichung des Bürgergelds für ausländische Staatsbürger, die nie in die Sozialkassen eingezahlt haben. Sach- statt Geldleistungen ist die Devise. Aber rationale Argumente erreichen Sie schon gar nicht mehr. Sie können Deutschland nicht gut regieren und Sie wollen es nicht. Sie richten es zugrunde. Ich sage Ihnen auch, warum! Weil Sie Ihr eigenes Land, weil Sie Deutschland hassen. Diese Regierung hasst Deutschland! Akzeptieren Sie wenigstens die Möglichkeit eines demokratischen Machtwechsels und machen Sie den Weg frei für Neuwahlen! Ich bedanke mich. https://reitschuster.de/post/weidel-diese-regierung-hasst-deutschland/

"I think this word vaccines will be banned from the medical vade mecum when the truth finally surfaces," "It [COVID] would have been over if we had not intervened with these mass vaccination campaigns," he declared. "Any intervention in your immune system where you don't understand what you're doing; this can only be qualified as stupidity." Source: https://twitter.com/ChildrensHD https://twitter.com/i/status/1653479445846474771 - https://twitter.com/GVDBossche

Mass vaccination and viral mutation — what’s their relationship? Geert Vanden Bossche, Ph.D., DVM, explains the mechanisms by which injecting in large numbers can lead to an increased variant evolution. He states, “You can never tame a pandemic if you don’t have herd immunity.” Dr. Brian Hooker invites some of the leading voices in science and medicine to break down the studies and weigh in on the controversies so the rest of us have an opportunity to understand the science that drives public health policy and medical progress. Source: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/doctors-and-scientists-with-brian-hooker-phd/mass-vaccination-viral-mutation-duplicate-show-page/ - Voice Fors Science and Solidarity: https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/ Geert Vanden Bossche: https://twitter.com/GVDBossche

In an unprecedented interview, Del Bigtree and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sit down with Russian naturopathic doctor, Katia Txi, to discuss the global vaccine debate, how it got to this critical point, and what they plan on doing about it. - The Vaccine "Placebo" Pyramid Scheme Vaccines do not get tested by comparing them to a true inert placebo group, they simply compare them to other vaccines and call that a "placebo". This isn't science, this is fraud. Especially when even the vaccines they compare them with have never even been tested using a placebo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbdOd7dzQj4 The Vaccine "Placebo" Pyramid Scheme - full lenght video The Highwire with Del Bigtree https://rumble.com/v1dlwtt-the-vaccine-placebo-pyramid-scheme-full-lenght-video-the-highwire-with-del-.html

This film takes an analytical and well documented look at the Mysterious Gulf War Syndrome. Department of Defense documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act expose the horrific underworld of the disposable army mentality and the government funded experimentation upon U.S. citizens conducted without their knowledge or consent. This film analyzes the following that people were exposed to during both Gulf Wars. Chemical & Biological Exposures Radioactive Poisoning Mind Control Projects Experimental Vaccines Gulf War Illness Depleted Uranium (DU) Beyond the disclosure of black-ops projects spanning the past 6 decades, "Beyond Treason" also addresses the complex subject of Gulf War Illness. It includes interviews with experts, both civilian and military, who say that the government is hiding the truth from the public and they can prove it. Source https://odysee.com/@juavimax:d/Beyond-Treason-Full-HD-2005:f

Documentary on the anthrax vaccine by Scott Miller 35,000 Soldiers Died from the Experimental Anthrax Vaccine – More Than Those Who Died in Combat in Afghanistan and Iraq Combined Vaccine Syndrome is a film produced by Oscar nominated filmmaker Scott Miller, and provides exclusive interviews with military personnel who have had experience with the controversial anthrax vaccine. Over 35,000 soldiers have died from the anthrax vaccine, according to a “RAC-GWVI Government Report” published in 2008. Compare that to how many soldiers have died in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which is 6753 at the time of the filming. The film starts out with a dramatized recreating of Lance Corporal Jared Schwartz, who refused to receive the anthrax vaccine. He had to face a military tribunal without legal counsel, and read a prepared statement. That statement can be found online, such as at the GulfWarVets.com website. http://web.archive.org/web/20171228110234/http://gulfwarvets.com/ The film also mentions how pharmaceutical companies have legal immunity from any injuries or deaths resulting from vaccines, and that the civilian population only has recourse to sue the federal government in a special Vaccine Court. However, military personnel are prohibited from suing in this court, which is part of the National Vaccine Compensation Program. Source: https://vimeo.com/215109690

“Absolutely everybody needs to read this book”: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ‘The Wuhan Cover-Up: And the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race’ is a newly-released account of the origins of COVID-19 and the surprising history of gain-of-function research which precedes it. Dr. Hooker and Zoey O’Toole are joined by special guest, Professor Francis A. Boyle, to expand on the contents of this well-documented chronology. Source: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/doctors-and-scientists-with-brian-hooker-phd/the-terrifying-bioweapons-arms-race-with-francis-boyle-ph-d/ - References: Chemical And Biological Warfare : America's Hidden Arsenal - Book By Seymour M. Hersh https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/chemical-and-biological-warfare-america-s-hidden-arsenal-9780261631502?shipto=US&curcode=USD&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA1MCrBhAoEiwAC2d64ezuBTaefBGGB0NWt8AFUXDtzLLfpqj6yObNjGlgGJFikV-uvpCM0xoCc9gQAvD_BwE Richard M. Nixon | The White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/richard-m-nixon/ Germs: Biological Weapons And America's Secret War https://www.amazon.com/Germs-Biological-Weapons-Americas-Secret/dp/0684871599 Destroying World Order: US Imperialism In The Middle East Before And After September 11 https://www.amazon.com/Destroying-World-Order-Imperialism-September/dp/1452884870 The Future Of International Law And American Foreign Policy https://experts.illinois.edu/en/publications/the-future-of-international-law-and-american-foreign-policy Anthrax War - IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1149590/

In Part 2 of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new book, ‘The Wuhan Cover-Up,’ readers learn about gain-of-function research and the emergence of the biosecurity agenda. Meryl Nass, MD — one of the book’s contributors — joins ‘Doctors & Scientists’ to provide her expertise on this fascinating subject. Source: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/doctors-and-scientists-with-brian-hooker-phd/gain-of-function-research-the-rise-of-the-biosecurity-era-duplicate-show-page/ - References: The Wuhan Cover-Up: And the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race (Children's Health Defense) | MIT Press Bookstore https://mitpressbookstore.mit.edu/book/9781510773981 Meryl Nass | Substack https://substack.com/@merylnass The Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race With Francis Boyle, Ph.D. https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/the-terrifying-bioweapons-arms-race-with-francis-boyle-phd/ The Anthrax Vaccine Program: An Analysis of the CDC's Recommendations for Vaccine Use https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447151/ Biological Warfare - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9708788/ Anthrax Vaccine. Model of a Response to the Biologic Warfare Threat - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10198799/ Testimony of Meryl Nass, MD - Senate HELP Committee, Subcommittee on Bioterrorism https://ahrp.org/testimony-of-meryl-nass-md-senate-help-committee-subcommittee-on-bioterrorism/ Physicians for Social Responsibility https://psr.org/about/#:~:text=PSR%20mobilizes%20physicians%20and%20health,local%2C%20federal%20and%20international%20levels. Biological Weapons Convention https://disarmament.unoda.org/biological-weapons/ Vollum Strain - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vollum_strain The WHO's Proposed Treaty Will Increase Man-Made Pandemics | Door To Freedom https://doortofreedom.org/2023/09/03/the-whos-proposed-treaty-will-increase-man-made-pandemics/ Moratorium on Gain-of-Function Research https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/moratorium-on-gain-of-function-research-36564 Rare Look at How Texas Biomed Keeps Its Highest Containment Labs Safe https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2023/04/03/rare-look-at-how-texas-biomed-keeps-its-highest-containment-labs-safe/ Environmental Health & Safety | Biohazardous Incident Reporting https://www.ehs.wvu.edu/biosafety/biohazardous-incident-reporting#:~:text=Biohazard%20Incidents%20and%20Exposures,outside%20of%20a%20biosafety%20cabinet Inside a High-Security Virus Lab - NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/10/15/science/virus-lab.html SARS Escaped Beijing Lab Twice https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/ Wuhan Institute of Virology http://english.whiov.cas.cn/ Wang Yanyi - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Yanyi S.421 - Defund the Wuhan Institute of Virology Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/421?s=1&r=14

“We have seen … the transformation of the quintessential liberal democratic state into the national security state, then the administrative state, then the surveillance state, and now the biosecurity state. At each of these developments, you have an expansion of state power, and the spread of the state tentacles into increasingly intimate areas of public life and individual life,” says Ramesh Thakur. Mr. Thakur is a former United Nations assistant secretary-general and professor emeritus of public policy at The Australian National University. Now he is a Brownstone Institute senior scholar. How has science become dogma? How do we rebuild what was broken these last few years? American Thought Leaders - Jan Jekielek Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/the-new-biosecurity-state-former-un-top-official-ramesh-thakur-on-how-science-became-dogma-5547429 - FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Ramesh Thakur, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Ramesh Thakur: It's a pleasure to be here. Mr. Jekielek: You wrote the book, Our Enemy, the Government, provocatively titled. You said if 10 percent of medical professionals rejected seemingly wrong directives coming from on high, that the whole structure of compliance would have collapsed. Please explain why you believe that. Mr. Thakur: Sure. One of the features of current society is the rise of the professional associations and the regulatory colleges that regulate the people practicing in their professions; accountants, lawyers, and doctors. During the Covid era, these regulatory bodies were very useful for the state and were instrumentalized to ensure compliance. Any doctor who publicly questioned what was being demanded by the public health authorities and the colleges could be disciplined. Now, in any profession, as a rough and ready calculation, a 10 percent threshold of dissent is very critical. Because once you get to that level, they cannot function if they cancel a full 10 percent, and they also cannot get away by saying, "This is a very tiny minority view." Think of the famous or infamous 97 percent consensus and the settled science on climate emergency. If you don't get people speaking up, that illusion can be sustained almost indefinitely. But if 10 percent of the scientists start saying, "Wait a minute. We don't actually agree with that. We have these questions." Then the public attention shifts to, "What is it they are saying? They're fully credentialed as well." If the doctors and specialists had been able to speak out, and if that many of them did, they couldn't cancel them all and they couldn't get away by insisting that only the cranks and the nutters and the tin foil hatters were the dissidents. That's where I picked that up. Now, it may be not 10 percent, maybe it’s 15 percent, we won't know. But 10 percent is a pretty significant number. The reason they got away with that is the censorship and shadow-banning and suppression. That's where the censorship industrial complex comes in, because the doctors who were dissenting didn't know how many others were speaking out. Then it required much more courage for any individual doctor to put his or her head above the parapet. That's the argument. Mr. Jekielek: This speaks to how powerful the perception of perceived consensus really is. It is a consensus where most people believe in a certain correct view. The true power of the disinformation industrial complex is its ability to shape that perceived consensus both through censorship and propaganda. Mr. Thakur: The reason for that is that throughout this period, they were promulgating and relying on the authority of following the science. Therefore, they needed that illusion of more or less clear consensus amongst the scientists. But if in fact, scientists and some of the leading credential scientists were dissenting, then that makes it different. Going back to the Great Barrington Declaration, these are senior, well-established epidemiologists from Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford, world-leading figures. To describe them as fringe epidemiologists was important in order to destroy their credentials and to say, "These are nutters there on the fringe. They don't count really. We've got everyone else agreeing with it." The silence from everyone else was projected as consent in the profession, but they never actually surveyed that. That goes back to the same phenomenon. Mr. Jekielek: With the Great Barrington Declaration, I don't know if it hit the 10 percent threshold, but it was a significant group of people that signed on and said, "No." But because of this censorship machine, those voices were not heard. Mr. Thakur: Yes and no. They were not allowed to be heard, and the shadow-banning was very effective, including with Jay Bhattacharya himself. But it's interesting how many people kept referencing that and saying, “You've got 60,000 health professionals and doctors who have signed onto that, as well as general citizens. They surely can't all be wrong.” I was an early signatory, but obviously, I wasn't in the medical health profession category. They did succeed in limiting their spread and disseminating their influence, but I think the number of signatories was actually important for validating a lot of criticism and dissent. Mr. Jekielek: So, it wasn't in vain. Mr. Thakur: No, absolutely not. I would like to do a Google search month by month from when it came out and see just how many times it was actually referenced. Of course, you can only do that when they stop shadow-banning and stop suppressing the search engine. Mr. Jekielek: Let's talk about your background because you said you were not a medical professional, but you were a very senior figure at the United Nations. You do have a very interesting past and a very interesting vantage point on all of this. Please tell us about that. Mr. Thakur: That's an interesting question. I was involved in this topic tangentially in a series of different contexts. First of all, as a shorthand, my major professional background is being a specialist on global governance. I co-wrote a book, the major book on global governance, with Tom Weiss from the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, called, Global Governance and the UN: An Unfinished Journey, which was about the role of the United Nations at the hub or center of global governance. One of the chapters was actually on health and pandemics, including a substantial section on the WHO. So, that’s one aspect. At the United Nations University where I was the senior vice rector, we operated a globally-dispersed faculty system. Think of a regular university, but the faculties are located in different countries around the world in different continents. We established and created some new ones. One of those was an institute on global health, which we located in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. As part of that effort, we looked into this topic and how the UN University could connect the need in terms of capacity building in many developing countries with the expertise that is available mostly in the advanced industrial economies, and which subjects do we look at. That's the second aspect in which I was interested. The third one was, when I was still in the UN system and more intensely after I left, I was involved in the effort led by a small group of people in Canada under the sponsorship and an encouragement of former Prime Minister Paul Martin, who with Larry Summers, the Treasury secretary here in the States, had been responsible for creating the Finance Ministers G20 after the financial crisis in 1997. When he was Prime Minister, his experience indicated that the intimacy and personal relationship between the finance ministers was very important in getting agreement amongst them on what needed to be done. Once they agreed and had a vision and a strategy, they could then use their authority and office as minister to try and overcome bureaucratic and institutional resistance within their individual systems. He asked, "What if we could do this at the leaders level? Would it be possible to get together the leaders of some of the most systemically important countries, put them together for a day or two in an intimate setting, just a small number of 14 or 15, and then get agreement amongst them on the most effective way to break the deadlocks and impasse within their own systems and get global agreements. These would then be the major topics that we need to look at, or that these leaders would need to look at. As part of that, what would be a crisis, in which area, that might trigger the need for such an elevation from the finance ministers to the heads of government and the heads of state?" The topics we looked at were nuclear weapons use, weapons of mass destruction [WMD] terrorism, and financial crisis, which is the one that actually triggered in 2008. Pandemics was another one. We actually looked at pandemics as a potential trigger to elevating that grouping today. From all these areas, I was familiar with pandemics as a global governance issue. Through that, I became familiar with the national pandemic preparedness plans. Because one of the things we kept saying in the UN system, and they kept saying it even after I had left, was that, “It's a matter of when, rather than whether. We will have a pandemic sooner or later. When it strikes, we will not be able to respond to it, unless we have prepared in advance how to identify, how to coordinate, and what we need to do.” That was summarized quite succinctly in a report in September 2019, only shortly before we had a pandemic declared by the WHO. One of the striking conclusions in that report was what they called NPIs, non-pharmaceutical interventions; lockdowns, travel restrictions, social distancing, closing businesses and making people stay at home. NPIs are not recommended. It was very clear that they don't work. They cause harm, and they're disruptive to society and to the economy. People may resent it and resist it, and the resistance is fairly widespread. The authority of the government might collapse. At best, if you need to enhance your hospital capacity or your ICU capacity, you may consider these measures for a very short limited term like one week or two weeks- Mr. Jekielek: To stop the spread. Mr. Thakur: To stop the spread and ramp up your capacity. But the longer you leave an NPI in place, the more damage you cause through that process and the more you risk a return of the problem later on, so don't do it. When the pandemic was declared in early 2020 and they went through these measures, I was puzzled. I wanted to look at why they had done it. Was there a new science? Science doesn't advance quite like that. It takes time to develop and get consensus on that. Was there significant new data that contradicted the earlier advice? We had some data that was important in the way it was used by the medical authorities, but that had come from Wuhan in China. With all due respect, we needed to cross-check some of that data because where it was coming from was not the most reliable source. Mr. Jekielek: To say it nicely. Mr. Thakur: To say it nicely. With the UN training, I didn't accept that we should have reacted in quite that panic mode with the drastic measures without first seeing, "Was it justified?" I had retired from the university position by then, I had not accepted any other position. As part of the retirement, I had also refused to accept new assignments, whether it was writing or reviewing manuscripts. I had the time, and it also meant I had the freedom. They could not cancel me, and they could not sack me because I was already retired. The third element that was important was because of my background, I had some platforms for disseminating my views and some research skills for matching data and theory to policy. I used my access to some publications to start asking questions and essentially saying, "Why are we doing this? Have we factored in the long-term harm that we can predict is going to be caused by these measures? Is this crisis really as bad as they're claiming? Where is the evidence for that?" In particular, people forget that we actually had as close to an actual experiment as you could get with the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Because when the pandemic broke out and it arrived from Hong Kong in Yokohama port in Japan, you had these ideal conditions for the spread of an infectious disease; elderly clientele existing in close quarters. One person gets infected and before you know it, you have a crisis. How many others have they interacted with? Yet, at the end of that, only a small proportion were infected and an even smaller proportion died from it. Then later on, you also have the American warship, the Eisenhower, and the French warship, the Charles de Gaulle. Now, you have the opposite end of the spectrum. You have young, healthy, fit, active duty soldiers, and you can see that the disease was not all that serious for them. There were claims this was a once-in-a-century emergency, and that this was the worst thing we've had since the Spanish flu, and that it's comparable to Spanish flu. Not many people may realize that about one third of the total fatalities of Spanish flu were amongst Indians. This is something that I was familiar with, and it just didn't make sense. The third element that was very striking about Covid from the very start was the exceptionally steep age gradient. In the Western countries, typically the mortality with Covid is either at or even above the average life expectancy. You look at that and you go back to the Great Barrington Declaration where they made that point that you're looking at a thousandfold difference between the elderly and the young. Then later on, we get confirmation that it's not just about the age, but also the existence of comorbidities. If you have underlying serious health conditions, then you're more vulnerable. If you are a healthy person, even at age-70 with not a single underlying health condition, you are very unlikely to die even if infected. The gravity did not measure up. Why are these extreme measures and why not just factor in the consequences? Have you done your quality assessment, the quality-adjusted life years and the cost-benefit analysis? Mr. Jekielek: And the intervention of blowing up the world economy. Mr. Thakur: It was. Mr. Jekielek: It's a significant intervention for what you're describing. Mr. Thakur: Including the interruptions to the childhood immunization programs around the world. People just overlooked the damage this was going to cause in the developing world, which is the majority of the world community and that was my major interest. I found it very shocking the extent to which we just ignored the damage we were going to cause that could be predicted. It was predicted by key parts of the UN system like UNICEF, the World Food Program, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and even by the IMF and the World Bank. They were saying, "This is going to cause immense damage." Regarding the education losses, we have a 375 million pandemic generation of children who've had schooling interrupted for two or three years, and that's just in India. This is not a global figure. The consequences were there and they were predicted by key parts of the UN system. It wasn't just fringe bodies saying this, it was the main authorities. Mr. Jekielek: You have some absolutely brilliant thoughts on the compliance, and why there wasn't this 10 percent resistance in different fields. Let's jump into that. Mr. Thakur: Sure. In June of 2020, one of the two main national Argentinian papers did a long interview with me, a full-page Sunday feature with a 3,000-word article. One of the questions was, "What has surprised you most with the pandemic so far?" My answer was, "I've been surprised at how easily the advanced Western democracies with universal literacy ended up complying with the most serious assault on civil liberties and political freedoms and human rights in our history." Why is it that people comply so easily? One thing we covered earlier was the censorship and the unawareness of the extent to which the professionals were actually dissenting, but were not allowed to say it and could not share their dissent with each other. But the other element is that we have seen two parallel developments. One is the transformation of the quintessential liberal democratic state into the national security state, then the administrative state, then the surveillance state, and now the biosecurity state. At each level of these developments, you have an expansion of state power and the spread of the state tentacles into increasingly intimate areas of public life and individual life. They're able to subvert the will of the legislature as the body that makes laws by delegating more and more powers to the experts and to the bureaucrats. In a sense, the expert class has combined that old American definition of tyranny and started exercising legislative, executive, and even judicial or semi-judicial tyranny. Think of some of the very recent court cases in the United States where the court has started to strike back at overreach and abuse by parts of the bureaucracy. There is that element, but equally, there is a change in values, a shift in emphasis from individual rights to collective rights, and overemphasis, in my view, on safetyism and the demands by people on their governments to keep them safe, and to make it impossible for others to hurt your feelings, because feeling hurt is from microaggressions. Then you end up with a situation where there are demands to change your sex or gender by simply declaring that you feel like a woman and therefore you are a woman. Then you're not just allowed, but you can demand that everyone else calls you by your new name and refers to you by the new pronoun. If they are misgendering you, laws will be passed and enforced and you can be punished either financially or even with jail. There is this whole transformation of the very basis of society, the core values and shared ideological frameworks that constitute a community, and then the use of state power to enforce that. This has been done by a minority, but an active minority that worked through the classroom at school and university to change the nature of education from education to indoctrination, to reduce thought diversity, to enforce intellectual conformity, and to progressively punish and silence and delegitimize dissenting voices. The very nature of universities has been subverted, not just changed, because this is where critical inquiry should flourish and questions should be asked and you should be able to have a healthy, vigorous debate among students, and between students and professors. Instead, we've gone the other way. That creates an environment that is much more permissive to changing reality by law, whether it accords with the objective reality or not. It allows for enforcing through law the new normal with regard to beliefs and value systems and social practices, and elevating the collective over the individual, which is a fundamental basis for breaching human rights, which in the Western tradition, have been individual-centric. They say, "We will put all of you under house arrest even though you have committed no crime and you are healthy, because we fear that what is happening in Wuhan has the potential to kill us all. To keep me safe, I will demand that you must be vaccinated." Then you say, “Think it through. If the vaccines work, it's protecting you. If you are vaccinated, it doesn't matter whether I am or not." They reply, “That idea itself, I find offensive. You're being very selfish and you have no right to bodily integrity. To protect me and the rest of us, you must be vaccinated." It was a long gestation and spread through the institutions. Now, in the public sector, in Congress, in parliamentary systems, in the executive, in the corporate sector, in the sporting bodies, and in the cultural elite, the professional and managerial class is dominated by people with very similar views. The professional perspectives used to be different. Journalists would be critical of governments and work on the premise that all governments lie, that's how they operate. Instead, you have a shared world view and cooperation without any need for coercion and compulsion that promotes these values and these beliefs, and delegitimizing anyone who disagrees as a deplorable, and one of the great unwashed. Without that, it would have been much more difficult to succeed with the coercion led by governments through the censorship industrial complex. That is my effort to solve this particular puzzle as to why people who should have been much more critical and professions that should have been much more critical, in fact, went along with the compliance. It was seen as the right thing to do and the moral thing to do. Therefore, if you resisted, you were a nutter, you were a fringe person, you were evil, you were immoral, and it was right to silence you and to punish you. Mr. Jekielek: And reality be damned. Mr. Thakur: Absolutely. Mr. Jekielek: You're talking about this ascendant woke. There's different names like critical social justice and woke ideology. There's this idea that reality is constructed through language. Mr. Thakur: Absolutely. Mr. Jekielek: Some of this minority actually believes this, and some are opportunistic, obviously. Mr. Thakur: Again, they exploited the basic human instinct to be decent, to be tolerant, to accept people for who they are. That changed at some stage and through some processes that the behavioral scientists will have to look at. It changed into demands for compulsion and coercion. That's where the danger came in and that's also what happened in this regard too. Mr. Jekielek: This is going to transform from a health question to a moral question. Mr. Thakur: That was very important. The first major research along those lines was strangely enough from my old university in New Zealand, the University of Otago. They studied and they found that the strongest motivation was that they were seeing it not as a health issue, but as a moral issue. Some people said, “You are a part of society, you are part of this community. It is your moral duty to help the community survive.” It got translated in short form into, "Don't be a granny killer." It was this idea that we must put on a mask because otherwise, everyone else feels unsafe, and that's not right. They said, “It's just a small price to pay.” We saw that argument repeatedly, "It's just a minor inconvenience, and only for a short time. What's your problem? Don't be so selfish." These elements were very important to that. I actually say in the book that at some stage in fact, the moralization was transformed into a deeper sacralization, which meant you couldn't even question it. It was sacrilegious to question it, it was heresy to question it, and the new priesthood enforcing this heresy was the public health establishment. Mr. Jekielek: It does have a religious quality to it. Mr. Thakur: Absolutely. I am not religious myself, and I haven't delved deeply into it, but I suspect the decline of faith and religious practice may be an important background factor also. As human beings, we need that core fundamental belief and value system that constitutes a community of shared beliefs and values. Religion has been the essential underpinning of society and community to get to that stage. If you start assaulting and dismantling religion, that need can only be satisfied by something equivalent. Certainly, you can make the case that something like climate activism, in many respects, seems to behave like a cult. The same thing happened with this as well. It becomes a set of beliefs that are beyond question, and self-evidently true. If you question it, it's not because you're trying to find out genuinely, it's because you're evil, you are not worth listening to. In fact, we will silence you, and if necessary imprison you. It's hard to explain that other than in terms of a religious fervor. Yes, that is a valid argument along those lines. Mr. Jekielek: I recently signed on to the Westminster Declaration, which declares free speech to be a virtue. I noticed that Professor Richard Dawkins was also a signatory. I always imagined him to be a brilliant scientist, but I never liked his very anti-religion posture. Faith is very important in people's lives. A Christian publication was saying, "Even Richard Dawkins is not as negative to Christianity anymore, because it could be replaced by something worse." It made me wonder about precisely these sorts of questions that you were just describing. Mr. Thakur: Religion has performed incredibly positive roles in binding peoples together, in regulating conduct in the human dimension through social mores, which have the origins in a lot of religious beliefs as well. But at the same time, some of our most destructive conflicts have been between different religions as well. This duality is part of human reality in so many different dimensions. But in our focus on the destructive aspects, we have overlooked the unifying positive sustaining values of religion through communities, and it forms an important social function. I might not be religious myself, but I have never had any difficulty accepting people with strong religious beliefs and value systems and allowing them to practice that in the way they want to. In fact, pretty much all the rest of my family is deeply religious. I certainly would never knowingly or deliberately do anything to offend the religious sensibilities of any community. That's fine, and I acknowledge its positive role. Mr. Jekielek: An anecdotal observation that has been verified by people looking at this, is that people with deep faith seem to be more resilient to this facade of consensus and pressure to conform. Have you observed that? Mr. Thakur: I think that's true. But in addition, people with deep religious convictions tend to project a greater element of calmness and serenity. Think about it. Think of the Dalai Lama in terms of how he comes across with things, which is important. When we have times of trouble, we do look to authority figures. If we have a medical problem, we might look to the doctor and the family. One of the great losses is the loss of the family general practitioner doctor. This all has become commercialized, even the medical profession. In terms of having a troubled soul or conscience, we do, as an instinct, want to be able to approach the priest or someone equivalent to wrestle through these difficult questions, all the way to the big questions of the meaning of life and death. If that is broken, what else can take its place? How do you prevent your young people, your own children, or the young people in society generally, how do you prevent them from being seduced by the darker elements as substitutes for religion as a positive element? Mr. Jekielek: John McWhorter wrote his whole book explaining critical race theory as a religion. Wokeism seems to be one of these substitutes, exactly what you're talking about. Mr. Thakur: It seems like that, but I'm too much of a different generation. Even though I've lived in the West now for the two-thirds of my life, it's still very hard for me to get obsessed over essentially first world problems. Being confronted by the literal violence of words in a classroom is a bit of a luxury belief when I've professionally studied mass atrocities in so many countries and visited places which are symbols and abiding by them. Now, you're from Poland. I went to the place where Willy Brandt spontaneously went down on his knees to apologize on behalf of Germany for the Holocaust and what was done to the Polish Jews. It's a very simple, but very touching memorial. I happened to go shortly after that to the Nanjing Massacre Memorial, and I wrote an article for the Japan Times saying, "How much foreign policy and internal soul-cleansing benefit would Japan get if a Japanese prime minister were to do something similar? Go to Nanjing.” The thing about the Willy Brandt gesture was the authenticity it communicated. You can see that in the images, you could pretty much see it on his face, the dawning realization of the enormity of what they had done. If a Japanese prime minister could do something similar, it would be important internally for the Japanese society, and it would be enormously beneficial in terms of making it possible to repair relations, not just with China, but also with South Korea in terms of what they had done. Again, these are important elements that go back to the shared humanity. Obviously, that's a very important underpinning principle for me. I want to be able to make it possible to improve lives and enable the realization of the full potential of every human being. You should not be denied that opportunity because of your race, because of your gender, because of your nationality, or because you are poor. One of the great things we have done in Western society is the democratization of access to the full potential of living as a human being. Mr. Jekielek: Another episode we could do together is on how a whole lot of people seem to be hell-bent on stopping that now. Mr. Thakur: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: Some people have argued this whole pandemic response could be a part of that. Mr. Thakur: They take for granted something that is actually quite exceptional in human history, the present position they find themselves in. As a society, we have never been wealthier, better educated, more prosperous, or living longer. A lot of these benefits came through the scientific progress and invention of different aspects that freed us from being tied to the land, which then freed us from servitude to the landlord and the feudal lord. Education was a pathway to escape all sorts of problems. The bicycle and the car enabled women to be freed from servitude in the home. There has been tremendous progress, and we tend to overlook the progress made. We obsess about having such an evil past and we must keep apologizing for the present. Therefore, the only future we can look to is one of managed decline, rather than continued expansion of stable, prosperous societies as free human beings. Mr. Jekielek: And encouraging human flourishing, I love that term. We're going to have to finish up fairly soon, but I want to catch a couple of things here. This theme has come up a few times, you like to use a term, Science TM. What's the difference between Science TM and science? Mr. Thakur: Science TM is that cult-like, semi-religious elevation of putting something on a pedestal and beyond question, turning it into the equivalent of an altar and you're not allowed to question it. It has its own priesthood and its clarity and its heretics, and heresy is punishable. Science without the capital S and without TM is what has made human progress possible. Obviously, again, with that duality, it comes with some risks and some dangers. No better example than nuclear energy. If you're worried about intermittency in your energy security and long-term stability, we have sufficient confidence in the safety features of nuclear reactors. Now, nuclear power is actually a very good long-term solution in terms of reliable assured energy. It is used in nuclear medicine. I've had that used in a life-saving situation in my own country, and many thousands if not millions of people have had that as well. But obviously, both on the accidental side and on the weapons side, there are risks. Science is part of that science and technology that can be harnessed to make lives better. They have given us wonderful connectivity and communications, but there are dangers in that as well. But to elevate that beyond criticism destroys the essence of science. You must be able and free to question. Any scientific doctrine that cannot be questioned changes from science to dogma, so we are back to religion again. That's what happens with the Science TM. When Dr. Anthony Fauci says, "By attacking me, they're attacking science," he's falling into that trap of elevating science with lowercase s, into science with the title cap and TM. That's where things started to go wrong as well. He did become too dogmatic. Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned that as human beings, we look to authority, and one of those authorities, of course, is the doctor. Your doctor is supposed to help you with your health and chart your path. Through this pandemic, many of us asked, "Can we really trust our doctors? How are they making their decisions? Are they really upholding the Hippocratic Oath? Do they even understand what informed consent would be for these genetic vaccines?" There's a whole lot of people out there that are wondering to themselves, "Who do I trust for my health even?" There are groups of ethical doctors that have come out, and there are people relying on their own research. I'm remembering the demonization of do-your-own research. Mr. Thakur: Absolutely, yes. Mr. Jekielek: You said something very pointed about looking for a doctor. What should you do? Mr. Thakur: On the demonization part, if I'm healthy and I have committed no crime, why would I agree to you putting me under house arrest, you being the government? I started with that, and then it went on to the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship and the sanctity of the Hippocratic Oath, "First, do no harm, or make sure you don't do more harm than good by your intervention." I will stick to Australia because I know this country much better than the U.S., but we have one the best medical systems. We train our doctors to a very high standard, which is a world standard. I have my GP as a family GP. That doctor has the skills and the training and the qualifications that are amongst the best in the world. That doctor knows my history, my family's case history, and knows me individually. I have a certain level of confidence and trust in my doctor. No other person can substitute for that anywhere near the level of confidence required. It is not the role of the government to insert itself between the doctor and the patient, but that is what we have seen through this. We have also seen, and we have now documented in several countries, a fairly substantial decline of public confidence and trust in pretty much all the major institutions, including the scientists, including doctors, including the media, and including government. Part of that is because they stopped doctors from giving their best assessment and prescribing the best treatment for their patient. Part of that loss of trust then is if I have a problem, I go to the doctor, and if it's a major emergency like Covid when they're under instructions, I would want my first question to be, "Are you going to be able to give me your individual honest opinion based on your assessment of my symptoms, my case history, and your knowledge of the treatment options? Are you in a position where you can actually deal with me as an individual, free of interference from your college or the government? If not, I would prefer to go to another doctor." Because they were not allowed to say what they wanted to say. In some cases, because some of the patients actually roped them in and said, "My doctor said masks don't work, or vaccines don't work," and the doctor gets into trouble. That contributed to the loss of trust and confidence in the system. In these conditions, it is wise to ask the doctor upfront, "Are you going to be able to give me an honest opinion or not?" Just as if I go to a doctor with a symptom and the doctor reacts with panic, "My God, I've never seen something like this. You might be dead in the next hour." It's time to look for another doctor. It's the job of the doctor to reassure you. He should be able to say, "It is serious. I don't want to understate it, but these are the risks. These are the options. This is what I would recommend. If you have doubts or further questions, it might be good if you consult a second opinion or a third opinion.” That has always been the norm. A second opinion has always been good. Yet, on some of the most important issues, and suddenly with Covid, you're not even allowed to go and ask for a second opinion, and you're not allowed to express a second opinion. Long-term, those have been very damaging to public confidence and trust. Without that element of trust in the public institutions, again, you cannot sustain a viable society. We need to start rebuilding. That's why I like the theme of the conference this year, rebuilding freedoms. But we also need to rebuild trust and confidence in institutions that we now believe serve our interests and not the interests of the professional class or the people with power and money. Mr. Jekielek: For someone who has written the book, Our Enemy, the Government, you're a lot more pro-government than I expected. Mr. Thakur: Back to the duality, Jan. A government is both the solution and the problem. Think of human rights. The biggest protector of human rights is the government machinery through the legislative framework, through setting up human rights bodies to monitor and check abuses wherever they might come from. But the institution with the greatest potential to threaten human rights is the government. We've talked about China. What is the biggest threat to human rights in China? It's the state and it's the government. But in terms of other human rights like education and poverty and anti-discrimination, you still need the legislative framework. There are not that many absolutes in life. It becomes important to recognize the boundaries and promote the good parts and mute the bad parts. Mr. Jekielek: The U.S. Constitution was crafted in a very ingenious way to protect people from the government. Mr. Thakur: It was. Mr. Jekielek: Which was clearly necessary. Mr. Thakur: The separation of powers has now been circumvented by different parts of the state. Mr. Jekielek: Right. Mr. Thakur: It's things like law and order, tax as the price for civilization, infrastructure, and a health system. The United States is a country that spends disproportionately more per capita on health, but actually has worse health outcomes than many other comparable countries in the Western world. Clearly, there's some problem there. From what I know, the most efficient health outcomes are at some sort of crossover between good, basic public health, supplemented by access to private health if need be. That might differ from one context to another. I would have been much happier if we had not wasted so much money on our response to Covid which contributed so enormously to the problems of inflation and cost of living that has happened, and instead, had used that money to build up the health systems, rather than pay people to stay at home and do nothing. Mr. Jekielek: You have a very different vantage point from anyone I've spoken with. Given the challenges and the resistance at all different levels to addressing this, and the doubling down that we're seeing on these policies, what is the one step towards reform or renewal? Mr. Thakur: I'm not sure there is a short answer to that. Let me go back to what I mentioned, my professional interest in mass atrocities. In some ways, you can think of what happened as an example of mass atrocity in terms of taking away people's choices and freedoms and forcing them into things and throwing them out of the jobs if they refused to comply. You have a breakdown into victims and perpetrators in atrocities, and you need to protect the victims. But you also need to apprehend and punish the perpetrators, and that is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, that sense of justice is a very powerful instinct in human beings. You cannot have any functioning society that is viable if you don't have mechanisms and procedures for identifying people who commit crimes and punishing them appropriately. It is important to identify people who did things that satisfy the threshold of criminality in behavior and then punish them, because otherwise, justice is not at peace. Second, it is important in order to bring emotional closure, if not to victims who may be dead, then to their families and loved ones. That closure cannot come until such time as people have admitted to having been wrong, committed acts that they shouldn't have, committed acts that approach the threshold of criminality, and then you can have that closure. That can take different forms. Again, in atrocities, you have different forms of justice; restorative justice and transitional justice, and we've seen different examples of that. That's the second, punishment, then emotional closure. But the third, which I think is the most important to my mind, is the most effective way to avoid and prevent repetition. If they get away with it and nothing is done and we say, "Let's move on. It's in the past. They had the best of intentions. They were acting under conditions of imperfect information. It's over. Let's move on." The danger is that there will be no real bar to them repeating it next time. It's only if you really punish them. With atrocities we have this notion of command responsibility. You don't go after the foot soldiers, but you do charge the general or the dictator with atrocity crimes, with crimes against humanity, with ethnic cleansing, and put them in jail. That sends a message. In a sense, it's an application of the Sun Tzu principle, but in a more positive way. His argument was, “Kill one, terrify 1,000.” If you apprehend and jail one, you terrify 1,000 wannabe dictators in the future. They will think, "I better not do that because otherwise, I will risk imprisonment." Simply saying, "It's in the past, let's move on," doesn’t work. I don't think it's possible to move on with any confidence without an admission of guilt, an identification of the guilty, and appropriate punishment of the guilty at the top level, not necessarily at the foot soldier level. Mr. Jekielek: Very powerful words, and it also feels like a tall order. Ramesh Thakur, it's such a pleasure to have you on the show. Mr. Thakur: It's been wonderful having this conversation. As always, the questions help me to clarify my own thoughts and thinking on issues as well. Thank you very much. Mr. Jekielek: My sincere pleasure. Thank you all for joining Dr. Ramesh Thakur and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jekielek. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Alex Jones is the single-most-censored man in all American history. He was the first media figure in our history to be completely erased in one day. Deplatformed. Alex Jones was deplatformed before it was a common term. And not just deplatformed — sued, attacked. They attempted to criminally charge him. 2:46 Alex Jones predictions 15:07 Deplatforming 21:59 Dividing us on race 25:37 The border 28:09 Austin 32:12 New World Order 42:09 Brian Stelter demon video 50:57 Depopulation 1:07:51 Food 1:13:51 Whiskey 1:16:22 Presidential election Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u5zPeW7k0o - https://www.infowars.com/ https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson

The Wisdom Keepers is an Ickonic original documentary following filmmaker Christianne van Wijk as she meets with author and philosopher, Marcel Messing and learns the ancient secrets of The Cathars. This persecuted Christian sect existed between the 12th and 14th centuries before their massacre by the Catholic church. Their knowledge and wisdom lives on - and the time is right for their teachings to come back into the light. Source: https://concen.org/node/45302 - Marcel Messing is a 21st century Renaissance Man: trained in anthropology, philosophy, and comparative religion, he is a writer, speaker, teacher and visionary for whom English is his fourth language. He has traveled widely, has studied in India, and has written over 25 books. https://www.projectavalon.net/lang/en/marcel_messing_en.html - Will We Wake Up?: The Hidden Powers Behind The World Stage - Publish Date: January 14, 2022 (first edition 2006) Marcel Messing (Author) Suppose that much of what you have learned is not true. That you have been manipulated unknowingly all your life with ideas about religion, politics, economics, history, education, health, war and peace. Suppose you find out that lies have become truths. How would you feel? Deceived? Upset? Angry? Disappointed? Sad? Or relieved, because deep in your heart you already knew, but never dared to speak out? But your silence is to the advantage of those who manipulate us and have been deceiving us for a long time. The first edition of this book was published in October 2006 and quickly became a bestseller. 'Surely this can't be true? This is doom and gloom, ' many people said at the time. In 2021, it turns out that some of these predictions have come true, which is why this book is more in demand now than ever. Will We Wake Up? is about the hidden forces behind the world stage that are striving for a New World Order. Are we living in a time of transition or in 'the end of times'? Since 11 September 2001 (9/11), everything accelerated. What is going on? Why all of a sudden all these big brother techniques: cameras, satellites, drones, artificial intelligence, robots, various passports, DNA databases, scans, biometrics, the rapid roll-out of 5G? Will total control and manipulation of our minds eventually become possible through the implantation of a subcutaneous microchip in relation to the Internet of Things? Are our freedom and privacy fundamentally threatened? Will We Wake Up? reveals shocking facts, but also shows that especially in these critical times, mankind can make an enormous leap in its evolution of consciousness through knowledge and understanding. But then we will have to wake up collectively as soon as possible... https://bookshop.org/p/books/will-we-wake-up-the-hidden-powers-behind-the-world-stage-marcel-messing/18080900

Dr. Palevsky provides innovative insight as to what a virus actually is, why we can't catch them, why this new "vaccine" isn't a vaccine at all, what is more likely causing some illness on the globe, and what we can do to survive and thrive in 2021. HFfH Podcast Hosted by Alec Zeck, Dr. Tommy John, and Jo Yi MD Sources: https://rumble.com/vwqfev-hffh-podcast-dr.-palevsky-talks-viruses-vaccines-and-our-future.html http://web.archive.org/web/20210307215427/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX_4b67ctJo

Dr. Lawrence Palevsky joins ‘Doctors & Scientists’ this week to share his insights into children’s health, and he doesn’t cut any corners. Dr. Palevsky answers questions that many parents, both new and old, have about the things that are anticipated when it comes to raising a family. For example, he answers questions, such as: - What makes kids sick? - Do I need to worry about fevers? - How prevalent are bacteria? - Are there any ways to promote immunity, naturally? Source: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/doctors-and-scientists-with-brian-hooker-phd/failures-of-western-medicine-duplicate-show-page/ - Aluminum and Vaccine Ingredients: What Do We Know? What Don’t We Know? Lawrence B. Palevsky, MD, FAAP https://drpalevsky.com/other_media/Article_NVIC_Feb2008%20pdf.pdf - Dr. Palevsky is a NYS licensed pediatrician, who utilizes a holistic approach to children's wellness and illness. Dr. Palevsky received his medical degree from the NYU School of Medicine in 1987, completed a three-year pediatric residency at The Mount Sinai Hospital in NYC in 1990, and served as a pediatric fellow in the ambulatory care out-patient department at Bellevue Hospital, NYC, from 1990-1991. Since 1991, his clinical experience includes working in pediatric emergency and intensive care medicine, in-patient, and out-patient pediatric medicine, neonatal intensive care medicine, newborn and delivery room medicine, and conventional, holistic and integrative pediatric private practice. Dr. Palevsky is a diplomate of the American Board of Integrative Holistic Medicine, and Past-President of the American Holistic Medical Association. He received his pediatric board certification in 1990, and passed his pediatric board recertification exams in 1997, 2004, and 2011. In his current pediatric practice, Dr. Palevsky offers well-child examinations, consultations and educational programs to families and practitioners in the areas of preventive and holistic health; childhood development; lifestyle changes; nutrition for adults, infants and children; safe, alternative treatments for common and difficult to treat acute and chronic pediatric and adult conditions; vaccination controversies; mindful parenting; and rethinking the medical paradigm. Additionally, he teaches holistic integrative pediatric & adolescent medicine to parents, and medical and allied health professionals, both nationally & internationally, and is available for speaking engagements worldwide. https://www.drpalevsky.com/

In this interview board-certified internist and biological warfare epidemiologist Dr. Meryl Nass discusses the dangers posed by the World Health Organization's upcoming pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments. She also wrote about this in a recent article titled "The WHO’s Proposed Treaty Will Increase Manmade Pandemics." https://brownstone.org/articles/who-amendments-increase-man-made-pandemics/ The World Health Organization's upcoming pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments are part of a global “soft coup” to strip nations of their sovereignty and people of their bodily autonomy and freedom. The WHO wants to put into law a requirement that nations must censor their citizens, so that only public health messages aligned with the WHO’s recommendations can be shared. The IHR amendments specify that the WHO will dictate which drugs countries must use, and which they cannot, in the event of a pandemic — and possibly outside of pandemics as well. The IHRs have been in existence since 1969, but in the current draft of the IHR amendments, the WHO’s recommendations become edicts that must be followed rather than recommendations that nations can ignore at will. The treaty demands the fast-tracking of vaccines, along with liability waivers for vaccine manufacturers. The EU, U.S. and CEPI have already proposed a plan to develop vaccines in 100 days. Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/xOTsDuvmgsI5/ - Door to Freedom Door to Freedom was created to help us get back our rights and freedoms by collecting the information you need about the changes in our world, in order to make the best decisions for yourself and your family. https://doortofreedom.org

“You can’t understand the control grid without understanding the role of space.” Digital currency, blockchain, and tokenization require an endless supply of power to run. What if you had the ability to construct the central operation center for the entire control grid from a location with no real jurisdiction and no accessibility or oversight? Investigative journalist Corey Lynn returns to ‘Financial Rebellion’ to discuss her new jaw-dropping exposé. - References: Space: The New Frontier For The Central Control Grid - coreysdigs.com https://www.coreysdigs.com/technology/space-the-new-frontier-for-the-central-control-grid/ The Bookshop - coreysdigs.com https://www.coreysdigs.com/bookshop/ Global Landscape on Vaccine ID Passports Paperback Book - coreysdigs.com https://www.coreysdigs.com/downloads/global-landscape-on-vaccine-id-passports-paperback-book/ Bezos, Branson, and Musk: What you need to know about the billionaire space race - Sky News https://news.sky.com/story/bezos-branson-musk-the-new-space-race-explained-as-virgin-galactic-prepares-to-launch-12347249 Starlink Satellite Tracker https://satellitemap.space/ A New Space Economy on the Edge of Liftoff - Morgan Stanley https://www.morganstanley.com/Themes/global-space-economy Deloitte Announces 2023 Financial Services Predictions Press Release - Deloitte US https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/press-releases/deloitte-announces-2023-financial-services-industry-predictions.html Starshield - SpaceX https://www.spacex.com/starshield/ SpaceX Unveils ‘Starshield,’ a Military Variation of Starlink Satellites http://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/05/spacex-unveils-starshield-a-military-variation-of-starlink-satellites.html US Space Force https://www.spaceforce.mil/ SpaceBridge: Pioneering Payments in Space https://www.jpmorgan.com/onyx/payments-in-space.htm Onyx by J.P. Morgan Launches Blockchain in Space https://www.jpmorgan.com/technology/news/blockchain-in-space Deloitte-Bitwave Strategic Alliance Revolutionizes Digital Asset Accounting and Compliance Press Release - Deloitte US https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/press-releases/deloitte-bitwave-strategic-alliance-revolutionizes-digital-asset-accounting-and-compliance.html Blockchain & Digital Assets - Deloitte -US https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/about-deloitte/solutions/blockchain-and-digital-assets.html Space Fence - Lockheed Martin https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/space-fence.html DARC Technology Demonstrator - US Space Force https://www.ssc.spaceforce.mil/Portals/3/DARC%20Technology%20Demonstration%20test%20a%20success.pdf Critics Warn of 'a Dragnet of Surveillance' as U.S. Pushes Ahead With Plans for More 'Smart' Cities - The Defender https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/smart-cities-surveillance-tech/ Weather as a Force Multiplier https://www.coreysdigs.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/owning-the-weather.pdf Beijing Weather Modification Office - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Weather_Modification_Office - Source: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/space-the-new-frontier-for-the-central-control-grid-with-corey-lynn/

A new study has detected heart inflammation in all mRNA vaccinated patients who were undergoing routine medical checkups for other reasons. If replicated, the findings could upend the idea of rare myocarditis after COVID vaccination. Compared to nonvaccinated patients, asymptomatic patients who received their 2nd vaccination 1-180 days prior to imaging showed increased myocardial FDG uptake on PET/CT. - Assessment of Myocardial 18F-FDG Uptake at PET/CT in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated and Nonvaccinated Patients Published Online: Sep 19, 2023 - https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230743 - Jefferey Jaxen is a health journalist, researcher, and writer appearing in his weekly segment, ’The Jaxen Report’, on The HighWire. https://substack.com/@jeffereyjaxen/posts Video source: https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/troubling-study-shows-heart-damage-in-vaccinated/

Plandemic 3: The Great Awakening unravels the layers of corruption and unveils a path towards a brighter future. Prepare to be inspired, awakened, and empowered to take a stand for liberty. The Great Awakening is the third installment of our documentary series. This movie assembles forbidden puzzle pieces to reveal the big picture of what’s really happening in America and beyond. The Great Awakening is intended to be a lighthouse to guide us out of the storm and into a brighter future. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U1gV-KXrP0 https://plandemicseries.com/

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" is a 5 hour documentary by Massimo Mazzucco that summarizes 12 years of public debate on 9/11. All the most important issues in the debate are presented in full detail, showing both the positions of those who regect the official version, the 9/11 Truth Movement, and the positions of those who support it, called "the debunkers." INTRODUCTION 0.01:02 - 12 parallels between Pearl Harbor and September 11 0.14:10 - The debate: main issues PART 1 - AIR DEFENSE 0.14:55 - Where are the interceptors? 0.16:12 - The "incompetence theory" (radars, transponders) 0.22:00 - The military drills 0.29:40 - Specific warnings 0.33:08 - The chain of command 0.38:10 - Promotions, not punishments 0.39:50 - The Mineta case 0.47:38 - Debunkers: "Mineta was mistaken" 0.53:18 - The Mineta case - A summary PART 2 - THE HIJACKERS 0.57:15 - "Piss-poor student pilots" 0.59:38 - Marwan al-Sheikki (UA175) 1.01:52 - Ziad Jarrah (UA93) 1.03:06 - Hani Hanjour (AA77) 1.04:00 - The debunkers' positions 1.06:00 - 2 simulations of the Pentagon attack 1.13:10 - Someone knew? 1.16:40 - Airport security cameras 1.20.15 - The missing black boxes PART 3 - THE AIRPLANES 1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones? 1.28:20 - Impossible speeds 1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers? 1.38:35 - The cellphone calls 1.48:30 - The debunkers' position 1.50:38 - If not from the planes, from where? PART 4 - THE PENTAGON 0.02:35 - Downed light poles 0.03:30 - The missing plane 0.04:30 - The official version 0.05:24 - Problems with the official version (wing, ailerons, tail, engines) 0.13:09 - The mystery hole 0.14:10 - The debunkers' explanations 0.16:20 - Conclusions on damage analysis 0.17:00 - The missing tapes 0.18:30 - Security video analysis 0.23.40 - Pentagon summary PART 5 - FLIGHT 93 0.24.15 - The empty hole 0.28.00 - The debunkers' explanations 0.33:00 - Plane crash or bomb explosion? 0.34:50 - The debris field 0.37.20 - The shootdown hypothesis 0.38:50 - The small white plane 0.41:40 - "Let's roll" 0.44:25 - Summary of Flight 93 PART 6 - THE TWIN TOWERS 0.45:10 - Introduction 0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret 0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein 0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers 0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings? 1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1 1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2 1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation 1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation 1.18:50 - Law of physics violated 1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall 1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E 0.00:20 - The hypothesis of controlled demolitions 0.01:08 - Debunkers: "Impossible to place explosives" 0.07:34 - Explosions in the Twin Towers (witnesses) 0.15:00 - "Fuel in elevators shafts" theory 0.23:25 - Debunkers: "Explosions not recorded by tv cameras" 0.30:26 - Squibs 0.33:00 - Explosive force (montage) 0.35:00 - Ejecta 0.38:00 - Diagonal cuts 0.40:15 - What happened to the hat trusses? 0.42:20 - Extreme temperatures 0.45:30 - Debunkers' explanations 0.46:45 - Twisted and mangled beams 0.47:40 - Molten steel 0.51:05 - Molten concrete 0.53:50 - Pulverization 0.57:40 - Victims vaporized 1.02:20 - Conclusion on the Twin Towers PART 7 - BUILDING 7 1.05:10 - Introduction 1.06:35 - Official version by NIST 1.09:36 - Collapse computer simulation 1.11:00 - Fire computer simulation 1.12:20 - Debunkers: "Building 7 weaker" 1.14:25 - Preknowledge 1.19:00 - Symmetry 1.20:00 - Freefall EPILOGUE 1.22:30 - John McCain 1.24:35 - The last word