reSee.it - Related Post Feed
reSee.it AI Summary
Jeffrey Epstein allegedly operated an underground genetic baby farm at his Zorro Ranch. He had a keen interest in genetics and aimed to create his own breed. There were significant plans involving Epstein and Gates. Melinda had nightmares after meeting Epstein, while Bill couldn't resist returning for more due to the excellent dinner.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
IT IS SAID THAT JEFFREY EPSTEIN HAD AN UNDERGROUND GENETIC BABY FARM UNDER HIS ZORRO RANCH! thread…🪡 https://t.co/jdEDpID6Df
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
THIS IS NO CONSPIRACY EPSTEIN WAS BIG INTO GENETICS +WANTED TO SEED HIS OWN BREED! https://t.co/D4wQN9MtOl
Video Transcript AI Summary
Epstein's ranch had extensive surveillance equipment, including three house-sized computer rooms, according to Maria Farmer, a former resident. Farmer also mentioned that Epstein himself revealed the presence of underground mechanical rooms and tunnel systems in all of his properties.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Epstein's ranch was designed in such a way that everything was filmed. According to Maria Farmer, former Farmer also stated that the mansion had 3 house MPC. Farmer also stated that the mansion had 3 house sized computer rooms packed with surveillance equipment. She said these underground mechanical rooms as well as tunnel systems were in each one of Epstein's properties because he himself told her.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Jeffrey had a dream of impregnating women on his New Mexico ranch to seed the human race with his DNA. He aimed to inseminate 20 women at a time. The ranch, covering 10,000 acres, was put on the market for $27.5 million in 2019. It featured a main house with an 8-person party shower, an indoor bathing area with a pool, hot tub, and shower. Hidden cameras were reportedly found in each room. The ranch allegedly had an underground strip club for entertaining VIP clients with young girls. Although Jeffrey discussed his plan with scientists, there is no evidence it was ever realized. His obsession with transhumanism, improving humans through technology, led him to donate $120,000 to the World Transhumanist Association. He even expressed a desire to have his head and penis frozen for future use.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. So now we're gonna get into some weird stuff. So Jeffrey apparently had this dream of seeding the human race with his DNA by impregnating women on his ranch in New Mexico. He wanted to inseminate these women with his sperm and have them give birth to his children in a controlled environment. It's reported that he told friends that his goal was to impregnate 20 women at a time.
This is the photo of the ranch. It was 10,000 acres, and it was put on the market in 2019 for a $27,500,000, although I'm not sure how much he bought it for. Photos and videos of the ranch ended up being released to the public, and there was an 8 person party shower in the main house. It also had an indoor bathing area with a large pool, hot tub, and shower. And a former contractor even said that each room had hidden cameras in them.
And another source said that the ranch had an underground strip club that was used to entertain VIP clients with young girls. Jeffrey spoke to multiple scientists about this plan, but there's no evidence that it ever actually came to fruition. But the whole idea came about because of Jeffrey's obsession with transhumanism, which is the science of improving the human population through technologies like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. His charity even ended up donating $120,000 to the World Transhumanist Association, which is now known as humanity plus. This whole idea is criticized as being the modern version of eugenics, which is based on improving the human race through controlled breeding.
In Jeffrey was so obsessed with his own DNA that he actually expressed that he wanted his head and his penis frozen after he died so that they could be brought back to life and used in the future.
Video Transcript AI Summary
These are real pictures from Jeffrey Epstein's art collection, including a never-before-seen painting from his New Mexico ranch. These images raise questions about the narratives we've been told. For more details, check the full video in my bio.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: These are real pictures from Jeffrey Epstein's art collection. Some of these really make you question the narratives we've been fed over the years. I have obtained a photo of a never before seen painting from Jeffrey Epstein's baby making ranch in New Mexico. Full video showing this in my bio.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
THERE WAS BIG PLANS BETWEEN GATES + EPSTEIN BIG PLANS!!! https://t.co/19fSpcRSZ8
Video Transcript AI Summary
Bill Gates is known for his blunt responses when he disagrees with someone. He is a multidimensional individual with great depth in various areas. He had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, but emphasizes the need for a vaccine to return to normalcy. Gates pledges an additional $1 billion towards vaccines. Epstein and Gates funded an MIT lab that developed the quantum dot technology to store vaccine history under the skin. MIT also developed central bank digital currencies, funded by Epstein and Gates. The currency is called the quant and connects to the supercomputer located underneath Stern, which is on top of the former temple of Apollo. The technology inside the human body is called w020-0606-0606. The pattern here is the presence of quantum dots and the power of the quantum computer.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is
Speaker 1: stage 3 of the video. Take 7 of Bill Gates.
Speaker 2: If he didn't like what you said, he would, you know, he was known for responding with
Speaker 0: the words. Well, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's ridiculous. I'm not I'm not using this his. No, no, no, no.
Somebody's confused. Somebody's just not thinking. I mean, there's no way. Well, think about it. You guys never understood.
You never his understood the first thing about this.
Speaker 1: He's a multidimensional, individual. He has great depth his steps. In so many different areas. Hi, kids.
Speaker 0: You had a number of meetings with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: Well, he's dead. So, his You know, in general, you always have to be careful. Because until you have that, things aren't really going to be normal. And it won't be normal until we get a receiving an amazing vaccine, to the entire world. And for all 193 member states, you must make vaccines a high priority in their health systems to ensure that all your children have access to existing vaccines now and to the new vaccines that have recently become available and keeping children alive.
Would that create more of a population problem? Us. We're pledging an additional $1,000,000,000
Speaker 0: his
Speaker 1: respecting. It's not everyday we giveaway $1,000,000,000. My dad was head of plant cancer. I don't know why it was statistics by Daryl. It's a quick read.
It's got a lot of good examples in it. Respect.
Speaker 3: His Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Gates. So Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Gates, they funded this MIT lab. What day? Lab? His MIT.
Who funded them? Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Gates. What were they doing? Making the quantum dot. Now the quantum dot Is the technology used to store a patient's vaccine history under their skin using an invisible quantum dot dye Funded by Bill Gates and Epstein.
MIT has developed this thing called central bank digital currencies. What? His Central bank digital currencies were developed by who? MIT. Funded by who?
Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein. And there's this new thing called the Central Bank Digital Currency that's being rolled out, and this technology is called the Quant. His What's the name of the currency? The quant. And it all connects to what?
The supercomputer located underneath Stern. His And Stern is located on top of the former temple of Apollo. Stern is located on top of the former temple of of of Apollo, which is Revelation 911. And the supercomputer that powers Stern is called the quantum computer. And the technology inside The cryptocurrencies that go inside the human body, it is w020-0606-0606.
So my question is, are you seeing a pattern here? Quantum dots in the shots, quantum dots in the vaccines, quant risk. Is the name of the currency quantum computer powers
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
MELINDA HAD NIGHTMARES AFTER MEETING JEFFREY EPSTEIN! https://t.co/kVWAI3jeNs
Video Transcript AI Summary
Bill's connection with Jeffrey Epstein was one of the many factors that contributed to the divorce. The speaker expressed their disapproval of Bill's meetings with Epstein and even met him once, regretting it immediately. They described Epstein as an evil person and empathized with the young women who suffered because of him. Despite sharing their feelings with Bill, he continued to spend time with Epstein. The speaker believes that any questions about Bill's relationship with Epstein should be directed to Bill himself.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, I think those are questions. Bill needs to answer. Okay.
Speaker 1: You know, it was also widely reported that Bill had a friendship or business or some kind of contact with Jeffrey Epstein and that you were not, that that was very upsetting to you. Did that play a role
Speaker 0: in the in the divorce at all in this process? Yeah. As I said, it's not one thing. It was many things, but I did not like, that he'd had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein though. And you made that clear to him?
I made that clear to him. I also met Jeffrey Epstein exactly one time. Did you? Yes. Because I wanted to see who this man was.
And, I regretted it from the 2nd I stepped in the door. He was a. He was evil personified. I had nightmares about it afterwards. So, you know, my heart breaks for these young women because that's how I felt.
And here I'm an older woman. My God, I feel terrible for those young women. Bubble. You felt that the moment you walked in. Yeah.
When you shared that with bill and he'd still continued to spend time with him? A any of the questions remaining about what Bill's relationship there was, those are for Bill to answer.
@Thekeksociety - DR. Kek
BILL COULDN’T STOP COMING BACK FOR MORE! DINNER WAS TOO GOOD! https://t.co/VethQMMPD3
Video Transcript AI Summary
I made a mistake by meeting with Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender, multiple times. My intention was to raise money for global health, but I now realize that my association with him downplayed the terrible things he did. I have learned from this and acknowledge it as one of my big mistakes, along with not following Melinda's advice sooner.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I have to ask you about Jeffrey Epstein. Melinda Melinda mentioned that that was one of the strains, your relationship with him. And, you know, why I guess the question is real simple. I mean, why did you continue to meet with him when you met him? He was already a convicted sex offender, you know, and do you regret that?
Speaker 1: I certainly made a huge mistake, not only meeting him in the 1st place, but, I met with him a number of times. I had a goal of raising money for global health. I didn't realized that the meeting with him almost downplayed, the incredibly awful things he did. You know, I learned more about that over I'm that, you know, I'd add that to the list of big mistakes, including, you know, where Melinda's advice was found, and I I should've followed it sooner than I did.
reSee.it AI Summary
The Pope will join the Clinton Foundation's event, discussing global challenges like climate change and the welfare of children. However, there are controversial connections. Epstein claimed to co-found the Foundation, Maxwell was served a subpoena at a Foundation meeting, and she allegedly helped launch it. The 2018 IG Report cited the Foundation for crimes against children. Bill Clinton's association with Epstein raises questions about their discussion on child welfare. These connections are disturbing.
@LizCrokin - LIZ CROKIN
THE POPE IS SCHEDULED TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLINTON FOUNDATION EVENT! The Clinton Foundation announced today that His Unholiness Pope Francis is scheduled to participate at next week’s Clinton Global Initiative 2023 meeting in New York along with Gov. Gavin Newsom, Jen Psaki, Dwayne Wade and Fox News Channel’s Dana Perino. Their press release states that President Clinton and Pope Francis via remote will have a conversation on “what it takes to keep going on the most pressing global challenges of our time like climate change, the refugee crisis, the welfare of children, and the mission and projects of the Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital.” Here’s some interesting facts about the Clinton Foundation & the Clinton Global Initiative. - Jeffrey Epstein claimed he co-founded the Clinton Foundation. - Years ago Bradley Edwards, the attorney who represented many Epstein victims, struggled to track down Ghislaine Maxwell to serve her a subpoena. She lied about her whereabouts claiming that she was out of the country; however, he was able to find her at a Clinton Global Initiative meeting and that’s where she got served. Also, Maxwell claims she helped launch the Clinton Global Initiative. - The 2018 IG Report cited “Hillary Clinton & Foundation” and “Crimes Against Children”. It’s no secret that Bill was super close to Epstein. He took over two dozen trips to his pedophile island and Hillary has been there too. Furthermore, they also took regular family trips with Chelsea to his New Mexico Ranch that he wanted to turn into a baby breeding farm to seed the human race with his DNA. The fact that Bill and the Pope will have a discussion at their event about the “welfare of children” is beyond laughable and evil. They’re mocking us! These people are sick!
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2019, Alan Dershowitz defended himself on Fox News against sexual assault allegations and a defamation suit. He admitted being introduced to Epstein by Lady Rothschild, but claimed their relationship was purely academic. Dershowitz stated that they attended conferences and had seminars together. Once they learned about Epstein's other life, they ended their social relationship, and Dershowitz became his lawyer. Speculation about guilt is left to the reader. The Rothschilds' beliefs and their connection to a false messiah in the 1600s shed light on a broader agenda for the apocalypse through extreme degeneracy.
@Inversionism - Inversionism
Before Epstein killed himself, Alan Dershowitz went on Fox News in 2019 to defend himself from allegations of sexual assault and a defamation suit, and he made an interesting admission on who he met Epstein through, and that his relationship was "purely academic". "Look I was introduced to him by the lady Rothschild, the people he hung out with at the time were the president of Harvard, the provost of Harvard...my relationship with him was academic. We went to conferences, we had seminars in his office. None of us had any inkling that he had this other life, and as soon as we learned about it, obviously all of us ended any kind of a social relationship, and then I became his lawyer. I'm proud of the fact I represented him" Due to his litigiousness, I make no claims about him being guilty and will leave that speculation up to you. All I will say is the Rothschilds are the head of the snake in more ways than one and learning about their belief systems and it's connection to a certain false messiah in the 1600s will illuminate you on the broader agenda for the apocalypse through obscene maximal degeneracy.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 stopped representing Epstein after the deal was made and hasn't seen him in years. Introduced to Epstein by Lady Rothschild, Speaker 0 had an academic relationship with him, attending conferences and seminars. Once they learned about Epstein's other life, all social relationships ended. Speaker 0 became Epstein's lawyer and defended him, proud of representing controversial people. Some criticize the deal, but Speaker 0 defends trying to get the best deal possible. Speaker 0 denies ever meeting the woman who made allegations against Epstein, calling it a complete lie. Speaker 1 appreciates Speaker 0 joining to discuss the explosive story and the horrific allegations against Epstein.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is based on incredible evidence.
Speaker 1: I can't believe I don't know the answer to this question, but I don't. Do you still represent, you know, him and when did you stop representing him? Epstein.
Speaker 0: No. I stopped representing him when the deal was made, and, I haven't seen him in years. And, you know, if his lawyers call me and ask me a question about The deal, of course, as a lawyer. I have to answer that question. Look, I was introduced to him by the lady Rothschild.
The people he hung out with at the time were the president of Harvard, the provost of Harvard. Yeah. My relationship with him was academic was academic. We went to conferences. We had seminars in his office.
None of us had any inkling that he had this other life. And as soon as we learned about it, obviously, All of us ended any kind of a social relationship. I then became his lawyer. I'm proud of the fact that I represented him. I represented a lot of controversial people, And we got a deal.
Some people criticize the deal, but you can't criticize the defense attorney for trying to get the best deal possible. But I wanna categorically against state. I never met this woman. She made it up completely. I will continue to say that till the day I die and when I die, My children will continue to say it's a total categorical lie.
Speaker 1: Alright, Alan. We appreciate you coming on tonight. This story is explosive. And the obviously, the underlying allegations against Epstein are horrific. Appreciate your joining us
reSee.it AI Summary
Bill Clinton's alleged involvement with Epstein Island is questioned due to his visits to St. Thomas and the timing of the Lewinsky scandal. A video shows Clinton's reaction when confronted about the allegations. Another video captures a man confronting Clinton on stage. Epstein visited Clinton around 17 times in the White House, and the Clintons frequently visited St. Thomas. A young man named Danny Williams claims Clinton is his father. The resemblance is discussed.
@euphorio_ - Yan.x | ॐ
❌✖️ 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗽𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗶𝗻’𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 ? - 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗕𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗽𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗶𝗻’𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 ❗️🚩 (additional video to follow below ) 👇🏽 ✖️Here’s some context as to why I believe Bill Clinton was involved with the acquisition ; 1. In 1997 and 1998 on January 1-5 , Clinton family visited St. Thomas , which is right next to Little St. James (aka Epstein island ) In April 1998 , Epstein allegedly bought the island for 10Million at an auction. Did Bill Clinton scout the island in his previous visits to St. Thomas ? Hmmm 🤔 Bill Clinton also claimed he never visited that island ? In 1998 on January 1st a U.S. Secret Service agent lost his life in a boating accident around St. Thomas, while reportedly slamming into rocks while clearing the runway for Air Force 1 landing . The story reported and the story going around among the locals on the island , doesn’t match up. Totally different stories. The US agent who lost his life , was a Criminal Investigator 🤔 Another things to take into consideration, is the timing / date of the Lewinsky Scandal - Jan. 7, 1998: Lewinsky files an affidavit in the Jones case in which she denies ever having a sexual relationship with President Clinton. - Jan. 21, 1998: Several news organizations report the alleged sexual relationship between Lewinsky and Clinton. Clinton denies the allegations as the scandal erupts. Could this all have been a cover up ? Distraction ?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Jeffrey Epstein ordered a cement truck to be delivered to Little Saint James Island just before an expose on his abuse was published. Photos of his temple outhouse show reinforced lock bars on the outside, suggesting they were meant to keep people in. There may have been a secret exit. In 2023, the island was bought by US billionaire Steven Dekoff, who plans to turn it into a hotel and resort.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Crazy facts about Jeffrey Epstein's Island. On November 7, 2018, 21 days before Julie Brown's expose on Jeffrey Epstein's abuse was published in the Miami Herald, Jeffrey Epstein ordered a cement truck to be delivered to Little Saint James Island. He was in such a hurry to have the $100,000 cement truck delivered that he paid up front and elected to bear full responsibility if it was damaged in transit. After examining photos of Epstein's Greek style temple outhouse, an engineer that spoke to Business Insider noticed that there were reinforced lock bars across the outside of the building saying, if you wanted to keep people out, the bar would be placed inside the building, but the locking bar appears to be placed in the outside as if it were intended to lock people in. There is also some evidence to suggest that there may have been a secret exit to the building.
In May 2023, the island along with another of Epstein's islands was bought for $60,000,000 by the US billionaire financier, Steven Dekoff, who was the founder of Black Diamond Capital Management. It is believed to be intended to be turned into a hotel and resort.
@euphorio_ - Yan.x | ॐ
Follow up video ; ❗️👇🏽 Bill Clinton and Epstein Island - Little St. James , right next to St. Thomas ❗️
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker discusses an incident involving US Customs agents in 1998. The agents were part of President Bill Clinton's security detail and were patrolling the water beneath the landing path of Air Force 1. On their way back to the harbor, their boat crashed into rocks on the far end of the island. The speaker finds it strange because the airport is on the opposite side of the island, and the rocks they hit were closer to Little Saint James Island. Local gossip suggests that the boat was heading towards Little Saint James Island, where some believe Bill Clinton was present. However, there is no concrete evidence to support this claim. The speaker concludes by mentioning the connection to Jeffrey Epstein's Little St. James Island.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They were in the right climate for growing sugar. That, you know that that money problem?
Speaker 1: And while I was there, I also found out That back in 1998 on January 1st, 3 US Customs agents in a 38 foot interceptor boat Slammed into These rocks right here, and it occurred at about 8:30 PM. President Bill Clinton had landed on Saint Thomas Island, And the custom agents were part of his security detail. 1 of them died 5 days later, and the other 2 were seriously injured but lived. An article published January 3rd by the Washington Post said the agents were patrolling the water and clearing the boat traffic from beneath The landing path of Air Force 1. When they were done, they headed back to the harbor and hit the rock on the way back.
However, When you land on Saint Thomas Island right here at this airport, You're always landing from the west to the east. And if they were patrolling the water Underneath the landing path of Air Force 1 and then headed back to the harbor, then somehow They had to work their way up and slam into these rocks right here unless they were going to this harbor. So what I found strange is you land from west to east at the airport, and the rocks they struck were on the other end of the island. I spoke to some of the island locals, and they assured me that cow and calf rock were struck because they saw debris and cleanup out there afterwards. And these rocks here are called cow and calf rock because they resemble a mother cow whale with her baby calf following her.
And this is what cow and calf rock look like from the surface of the ocean. The Clintons were staying at a private residence on the peninsula at Magens Bay, which is over here. Here's Meggins Bay. Here's the peninsula. And they were somewhere Approximately in here.
I don't know the exact spot, but approximately in here. The airport is right over here. And if that interceptor boat Was clearing the landing path over here and the Clintons were staying over here. How did they end up crashing into the rocks at the far end The island right here. The local gossip on the island is that the interceptor rapidly left this harbor that you can see here, right in here and was making a beeline straight out to Little Saint James Island right here.
Some of the locals believe that Bill Clinton was on Little Saint James and needed to get off quick. And if you draw a straight line from the harbor right here to little Saint James Island right here, you could see where These rocks can easily be struck by a boat if you're not familiar with the area. I did further research on the incident And could not find any information that supports the local gossip on the island. At the same time, I couldn't find a logical explanation why the boat Struck these rocks right here, especially if they were heading back to the harbor from the airport. Once again, as you can see, the harbor here with the rocks are at the far end of the island with the airport being down here.
So there you have it. An unplanned and unexpected brush with Jeffrey Epstein's Little St. James Island Right here on the Forrest Haggerty channel.
@euphorio_ - Yan.x | ॐ
❌✖️@JuanMoreNews confronts Bill Clinton : "Any comments on your alleged, ah, allegation of your connection with Jeffrey Epstein?" Clinton continued to smile but as he began to move along he said: "I think the evidence is clear."
@euphorio_ - Yan.x | ॐ
@JuanMoreNews ❌✖️ This brave man confronts Bill and Hillary Clinton at an event while they’re on stage. Pay attention to Her and the crowds reaction. I wonder where this man is today ? Have massive amounts of respect for people like him.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I could be a dog catcher and was voted for president twice. But someone interrupts, asking to talk about Jeffrey Epstein and the Lolita Express. The conversation gets interrupted again, but the speaker mentions feeling sad about Arkansas.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, I I could not only I could be like a dog catcher down there.
Speaker 1: But they
Speaker 0: voted for me for president twice. And,
Speaker 1: Bill, this is boring. Why don't you talk about Jeffrey Epstein? I wanna know about you and Jeffrey Epstein. Talk about no. No.
You
Speaker 2: important that when we talk about
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein lying on the Lolita Express.
Speaker 2: It is it's also it's also
Speaker 1: No, it fell. I'll leave. That's cool, mate. That's cool.
Speaker 2: Just provide towards
Speaker 1: You don't
Speaker 0: have to push me. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm walking.
Speaker 2: Feel sad about Arkansas, which, you know, we both love and
Speaker 1: that you're not Just
@euphorio_ - Yan.x | ॐ
@JuanMoreNews ❌✖️ Here’s another priceless moment , when another brave man took Bill Clinton on. His timing was perfect 👍🏽😆. Watch his reaction in real time. Stage fright much ! 😂 OH YEAH ❗️
@euphorio_ - Yan.x | ॐ
@JuanMoreNews @BillClinton https://nypost.com/2021/12/02/jeffrey-epstein-visited-clinton-white-house-at-least-17-times-report/
Jeffrey Epstein visited Clinton White House at least 17 times: report
Visitor logs show wealthy convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein even visited President Bill Clinton's White House twice on the same day three different times.
nypost.com
@euphorio_ - Yan.x | ॐ
@JuanMoreNews @BillClinton https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-frequently-brought-girlfriends-to-bill-clintons-white-house-visitor-logs-reveal
Epstein Frequently Brought Women to Clinton’s White House, Visitor Logs Reveal
At least four of the eight women who accompanied Epstein on the visits were his girlfriends, according to a report.
thedailybeast.com
@euphorio_ - Yan.x | ॐ
❌✖️ Epstein visited Bill Clinton around 17 times in the White House ; early on in his presidency (Refer to the TWO previous posts) From 1993 up until 1998 - in those 5 years , it seems like they cemented a strong relationship during that time. In 1997 and 1998 from January 1-5 , Clinton family visited St. Thomas , which is right next to Little St. James (aka Epstein island) this was a holiday destination that they often went to. Information on where they spent new years in 1996 has vanished 🤔. Highly possible that they also spent it at St. Thomas In April 1998 , Epstein allegedly bought the Island for $10Million at an auction. There are also rumours that the island was property of the US Govt Did Bill Clinton scout the island in his previous family trips to St. Thomas ? Or is it just a coincidence that after meeting each other in the White House , a reported 17 times from 1993 onwards ; That Epstein coincidentally bought an island right next to the main island of St. Thomas , where the Clinton’s loved to spend their New Year. Little St. James (Epstein Island) is a few hundred meters from St. Thomas ✖️(The video below 👇🏽 is from the second post on this thread , refer to that post for additional context)
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker discusses an incident involving US Customs agents in 1998 on Saint Thomas Island. The agents were part of President Bill Clinton's security detail and crashed into rocks while patrolling the water beneath the landing path of Air Force 1. The speaker questions how the boat ended up crashing into rocks on the other end of the island, far from the landing path. Locals believe the boat was heading towards Little Saint James Island, where some speculate Bill Clinton was present. However, there is no concrete evidence to support this theory. The incident remains unexplained.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They were in the right climate for growing sugar that, you know, that that money crop.
Speaker 1: And while I was there, I also found out that back in 1998, on January 1st, 3 US Customs agents in a 38 foot interceptor boat slammed into These rocks right here, And it occurred at about 8:30 PM. President Bill Clinton had landed on Saint Thomas Island, and the custom agents were part of his security detail. 1 of them died 5 days later, and the other 2 were seriously injured but lived. An article published January 3rd by the Washington Post said The agents were patrolling the water and clearing the boat traffic from beneath the landing path of Air Force 1. When they were done, they headed back to the harbor and hit the rock on the way back.
However, When you land on Saint Thomas Island right here at this airport, you're always landing From the west to the east. And if they were patrolling the water underneath The landing path of Air Force 1 and then headed back to the harbor. Then somehow They had to work their way up and slam into these rocks right here unless they were going to this harbor. So what I found strange is you land from west to east at the airport and the rocks they struck were on the other end of the island. I spoke to some of the island locals and they assured me that cow and calf rock were struck because they saw debris and cleanup out there afterwards.
And these rocks here are called cow and calf rock because they resemble a mother cow whale with her baby calf following her. And this is what cow and calf rock look like from the surface of the ocean. The Clintons were staying at a private residence on the peninsula at Magens Bay which is over here. Here's Magans Bay. Here's the peninsula.
And they were somewhere approximately in here. I don't know the exact spot, But approximately in here. The airport is right over here. And if that interceptor boat was clearing the landing path Over here and the Clintons were staying over here, how did they end up crashing into the rocks at the far end of the island Right here. The local gossip on the island is that the interceptor rapidly left this harbor that you can see here, right in here and was making a beeline straight out to Little Saint James Island right here.
Some of the locals believe that Bill Clinton was on Little Saint James and needed to get off quick. And if you draw a straight line from the harbor right here to Little Saint James Island right here, you could see where These rocks can easily be struck by a boat if you're not familiar with the area. I did further research on the incident And could not find any information that supports the local gossip on the island. At the same time, I couldn't find a logical explanation why the boat struck these rocks right here, especially if they were heading back to the harbor from the airport. Once again, as you can see, the harbor here with the rocks are at the far end of the island with the airport being down here.
So there you have it, an unplanned and unexpected brush with Jeffrey Epstein's Little St. James Island Right here on the Forrest Hagerty channel.
@euphorio_ - Yan.x | ॐ
❌✖️This young man , Danny Williams claims that Bill Clinton is his father @danney_williams - Honestly , I see the resemblance , what do you think ? 💭 🤔 https://t.co/d4GMTU5BsX
Video Transcript AI Summary
30-year-old Danny Williams claims to be the biological son of Bill Clinton and is asking Monica Lewinsky for help in obtaining genetic material from her infamous blue dress for a DNA test. Williams, from Hot Springs, Arkansas, says his mother, a former prostitute, had sexual relations with Clinton on 13 occasions and he is the only Caucasian man she was involved with. He wrote an open letter to Lewinsky, stating that his quest for the truth about his identity and origins is not about politics or money. Williams is trying to raise $100,000 through a GoFundMe campaign for legal representation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I have no doubt that I am Bill Clinton's son. 30 year old Danny Williams claims he's the biological son of Bill Clinton, and he's now pleading with Monica Lewinsky to help him By providing genetic material from her infamous blue dress for a DNA test. I would love to see the DNA test done. Williams, who is from Hot Springs, Arkansas, says his mom, a former prostitute, said she had sex with the 42nd president on 13 occasions, and that He is the only caucasian man that she had relations with. In his open letter to Lewinsky, Williams writes that it's not about politics or money, but that he's desperate Or to find the truth, to understand who he is and where he comes from.
17 years ago, Williams' mother sold her story to a tabloid, Which claims it looked at both Clinton's DNA markers and his and came to the conclusion that Clinton was not his father. Now Williams is trying to raise a $100,000 with a GoFundMe campaign to help with legal representation. Be sure to watch Inside
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨 BILL CLINTON ASKED ABOUT EPSTEIN ALLEGATIONS "Mr. Clinton, any comments on the alleged allegation of your connection with Jeffrey Epstein?" Bill Clinton: "I think the evidence is clear."
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨 EPSTEIN ASKED ABUSED GIRL TO BEAR CHILD Ms Giuffre, the victim who allegedly was raped by Prince Andrew, was repeatedly told by Epstein to get pregnant. Source: Epstein files https://t.co/YkBL2pq7LL
reSee.it AI Summary
MIT Professor Seth Lloyd failed to report Jeffrey Epstein's donations to MIT, including a personal gift of $60,000 and $225,000 in other funds. These undisclosed contributions, part of Epstein's $850,000 total donations, have raised ethical concerns and resulted in Lloyd's temporary leave and subsequent return.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨MIT PROFESSOR IN EPSTEIN DONATION SCANDAL Seth Lloyd, after meeting Jeffrey Epstein at the 2004 "Billionaires' Dinner," didn't report Epstein's donations to MIT, including a $60,000 personal gift and $225,000 in other funds. Part of Epstein's $850,000 total contributions to MIT, these undisclosed donations have sparked ethical debates and led to Lloyd's temporary leave and subsequent reinstatement. Source: CNN, The Daily Beast, The Tech
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨EPSTEIN AND MIT PROFESSOR DISCUSSED THE ORIGINS OF LIFE At the 2004 Edge "Billionaires' Dinner," Jeffrey Epstein engaged MIT professor Seth Lloyd with a thought-provoking question, "Whether weird quantum effects had played a significant role in the origins of life." The discussion evolved with Epstein pondering, "We need to understand what problem was being solved at the moment life came into being." This intellectual exchange, among tech giants like Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Jeff Bezos, showcased Epstein's fascination with complex scientific theories, which later led to financial contributions Source: Edge Org
reSee.it AI Summary
Stephen Hawking's unique experience at a physics conference funded by Jeffrey Epstein is highlighted, including his submarine ride retrofitted by Ghislane Maxwell for his wheelchair. Epstein was Hawking's most generous benefactor. The event, hosted by Lawrence Krauss, allowed attendees to meet, discuss, relax on the beach, and visit Epstein's private island. Nobel laureates like Gerard 't Hooft, David Gross, Frank Wilczek, and Kip Thorne were also present.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨EPSTEIN-FUNDED PHYSICS GATHERING: HAWKING'S UNIQUE EXPERIENCE At a Jeffrey Epstein-funded physics conference, Stephen Hawking's submarine ride stood out, with the vessel reportedly retrofitted by Ghislane Maxwell for his wheelchair. It should also be noted that Epstein was Hawking’s most prolific benefactor. Hosted by physicist Lawrence Krauss, he described the event as such: "They could meet, discuss, relax on the beach, and take a trip to the nearby private island retreat of Jeffrey Epstein, who funded the event." The event brought together Nobel laureates like Gerard 't Hooft, David Gross, Frank Wilczek, and Kip Thorne. Source: Edge Org
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨 BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY TROUBLED BY DARK EPSTEIN EXPOSE King Charles has reportedly made efforts to further distance himself from his Brother as damning case files were released on Epstein this week. The files revealed that Epstein had kept coded files involving the name of an underage victim, who has accused Prince Andrew of rape, in connection with documents named 'Pedophil', 'ejaculate' and 'underage'. Source: Epstein files, Dailymail
reSee.it AI Summary
Biden's CIA Director, Burns, had multiple meetings with Epstein in 2014, according to court documents. These meetings took place during Burns' time as Deputy Secretary of State under John Kerry, even after Epstein's conviction. Source: Independent, NYPost.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸CIA CHIEF HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH EPSTEIN According to court documents - Biden's CIA Director Burns scheduled multiple meetings with Epstein in 2014. Before becoming CIA Director, during his tenure as Deputy Secretary of State under John Kerry, Burns arranged meetings with Epstein, long after the financier's sex crime conviction. Source: Independent, NYPost
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨EPSTEIN-FUNDED PHYSICS GATHERING: HAWKING'S UNIQUE EXPERIENCE At a Jeffrey Epstein-funded physics conference, Stephen Hawking's submarine ride stood out, with the vessel reportedly retrofitted by Ghislane Maxwell for his wheelchair. It should also be noted that Epstein was Hawking’s most prolific benefactor. Hosted by physicist Lawrence Krauss, he described the event as such: "They could meet, discuss, relax on the beach, and take a trip to the nearby private island retreat of Jeffrey Epstein, who funded the event." The event brought together Nobel laureates like Gerard 't Hooft, David Gross, Frank Wilczek, and Kip Thorne. Source: Edge Org
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed the connections between Bret and Eric Weinstein, Edge.org, and Jeffrey Epstein's "Billionaire Dinners." Key figures in Edge include prominent artists, scientists, and venture capitalists. While Elon Musk isn't a member, he attended some dinners. John Brockman, Edge's founder, has been labeled Epstein's "Intellectual Enabler." I raised concerns about Bret's current leadership role in "The Resistance" and his association with Edge, questioning his motives and past actions. Eric's UN work on migration has sparked debate about its implications for native populations. Overall, I see a troubling influence of Edge's ideas in society and media.
@FringeViews - Polly St George will never promote Crypto or NFTs
Bret Weinstein & brother Eric Weinstein, members of Edge[.]Org At the time Eric was listed as Managing Director of Thiel Capital. Jeffrey Epstein funded many "Billionaire Dinners" where he brought together tech moguls, media & bio-tech scientists (genetics, brain mapping, etc).
@FringeViews - Polly St George will never promote Crypto or NFTs
Edge membership, included Marina Abramovic, Gerry Adler (Newsweek), Paul Allen (Microsoft). George Church (CRISPR,) many neuroscientists and Venture Capitalists like Yuri Milner as, as mentioned Eric Weinstein ALL: https://www.edge.org/people/A
People Contributing to Edge.org | Edge.org
edge.org
@FringeViews - Polly St George will never promote Crypto or NFTs
Musk isn't listed as a member/contributor but he was at a billionaire dinner or two (or more?) along with so many names currently in the news. https://www.edge.org/event/the-edge-billionaires-dinner-2011
THE EDGE "BILLIONAIRES' DINNER" 2011 | Edge.org
edge.org
@FringeViews - Polly St George will never promote Crypto or NFTs
John Brockman is the founder of http://Edge.Org. He started out in the Air Force, then somehow got involved in multi-media art exhibits in NYC, then moved to publishing some of the most subversive authors of the time. (Elaine Pagels for example)
Edge.org
edge.org
@FringeViews - Polly St George will never promote Crypto or NFTs
Of course subversion (whether cultural or scientific) is always rebranded as something else: avante-garde or progress or intellectualism. Brockman was Jeffrey Epstein's "Intellectual Enabler" https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enabler
Jeffrey Epstein’s Intellectual Enabler
How did Epstein meet so many luminaries in the worlds of science and technology? It all might trace back to literary agent John Brockman.
newrepublic.com
@FringeViews - Polly St George will never promote Crypto or NFTs
Why care? #1 Look at Edge's membership and what they worked on. Abramovic & Epstein along with tech, neuro & bio scientists. Now look at our culture & the state of science. Subverted. The Great Reset is on its way and these people advanced it. https://archive.is/UvfgU
@FringeViews - Polly St George will never promote Crypto or NFTs
The 2nd reason that this is important is that Bret Weinstein is, right at this moment, acting as leader of "The Resistance"- inviting Americans to a repeat of Jan 6! What, exactly, is he up to? What is he resisting? Has he ever disavowed his association with the Edge?
@FringeViews - Polly St George will never promote Crypto or NFTs
Before I would follow this man's lead anywhere, I'd ask him about the pursuits of Edge. I'd ask him about his brother's Venture Capital work & Thiel. I'd ask him specific questions about genetic manipulation, social engineering, bio-surveillance & potential conflicts of interest.
@FringeViews - Polly St George will never promote Crypto or NFTs
The game is to distract you from the elite pursuit of 4th Industrial Revolution technologies & his allies' investments in them. Bret supported masking & lockdowns but changed course to act as a champion of the everyman. He's anything but 'one of us.' 👇
@FringeViews - Polly St George will never promote Crypto or NFTs
When's the last time you sat around & pondered whether we can set a non-evolutionary course that is game-theory stable? What does that even mean? I can only assume that it has something to do with the desire to meddle in human development on a global scale. Like his bro does
@FringeViews - Polly St George will never promote Crypto or NFTs
Migration for the benefit of all, eh? This long paper is about trying to find a way to bring in cheap labour from the 3rd world without causing a revolution in the home country. (Think Springfield OH) . See @JohnnyVedmore 's post for a summary.
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
Eric R. Weinstein’s “Great Replacement” by @JohnnyVedmore At the turn of the millennium, the United Nations was busily trying to encourage economic migration to the Western world. However, encouraging unfettered economic migration as we are experiencing today is highly unpopular with native workers of the target countries. The United Nations International Labour Organization in Geneva set up "the MIGRANT Division" to analyse and find solutions to these issues. To lead the unit, the UN appointed Manolo Abella to be Chief of MIGRANT, who is now linked with the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the University of Oxford, and others. Their stated challenge was to: “Find a free market solution to let employers reap the productivity benefit from decreasing their costs while boosting the income of native workers to the point where their interests become aligned with their employers.” To achieve this goal they decided on a solution. They wrote: “Native workers will not support programs which lower their total incomes. Yet, migration can be counted upon to produce a reliable net benefit in host countries only if it is allowed to decrease wages. Thus the solution is to realize that total income must rise while wage income is allowed to fall. This suggests that any natural free market solution must involve a natural income stream to host country workers which has previously been obscured or hidden. We then discover that if the (highly valuable) right of host country citizens to block access to labor markets is properly converted into a salable right, workers are made better off (since a salable right is always more financially valuable than a non-salable one). We thus convert the rights to preferential labor market access into rights of workers to license migrant work permits to employers. We find that with a little bit of care the market will now return an efficient solution with all parties being made better off.” Essentially the UN decided that the democratic voters of a nation-state would oppose unfettered economic migration, as we are experiencing today, and the folks at this globalist entity believed they knew better. To achieve their goals, the United Nations needed to subversively introduce this agenda in an undemocratic manner without gaining the consent of the native citizens of the democracies that they were to target. The man they chose to analyse and map out this scheme, which many refer to now as “The Great Replacement” was Eric R. Weinstein, who has since become a central figure in the “Intellectual Dark Web” whose members include Ben Shapiro, David Rubin, Jordan B. Peterson, Sam Harris, Douglas Murray, Joe Rogan, and Eric’s brother Bret Weinstein. @EricRWeinstein was employed by the UN to produce a document entitled: 'Migration for the Benefit of All: Towards a New Paradigm of Economic Immigration' Weinstein was aware of the damage which economic migration was to do to the native populations in places such as the United States and the United Kingdom. In one part of the document he produced for this nefarious United Nations agenda entitled, “Preference for migrants, undercutting of natives”, Weinstein wrote: “When migrant and native workers of comparable value to an employer are asked to compete, it is to be expected that the employer will take the applicant who costs him/her less. If, however, the respective terms of employment of the native and the migrant workers differ considerably, the employer may develop a preference between otherwise equal candidates. If migrant workers are not permitted to seek alternative work in the host country, then their “company loyalty” is reduced to a matter of law and regulation. In such circumstances, employers know that they will not have to earn migrant worker loyalty with the expenditure of resources that would be needed in the case of native workers. Thus it is to be expected that in systems tethering migrant workers to their employer-sponsors, some migrants will out-compete natives of comparable or greater value simply by virtue of the terms of employment set by the MWP. Since this is precipitated by a rational market response on the part of native employers, this consequence must be seen as a natural, if unfortunate, by-product of direct migrant sponsorship.” The Weinstein plan was always going to cost the government money, as we see unfolding today. A meticulous and proactive plan would have to be enacted by the nation-state in question to deal with the impact of large-scale migration and the author makes this clear in the document, with Eric R. Weinstein stating: “In effect, the government would assume all the administrative and transport costs for a group of migrants, as well as calculating the additional external impacts of hosting them. To indicate these costs, the government would calculate the expected migrant impact cost as a function of the number of migrants. Such a function would be expected not only to grow as the number of migrants increased, but also to do so in accelerating fashion, because of concern for the environment, monitoring costs, societal stress, and security risks.” The plan which was set out by Eric Weinstein predisposes the necessity of what he describes as “a much larger redistribution of native income”. The influx of migrants will always take wealth and opportunities away from the native population and this has a knock-on effect on how the “self-interested electorate” of the nation-state involved will vote. “In the first instance, the tethering of migrants to employer-sponsors creates a non-market system with a host of inefficiencies, as well as the potential for human rights violations. Second, naively opening markets to migrants from lower-income countries can act as a kind of “tax”, redistributing native income away from workers and towards employers. Of course, it can be argued that any proposed redistribution is intrinsically neither good nor bad, yet such transfers can make it nearly impossible to reach broad consensus on many important migration issues within the host country electorate: rationality indicates that proposals which threaten to harm the majority of individuals are unlikely to be approved by a self-interested electorate.” While comparing and analysing different methods of controlling the influx of migrants, Weinstein also studies the “Borjas Model” of economic migration and the predictable effect of its implementation on native workers, stating: “Native workers in the sector concerned may experience none of the economic benefits of the migration programme. In fact, in the absence of any compensation measures, they may experience a substantial loss of income, as the benefit to the host society stems from the ability to lower wages while simultaneously increasing the number of workers employed.” The problems of “ghettoization” and issues relating to “long-term native shortages” are brought up by Weinstein as known consequences of the redistribution of income away from native populations, but at no point are these problems expressed as reasons not to force economic migration upon target populations. In this United Nations document, Eric Weinstein specifically pushes Marxist ideology concerning the redistribution of income and wealth which benefits economic migrants at the expense of the native populations. Eric Weinstein proudly advertised his work for the United Nations on his website at the time, as well as posing himself as an expert on the subject. Under the title of “International Migration”, Weinstein even had a special email address for issues concerning migration where it was written: “If you are interested in the creation of efficient markets for facilitating increased international labor migration, please contact me at migration@eric-weinstein.net regarding the article 'Migration for the Benefit of All' to appear in 2002 in the International Labor Review. It is a pleasure to thank the MIGRANT division of the United Nations ILO in Geneva for sponsoring this work.” Whether you like him or not, Eric Weinstein has not been honest about his part in designing the failed Globalist system of economic migration which many people today refer to as the “Great Replacement”. He also hasn’t advertised his previous involvement with the United Nations, and his connection to Edge while it was fully funded by Jeffrey Epstein. During this time, Weinstein was also producing models for JP Morgan, one of Epstein’s keenest employers. Find this article with source material at https://newspaste.com/2024/09/25/eric-r-weinsteins-great-replacement/ I have also linked the original UN sponsored document produced by Eric Weinstein, entitled: 'Migration for the Benefit of All: Towards a New Paradigm of Economic Immigration' in PDF format https://newspaste.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/eric_weinstein_migration_for_the_benefit_of_all_international_labour_review_vol.-141_2002_no.-3.pdf
Eric R. Weinstein’s “Great Replacement”
At the turn of the millennium, the United Nations was busily trying to encourage economic migration to the Western world. However, encouraging unfettered economic migration as we are experiencing today is highly unpopular with native workers of the target countries.
newspaste.com
@FringeViews - Polly St George will never promote Crypto or NFTs
I could go on demonstrating that the ideas of The Edge group have infiltrated society and business. Their members are always on Rogan & Fridman spreading subversive ideas as if their brand of progress is inevitable and desirable. Eric is a Rogan regular and he's boring as hell. https://t.co/Po1HeFyyBp
@FringeViews - Polly St George will never promote Crypto or NFTs
I've covered the Narrative Network, Jordan Peterson's ARC & the Paypal Mafia funding much of the alt-media on the political right. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES they just play them on podcasts. The progress they are selling you isn't inevitable if you simply stop listening.
reSee.it AI Summary
In my exploration of the connections between Elon Musk and Jeffrey Epstein, I reveal how Musk was trained in psychological manipulation through Epstein-funded programs. This investigation draws on years of research into influential figures and their ties to elite networks. I discuss how behavioral economics, particularly the "nudge" theory, has been used to subtly manipulate public behavior. The Edge Foundation, where many tech leaders, including Musk, were educated, serves as a hub for shaping the future of governance through technology and psychology. This raises critical questions about freedom and control in our society.
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
Musk & Epstein: The Third Culture Dossier by @JohnnyVedmore "How Elon Musk Was Trained in Psychological Manipulation via a Jeffrey Epstein-Funded Program." Read it here🧵1/20 https://newspaste.com/2024/10/31/musk-epstein-the-third-culture-dossier/
Musk & Epstein: The Third Culture Dossier
How Elon Musk Was Trained in Psychological Manipulation via a Jeffrey Epstein-Funded Program.
newspaste.com
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
Musk & Epstein: The Third Culture Dossier - A @JohnnyVedmore Read Through Listen to the read-through of the article👇 For more Johnny Vedmore Read Throughs go to https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhtbhhhIpus9xVFuWbhuQ9ENT7OvKLjYG Support Johnny's in-depth journalism here https://newspaste.com/home/support-newspaste/ 🧵2/20
Video Transcript AI Summary
Welcome to another read-through. Today, we explore the troubling connections between Elon Musk and Jeffrey Epstein, particularly focusing on Musk's training in psychological manipulation through an Epstein-funded program. This investigation reveals how elite technocrats, including Musk, Bezos, and others, were trained to influence public behavior using behavioral economics techniques.
Key figures like Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein introduced these methods, which are now employed by governments and corporations to control societal behavior without public awareness. The implications of this training are significant, as it raises questions about the ethics of such manipulation and the future of governance in a world increasingly dominated by technology and psychological operations.
Join me as we dive deeper into this extraordinary story and its connections to the broader technocratic agenda shaping our society.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this another Jonny Vedmore read through with me, your host, Jonny Vedmore, and we are going on a special journey today, a journey that has been years in the making. In actual fact, within the article I'm about to read you, a load of my previous work have intersected, and I came across some information that was extremely troublesome, worrying, and which I'd been looking for for a while. Yes. I've been looking into the background of this very rich man, very powerful man, the technocrat of the future, Elon Musk. I'd already done some research on his family history, on his, first businesses, on even revealed that he had once worked for Microsoft, though that's not spoken of nowadays.
And I'd been looking for a connection, one connection in particular, that one with Jeffrey Epstein. We've seen the picture of Elon Musk with Ghislaine Maxwell at some party where he's photobombed. This this irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. What if I could find a photo of Elon Musk and Jeffrey Epstein in the same room? That would be interesting, wouldn't it?
And I did. But it didn't stop there. Once I'd found this photo, it led to an unraveling. And a load, like I said, a load of my other work intersected during this unraveling. And before you know it, we were going down the rabbit hole, my friends.
And it got to this article, this article that I'm going to read to you today, Musk and Epstein, the 3rd culture, which is about Elon Musk's training under a Jeffrey Epstein funded course on how to manipulate the minds of the masses, how to use behavioral control to understand choice architecture and manipulate it without the people knowing they're being manipulated. Make people choose. Make the masses choose. What if I told you that you could go back in time and discover when the heads of Google, YouTube, Facebook, X, Twitter, whichever one you want, Microsoft? What if I tell told you they all got together in a room, very small group of people, 8 to 10 people, and they said, hey, we're going to train you guys on how to manipulate people into making the decisions you want so that later on in the future, we can sense whatever we want and we can get people to think whatever we want just by manipulating them and nudging them.
What if we could do that? And that's what we're going to look at today. This is an extraordinary story, like I say, years in the making. So without further ado on this Johnny Vedmore read through, let's go to my site here, newspaced.com. Yes, newspaced.com.
It's very exciting to show you around. The place is looking fresh and pink, a bit neon here. The the top, of course, we've got the different drop down menus for the series. So you've got my Schwab series, Epstein 101 series, Pottenger series, Youngerman series, Blackhand series, other articles. In actual fact, parts of my Schwab series intersect with this article, part of my Epsilon 101 series intersect with this article.
I think there may be even a couple of straight Pottinger parts. Parts of the Youngerman series, Youngerman is actually in business with Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and was in business with Jeffrey Epstein of Buon de la Lita Express twice, so she comes up in it. And some others, including David Shaw and the rise of Jeff Bezos. And other ones too, the Welcome 5, the Proximal Origin. That's all they're all very interesting articles.
And, of course, this last article I wrote, which was Clinton and Blair, the 3rd way dossier. This is actually the 3rd series. It's called the 3rd series. Not the 3rd series I've done. I mean, it's the 3rd series, like the 3rd way and the third culture.
Without further ado, let's get across. As you see, similar to that other picture over here in the 3rd way, with the triangle of power in between a statue like image of Blair and Clinton. We've got the same here with the 3rd culture and these statue like images of Epstein and Musk. And it's, like I say, an extraordinary story. I've been looking forward to telling people about this one, so here we are.
Musk and Epstein, the 3rd culture dossier, how Elon Musk was trained in psychological manipulation via a Jeffrey Epstein funded program by me, Johnny Vedmore, for Newspace, my site. You can go to newspace.com, type Newspace in into any search engine. It should be the top result, and you can go diving down the rabbit hole. And I do note at the bottom of here, I do say this article contains over 20 hours, and it really does. It's probably about a day's worth of original media content directly related to the subject matter.
Support this kind of deep investigative journalism over here, and there's a link to my support page because, of course, I am an independent. In 2011, a small group of extremely influential people met to discuss the future of humanity. Among their ranks were Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Nathan Mervoyed, Sergey Brin and the infamous pedophile child trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein. But this was not the first time these powerful and affluent technophiles had met to determine how best to control society. For many years, I've been unwittingly preparing to write this piece, and a bulk of my previous investigations will intersect with this article.
For those who aren't aware, I have written extensively about Jeffrey Epstein's influence on leading politicians and scientists. I have revealed previously unknown details behind the rise of Jeff Bezos. I have mapped out the history of modern globalism, and I have written about the political influences behind such infamous leaders as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. In my NewsHounds series, I have covered the history of Elon Musk, his family life, his early businesses as well as his more hidden ties to Microsoft. I've also examined the psychological nudge units adopted by Obama and Cameron, respectively, which were designed by the father of behavioral economics, Richard Thaler, and his colleague and coauthor, Cass Sunstein.
And I recently and recently, I revealed Eric Weinstein's work for the UN designing the current unfettered immigration we have seen happen all around the globe, along with his participation in EDGE when it was almost fully funded by Jeffrey Epstein. However, I wasn't expecting all these investigations to merge into one investigation eventually. Since I began reporting on Epstein and his accomplices in 2019, I have been searching for something rather specific. I have been trying to find people with previously unknown or unrevealed connections to the sex offending intelligence operative. In doing so, I've been hopping around the Internet archives on the hunt for concrete evidence that powerful people such as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk met in person with Jeffrey Epstein.
Although there were many rumors which suggested as much or which suggest as much, finding definitive proof of these powerful people all in the same room at the same time has been challenging. However, that what I wasn't expecting was to find, to find with Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk being trained to manipulate the masses via a Jeffrey Epstein funded program. But, alas, here we are prepared to look behind the curtain of power as we investigate more than just Musk and Bezos's connections to Jeffrey Epstein. We're going to discover how an elite psychological operations unit trained the future technocrat elite on how to manipulate our lives, our societies and most of all, our minds. The four factors for control.
Those who want to take control or take over and control society require 4 main components: a paradigm shift in technology, a coherent political social science, a loyal leadership group, and, most importantly, political consent. Historically, many great thinkers have tried and failed to find some form of political panacea panacea for all of our ills. And it is often a novel technological paradigm shift, which has been the most effective way to drive real change. Any emerging technology capable of revolutionizing certain aspects of our society can be implemented in several ways. Future technologies are almost always imagined and predicted decades before they arise.
And those who understand the implications of a paradigm shift in technology can also seek to control its evolution, implementation and its accessibility. Technological paradigm shift. The past is littered with technological paradigm shifts. The wheel, the road, bronze, iron and steel, steam trains, gunpowder dynamite, and the atomic bomb have all had a massive impact on how human society has developed. Every time such technology has emerged in the past, our society's infrastructure has been irreversibly redrawn, And this has led to people's lives being shaken up like it's a game.
The vast majority of humans, as the pieces in this game, get redistributed around the board in preparation for the proverbial next level. And we again find ourselves on the precipice of such a predictable change. Here is one of the slides. As you see, Johnny Vedmore explores the World Economic Forum's Mega Cities training, given to their Young Global Leaders. It's actually me going through the training slides for the young global leaders program.
The world of tomorrow has already been extensively mapped out. For more than a half of a century, those in power have been designing the globalist mega city utopia where humanity becomes inextricably entangled with artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and various implantables. Every small group of very wealthy actors, a very small group of very wealthy actors have been in control of the design, implementation and direction of the major technologies of the future. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin and Elon Musk are four clear examples of the billionaire elite who have the ability to irrevocably change the course of humanity in many ways. Political, social science.
When faced with a technological shift into a new epoch, the prevailing establishment usually jumps at the opportunity to redesign society. They often adopt an experimental branch of political science, which they think will best fit to developing paradigm. Adopting a social science, which will hold firm in an ever changing world, is vital if those in power want to retain control over the emerging system. Within modern Western democracies, the preferred system of social governance has already been adopted. Whether you wanted it or not, the likes of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have forced third way politics, as imagined by Anthony Giddens, on America and Britain, with many of a Western nation joining suit.
3rd way ideology is essentially the ideological stepping stone, which they intend to utilize to take us from democratic nation states and onto a form of undemocratic multipolar globalism. In the case of 3rd way politics, we can see how the process unfolded. By the time Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992, he hadn't only adopted the 3rd wave political science created by Giddens, but he was also preaching it from the political pulpit. At the same time, the future new Labour elite were in America and hanging on every word spoken by the likes of Anthony Giddens, Robert Reich and Larry Summers. And here's my 3rd way read through, so the read through for the article, the 3rd way, which will explain all that.
For instance, Yvette Cooper worked on the Bill Clinton campaign in 1992. Blair and Brown came back from trips to America during this period, and they attempted to push third wave politics onto the then labor leader, John Smith, while Ed Balls was studying under Robert Reich and Larry Summers at Harvard. Eventually, the labor upstart designed the so called New Labor Party and modeled it on the reformed New Democrats of Bill Clinton. Leadership Group. To drive people in a new direction, social scientists must first successfully gain the king's ear.
They must convince those who crave power but are yet to gain power that their brand new branch of political science is what must be adopted. Whether it's Klaus Schwab's brand of stakeholder capitalism or Anthony Giddon's 3rd wave politics, a young and aspiring leadership group must be recruited and trained to make it work. There are many examples of industrial leadership training programs, the most famous being the Forum for Young Global Leaders, originally the Global Leaders for Tomorrow program, run by the World Economic Forum. The 1st year of the latter program saw Tony Blair and Gordon Brown attend alongside Angela Merkel, Bill Gates, Nicholas Latvos and many other potential young leaders who were later installed into power. Also in attendance alongside Blair and Brown was Larry Summers, who was another proponent of 3rd wave politics and an Epstein associate, who was appointed under Secretary of International Affairs of United States Department of Treasury under President Bill Clinton's administration in actually the same year.
Here is the unauthorized history of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader, where I go back to the Kissinger International Seminar, which it was based on, and how eventually we got to the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders with funding, hidden funding from Henry Kissinger to his friend and protege, Klaus Schwab. The leadership training mill was not limited to the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders Program. Blair and Brown had already been put through the U. S.-run International Visitors Leadership Program, which originated out of a wartime operation set up by Nelson Rockefeller. The German Marshall Fund also runs multiple leadership courses from their Harvard base, which specifically target leadership candidates focused on European Russian affairs.
These sorts of leadership programs are a way for state apparatus to instill future leaders with the socioeconomic philosophy which best suits the chosen political paradigm of the ruling elite. Consent. The fundamental issue with creating radical political change isn't the difficulty of pursuing a small, tight knit leadership or persuading a small, tight knit leadership cabal to adopt a chosen brand of social science. The real issue is how to convince the majority of voters to cast their ballots for a newly developed and relatively untested social order. This is an especially pertinent problem when the chosen branch of social science doesn't initially benefit the wider population.
To convince the electorate to vote for their suppression, the consequences must be obscured. This is another slide from the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders Training. It's population demographics. As you see here, they actually, even on their own slides, training slides, they joke about population control and management, and they talk about a lot of these subjects within their training too. To enact real change, those in power don't only require newly emerging technologies, a freshly created social science, and a group of leaders hungry for power who are willing to adopt a new paradigm.
They also require a way to enact behavioral change on the masses. The people who want to control society must be able to harness behavioral economics and the social psych and the social psychology of the population they seek to enforce control over. Most importantly, they must have control over the means for propagating information. In this regard, we currently see the mainstream media being supplanted by social media platforms, such as Facebook and X. The control of information is being in the same hands as those who control technology, the control of information being in the same hands as those who control technology should worry us all.
This should increase exponentially once they head towards government. In this article, I will map out how the future technocrats were trained by the most prominent social and economic psychologists of the past 20 years to manipulate society via courses directly funded by Jeffrey Epstein. The intellectual divide.
Speaker 1: In an early 17th, in
Speaker 0: the early 17th century, a German Rosicrucian pamphlet mentioned the Invisible College. This was a small meeting of noted scholars, which in the early years included the Irish natural philosopher, Robert Boyle, and the infamous English architect, mathematician, astronomer and physicist, Christopher Wren. This sort of meeting of minds continued later in the same century public of letters, which encouraged long distance letter writing between the intellectual community. This was the intellectual community revolutionizing how they communicated, spurred on by simple technological advances in writing tools and increased access to materials. This systematically encouraged and focused boost in intellectual networking gave rise to powerful organizations such as the Royal Society.
In this read through of the welcome prize, you can learn more at the end of it about the Royal Society. The last part is actually about, and Elon Musk is in the Royal Society as well, so that's quite amusing. What came out of this maelstrom of elite societies, scholarly organizations and information exchange groups hasn't simply had a massive impact on our understanding of physics, chemistry and biology. Some of the most pernicious and dangerous developments in modern science have been in social theory, psychology and economics. Since the days of the Invisible College, many elite intellectual organizations have been formed to meet the darker side of humanity's more nefarious ends, to push technological evangelism while controlling the pace of scientific development.
While some of these organizations are created as a simple networking tool for certain sectors of scientific or political elite, Others have been made manifest to push an agenda of control over the vast majority of the global population. One man who was inspired by the Invisible College of Yesteryear was John Brockman. Throughout the 1980s nineties, Brockman set up a comprehensive and distinct modern iteration of these intellectual endeavors, which he eventually named edge.org. Brockman was an extremely influential intellectual who had been the author editor of 19 books by 1995, which was the same year he published The Third Culture, Beyond the Scientific Revolution. The latter work is extremely pertinent to this investigation in particular.
Brockman was born in 1941, 7 months before America entered World War 2. He began his career in 1965 working at the filmmakers' cinematique. His mother was a registered nurse, while his father was well known flower broker known for our boss as the Carnation King. He grew up as a Jew in an Irish Catholic neighborhood where he and his brother Philip Bregley got into fights. Philip was a scientist by trade, being of the initial groups employed by NASA to work on their space program and later retraining as a laser scientist in the 1970s.
And here's the young John Brockman. Throughout the 1960s, John Brockman was directly influenced by the composer John Cage, who handed Brockman a copy of Norbert Wiener's book entitled Cybernetics During 1965 New York Dinner. According to Brockman, this began his obsession with what he called the cybernetic idea, while also influencing his desire to create more opportunities for intellectual encounters. In 1981, John Brockman founded the Reality Club, which saw a small group of mostly New York based intellectuals meet for seminars on scientific topics trending amongst the intellectual establishment. The reality club's members included some of the greatest minds of the era, some of those who were attempting to push scientific frontiers to the max, such as Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Steven Pinker.
Originally, Brockman created the Edge Foundation in 1988, but it was only once the World Wide Web had been properly developed that Edge found its home online. Edge soon became the focus of Brockman's attention, and the reality club was eventually reorganized into the Edge Foundation in January 1997. When the Edge Foundation online, with the Edge Foundation online, John Brockman began to gather intellectuals. The first Edge meeting took place on the 21st December 1996 and included a talk by Richard Dawkins entitled science, delusion, and the appetite for wonder. The scientist involved in the reality club and then Edge were some of the most sought after thinkers of the day.
The offer of networking with big names was already attracting further scientific celebrities, and Edge soon became the central central to the plans of a certain New York money man named Jeffrey Epstein. Such networking wasn't only successful because the regular Edge attendees were so illustrious and well known. Much of Edge's popularity was down to John Brockman himself, Howard Rheingold, an American writer and teacher who specializes in cultural, social, and political implications of modern communication media, once said of Brockman, Brockman has an uncanny way of knowing people who know something important and a talent for putting those people together. And Rangel's assertion was correct. Brockman had embedded himself within the deep state establishment from the 19 sixties onwards.
And alongside his knack for predicting the future, he was always a successful top flight interlocutor. Yeah. Well, oh. I made me sneeze. He was always a successful top flight interlocutor.
As a rule of thumb, Brockman surrounded himself with movers and shakers, and this took more of a scientific bent the closer he got to old age. For Brockman to understand which intellectuals he should entice, first, he needed to decipher which scientific advancements were most pertinent to our unfolding reality. He wasn't the only one who craved such knowledge. A vast array of power players could see the obvious benefit of knowing the future that the reigning intellectual elite had already predicted to emerge. An edge was created to be a vehicle towards such ends.
This is from The Guardian newspaper here, the man who runs the world's smartest website. Brotman was regularly lauded in the mainstream media throughout his career. However, Brotman's gatherings were designed to be pointedly different from most of the scientific societies of the past. Brotman was looking to create what he termed a third culture to make scientific endeavor accessible to the wider intellectual community. To understand this, we must first examine Brotman's reasons for using the term third culture.
In a 1959 book by CP Snow entitled The 2 Cultures, the author explained how academics were split into 2 diverse intellectual groups. The academics within the humanities appear to have little to no understanding or knowledge of those intellectuals from the traditional natural sciences and vice versa. Snow's point was best summarized in this well quoted part of his thesis. A good many times, I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have, with considerable gusto, been expressing their incredulity at this the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice, I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the second law of thermodynamics.
But the response was cold. It was also negative. Yet I was asking something, which is the scientific equivalent of, have you read a work of Shakespeare's? To both Snow and Brockman, the general knowledge gap between social and natural scientists was a clear issue, Where both men saw the 2 groups as separate and distinct cultural identities, Brockman was intent on creating an alternative culture where they could synthesize and learn from each other. Although he claimed to have been the first to attempt to bridge this intellectual divide, many organizations had wrestled with the same issue.
Brockman's intentions were clear. He knew that real power did not reside in one place and that physics, biology, and chemistry could only have a significant impact on wider society if their importance were truly understood at a level where they could be implemented into policy. However hard he tried to overcome the divide between the intellectuals of these distinctly separate disciplines, Brockman's 3rd culture became more of a mishmash of this elite scientific establishment. Regardless, his organization would have more than simple networking benefits for those involved. When Jeffrey met Elon.
Those who attended Edge from the late 1990s were more than just scientists. Essentially, they were elite rock star status celebrity intellectuals who had already obtained vast wealth, power, and influence. Membership of Edge became inextricably linked with the ability to generate vast wealth. Those directing Edge weren't looking to fill up stadiums with scientists of every ilk. Instead, they wanted to fill up small meeting rooms with the ruling class of the elite scientific circles, and that's exactly what they did.
This gave rise to Edge's so called Billionaires' Dinner. Most people who have looked into Epstein's case have seen images of Epstein attending a billionaires' dinner or 2 alongside members of his operations, such as Sarah Kellan and even some of his well known sex traffic victims, like Cindy Lopez. Many of the attendees at EDGE spoke highly of Epstein's intellect, even after he had been convicted, jailed, and publicly vilified. Steven Pinker was one of those regular attendees at Broughton's scientific gatherings who was roundly criticized in the media for his lack of regret for associating with Jeffrey Epstein, something of which Bill Gates was also guilty. And you could read one of my Epstein 101 influence and collusion.
This is about his relationship with powerful people such as Bill Clinton, especially with Bill Clinton. However, once Epstein was arrested the 2nd time and the case blew up in the mainstream media, many other regular Edge members either disassociated themselves publicly from the infamous money man or simply refused to comment to the press, Finding direct links between Epstein and the high profile elites who were proactively distancing themselves from him was always going to be difficult, especially as many of those involved can systematically censor the information. Those who are most keen to hide their connections to Jeffrey Epstein are in total control of the major social media video platforms, such as Google, YouTube, Twitter, X, Facebook, and Amazon. I really mean top level. Edge was a perfect platform to allow Epstein to network with some of the most important people in science.
This included some of the most influential people responsible for designing the technocratic panopticon taking shape around us. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, could have met Epstein on several occasions. Bezos was based in New York during the early 1990s, where he had been working his way up to become vice president of D. E. Shores hedge fund before he started setting up Amazon.
D. E. Shaw's founder, David Shaw himself, had become an economic policy adviser for the Clinton administration when when Mark Middleton and Jeffrey Epstein visited Bill Clinton's White House 17 times over 2 years. And you could go to UK column here and read my article, David Shaw and the rise of Jeff Bezos, which will show you the true story behind the rise of Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos was already turning in the same circles of the New York elite as Jeffrey Epstein.
Bezos even entered into an online partnership with Sotheby's during the late 1990s, while mega group member and Epstein's main funder, Les Wexner, was on the board of the auction house. He also shared a love of Formula 1 racing with Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell. And there were plenty of other opportunities where Bezos could have interacted with Epstein, but it was at Edge where direct connection will most likely be found. Bezos attended Brockman's Billionaire's Dinner, Billionaire Dinners almost religiously and was a regular participant in the course's edge ran for their elite members. From the late '90s onwards, almost every top member of the future ruling technocratic establishment was involved with Edge.
Bill Gates of Microsoft was a regular. Sergey Brin of Google was also a stalwart attendee. And the presence of Nathan Myhrvold of intellectual ventures should not be understated either. Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, who were also representing Google, were noted at Edge events alongside Anne Wojcicki of 23andme, later on you taking over YouTube. And Elon Musk, who was representing SpaceX and Tesla during the period he was attending Edge.
Elon Musk has managed to remain distant and detached from the Epstein case. There is one photo in particular of Musk alongside Glenn Maxwell, which has been heavily shared online and is often used as proof of some sort of connection between Musk and Epstein. However, evidently speaking, a single photo of Musk and Maxwell is pretty inconclusive. This is especially so seeing as Ghislaine Maxwell regularly photobombed elites, a high brow event as part of a repertoire. It was also reported by Business Insider that Maxwell asked Musk on that occasion to destroy the Internet.
This is the read through of Lewa, Grooming and Seduction, which explains about how Ghislain Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein's operation, grooming operation worked and his proclivities towards children. We know that Elon Musk had a profile page on edge.org, and we also know that he had attended a few well documented meetings. It may have been difficult to find concrete evidence that Elon Musk was in the same room as Jeffrey Epstein, but it was not impossible. Epstein and Musk were both at one exclusive Edge event in particular. Only about 25 people attended the Edge Billionaires' Dinner of 2011, an event which took place just after Jeffrey Epstein had been released from prison for his initial conviction.
It was revealed in BuzzFeed News article that Epstein was at the billionaires dinner that year. He was even caught in a blurry photo at the event, which was also published in BuzzFeed News and on the Edge website. However, what were the reporters failed to notice in that article is that Elon Musk was actually in the same photo too. You can see Jeffrey Epstein sitting at the same table as Zac Bogue of Montara Capital Partners, and just 5 meters away from Epstein is Elon Musk. Musk was attending the event alongside his then wife, Tallulah Musk.
Elon and Tallulah had married a year before the event in question, and they divorced a year after. Here you go. This is the picture. I can confirm for the first time that there, you can see the same angle, same door, same shadow, one table behind. That's the table behind them.
Wearing the same jacket, same haircut, same shirt. It is Elon Musk. Right by there, it is Jeffrey Epstein. Right by there, That's probably 2 and a half meters at most. 2 and a half meters at most.
25 odd people at the event. So here is a photo showing Jeffrey Epstein and Elon Musk in the same room at a very small event, select event. Brockman was in attendance alongside his son, Max Brockman, who was managing Brockman Inc. Nathan Myhrvold, Jeff Bezos and Sergey Brin were also in attendance. Salah Kamanga represented YouTube.
Reporter David Brooks was there for The New York Times, and even musician Peter Gabriel was noted amongst the attendees at the dinner. Jeffrey Epstein had become significantly more low profile after his prison term, so he's not officially listed as an attendee at the event. But he was there, as we can see from one of the blurry photos taken at the dinner by Nathan Myhrvold and published on edge.org. Although this photo shows Elon Musk and Jeffrey Epstein at the same Edge event, there was more to find. Tracing Elon Musk's involvement with Edge, while it was almost fully funded by Jeffrey Epstein, leads us to a much more significant and worrying course, the standardization of government sponsored psychological operations to systematically manipulate an unwitting public.
Elon Musk's training in psychological manipulation funded by Epstein. The psychological manipulation of the masses via various intelligence linked programs is well documented. The official leaseanctioned government led programming of general population is not a conspiracy theory. It has become accepted by many as a mainstream method to ignite control. Such abhorrent and underhand manipulation used to be resigned to the realm of secretive and subversive intelligence programs or campaigns run by major PR companies, but that changed abruptly once Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein took their brand of behavioral economics on the road.
This is NewsHound number 20. The behavioral insight team is here inside your mind. This is about the unit we're going to be speaking about. This is about Richard Thelha. You'll understand this now.
It was the Democratic party under Barack Obama, which first welcomed the creators of what they were eventually termed nudge units into the White House. This led to government attached unit set up to subtly nudge people into changing their behavior on behalf of those who wish to control the future direction of society. In the United Kingdom, Richard Thaler also found a friend in David Cameron and his Conservative Party administration, and they soon created what was termed the behavioral insight unit in the United Kingdom. The British government during this period were already ahead of Thaler in many regards. In 2004, Tony Blair's New Labour produced a paper entitled Personal Responsibility and Changing Behavior, the State's Knowledge and Its Implications for Public Policy.
Within this fascinating example of the government's overstepping what may be considered appropriate to the electorate, part of the paper reviews the growing body of knowledge about alternative and perhaps more subtle ways in which government might affect personal behavior. The paper concludes that the use of behavioral change would be positive for government policy stating, looking to the future, there is an evident need to strengthen our theoretical and empirical understanding of what drives behavior and behavioral change. Just as important will be the wider testing out of policy tools to develop a more sophisticated toolkit for policymakers. Policy should not simply proclaim personal responsibility or blame but needs to be shaped around the ways in which people actually think and feel and the social and psychological forces that influence behavior. It wasn't only the Tory government which was cooing at Richard Athaeler.
In a Guardian article from the 12th July 2008 entitled, For Obama to Cabrin, why do so many politicians want a piece of Richard Athaeler? New Labour's rate Richard Reeves is also noted as desperate to get Phelan on board with Aditya Chakraborty writing, there was a time when Labour would have been all over Phelan Downhill Street, would have pulled a bit for a chat. Now it's the other side that are showing they're up for new ideas, says former government adviser Richard Reeves. Sadly, that tells you where the intellectual energy is in British politics. Reeves had taken it upon himself to organize a dinner next Tuesday with Thaler and some government advisers and think tankers from the center left.
After Richard Thaler, described as the father of behavioral economics, published his book in 2008 entitled Nudge Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness, those who wanted to manipulate people's behavior began to flock to him. It wasn't only Cameron and Obama who understood how the study of behavioral economics could be applied generally to change the behavior of general population. This was the perfect tool to systematically manufacture consent amongst the voting population, and if applied industrially, had the potential to change the entire world. This is from the UK Labour Party's paper, Personal Responsibility and Change Behavior. It shows some of the things, the cost effectiveness of alternative methods of behavioral change.
Shifting understanding of personal responsibility. Political pressures to sharpen and extend conditional benefits. Wealth complexity and diversity challenge at one size fits all desire to enhance personal responsibility and individual control. These are all very interesting ways to change behavior. So they were already kind of on board of this.
Brockwell and Epstein saw many benefits in sailors teaching. They had certain aspects of total technological control covered. They had the ear of many of the world leaders. They had introduced the 3rd wave politics of the future into the public arena with its creator, Anthony Giddens, also been involved in Edge. But they were yet to figure out how to manufacture the consent of the voting population efficiently.
This was where Thaler's newly created strain of behavioral economics came into play. Behavioral economics was the establishment's best hope for achieving change among regular people. Most importantly, without those targeted realizing how or why they were being manipulated. In 2008, Theloh was an attendee at the San Francisco dinner held by Edge, But this wouldn't be his only involvement with Brockman and EdsEye's organization. Thaler also went to Edge specifically to train an extremely select group of EDGE members in his newly developed branch of psychological operations.
In October 2008, EDGE hosted a course funded by Jeffrey Epstein, which focused on his new form of behavioral science, Richard Fala and Sander Munderhagen, a professor of economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, designed the 6 park courts themselves. Here, you can see me and Joe Allen discuss. Put forward the I posit the question, is Elon Musk the manufactured antithesis of the establishment? Joe Allen bats on the other side, though he is sympathetic to the view, that's for sure. This course was designed to be a master class, something which the Edge website claimed was the most recent iteration of Edge's development and had begun the previous year.
The 1st Edge master class of 2,008 was called Libertarian Paternalism, Why It's Impossible Not to Nudge, while the second in the master class series was entitled Improving Choices with Machine Readable Disclosure. The second part of the Edge master class saw only 8 Edge members in attendance: Jeff Bezos, Nathan Myhrvold, Sala Kamanga, Daniel Kahneman, Danny Hillis, Paul Romer, Elon Musk and Sean Parker, while the third part also saw George Dyson and Franz LeCurt join in. This wasn't a random group of thinkers. These were some of the most powerful movers and shakers in the digital world. This Edge event saw the leading experts in behavioral economics training the very top echelons of Google, Amazon, YouTube, SpaceX, Intellectual Valid Ventures, Facebook and Peter Thiel's Founders Fund.
Alongside Thaler and Mullenathan, Daniel Kahneman is one of the leading experts in not only behavioral economics, but also cognitive psychology and the processes behind judgment and decision making. Thaler and Kahneman started working together in 1970s when Thaler arrived at Stanford. Kahneman also had a close business relationships with Richard Thaler by sitting on the board of Fuller and Thaler Asset Management Inc. The attendees of his Edge masterclass would soon become the most powerful people in the world, more powerful than any president, prime minister or king. Paul Romer is an American economist and policy entrepreneur who later became chief economist for the World Bank in 20 16 and eventually shared a Nobel Prize in Economics alongside William Nordhaus.
The year before the Edge event in question, Sala Kamanga replaced the founder of YouTube, Chad Hurley, as CEO of YouTube. And in February 2014, he left the company. Kamanga was replaced as CEO at YouTube by another staunch edge regular, Susan Wojcicki. Danny Hillis had previously worked at Disney and had cofounded Apple Applied Minds. But by the time he had found by this time, he had founded MetaWeb Technologies, which was later acquired by Google.
The infamous creator of Napster, Sean Parker, was already invested in Facebook by this point. However, maybe more notably, Parker had become a managing partner of Peter Thiel's Founders Fund, a San Francisco based venture capital fund. The founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, was already a powerful mover and shaker by 2,008, while Nathan Myhrvold's intellectual ventures controlled almost 70,000 patents and patent pending at its peak. The 3rd Jeffrey Epstein funded masterclass in the series, which Elon Musk attended, was entitled The Psychology of Scarcity. And it began when Sandor Mullenathan quote that suggest they were imagining how to benefit from impoverished population, stating,
Speaker 1: let's put aside poverty alleviation for a second, and let's ask, is there something intrinsic to poverty that has value and that is worth study studying in and of itself? One of the reasons that this is the case is that purely aside from magic bullets, we need to understand, are there unifying principles under conditions of scarcity that can help us understand behavior and to craft intervention? If we feel that conditions of scarcity evoke certain psychology,
Speaker 0: then that, not to mention pure scientific interest, will affect a vast majority of interventions.
Speaker 1: It's an important and old question.
Speaker 0: The United Kingdom's behavioral insight teams have been used as, used to coerce the population during the coronavirus pandemic with the nudge unit coordinating closely with the Department of Health and Social Care in crafting the government response. The Institute for Government noted the nudge's unit's use of disgust as an incentive to wash hands and the suggestion of singing Happy Birthday to ensure hands are washed for the requisite 20 seconds. Those are both nudge ideas. News hound number 7 here is, Elon Musk, his star of his career. His time at Zip 2 Net, and his earlier career is well worth a watch.
Regardless of how powerful majority of the attendees of Richard Thaler's master class in behavioral psychology were, Elon Musk was the real rising star in this room. Officially, Musk represented SpaceX and Tesla, but his growing business portfolio alongside his wealth, power and influence had increased exponentially ever since. When Elon Musk bought Twitter, he made his intentions for the future direction of the app clear. Musk intends to turn x.com into the Western equivalent of WeChat in an everything app, which will not only be the biggest social media platform in the world, but will also be a payment platform from where you'll be able to manage your money, bills, shopping, and much more. The development of x is fundamentally a prescient step towards what Musk perceives as an inevitable new paradigm.
The psychological manipulation of the public via powerful social media platforms won't only be used to reap potential economic benefits for those in control of sites like ex Facebook or Google. They will be used by government to sway popular opinion too. So as Elon Musk crosses the proverbial Rubicon from being someone who is in direct control of a platform which has the potential to create mass social change onto government, big questions must be asked. Exacting behavioral change. In this article, I will attempt to briefly describe the breadth of what is termed behavioral economics.
But once you begin researching this subject, one thing becomes extremely clear. Everything we do, every action we take, and every decision we make is encompassed by behavioral economics. It's not simply a case of nudging people's behavior concerning purchases or credit cards. You can use these techniques to create a range of behavioral changes in people outside of economics too. To a behavioral economist, people's actions are mappable.
Everyone is driven by a mental model and altering their mental model will in turn change their behavior by giving their target specific stimuli designed to nudge them into choosing an alternative option. During the 3rd class of the 2008 EDGE course, Mullen Affairn describes it like this. It's about how there's a large set of programs where we're trying to encourage behavioral change in some form. And one of the underlying themes that emerges that unifies them is, can we effectively elicit the mental model people operate with and then use that to then create behavioral change? It's a structured way to think about behavioral change literature.
One of the aforementioned attendees, Daniel Kahneman, a leading expert in cognitive psychology and the processes behind judgment and decision making, recognized the psychological potential of this technology, stating on Edge, what we're seeing is that there is a technology emerging from behavioral economics. It's not only an abstract thing. You could do things with it. We adjust at the beginning. I thought that the input of psychology into behavioral economics was done.
But here in Sendil was very encouraging because there was a lot of new psychology in there. That conversation is continuing and it looks to me as if that conversation is going to go forward. It's pretty intuitive based on research, good theory and important. Although we believe ourselves to be somewhat discerning when making tough decisions, human behavior is very predictable and ergo easy to manipulate. A lot of behavioral economics is data driven.
It's as simple as if we are confronted with our data output in a certain way, we will often choose to make different decisions. The more information they have about you, the more they can design their nudges to best weigh your behavior, whether you want them to or not. And that is the crux of behavioral economics. The more information they have about you, the easier it is to manipulate you into making certain decisions. That's Richard Thaler there, looking on, courtesy of The Guardian.
It was actually on an Indian website as well. When Thelach and Sunstein officially went on the road in 2008 to convince people of the vast potential of nudge theory, they weren't shy about its potential, its potential to overstep previously unspoken red lines. In Boston Globe article on the 2nd March 2008, written by Drake Bennett, entitled When Shove Comes to Push. Bennett states, Thaler, Sunstein, and other similar minded thinkers argue that this approach, it has a monopoly of applications. Besides improving people's financial and energy habits, it could restructure health insurance and medical care.
In the social realm, some economists are experimenting with contracts to get people to lose weight. In their book, Thelma and Sunstein even suggest changes to the marriage contract. After they had released Nudge, Thaler and Sunstein wrote articles in several papers setting up their store. In the Chicago Tribune on the 6th April, 2008, Thaler and Sunstein wrote an article entitled A Gentle Pod to Go Green. The behavioral tinkerers wrote, behavioral economics is an exciting new field that combines standard economics with an understanding of human psychology.
From the standpoint of behavioral economics, it is important to focus on both the economic and the psychological aspects of the climate change problem. The economic aspect has to do with people's incentives. Neither big companies nor individual consumers are required to pay their full share of the environmental costs they impose on everyone else. In reality, within behavioral economics as practiced by Thaler and Sonstein, the general public is unwittingly convinced to accept the final bill for whatever policies those in power wish to enact. Whenever the politicians in power think they know better than everyone else, they are free to systematically manipulate the general public via subversive psychological methods.
In fact, some of Thaler and Sunstein's teachings interfere unduly with personal choice, the very definition of the nanny state. Thaler and Sunstein referred to their branch of psychology as libertarian paternalism, and they saw the desire to nudge as a natural part of capitalist system. In an article written by Phelan Sundstein for the Los Angeles Times on the 2nd April, 2008 entitled Designing Better Choices, it states, we find ourselves these days mired in political battles of pit laissez faire capitalism with its reliance on unrestricted free markets against heavily regulated capitalism, which favors government mandates and bans in efforts to ensure good outcomes. But this opposition is false and misleading. Any system of free markets, which include some kind of choice architecture, and that means libertarian paternalism, can offer a real third way around the battleground.
However, to make this third way viable, Thaler and Sunstein have not only had to redefine psyops as behavioral economics, they have also redefined some humans as something they call econs. These are predictable rational actors whose behavior is extremely influenced by sudden economic change. Thaler and Sunstein mentioned econs a lot during nudge, separating them from the humans who require nudging. Econs respond primarily to incentives. If the government taxes candy, they will buy less candy, But they are not influenced by such irrelevant factors as the order in which the options are displayed.
Humans respond to incentives too, but they are also influenced by nudges. By properly deploying both incentives and nudges, we can improve people's lives and help solve many of society's major problems. And we can do so while still insisting on everyone's freedom to choose. It is clear that Thelach and Sonstein attempt to redefine what it means to be human. For them, humans need to be cajoled to make them act as the ruling class would like them to act.
They clearly believe that humans would make worse decisions than econs if they were left to their own devices. But in turn, that is based on the presupposition that the government always makes better decisions than the general population. It's true that some of the reasons why humans make poor decisions is due to a lack of specific information. However, like with the psychology of scarcity in relation to poverty, the unspoken issue here is actually concerning the psychology of scarcity concerning information. If everyone were given access to all information from the start, then people would make better choices about who they were governed by and how society is constructed or, in this case, constricted.
The digital panopticon is fueled by the control of information. As with Benfem's design of the hypothetical panopticon prison, in Thaler's world, the state has access to all the information they require to nudge us while the general public is denied accurate information systematically. This manufactured information scarcity is not only a tool which the government uses to coerce our behavior and decision making, it has also become a commonly used tool of the biggest social media organizations and search engines. Musk now owns one of the biggest social media platforms in the world, and the amount of data his company can harvest about each user is excessive. They know what you watch, what you like, what you share, your private messages, and a growing selection of individual datasets, which will allow them to build mental models of each individual.
At the same time, Peter Thiel's Palantir is also growing its datasets on individuals, while YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, and Google are doing alike. These organizations are blatantly guilty of systematically controlling, hiding and censoring information from their users. Here is another of Peter Thiel's colleagues. Eric R. Weinstein was also a member of Epstein and Brochmann's Edge.
This is my news hound about Eric R. Weinstein's hidden history working, designing flagship economic migration programs for the United Nations. At the moment, we are providing major companies with masses of our personal information daily. And in return, they are profiling us in more ways than one. That massive data we supply to these companies allows them to control almost every action we take without us even realizing it's happening.
The next step is for artificial intelligence to be programmed to systemize this mechanism further until the vast majority of our decisions are controlled by our personal devices. Look who's nudging now. Behavioral nudge units are not anything new, but conventionally, those who would use our psychology against us have tended to act from the shadowy realm of clandestine intelligence operations with their actions regarded as underhand by most. However, since Richard Thaler came on the scene, this murky branch of behavioral psychology has been rebranded as an everyday tool ready to be utilized by those who seek to govern. The act of nudging behavior en masse is a form of a psychological manipulation that is already being used by our military and police forces to influence people's emotions, beliefs, and behavior.
The term psyops is being rebranded as nudging, allowing it to be slowly but surely adopted by governments worldwide as a legitimate way to control the actions of the global population. And it isn't only governments that will be enthusiastically adopting this tried and tested technique. The most effective way to use such psychological manipulation will be online, and it will be our personalized data sets that will be used to design how best to nudge us individually. This is newsround number 11, the Musk files, mommy and daddy Musk, where you learn about her PR time of selling potato chips that make you stream diarrhea. No word of a lie, Alastair.
There is no doubt that various online companies will use this technology to control more than just what we purchase. For this reason, it shouldn't be as surprising that Bezos, Musk, Brynn, and their ilk have been trained in mass psych behavioral psychology. What should be much more of a surprise is that they were learning such techniques via course funded by an elite child traffic and intelligence asset like Jeffrey Epstein. It's hard to surprise most onlookers nowadays, partly because we have already entered the era of 5th generation warfare, and that may be why such pernicious science is being so readily welcomed by governments and technocrats worldwide. It is no coincidence that behavior economics is emerging now just as centralized digital panopticon takes shape around us, brought to fruition by the likes of Thiel, Musk, Gates, Bezos, and Brin.
Elon Musk may be the wealthiest and most powerful person on Earth. And because of his investments, his wealth will likely increase at an exponential rate. Many of Musk's supporters are fanatical. Many of them idolize him, while some of that energy is synthetically driven by technology, which uses focused behavioral nudging to improve Musk's PR image. For the potential future technocratic leaders to create the world of tomorrow, a step towards governance is required, and Musk is now making his move.
We have seen a sudden lurch towards technocracy during the 2024 election, signaled by JD Vance, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk becoming major political players and getting one step closer to being part of the government. Another of Epstein's associates, who have covered extensively, has also become a colleague of Elon Musk recently. Nicole Junckerman, the German Junkemann, the German entrepreneur, was invested in the Israeli unit 8,200 startup company, Caravan 911, alongside Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Thiel, and former Israeli PM, Ehud Barak. Jonkemum became part of SpaceX after selling her warm satellite company to Musk's Starlink. As well as her business links with Epstein, Nicole Jonkemum had previously written on Lolita Express on 2 separate occasions, which included a secretive meeting in the UK reportedly with 2 UNS US senators at Wexner's Fox Court House.
For almost a century, Technocracy Inc has been on the rise. Elon Musk's maternal grandfather, Joshua Norman Haldeman, was a director of Technocracy Incorporated, which like the Edge Foundation was originally founded in New York. Technocracy Incorporated was created in the 19 thirties and either ironically or presciently, politicians and members of political parties were not permitted to become members. Even though they barred politicians, at the same time, the organization desired a radical restructuring of political, social, and economic life in Canada, something which led them to becoming labeled as subversive to the war effort and ban during World War 2. Regardless, as technological sophistication has increased, so has its ability to mold society.
What we're currently seeing is an attempt to create a third culture of sorts. There may be no better example of an effort to synthesize social science and formal science than technocrats like Elon Musk and JD Vance taking control of the levers of political power. The 3rd culture has been bubbling away for a long time. In the era of Musk's grandfather, it had been inconceivable that political science and formal science could work together. Snow had recognized the the dilemma, and he was the first to properly define the communication issues between the humanities and the natural sciences.
Brockman took a step further and decided, as many others who were engrossed by purely binary conundrum do, that there could be a potential third way to go about things. The third culture is very much like third way politics. The practitioners of the third way politics purge the extremities of their party to gain power. However, once in power, the claim that solutions reside in the center of politics is soon discovered to be illusory. In relation, the third culture can only be attempted by those who believe they can bridge a gap between a divide that can never be connected.
If you design the social sciences based on practical sciences, then you'll soon discover that humanness is inextricably lost or humaneness. That's what a world designed by rational scientists looks like. It's authoritarian. It knows best. And if it can control us with physics, then it'll control us physically.
The 3rd culture is an attempt to deny humanity or at least the humanities. 3rd way politics pushes perpetual warfare, austerity, and poverty upon us, nudging us into the arms of an unforgiven and unethical form of governance. In the future, the technocrats will be in charge whether you like it or not. They will be the chosen few who will program the algorithms that drive every part of our society. In reality, a society where humans relinquish control over to technological science itself is the real third culture to come.
There are many questions that arise from studying these outrageously subversive technocrats. But one of the most important questions may be, what is Edge? This is an organization where the technocratic rulers of the here and now designed our future bit by bit. Edge is where the people in charge of almost every part of the online world are trained. Sergei Brink trained in course after course at Edge.
Jeff Bezos trained in course after course at Edge. Nathan Myhrvold, Sala Kamanga, Elon Musk all attended an elite organization where everyone involved is now in complete control of our existence. Should we not point at these events and explain that Edge could be a function of a grander conspiracy? What is to stop someone from positing that the people involved in Edge are designing not only our systems, our politics, our poverty, but even our very culture. While we look at the people who took part in these Jeffrey Epstein funded events as individuals, it states quite clearly that they were representing their companies at the highest levels.
We shouldn't lose sight of the implications of this fact. It's not only individuals conspiring together at Edge. It's Google, YouTube, Amazon, Twitter, X, Thiel's Founders Fund, Facebook, Tesla, and SpaceX. It was these giant corporations which were central to figuring out something very fundamental, how to control a population during the digital age. And all of those individuals, as well as the companies they represented, should have to answer for being part of a clear conspiracy.
As voters in a democracy, we should also be asking some pertinent questions in particular. Do we want a government which does what we say, or do we want a government which wants us to do what they say? If you can be systematically manipulated by a powerful social media platform, should those who own such platforms be allowed to govern us politically too? And most importantly, are we really free? Elon Musk is a manufactured persona a 100 years in the making, and you should not view him through a mimetic lens.
He wields tangible levels of power. He has extremely questionable associations with deep state apparatus, and he has the capability to sway people's opinion by using subversive and unseen means. I can understand why people follow him. I can see what they see. The only difference between the support of Elon Musk and I is information and data.
I am making my decision because I have extra information and data about Elon Musk, whereas Musk's supporters are often making their decision because Elon Musk's platform has extra information and data about them and it's being used to nudge them into becoming true believers. They're using our own information and data against us as a psychological weapon. Whether you accept it or not, we are in a state of psychological warfare right now. The technocrats are not our friends. They have an agenda to perpetually nudge us towards their preferred form of multipolar globalism without us noticing, leading us to the doors of our prison cells within their carefully curated digital panopticon.
There you go. That's Musk and Epstein, The Third Culture by myself, Johnny Vedmore. To produce independent investigative articles such as this, Johnny Vedmore needs your support. Join Johnny Vedmore's, patron, to drop him some funds via or drop in some funds via, buy me a coffee or Ko fi. Those links are all just down there underneath.
You can see buy me a coffee, Patreon, Ko fi. You click any of these, you'll go over to my business, and you can help support this type of work. NewsHound 28 will be here, when the article goes up proper. So there will be in this article, there will be the read through, and there'll be me exploring the evidence completely entirely. So if you wanna now go and explore the source materials, all those links that link to prove the information of what I'm saying, I like to go through that in detail so you know that I am acting best out of my I'm acting, faithfully.
And so I like to go through all of the source information. I like to look at everything in detail. And so it's about 2 hours 20 minutes long, and it's a good exploration. News hands are always pretty fun. In this edition of News Hands, Johnny Bedmore explores the source material behind his news based article, Musk and Epstein Deferred Culture.
This article revealed how Elon Musk was trained to manipulate the psychology of the masses via Jeffrey Epstein funded program led by Richard Thaler, the father of infamous psychological nudge units. You can also find ways to support me here, And, again, right down at the bottom of the page or the top of the page, you can find links to my Buy Me A Coffee, become a patron, Ko Fi or other links. Seriously, becoming a patron, you'll get the work early. You get to support my work. And at the literally, if I can get up to a point where, I can not even make a deal I'm not even gonna have to make in, like, a a a a decent living, just a living.
If I can make just a living out of this, then I will be working full time in investigating and finding the information that most people can't find and that seems lost in this site, which is Newspaste. And you can read kind of the start of this dossier, of this article within here, too. Now just to say, within this article, I I did say at the top, like, all of these video links that are throughout it, which I haven't loaded up yet because I've just reloaded the page, and everything slowed today. All of the things that load up 1 by 1, These are all extra content for you to peruse. So I explore the World Economic Forum's mega cities and other things within the article.
Well, they're not up at the moment because I'm on a preview page. You can click back on a preview page, and it is a extremely exciting article, the 3rd culture. Well, that was exciting to go through. When I do these articles, when I do the read throughs, these are right at the beginning. There's still a couple of, like, little bits and bobs.
It's like it's really good to read through them because I could do draft after draft, send them away to someone else to have a look at, but still I notice, like, little errors throughout it. I mean, an article with 8,000 plus words that's written in a few weeks is is pretty much gonna have a couple of bits where you have to keep, like, looking at it over and over again. I'm pretty proud of it. It's got over 20 hours of independent material and content that's specifically related to the things within this article. And that that's I mean, my articles, I'm trying to make them more than just a read.
They're an exploration of the subject. I don't want you to to be like, oh, look. Now I know this. I've read it, and I'm going on. I want you to be able to explore each part of it fundamentally in a way.
So, you know, the bits on, I got a news hound on Richard Fala and the behavioral insight team, that's really worth going through how that developed and what was being said about it. We go through the press. We go through lots of newspaper cutters and lots of information. You see the British side of it. You see how it was implemented into government.
There's a lot of sources within the article, an actual fact within that article, linking up different things, including just like, the names of people to their Edge pages. So you could click on them like it's, Carmanga and people like that. There is about a 120 plus sources within the article. That's pretty it sounds pretty excessive, but all of them were related in some way. All of them were really important that in actual fact, if you explore the entire article, it'd probably take you a couple of months.
And by the end of it, you'd come out with a really good understanding of the situation that's going on in the world. Now it's it's funny how, like, the behave the the training of leadership groups is something that I do. I look into. It's one of the things I investigate. So I looked into the World Economic Forum Young Global Leaders course.
In the same way, I'm looking at these edge courses and watching them train up the technocratic leaders. So I see in the Kissingers International seminar, they're training people like Schwab and and people and, and, Pierre Trudeau and other people who were the last generations of politicians who were well old now. And those people then created the next stage of the training programs, which saw people like Justin Trudeau go through Boris Johnson, Tony Blair, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, and they've become much more industrial by this point. Now the the there is an elite that are being trained that are, of the cybernetic realm. They're the technocrats, and they were trained back in the naughties.
They were trained on, how to how the future is gonna look, and the future is gonna be inhumane. As we go to more towards technology, we will lose humanity, and they just see that as a sell off that they can do. They don't mind that. That's just the way it's going to be because we're going to introduce this technology whether you like it or not. That's the way they see it.
To find a link between Epstein and Musk was amazing to find such a link. I could say it was not surprising, but also surprising. It was it's a shock. I'd already felt like I had been leading there. I'd already done work on on Epstein.
I've already done work on Musk. And then I go and look at what Epstein and Musk's doing, on this Epstein funded course with Bezos and others. And turns out he's attending a course, which is about someone else I studied, Richard Thelen, the psychological, behavioral insight teams and the nudge units. So it seemed like it just all came together. And then in amongst it is Peter Thiel.
I've done lots of different work that's related to that and loads of other parts of it. But, really, this this goes the same this is the training of if people want find the beginning of a conspiracy, this is the beginning of a conspiracy. This is a moment that the technocratic elite were trained in how to control society, in how to control a futuristic society based around cybernetics. And the people who would develop the idea that this was what the future needed were people like Brockman and others. And Epstein recognized that, you know, people ridicule Epstein as some sort of caricature now, some evil sort of vampire.
He was a very he was a very astute guy. Maybe not intelligent, not not, a moral, ethical, or human intelligence, like we would say humane intelligence. I'd I'd say it was a different type of intelligence, of course, but he was astute. He knew when something was gonna make money, when something was gonna be worth his time, and he knew the future, and he knew technology was where it is at. A lot of people do.
The people who know where technology is where it was at become the richest in the world. Why? So Epstein put his tentacles around all of the most powerful people in the world, and they were training the people who are in charge right now. All the people who are in charge of you know, who have molded the policies and been in charge for years of Google, of YouTube, of Facebook, of x, Twitter, all of them. They have all been going through funneled through the top levels, gone through this Jeffrey Epstein funded course, including Elon Musk.
There you go. Now it's out in the open. So thank you for joining me. Like I say, I need your help. There's ways to support me.
Buy me a coffee even if you buy me just a couple of coffees. I can't even tell you how much that helps. You know? Become a Patreon and you get, stuff in advance early. I don't know what what the, future holds, but I'd really prefer to have an independent focus on concentrating on the articles I think are most important because so far that's worked out to explain a hell of a lot of history that was previously unknown.
And this is another step towards revealing something. You know, it's very interesting that Eric r Weinstein had links in the same way and, you know, and the third way politics and all of that. I'm on this road where, as I go along, I do uncover other things and other associations. And, you know, I'm I'm very good at being able to if I'm astute at anything, I'm astute at recognizing where the actual road is leading and where to follow rather than, what's trending at the time. I'm not into what's trending at the time, but this one has come just at the right time, just as Musk, a technocrat, decides to attempt to step into his role in governance.
And loads of questions need to be asked. Loads of questions need to be asked. When people with that much power are heading towards politics, we're heading towards something different. This isn't the past. This isn't the present.
This entering into a future dynamic that is predictable. It's predictable because there's been a massive technological shift. There's been a political, social, economic structure put in. There's been leadership groups created to focus on what the future is going to be and now they're all in the control of the levers of power that allow them to psychologically manipulate the masses into agreeing with whatever they say. Here we are.
If you want to know how we got to the place where we all seem like we have no control and everything is always an elite who are unreachable, untouchable, heading towards globalism. This is a world they're creating. This is world of the technocracy. You may think if you think that Elon Musk is a hero, you got to realize he's just a stepping stone. He's a stepping stone to somewhere else and he's not telling you the truth, is he?
While he right now, Epstein client list. Is he on the Epstein client list? He's part of a major course. We I hear him talking about how the New York Times is the enemy. He was doing the courses with David Brooks of New York Times, you know, Google, YouTube have been terrible to him.
He was doing these courses. They they they're all they're all trained together. They're all hang out together, and they all put on the pretense together. And that's the pretense that they're not really in charge while they're in charge. And they're in charge of being able to increase their public image so that everybody loves them or at least the majority love them.
And that's why it's so dangerous to be entering towards governance. And I can say, thank you for taking the time to hear this information. Support, go to newspace.com. You can find me around the place. Newspace podcast goes up usually every Thursday.
Friday this week, rare one, but I would do it slightly different. It goes up on the podcast on on Thursday this week, audio, but the the videos will be going up on Friday so that it doesn't get in the way of this release. And, like I say, support the work. Love you. Thanks for joining me.
Bye.
Support NEWSPASTE
Support NEWSPASTE to keep us delivering the censored news all in one place.
newspaste.com
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
NEWSHOUND #28 - Musk and Epstein: The Third Culture of Control with @JohnnyVedmore In this edition of NEWSHOUND, Johnny Vedmore explores the source material behind his NEWSPASTE article Musk & Epstein: The Third Culture. For more NEWSHOUND go to https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0iVycZSk-5tDxkOo9NYKOE6A9wRtMCVw 🧵3/20
Video Transcript AI Summary
Welcome to News How with Johnny Vedmore. Today, we explore the connections between Elon Musk and Jeffrey Epstein, particularly focusing on how Musk was trained in psychological manipulation through Epstein-funded programs. This investigation delves into the concept of the "third culture," a term coined by John Brockman, which merges science and social sciences to influence society.
We discuss the significance of behavioral economics, particularly the work of Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, who advocate for "nudging" individuals towards desired behaviors. The narrative reveals how elite figures, including Musk and Bezos, participated in exclusive gatherings aimed at shaping public perception and control. This exploration highlights the intersection of technology, politics, and psychological manipulation, underscoring the need for awareness in an increasingly controlled society.
Support my work at NewsPaste.com for more insights. Thank you for joining me.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this new edition of News How. With me, your host, Johnny Vedmore. We're going through time again today like we usually do. We're gonna go back in history a bit. We're gonna peruse the archives here and there.
We're gonna look into the article that I've written recently. It's called Musk and Epstein, the third culture dossier. And it's a spicy one because, finally, I'm revealing a little bit about what Musk was funded by Jeffrey Epstein to do. What? He was funded?
He was trained for a Jeffrey Epstein funded course on how to manipulate the masses. Oh my god. So it's unbelievable, really, isn't it? So, we're gonna go through some of the, information, some of the source material, some of the evidence for this in this edition of NewsHound. And for those who are joining us for the first time, we are exploring exploring everything we can about the article within the article itself, even though I've tried to make sure that everything's got, pretty much a link or a place where you can go to find a lot more information.
A lot of these articles, intersect in my articles. Some of these are my work that's intersected with this article. And, it's some really interesting stuff. So we'll see a bit of that as we go, and I'll explain a little bit of that because all of my articles are me going from one step to the next step and trying to work out the next step. And this one's been coming for a while.
I've been meaning to write an article about Edge, which was, a very special we'll come to talk about this. A very special, organization that was set up by a guy called John Brockman, was eventually funded almost entirely by Epstein's money, by Jeffrey Epstein himself, and he would attend these courses. And it was a meeting of minds of scientific minds, and it was an attempt to start what they called the 3rd culture. And we'll talk about this. Again, this has mirrors my last article I wrote, which was about the 3rd way politics.
And so this is very similar. It's actually like the same series. There's a series of thirds. What what is very interesting about this 3rd idea 3rd, the things that come in 3rd, is that people are always looking for an alternative to everything, alternative system to the one they can't get their head around, an alternative par binary paradigm or to the binary paradigm. You know, that's a a lot of what humans do when they do crazy stuff is they try and find an alternative to a binary paradigm.
They get given 2 options. They don't like either of them, so they go with a third way. They go with a third culture. They go with a third option. They go with a third game.
There's there's loads of this. Happens all of the time. It's the attempt to override or it's the result of synthesis of a Galen dialectic or building up. So you got a a Galen dialectical that's been created, a paradigm. There's been a synthesis, and a new thing has to take place at the top.
And, the course is very much like the pyramid. This is what we're gonna see, and this is what you're gonna see now. So without further ado, I will share my screen with Yao, of course. This is something that we've always got to go through on NewsHound. We're gonna go into the world where I am up in the corner now, and we are on NewsPaste course.
We're on newspace.com. I mean, if you, do wanna me to cause trouble, I can go to newspaste proper, and that's, that's where you can find a newspaste podcast, of course. I think there's a lot of pages open up. It might take a little bit of time. There's a lot of pages open up on my computer at the moment.
A lot of drop down menus there, and you can go read other articles like my Schwab articles, f sign 101, Pottinger pieces, Youngkin pieces, blackhand pieces, load of other articles there. Some of these articles we will see during this adventure through time. That's one of them there. Let's go go back here. But this one is the 3rd culture.
This is Musk, and this is Epstein. I, it's the second part of the 3rd series. And the 3rd series, it's got this triangle of power in the middle of these actors. Of course, Clinton and Blair, the 3rd way dossier, had Clinton on the one side and Blair on the other side. But I think this is very much, very telling about human beings and their communication, the way they build their brain together and create something that synthesizes, again, 2 people binary, and it it it spawns something new.
This is something that we investigate. So down the sides of this, I got the article here that we're gonna go through. And, I can read you the the beginning because it's Musk and Epstein, the third culture dossier, how Elon Musk was trained in psychological manipulation via a Jeffrey Epstein funded program. Yes. He was by Johnny Vetmore.
That's me. I wrote this. It's very good for me. And, as you see underneath, it says, in 2011, a small group of extremely influential people met to discuss the future of humanity. Among their ranks were Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Nathan Mervoyed, Sergey Brin, and the infamous pedophile child trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein.
But this was not the first time these powerful and affluent technophiles had met to determine how best to control society. There we go. This is the 3rd culture. And as always, it was NewsHound. We're not gonna stop there.
We are gonna go through. So as you see, I I have noted down to start this article that I have been working on these cases for a while. This is one part of a 5 part series called Epstein 101, influence and collusion, and this is about the, relationships. This one, this is number 4, I think. And this is Jeffrey Epstein's most powerful friend and political ally from the peak of his sick criminal, sick criminal enterprise was the 42nd president of the United States of America America, William Jefferson Clinton.
President Bill Clinton forged a close personal friendship with a pedophile child trafficker, which allowed Epstein a profound level of political protection. However, Epstein and Clinton's relationship was built on wasn't built on blackmail. Rather, it was a complex fusion of influence and collusion. It's a complex fusion of influence and collusion. Here we are.
Yeah. So you can go and read these within the article. Some of the links will be about how some of these articles intersect. I've written before, intersect with the 3rd culture. This is one I wrote for UK column called David Shaw and the Rise of Jeff Bezos.
This was, as you see written here. Jeff Bezos has spent decades creating heroic backstory to the founding of Amazon. But when one investigates the truth behind the manipulated mythos, the narrative Bezos has had written into history books quickly falls apart. That is very much true. And that is DE Shaw, David Shaw, who, was part of d e Shaw hedge fund, which was, at 1 point owned 5 to 10% of the New York Stock Exchange.
So it was extremely wealthy company. And they created almost every big, they they they had a profound insight to what the Internet, the World Wide Web would look like, and David Shaw started creating the leaders to put into these big companies that they predicted would come out of it. So from that 1994, Jeff Bezos left the E Shore and went set up by Amazon. His one of his partners in the E Shore was Hailey Minor. Then the Hailey Minor went over and set up download.com.
So it's an interesting example of some of the people who have, benefited from the Internet. And then, of course, you know, a lot of this is about power and the want to control, future technology. And that also come up in my piece, doctor Klaus Schwab, or how the CFR told me to stop worrying and love the bomb, where it was really looking at the power, our predicting technology led to the creation of the World Economic Forum out of Necessity after Herman Kahn there, that man there, predicted in 1967, out of the year 2000, most of the technologies that were going to come in the future. Kissinger was already on that. He was looking at paradigms of the future.
So he was looking at the nuclear perpetually perpetual limited warfare and mutually assured destruction, which Herman Cowan was on about as well. And so they set out to discover all the technologies they possibly could for a little Harvard course. Of course, a little Harvard jiggery pokery always happens. And out of Harvard, something else came too, kind of out of Harvard, because a lot of people if you were to read this article, you see this is the second this is the this is the first of of these 3rd articles with, Clinton and and Blair, and this is the third way. This you will discover how this is how the British and American politicians deserted their left wing political leanings to implement a new center ground political ideology, the third way politics, which both Clinton and Blair adopted in the Democratic Party and Labour Party respectively, saw the suppression of the left and right wings and began to synthesize the 2 nations into singular ideological pole at Far West Globalism.
This is a really important article. This is about how, to to escape the left right paradigm. Anthony Giddens and some other, socioeconomic philosophers came up with the idea of the third way. And a lot of the Labour Party were studying, in places like Harvard at the time. Ed Balls was at Harvard studying under Robert Reich and Larry Summers.
Larry Summers being an associate at Jeffrey Epstein too and a member of the organization we're gonna look at today. And, Yvette Cooper was also working on Bill Clinton's campaign. And the, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, many more, including John Prescott and others came over, and the middle bands were already over there, came over to America, went over to America and said, alright. We're gonna study, this new third way politics. Came back to John Smith, who was leading the Labour Party.
He said, we should introduce this, And he said, no bloody way I'll have any of that Clinton stuff over here. And it was all emanating out of the Harvard think tanks as always, same as the World Economic Forum emanated from too. And so there's lots of similarities here because we'll see these same things happen again. And 3rd way politics actually has a place within the 3rd culture. The organization welcomed in Andy Giddens and started to, train their guys on 3rd way politics, which allows them they they're gonna be putting in those, technological solutions that they wanna put in and they wanna create.
That's what they're gonna fill the gaps of policy that is no longer on the left and right. This is how technocracy begins. This also intersects with some other of my work, so we're still going through the work that intersects with this one article. That's how, for me, it's, like, prescient. The the the culmination of a load of prescient pieces, I suppose, without trying to be too, over the top about it.
This is from news hound number 7. This is Elon guy Elon Musk's guide to happiness. If you notice there, Elon Musk, and it mentions as well within this old this is an old, zip2, dotcom page, which is from about 97, 1997, and it shows on there that, Elon Musk once worked for Microsoft, something that wasn't mentioned very often later until now I brought this up, and people have been like, oh, yeah. Okay. Okay.
I'm looking at. He's never denied it. He once did programming for them, but never says. Right? I think it was some sort of leadership program, to be perfectly honest.
That's what Microsoft was doing at the time. Bill Gates had just gone through the young global leaders program, that was created out of Harvard Programs itself, and the Young Global Leader the World Economic Forum, the Young Global Leader Programme when, Bill Gates has just gone through it. He gone through it with Larry Summers, with Tony Blair, and with Gordon Brand, they're all turning in the same circles. They're all turning in the same circles. 3rd way politics is being introduced by, by Clinton at that point, and we'll talk about that in a bit too.
And this was another news hound that I did. This is about Musk's mom and how she used her PR. I came in and her skills in PR to change him from this. The short wearing stripy t shirt, college boy, he was slightly balding already into what we see nowadays of Bajo Baphomet we see today. And, also, I did another news hound on one of the main points of this article.
The behavioral insight team is here inside your mind. And this looked at the nudge units, the psychological, behavioral insight units that used behavioral economics of Richard Thaler, this man here, to manipulate people and nudge people's behavior into what the state demanded. And so that's really important. As you see, all of these links are the links that are by here in this little section by here, up until here, you see. Because I'm just explaining in that first section, These are the the things that I've done before.
So I've linked them in. So if you want to go and have a look at them, you can. Now that person, Richard Phela, is by here. Let's pull him back one. Richard Thaler is by here.
This is on a site of edge.org, and edge.org was originally set up in 1988 by a guy called John Brockman to meet the demands of his want to build a third culture, an alternative culture that came this this edge sprang from something called the invisible college, and we'll go into this in a little bit. And this is central. This edge is what Jeffrey Epstein funded. A load of scientists, we all know that they hung around with him. A lot of people don't know what they were doing with him.
They were attending Edge, and Edge was changing was training the elites, the elites that rule us. They were training them on how to rule us, how to rule us sometimes without us knowing we're being ruled by them. And they knew what the future looked like because they had worked out the technology. So they're seeing all of these futuristic things are gonna be implemented. Let's put the people in charge of the, monopolies that will exist, digital monopolies that will exist at the top, the Googles, the YouTube, the Facebook, the X, the so on and so forth, the Amazon.
Let's put people right at the top, and then let's train them in how to control people for a technocracy and how to slowly eke the world into a technocracy. Richard Thaler Thaler is good for that because he's about nudging. He's about nudging. Father, behavioral economics, recipient of the 2017 noble Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, director, Center For Decision Research, University of Chicago Graduate School, a business author of Misbehaving, and, of course, Nudge. And this is his Edge page.
Everybody who's involved in Edge got their own little profile page as we'll see. Some of them have been deleted, and some of them haven't. Some of them are only available on the way back machine. Some are still available now and still up now. And if you go on to any of these profile pages, it'll show you it'll give you a little rundown, but it'll also show you all the events that these people were involved with, including down here, it shows you some more events, masterclass.
I'm gonna get into that, eventually. And, there he is, sitting on the sofa with his mate, Daniel Kahneman, and he's gonna be really important. We'll talk about him later as well. These boys are the boys who have been involved in Edge, but this is the ones who were involved in this article in particular. Like I say, this is NewsHound.
We go through the source detail, and we view the article through the source information and through the evidence. So here we are at the beginning, really. That was a little bit of the introduction. EDGE was launched in 1996 as the online version of the reality club and as a living document on the web to display the activities of the third culture, the reality club. The reality club was an informal gathering of intellectuals who met from 1981 to 1996.
Now a lot of things happened between 1981 1996 that are really important within the digital realm. So the person who set this up was a guy called John Brockman. And John Brockman was a great thinker. He wasn't, like, a a a a very astute in any one particular area. He was a great thinker in all areas, but most of all, he was a fantastic interlocutor, able to marry people up, introduce people who needed to meet for the benefit of the wider scientific community.
And he created something called the reality club in 1981. And people like, Richard Dawkins and Isaac Asimov and Daniel Dennett and people like that and Steven Pinker would go together, and they would meet at the reality club. And they would have discussions about science, but also to benefit the 3rd culture. We'll get into that, though. We'll get into that.
And that's what really this article is gonna be about now. Another another person who I went into recently recently, I wrote an article called Eric r Weinstein's great replacement, showing how at the turn of the millennium, the United Nations was busily trying to encourage economic migration to the Western world. However, encouraging unfettered my economic migration, as we're experiencing today, is highly unpopular with native workers of the target countries. And this was the man who was hired to write up that report. But he was also involved in EDGE at one point.
He said he only met Jeffrey Epstein once. But he was he definitely was involved in EDGE. He was involved he went to a Serpentine gallery presentation as well where he was involved in, in London, which would be very interesting to find out more details on. But he said he only met Epstein once, but most people don't believe him because Epstein was almost fully funding Edge while Eric r Weinstein was part of it. So likely that they would have come across each other.
Another person who is, linked with this article is linked is another person I've delved deep into. I was the one who revealed her, activities. Nicole Young when the IDF link, Bongo infiltrating UK NHS. This is my article from 2019, which says, originally published on Vocal Media, this heavily censored article was the first part of a trilogy investigating Nicole Yunkeman examining her links with Jeffrey Epstein, Israeli intelligence, and UK NHS HealthTech advisory board led by UK Health Sector, Emma Hancock. And this is about how this woman got involved, but she was also linked with in the company that was was, linked with was run by Ekhud Barak, who was a former Prime Minister of Israel, former head of the IDF, Mossad, operations guy, set up a load of different first guy to name Osama bin Laden on the news after September 11th.
Big smile on his face, looking forward to it. Architect of load of hell, really, Ehud Barak, and a very close friend, Jeffrey Epstein. And she entered into a company with this guy and Jeffrey Epstein, and Peter Thiel as well was involved in that company. So that's an extremely interesting one that is mixed in the game. Now she's also involved in with Musk in other ways now.
She's actually an investor in SpaceX after selling the Swarm satellite systems to him. We'll talk about that later. Now this is a very this is a very important part of the puzzle as well because what I was looking for within this article is the the entrance of Jeffrey Epstein into meeting Elon Musk at some point. I was looking for evidence that Musk and Bezos had met Stein. I was looking hopefully for photographic evidence of them together, which I found.
I was looking for more than that. I was looking for the details about what Jeffrey Epstein was actually funding Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to do. It's amazing. Oh, they were funded to meet scientists. No.
No. No. No. There's more. There's more.
This will be an important article within it for one piece of information. I found that information separately from this article, but I it's a really interesting one. We'll get back to it a little bit later on. Now this, again, when I said in 1967, 68, the year 2000 was written, published in 1967, and it contains nearly predictions of nearly all of the technologies that were going to come in the future. It starts off as you see, they're in the green ones are already we've already achieved.
The red ones are a miss. We haven't achieved them yet, apparently. Some of them are debatable. And the pink one the purple ones were already there. They're partial that were already, like, intensive or extensive expansion of tropical agriculture and forestry.
That's already halfway through development. New sources of power for ground transportation, storage, battery fuel cells, propulsion for support. You see how Musk would have already known the future just by reading this document. You go down the less likely true artificial intelligence, practical use of sustained fusion to produce neutrons and or energy artificial growth of new limbs and organs. These are the things that we're trying to do now.
There's one down here, practical laboratory conception and nurturing of animal human feti fetuses. It's very interesting, but also space defense system. We haven't got to yet, but it can possibly get there. Simple, inexpensive home record video recording and playing, we we've got there. But in 1967, that wasn't simple at all.
So, you know, this document is really important. It's from Herman Kahn's 2 year 2000. You can find it as the second link up in the second Schwab piece, doctor Klaus Schwabberhauser, CFR told me to stop wearing a leather bomb. The second, source from the bottom is this from crummy.com list of articles. Now we know and this is what whereas within the article, we know that there's four factors of control, or at least we can assume there's 4 factors of control if you wanna be in charge of society.
First of all, you need a technological paradigm shift. So you need to know the technologies, like here, and then you need to see that coming, and have already worked out what benefit that would have to people. In this case, I talk about just I've just mentioned megacities. And here you go. I've I've, I've put in the here and put it in a link by here so you can watch it yourself.
For instance, this is for my, from Bursting the Davos bubble series. There's about 9 videos that go through the Davos training slides, the official draft Davos training slides that the World Economic Forum trained their own leaders in in 2010, 2011, and shows you what the the the the idea of having mega cities, what mega cities life would look like, but also lots of other things as well. I mean, this is a it's, a very interesting, like, bunch of slides. Is air an option? I got a little fuzzy.
Yeah. You see it. The it's really, like, it's very interesting to see how they're mapping out our future in detail. And when we say it, it's a conspiracy. So it's very interesting to watch how to take care of young talents, like, well, build, young global leaders like Schwab was.
He was part of Kissinger's International Seminar. That was the original Kissinger Harvard based Young Global Leaders program. And, of course, Anthony Giddens cannot be understated in this article at all because where you would need to know the technological paradigm shift is on its way. So you need to know the technology. I've mapped it out.
I've looked at it. You'll also need a political social science that is able, to deal with that new technology and incorporate it within a policy level. You know, technology can't be incorporated. It can only solve political issues. It can't be just solve everything.
Giddens created an example of this, which all of these people in this circle worship. 3rd way. So when, we'll we'll discover about Bill Clinton when he wanted, we'll discover about it now. Within Edge, Anthony Giddens did a couple of different things. He did some lecture stuff.
Anthony Giddens served as a director of London School of Economics and Political Science LSE from 97 to 2003. He was previously a fellow of the professor of sociology at King's College Cambridge. Among his 34 books are The 3rd Way, a renew the renewal of social democracy, The 3rd Way and its critics and Runaway World, how globalization is reshaping our lives. There is a substantial body of academic, writing and criticism about his work. He cofounded the academic publisher in the House Polite Press in 1985 and was the 1999 BBC Raef Lecturer.
He was, given a life period in June 2004 as Baron Giddens of Southgate. So Baron Giddens, is a philosopher of political science, really. He's a complete and he's mapped out, the type of subversive and pernicious political science that will lead us into globalization and globalism. And he's mapping us out. That's why his expertise include giving a course to Edge, which says the second globalization debate is more about globalization, and how how globalism can solve things if we can only enact it properly.
Well, his third way politics purges the left, of a left wing party and, can have the same effect on the right, I suppose, moves them center center ground. And instead of having, policies that you normally use on the left or right, because you're in the center now, you have to use other things like austerity and war or technology to fill the gaps that are left behind by the normal left wing or right wing policies that you no longer have. So that's very interesting part of what Antony Giddens does, and he does do that. And, you know, we can see here the 1992 campaign. So this is a, we're going back to 1992.
We're going back to the American election campaign. We're going back to Bill Clinton, and he is going to win this campaign, of course, against Bush. And he says it's instantly he's he's he's put forward straight away 1992 camp campaign of Democrats. New York Times, Saturday, September 26, 1992 in the New York Times machine. Clinton says he's not leaning left, but taking a new third way.
Yes. He is. And we can see, some of this, if we can zoom in now. Okay. Seeking to counter this week's Republican offensive portraying him as a leftist tax mad big government liberal, Bill Clinton today began an effort to once more position himself as a third way Democrat, neither of the left or the right.
At the same time, the Democratic presidential nominee sought to turn, president Bush's attacks against him, depleting his opponent as a do nothing president who is out of touch of ideas and out of time and who clings to the stale failed rhetoric of the past. Mister Clinton introduced his new defense in a noontime address that was almost preachly earnest to the small crowd of invited guests at the University of Connecticut in Hartford in West Hartford. He echoed it in, a looser fashion before passionate, mostly young crowd of more than 10,000 people, packed shoulder to shoulder near historic Faneuil Hall here, a can do country. You know, what they're talking about here and what he's introducing here is third way politics. And it was, really, a centrist politics that that shows itself as being nothing more than illusory once you examine it while it's in office or power.
Of course, the new democrats were 3rd way party, and New Labour ran home. Yes. They did. They ran home. Because in Britain, as we can see from this Economist article, the third in our series on intellectual influences of Britain's new government examines the links between the Blairites and the Glintonites, because Bowles and Brown were Harvard men.
You see a lot of Harvard influence, where a lot of, these decisions are made of how to manage social economic thinking in the future, these were Britains who were part of these different, who had different relationship with the Clintonites. So for instance, here it says, New Labour was not simply copying the Democrats. The Transatlantic ties are both deeper and more complicated than that. And the American intellectual influence comes as much from academia as from the political world. It is based largely on personal relationships.
Jonathan Powell, mister Blair's chief of staff, spent several years as a diplomat in the British embassy in Washington where he specialized in snoozing with Clintonites. David Miliband, who now runs Downing Street policy unit, studied at MIT as did Jeff Morgan, another influential adviser at number 10. And Ed Balls, the chancellor's closest aide, spent 2 years at Harvard in the late 19 eighties. Although then in his twenties, mister Bowles informs one of his professors that he was already preparing to govern. The American influence on New Labor's economic policy can be traced largely through mister Paul's and Harvard Connection.
Mister Paul's professor claim, professors claim that he leaned there, a commitment to he learned their commitment to rational activism with equal emphasis on both words. This certainly sounds preferable to irrational activism. At a time when many British academics were still focused on short term microeconomic issues, the study of long term economic growth was dominated by Americans. When mister Brown made a speech containing now infamous reference to post neoclassical endogenous endogenous growth theory, he was, drawing directly, albeit incomprehensibly, on an American academic debate about the role of government in fostering growth. The transatlantic ties were strengthened further when several of Mr.
Ball's Harvard gurus joined the Clinton administration. Larry Summers went to the treasury. Lawrence Katz, a prominent Harvard labor economist, was, for a while, chief economist at the Labor Department under Robert Reich, another Harvard man. The academics turned policymakers were now able to test their ideas in government messes. Brown and Boals, who visited Washington regularly, listened closely.
It talks about, of course, Larry Summers there, and and more talks about Larry Summers, and Larry Summers was another Epstein associate. These were a very small group of people. This is covered again in the march of the moderates, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and the rebirth of progressive politics. And the rebirth is the creation of the third way, which the third way is a trick. It's a trick.
Basically, this says as a synopsis here, Anglo American relations, the so called special relationship, reached a new era with the rise of new labor and the new let Democrats in the late 19 eighties and early 19 nineties. Richard Carr reveals the untold story of the transatlantic third way by analyzing how Tony Blair and Bill Clinton won power and, ultimately, how they lost it using newly unearthed archives and interviews with key players. He investigates the relationship between the administrations and sheds new light on big events such as Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, the handover to George w Bush, and the controversial Iraq war. Iraq war and the austerity that came with, of course, are part of third wave politics. It's hard to get rid of the third wave politics.
Now very interesting. Here we go. This is in, Fabian Society Magazine. So we're in the the web archives. The reason why it's got, this bit on the top, of course, we're in archive.org.
So these are snapshots of the websites from the past, and we're in the Fabian Society here. We're only back in 2020 in an article called sweet moderation. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton walked the 3rd way in politics together. Their record should be defended, argued Richard Gahr. Yes.
He would argue that, wouldn't he? Very interesting. The type of people who were involved in the Clinton campaign is what I wanna show you, and the the these people were all turning in the same circles. In November 1992, Bill Clinton backed by new labors Yvette Cooper, who survived on a diet of baked potatoes, sweet corn, and bananas when researching health and crime policy for the Democrats, And Philip Gould, advising on media strategy, finally proved a progressive could win again. Within weeks, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were in New York and Washington, probing new Democrats like Al Fromm and Sydney Blumenthal.
Sydney Blumenthal being Max Blumenthal as the Gray zone's, father. On the late DLC and PPI think tank pamphlets, though impressed by Brown's detailed grasp of American politics, Blair appeared, to post Clinton pollsters, Dan brie Greenberg, like a Bill Clinton without all the complexity. Their leader, John Smith, was less impressed, telling Peter Manderson that we don't need any of that fucking Clinton stuff over here, but he was too late. Blair and Brown had fully bought in to third way politics. That's who he bought in.
And, of course, Smith soon died afterwards, didn't he? Yes. Heart attack. Oh, how unfortunate. Now, of course, I'm talking about political science here, and the new labor elite were being trained over there too, of course.
And you don't know what type of whether it be 3rd way, politics that are being incorporated or maybe it'd be Klaus Schwab's stakeholder capitalism, which he created that will be the brand that that eventually wins out or is instituted or switched between, to understand more. But for that, you'll need a young the young global leaders. Now I go back to Newsbase here. This is from an article, the third in the Schwab series, called the Kissinger Continuum, the unauthorized history of the World Economic Forum's young global leader program. And this is where the World Economic Forum's young global leaders program, Klaus Schwab's supposed brainchild, is actually an almost exact replica of Henry Kissinger's international seminar that was originally run out of Harvard and was funded by the CIA.
In this article, Johnny Vedmore investigates the people behind Kissinger's international seminar, the CIA conduits which funded the program, and Kissinger's key role in the creation of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader program itself. An article I'm very proud of, of course. I mean, some of these articles are enormous. And there you go. This is 1993 World Economic Forum.
The Global Leaders for Tomorrow program was run the first time in 1993, and the first people who were involved in it, it was an insane list of characters, of course. But they're the same people who you can imagine. And, later on, it was reformed as the Young Global Leaders in, and in 2004. And that was, Klaus Schwab being given a $1,000,000 prize by the Dan David Foundation, while Kissinger was on the board of the Dan David Foundation. So kind of like that's why I called it Kissinger Continuum.
It goes round in a circle. The well known leaders who intended the first ever one, included Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, but also Angela Merkel, Victor Orban, Nicholas Sarkozy, Guy Verhofstadt, Lee Hsiang Lung, Cyril Ramaphosa, and Jose Maria Asner alongside, of course, Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Larry Summers, and Edgar Bromfman. Edgar Bromfman. What where do you know him from? Oh, what is he an Epstein associate?
Yes. He is. Bromfman family all over it. Larry Summers. Where do you know him from?
Oh, Epstein associate in Clinton's administration. Richard Branson. Rumors. Bill Gates. We know he was hanging around with Epstein.
He was an Epstein associate too. Head of Microsoft. Of course, these guys are all in bed together. And you may have to control society, you may have found your technological paradigm shift. You may then get your political science together with something like 3rd wave politics.
But then you'll need to create your leadership group, your young global leaders who will take up the mantle of Eva Klaus Schwab, stakeholder capitalism, Anthony Giddens' 3rd way politics, or one of the many other types of, political solutions that are around. And it's not only the young global leaders of the World Economic Forum. Here, this is the convocation of the German Marshall Fund with, Willie Brandt, the old, German chancellor up there. And this is from one of my articles called Guido Goldman and the CFR and the German Marshall Fund, 4th in the Schwab series. And it looks at, as Kissinger's international seminar was revealed to be a CIA funded program, the elites of the Care Council on Foreign Relations hatched a plan to create a new organization to train young global leaders.
The Harvard based German Marshall Fund was created by c a CIA linked Kissinger protege named Guido Goldman. They go the total capitulation of Russia. In actual fact, Guido Goldman, who helped, who who managed the German Marshall Fund, was Henry Kissinger's best friend. He organized Henry Kissinger's birthday parties and everything. And, Kissinger's mum was yes.
Kissinger's mother. It's not that's not a euphemism, by the way. Kissinger's mother was, the housemaid, the kosher maid in actual fact. Nahum Goleman's house. Nahum Goleman was Guido Goleman's father and was one of the Zionist founders of Israel and heads of the World Zionist Congress as well, etcetera, etcetera.
So back to Jeffrey Epstein buying into the Edge Foundation, and here is John Brockman, and this BuzzFeed news article will see, I love it. Look at this mainstream trash. Epstein, who killed himself in federal custody in August, no one no one believes he killed himself. They're coming. Not even the mainstream media could believe it, but Buzz News can.
Oh, it'll give you some of the information, but then it'll give you the official narrative too and tell you that it's so. It's just so it's so nonsense. Because he was what Epstein was doing was getting involved in Edge. And what was Edge? Well, we can go here.
We go here. We go back in in time to the Invisible College here. This is, this book is one of those rare attempts to unveil the spirit and variety of meaning Rosicrucianism came to possess amongst the 17th century audience and, importantly, how and why it was able, go on, it was able to have such a meaning, such meaning read into it. There is, much food for thought here. Our original title was called the Invisible College, a study of the free original Rosicrucian texts by Stanley, Bela.
And the invisible college, as mentioned here, came up in Rosicrucian text in the Rosicrucian pamphlet in actual fact in the 1600 and was, a way for intellectuals to meet up and discuss things that might not be, understood by others in many different ways, might not be understood and might not be accepted and might not be appreciated as well. And, the, you know, the these colleges, this this thing, this was about intellectual communication. And this was the 17th century. This was one of the first modern forms of this. And, we see there's more evidence of this, of course.
We can see, this is a a Cambridge University, pamphlet as well. The extract, but the title is New Light on the Invisible College, the Social Relations of English Science in the Mid 17th Century. So back then in the time when it was, around the time of the civil war in the UK, in England, the English civil war. There was, this this new burgeoning, sort of society, Invisible College, like, held in secret to an extent through fear. A little bit of fear was, being created.
Now it was it wasn't the only thing either. We on the the article here, these we're in the section called intellectual divide. You see, these are the the, sources still that we're looking at. We're at the Republic of Letters because the Republic of Letters was another way in the 17th, in the 18th century. They said, okay, and and late 17th century.
And they said, we need these scientists to communicate with each other. These intellectuals in intellectual communication can benefit us a lot. And so we need to do it en masse at scale. We need to make sure that the scope is wide and has the encompasses the most intellectual of types. And so this is, at Stanford University, this is a a a very interesting document.
They'll give you a bit of a rundown of of the Republic of Letters, and then we'll give you some, of these, like, projects here, which have gone into some of the communications that were being had between intellectuals of that period. And a lot of this is about intellectual conversation. Now this here is an article I wrote called the welcome 5 is Roy Anderson, Jeremy Farrar, Neil Ferguson, Edward Z. Ohmes, and Richard Sykes. They were the welcome 5.
This was during, COVID, of course. And in a section at the end of this is about the Royal Society because these different organizations, such as the Invisible College and the Republic of Letters, gave rise to powerful organizations such as the Royal Society. And, you know, during during this period, you can tell that the Royal Society was extremely, involved. You could see the top people, some of the top scientists who were involved in the the recent debacle was sir Roy Anderson, FRS, sir Richard Sykes, FRS, sir Jeremy Fry, FRS. Yes.
Fellow of the Royal Society, and the Royal Society was a very powerful organization. And guess who is a member of the Royal Society? Can you can you guess, possibly guess who might be a member of the Royal Society? Yes. Elon Musk of course is a member of the Royal Society too.
As you can see here, the Royal Society has thousands of members made up of some of the most famous figures of the scientific elite including individuals like David Attenborough and Elon Musk as well as historic members such as Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. So these organizations are organizations that all the intellectuals are involved in, and it keeps them together. Yes. Love will tear them apart. So this is where we get to an example.
This is, a EDGE master class here wherein one of the EDGE master classes. So the Invisible College and the like gave rise to organizations such as, that that eventually evolved such as the Reality Club, which then evolved into Edge and merged itself into Edge. Here, we're on, a screenshot of this Edge page about, 2008 class, and this is what we're really going to be discussing more about later. It's, a class 2,008, Richard Thaler, Sentil, Mola, Nathan, Daniel Kahneman, a short course in behavioral economics, and we'll get on to that in just no time whatsoever. Now here in the art section of the FAZ, That's, the I can't I can't remember how to say it.
It's a German newspaper. I think I've got this on translation. Is it a German newspaper? Well, anyway, this is an, a portrait to John Brockman, the world mind that came in from the counterculture. Now Brockman's extremely important to understand because his story is all about Brockman.
Brockman saw the potential of creating a new invisible college, a new republic of letters for the eighties nineties. And 81 to 96, like I said earlier, you know, these were busy times in computer science, especially, Usenet had was opened, was created and founded and put into action in about 81, 82, and that that meant that intellectuals at different colleges had the ability to communicate over an intranet, an internal internet called Usenet that was a precursor to the World Wide Web and everybody used their own names for it and communicated across borders just like happened in the republic of letters or with the invisible college. And this meant that people could see, okay, this is a time now to take the next step and plan for the next step, and this is what he would do. He was a counter con culture interlocutor for scientists, John Brockman. That's what he he he was.
Be imaginative, exciting, compelling, inspiring. That's what John Brockman expected of himself and others, arguably the planet's most important literary agent. John Brockman brings his cyber elite together in his Internet salon, Edge. We paid a visit to the man from the third culture. The Internet had yet to be born, but the talk still revolved around it.
In New York, it was half a century ago. Cage, as John Brockman recalls, always spoke about the mind we all share. That wasn't some kind of holistic nonsense. He was talking about the profound cybernetic ideas. He got to hear about them on, on one of the occasions when John Cage, a music revolutionary, Zen master, a mushroom collector, cooked mushroom dishes for him and a few friends.
At some point, Cage packed him off home with a book. That's for you, were were his parting words, after which he never exchanged another word with Brockman, something that he couldn't understand for a long time. John, that's Zen, a friend finally explained to him. You no longer needed him. Norbert Wiener was the name of the author, cybernetics or control and communication in The Animal and the Machine, the name of the book.
Page by page, Bockman battled his way through the academic text together with Stewart Brand, his friend, who was about to publish the whole Earth catalog. The shopping primer and Bible of the environmentally driven counterculture for both readers, physics, and mathematics expanded into the infinite space that no longer distinguish between the natural and human sciences, mind and matter searching and finding. Like the idea of the Internet, which was slowly acquiring contours during these rambling 19 sixties discussions, the idea of Edge, the Internet salon around which Brockman's life now revolves, was also taking shape. Edge is a meeting place for the cyber elite, the most illustrious minds who are shaping the emergence of the latest developments in the natural and social science sciences, whether they be digital, genetic, psychological, cosmological, or neurological, digerati from the computer universe of Silicon Valley, aren't alone in giving voice to their ideas in Bachman Salon. They are joined in equal measures by other eminent experts, including the evolutionary biologists, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, and the philosopher Daniel Dennett, the cosmologist, Martin Rees, the biological anthropologist, Helen Fisher, the economist, a psy psychologist, and Nobel Prize winner, Daniel Kahneman, the quantum physicist, David Deutsch, the computer scientist, Marvin Minsky, and the social theorist, Anthony Giddens.
Ranging from the cofounder of Apple, Steve Wozniak, to the decoder of genomes, Craig Venter, his guest list is almost unparalleled even in the boundless realm of the Internet. Even the actor, Alan Alda, and writer, Ian McEwan, can be found at his forum. The bridge of the first 3rd culture. The question is sent out to all salon members at the start of every year. This year, it is what scientific idea ready to be retired?
What scientific idea ready to be is ready to be retired? They've obviously made a mistake. The editorial marching orders written by Brockman reveal the heart of edge. Go deeper than the news. Tell me something.
I don't know. You are writing for your fellow edgies, a sophisticated bunch, and not and not the general public. Stick to ideas, theories, systems of thought, disciplines, not people. Come up with something new. Be exciting, inspiring, compelling.
Tell us great stories. Amaze, delight, surprise us. I'm just gonna see if there's, if I can actually get onto the next page there. Not sure if I can. As you see, we're talking about the 3rd culture here.
We're talking that's what we're talking about. We're talking about a scientific revolution. Right? We'll leave that one behind us. We'll we'll explain it somewhere else.
Because John Brockman, in 1995, had created had written the 3rd culture beyond the scientific revolution. And for the book for this, 35 years ago, CP Snow, in a now famous essay, wrote about the polarization of the 2 cultures, literary intellectuals on the one hand and the scientists on the other. Although he hopes, for the emergence of a third culture that would bridge a gap, it is only recently that science has changed the intellectual landscape. Brockman's thesis that science is emerging as the intellectual center of our society is brought into life vividly in the third culture which weaves together the voices of some of today's most influential scientific figures. So along with all these different scientific figures he had connections with, he basically posited that 2, cultures that CP Snow talked about, there was the 3rd culture.
The interlocutor between the 2 is technology and science itself. Now, again, here on Edge Sight, it explains his, dinner with Cage in 1965 that we've gone through and, talks about Brockman's life in many ways, different people that he knew. I mean, he was a guy about town in in, New York. Everybody knew Brockman. Here we have Edge Serpentine Information Gardens.
Oh, this is also mentioned on Edge, and this is showing on in 2011 Edge at the Orbis obris in at obris in invitation participated in Serpentine Gallery, Garden Marathon. This was one of the events that Eric r Weinstein was at, the Serpentine event in a a Serpentine event in London. That was the same sort of thing, and is worth noting Eric r Weinstein. That's, one of the events that he went to. And this is Obrist, the curator of the Serpentine Gallery in London, Kensington, a garden, another one of the art of conversation, of course, which very much like what Brockman was doing.
So here we go. This is cybernetics. This is the book that was given, the Norbert Wiener. Norbert Wiener. What a name.
Norbert Wiener. Yes, sir. That's a terrible name. Get out of my class. Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine.
Control and communication. That's really what Edge is. All about control and communication. Very interesting that this is the book that Gage gave him, that sent him into this. Well, this is this started what he described as the cybernetic question, the the cybernetic idea, as he said.
And extremely interesting, to to study some of this, because it'll teach you a lot about what motivates minds like these. Maybe they're not. You don't trust them the most or whatnot. What's the entire scientific right. I lost, one of those articles there.
This page cannot be displayed. Let me see if I can sort that out. I press a button here and there. We'll see now. Yeah.
So this is from The Guardian, and this is an Observer article saying, what scientific idea is ready for retirement? Each year, a forum of the world's most brilliant minds asks one question. And so this is, the the reality club launched in 1996, the online version of the reality club. An informal gathering of intellectuals met from 81 to 96 in Chinese restaurants, artists lost investment banking firms. That's very interesting that you say investment banking firms, because you'd assume that it's JPMorgan and that was somehow related with Epstein as well.
So so is this is a very interesting, like, article in itself because it'll give you little bits of information. When Edge when the reality club had been fully launched online, Edge found its own place. The online world, they I don't think they knew what what was gonna happen. It kind of ran alongside. He created Edge in 1988, getting on to the bandwagon of the Internet as early as possible, and then the reality club eventually merged into edge.org.
And as you see, edge.org, the first ever edge.org, meeting, official one, that was noted down as well, Edge 1, was December 21, 1996, and it was a speech by Richard Dawkins, The 3rd Culture, Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder. We have responses to to this from Murray Gellman, Milford Wolpov, Reuben Hirsch, Karl Habbag, Duncan Steele, blahdy, blahdy, blahdy, blahdy, blahdy, blahdy, blah, Robert Shapiro and others. And then spare me your means by the very large, Jaron Lanier. He debates a couple of other people. This was the talk of the you know, instantly from the of the they will they were interested in propagating the idea of the third culture.
And Tech Monitor produced this, a Digirati conversation with the cyber elite originally on 1997 and says, Claire Hanney of our sister's pub sister publication, Software Futures, reviews a book of interviews with some of the computer's industry's leading lights. John Brockman is a New York based literature agent with an interest in scientific and contacts to go with it. In between clients, he's written quite a few of his own books. In the 3rd culture beyond the scientific revolution, for instance, a kind of answer to CP Snow's famous 19 fifties essay, the 2 cultures, Brockman sought the opinion of such scientific luminaries as Marvin Minsky, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. The book and this is talking about the 3rd culture.
The the book is high on the style, eye on style, and delights in the idiosyncratic layout and chapter headings. For example, all the computer industry luminaries interviewed are given their own titles. So Microsoft Corp's Bill Gates is labeled the software developer, and Sun Microsystems includes Scott McNeely as the competitor, while Internet rights activist and cofounder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, John Perry Barlow, is derogatively known as the coyote. So you can see those are some of the big names who appeared in, the 3rd culture and some other work. Because John Brockman had produced a lot of work by the time he got there.
As once said, by Brockman, which is, I think, within this is this yeah. This is within this. Let's see if we can find it actually here. He because he is the interlocutor. He is the connector.
This is, what John Brockman does very well, and it's very interesting. I can't find the quote within it, but it is here somewhere. John Brockman, and this is a quote by Howard Rheingold. It might have been easier to look for Rheingold within, this very small writing. But but how Howard Rheingold, an American writer and teacher who specializes in cultural for a lot of social and political implications of modern communication media, once said of Brockman.
Brockman has an uncanny way of knowing people who know something important and a talent for putting people together. He was a definite interlocutor for sure. There you go. And, this is something this is something that is really comes out about John Brockman. He, from the very first he was a brilliant interlocutor.
From the very first moments of edge, he knew how to bring people together. He had already done it so many times. The 3rd culture of course, here we go. 3rd culture consists of those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meaning of our lives, redefining who and what we are. It is large enough umbrella to also include the digerati, the doors, the thinkers, and the writers connected in a way that they may not even appreciate, who have tremendous influence on the emerging communication revolutions surrounding the growth of the Internet and the web.
Of course, we're going to get to this now, and this is the original. This is CP Snow, the 2 cultures 60 years later that you can find on Cambridge Universities, and this article considers a modern day relevance to CP Snow's 2 culture. It's very interesting, the 2 cultures, that are put forward by CP Snow. This is his book you can find on Internet Archive. He says that, basically, there's a culture of intellectuals within the humanities and a cult a culture of intellectuals within the formal sciences, so physics, biologists, chemists, chemistry, etcetera.
And that these intellectuals, these 2 sets of intellectuals, can't understand each other. For instance, the, the scientists, the formal scientists, wouldn't understand the works of, Shakespeare and those from the humanities and, philosophy and etcetera. They don't understand the second law of thermodynamics. So they are both unable to communicate about such things and get hostile when you suggest that understanding of them both and learning how to combine them could be a third culture on top and that their 2 intellectual cultures are actually distinct and separate. That's, what a lot of, people's, say.
That's, the quote. I've described that just then, but that's Snow's well quoted, work, about him getting annoyed by the fact that people were unable to understand what was really happening between all communicate social scientists to scientists or science to social scientists. And this was an attempt here, Edge. This is one of the, meetings here that was happening, an early one. I think these are probably this is, originally even though it says, like, you know, the snapshot taken in 2022, this is, I think from a 2003 EDGE meeting or 2,002 might be an earlier one.
As you can see, these are a lot of scientists, a lot of the big scientists around. It'll be hard to say. I think that's probably Sergei Brin over there. There'll be a a few others too that you may recognize. Jon Brockman is here.
That's Jon Brockman there. And there's Jeffrey Epstein, of course, sitting down, having a conversation, with whoever he's facing at the time. And this is what Edge did. You know? He has an article in, Inside Higher Education from 2019, July 16th.
It says, Pinker, Epstein, soldier, spy. See, Tinker, Taylor, soldier spy. Stephen Pinker's aid in Jeffrey Epstein's legal defense renews criticism of an increasingly divisive public intellectual. And this shows, Lawrence Krauss, up here and Steven Pinker down here with Jeffrey Epstein at an edge event. And, they're having a great old time.
And it says here, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein had help in avoiding federal or state prison is unsurprising. Money and power often buys what they shouldn't. But the recent revelation that Epstein found aid from star psychologist Steven Pinker in the form of the 2,007 legal document His ties to Epstein and aberration in an otherwise commendable life as a public intellectual, one based on reason and truth, even when that's unpopular, increasingly, Pinker's work centers on the notion notion that life is good, better than it's ever been, and that we don't appreciate it enough. And this goes through Pinker and Epstein's relationship and how it went past just being, scientific. It became to a point where, of course, this was a relationship between the 2.
It was a friendship, and Pinker would even protect him at the worst of times. There's not only Pinker who would get roundly criticized in the media, as I say, for, his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, especially after Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction. But here, we can see in the New York Times, long before divorce, Bill Gates had a reputation for for questionable behavior. Oh, really? And then they they just rally around him during, what happened recently.
Melinda French Gates voiced concerns about her husband's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and harassment claim against his money manager. He also had an affair with an employee. Oh, yes. There you go. Spokesman for Bill Gates said claims that he mistreated employees were false, but he would do them behind his wife's back.
By the time Melinda French Gates decided to end her 27 year marriage, her husband was known globally as a software pioneer, billionaire, and a leading philanthropist. But in some circles, Bill Gates has also developed a reputation for questionable conduct in work related settings. Yes. Very interesting here. Look, it's got these Chinese characters in New York Times.
For some reason, they're bringing in the Chinese trying to bring in Chinese search engines. Interesting. Now understanding why, Bill Gates was involved and why Stephen Pinkett in the round room, why Dawkins was involved, why Dennett was involved, why Minsky was involved, why Summers was involved, why all these guys were involved, you have to understand edge was right at the peak. These aren't small people who were involved in edge. If you were a scientist, and you were applying your trade to the highest level, especially if you were in cybernetics, computer, computing, anything like that, then you had a place on EDGE's website.
You had a place on EDGE's courses. You had a place in the billionaires dinner, and you had a lot of other places. Here are some of the people who were involved in the course. We're gonna look at that Elon Musk was involved in. 1 of them, or or one of the people who were involved in these courses was Sala Kamanga, who will at the time was Google former CEO, YouTube founding member, Google's product team.
So this is now he's a former CEO of YouTube. But when it was happening, he was the CEO of YouTube. So while he's involved with this, he's the head of the biggest, media platform in the world. Goes on and and was Google as well, and goes on to be a founding member of Google's product team. Salar Kamanga, Google's 9th employee, is the former CEO of YouTube.
He led the team that defined and launched Google's AdWords. He is former vice president Google's web application, including Gmail, Talk, Calendar, Reader, blah de blah de blah de blah. So he's a Google bigwig. And these are some of the people who, of course, come up in this article. They they are the people who were some of the biggest people at the time.
Evan Williams, software engineer, cofounded several Internet companies, including Blogger, which he ran for 4 years before selling to Google. And in 2003, Twitter, where he was chairman and CEO, and now says on Twitter's board of directors. So Evan Williams is one of these guys who was one of the Twitter guys involved with Elon Musk, Kamanga, and all of the rest of them, in Edge, of course. Here's Elon Musk's Edge page. We're looking at 2012.
We're looking at a fairly early snapshot of his Edge page where you can see at this point, he's at SpaceX and Tesla Motors, SolarCity is his official ones. And you can see the events he was involved in here. He was involved, of course, in the Edge Masterclass 2,008 with Richard Thaler and the Edge Masterclass 2,009 with George Church. It doesn't show yet. In 2012, even though it's a year afterwards, it does not show that he was, at the 2011 Billionaires dinner.
It doesn't show that at all. But if we go forward in time on the web archive and look for a later snapshot of Elon Musk, we should be able to see. There you go. It's taken a while for this snapshot to come up, but I have got a lot of windows open, of course. Looks like we're not going to make it today.
It's might I actually might just go to his current page, and it still doesn't show that he was involved in 2011. That's very interesting, isn't it? Because it does for everybody else. It'll show you. For everybody else, it'll show you all the different things they're involved in.
And if you go to the Edge dinners here and you go to 2011, you see Elon Musk straight away. There you go. There's his smiling face. Dinner party was a microcosm of newly dominant sector of American business, said Gary Wolf. And there you go.
There's some of the people who go back into that. Some other people who were involved, of course, who implicated and who got involved in a lot of these things, including the course that, Elon Musk was attending, which is the master class, by Richard Thaler, the head of behavioral economics and the nudge units, the psychologist psych Daniel Kahneman and the other psychologist, then Dilmuddinathan, is Sean Parker. He was a cofounder of Napster, founding president of Facebook, founder of the Parker Foundation, also involved in Teal's Founders Fund as well, which it doesn't say in that, but it is. Also involved with Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, owner of Washington Post, founder of Blue Origin. There you go.
You could see how many different things, he was involved in there. Jeff Bezos was a regular attendee at Ed. He was one of the main guys. He was brought one of Brotman's go to guys. And, of course, we know that David Shaw, from from this article that I wrote, David Shaw and the rise of, Jeff Bezos, that he was put into his permission, position at Amazon, really, by after being vice president of, DE Shaw during this period.
But that's one of the ways he could have known Jeffrey Epstein already, either. He's hanging around with DE Shaw. He's already involved in creating big companies. He's also hanging around in other places at the time. We know that DE Shaw, who Jeff while Jeff Bezos was working for him, was also a Clinton adviser going into the White House.
And we know that Epstein visited the White House at least 17 times in the 1st 2 years when Mark Middleton got found hanging from a tree with a gunshot wound to the chest. He called suicide. What a load of rank. And these this was really this is a lot like the intelligence taking over the intelligence world taking over politics really openly, but this, yeah, this is like the intelligence firms getting really involved because these guys are all intelligence here. And so we know that from that that Epstein was in and out of the White House.
We also know that Bezos could have met Epstein via Sotheby's because at the time that Amazon, entering into this deal when, just as in 1999, Bezos is always already attending Edge here. And in 1999, he's the in front cover of Time Magazine, and he's seen as one of the world's richest techs tech pioneers, tech billionaires. And so he enters into a deal with Sotheby's. And on the board of Sotheby's was, of course, Les Wexner, who was one of Jeffrey Epstein's biggest funder, if not biggest. But that's partially, I think, was a conduit for sending money that looked like it come from abroad when it actually come from the CIA.
So I'm not sure about what Les Wexner's real role was. People like to say, he was a Jew. So there you go. He was Mozart, but I think he was a Jew. Jewish ethnicity was really useful for the CIA so that they could look like it was the money was coming from someone else when they were doing operations on American soil like they weren't allowed to.
But Bezos, for instance, was one of the ones who was involved in Sotheby's. Taubman was also the top guy at Sotheby's during this period, and he's one of the mega group alongside Les Wexner. And there you go. That's the actual article inside the New York Times. It shows that she she gets in loads of trouble, for their their interactions with Jeffrey Epstein.
Eventually, it gets very hard for her to stay around. She gets in trouble. I can't remember what she gets in trouble for when she eventually gets brought down. It might not all be at Stein related, but I've got a feeling it is. I think in about 2,004, 2,005, she's one of the ones who's cut.
Dubin, Tiffany Dubin is also, is it Tiffany Dubin? Yeah. She's also on the Lolita Express flight logs quite a lot, and she's, head of fashion at Sotheby's during this period. So they're all intertwined. And Ghislaine Maxwell is well known for looking for gallerinas, what she called gallerinas in these young girls who worked in the arts, who were quite educated and were would be able to be sold off to people who were interested as Jeff Bezos again.
And we can see that Bill Gates has his own page on Edge. We can see where he was, involved in, he's involved in a Edge Billionaires dinner here, involved in the Jared Diamond award, Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction. So that's a contribution and a conversation. And he was involved in a talk, for the curator, of course, as part of the co the the 3rd culture stuff. Another one of the guys who were involved in all of this was Sergey Brin, cofounder and director for special projects at Google.
A native of Moscow, he received a bachelor of science degree with honors in mathematics, computer science, and even University of Maryland at College Park. He is currently on leave from the PhD program in computer science at Stanford University, where he received a master's degree. Sergei Sergei is a recipient of the National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship, well as well as honorary MBA from Instituto de Impresse. It was at Stanford where he met Larry Page and worked the project that became Google. Larry Page, also an Edge member.
Nathan Myhrvold is a really important one, CEO of Manjun, Director of Intellectual Ventures. They hold something like 7,000 patents and patent pendings, which accused of patent theft as well quite a lot. And he was really most of the pictures you see from the Edge organization, dinners and events are Nathan Myhrvold, who had taken the pictures. He goes around with a camera and takes pictures of everyone. He had a very important part in Edge, extremely important part.
Now Larry Page, also at Edge, is doing that. He was, of course, cofounder of Google with Sergey Brin. So these guys are the top level. This this isn't messing around, and we can see this is the Edge Science dinner from 2,003. You can see the pictures in there.
You can see Sergey Brin's down here. Jeff Bezos on the other side. So there's, Sergey Brin. There's Jeff Bezos, and there's Rona Tennenbaum and Alexa Mackenzie. Alexa Mackenzie, she's gonna become Jeff Bezos' wife, I believe, isn't it?
This is, Katinka Matson, who was one of the main people working at Edge. She was brought friends of brought them for a long time. Freeman Dyson, of course, and Jared Diamond. Dennett and Pinker there. Minsky and Bates.
You've got the Pullman of the New York Times and Rodney Brooks. Rodney Brooks, I think wouldn't Rodney Brooks, New York Times? We'll we'll find out soon. Katie Hafner of New York Times, George Dyson. You you can see these are big players in the world of science.
Lee Smolin there with Pat Hillis, who's, Danny Hillis' wife, methinks. These are really, like I say, a fit relatively powerful people, Stewart Brand, important in the least making these things happen. And here, you've got Eric Schmidt, of course, of Google, who's another one who's, extremely important in the Google world. Jaron Lanier is well known around the place, and he's there with, Jeff Bezos. You can see that these are the guys.
This is what happens at Edge. They all get together. Nathan Myhrvold takes pictures of them all, and soon you've got the very pretty young Banu next to Brockman. You can suppose Banu may have come with someone like Jeffrey Epstein maybe, but that's just a fort. And there you go.
Manny Morris and Jeff Bezos, Sergei Brin with Brockman. These were these these are the boys. These are the science boys. They're getting away with it all. And there you go.
That that that last one there was, Eric Schmidt again. Big boys. Big players. Big players going to these dinners. Some of the other ones who had their own pages, Anne Wojciechiziki, who's of 23andme.
That's a pretty important one. I will go by Elon Musk again. Now Elon Musk was the star of the show in the course that he was on that was at Edge. He was the star of the show. They wanted people to they wanted him badly.
This here is a very infamous shot of Elon Musk being photobombed apparently at a party. It's very clever. Ghislaine Maxwell used to do that all the time. Photobomb. Very famous person people.
Apparently, here, she asks Elon Musk how to destroy the Internet. She's like, how do we destroy if we wanted to destroy the Internet, how do we destroy it? So they're already looking to destroy they they want Elon Musk for a a number of reasons. One of them is for advice on how to do things that are Machiavellian. But, again, this is this could very well just be Elon Musk is at a party, she's at a party, and then she just turns up and someone takes a picture of them.
That happens a lot in Ghislaine Maxwell's world. And, again, Ghislaine Maxwell reportedly asked Elon Musk to destroy the Internet. That's, some of one of the times said for that. And then we get back to the BuzzFeed news leaks. In 2011, Jeffrey Epstein oh, leaks.
Jeffrey in 2011, Jeffrey Epstein was a known sex offender. He had been convicted in 2009, served with an open door in a plea deal, and he got away with a load, opened up a not off it, and just continued doing his work while in prison. There's no sex offender. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Sergey Brin dined with him anyway. Now here we go.
Nuts and bolts. This isn't Elon Musk's first time that he's going to be going to a Jeffrey Epstein funded event. This is, like, the lesser bit of it. This is him at an event where Jeffrey Epstein is as well, at a billionaires dinner, and this is the most likely place. I was looking for a sign that I would be able to find Elon Musk in the same room as Jeffrey Epstein, preferably a photo.
But I did. It did. Now it'd already been found. The photo had already been found. Here it is.
This is from the Edge dinner from 2011, and there you see, just by here, Jeffrey Epstein having a conversation with someone on the same table as Zac Brogue. And so we know that Elon Musk attended that in as well. We know that. We do know that. That's the picture.
But this is the picture that I've, produced extra. So you can see, in actual fact, Elon Musk is in the same photo. This is Elon Musk here. This is him at the event, in that jacket, with that shirt, on, with that haircut, on the same table that you can see in the corner of the room, the same back of the room there, and he is 5 meters, maybe even not even 5 meters, 2 and a half meters, 3 meters away from Jeffrey Epstein. They're in the same room.
There's only 25 people in this room, all big scientists. They've been trying to get Elon Musk for a while, and Jeffrey Epstein manages it. Eventually, he gets in the room. In this event, there's Zachary Bogue. In this event, there were more than just him.
There's, you can't see her there, but that's Talula Musk. That's Elon Musk's wife at the time, was there. So here we go again. So there's Tallulah Musk there, and we can see that also Max Brokman was at the event. Now Max Brokman, CEO of Brokman Inc, is an international literacy a literary agency.
Of course, he's, his father's son in many respects, so, that we know that what he does. He goes on and does the same thing. And this is the edge dinner in in total. So this is the dinner that Elon Musk was at. We can see some of the other people who were there.
Sergey Brin is a big time guy. Is the picture you see that I showed you shows that Tesla and SpaceX is from? David Brooks, that's him, of the New York Times. So the New Times report is there. It's it's very establishment thing to be there, isn't it?
Lucy Page, South, South Wharf. Lucy Page, I think, is is probably, Larry Page's missus. Sergei Brin, the some of the people here, you know less than others. I mean, do you know Marissa Mayer? Probably not.
23 andMe and Wojcicki. Microsoft is rep represented there. These are all of the biggest people, Applied Minds, Google. These are all of the biggest people in the biggest tech firms apart from Peter Gabriel. But Peter Gabriel has always had an interest in technology, especially film, computer tech, animation tech, etcetera.
Jeff Bezos, who always looks completely crazy is there. Salakamanga, who's there on behalf of YouTube at that point, like I say. So these are the heads of all of the big social media platforms. John Brockman himself and his son Max Brockman. Nathan Myhrvold is there too.
You can see Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk in the background on the same table. Sergey Brin, David Brooks having a conversation. Sala Kamanga again. You see these guys are pretty, much to top guys, Jeffrey Epstein, Elon Musk, Zac Bogue. Here is Jon Brockman and Jeff Bezos together, buddy, buddy, buddy, and Talula Musk.
Married Musk the year before, divorced him a year after, grandfather of the iPad, Tony Faddell, grandfather of the iPad. That's a really strange one. There you go. Look. I'm having such a great time.
I thought I'd just include Adelman PR and the manufacturing of trust because we talk about p I talk about wealthy and clever PR firm, major PR companies, And I thought it's worth putting the most, an article I wrote about the most major PR firm in the world that stands behind Klaus Schwab, and the World Economic Forum runs the Edelman Trust Barometer every year. An important article which you can go read LinkedIn through this, of course. But one of the main guys who we wanna be talking about, we get into Elon Musk's training in psychological manipulation funded by Epstein. And, of course, that means we've got to be introduced to the father, of behavioral economics. And the father of behavioral economics is Richard Thelark, director, as we said earlier, director, Center For Decision Making, research, of course, University of Chicago graduate.
And his buddy in in arms, his mate is Casar Sunstein. They wrote Nudge Together. Casar Sunstein is currently the Robert Walmsley University professor at Harvard from 2,009 to 2012. He was administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He is the founder and director of program of behavioral economics and public policy at Harvard Law School.
Sunstein has testified before congressional committees on many subjects and he has been involved in constitution making law reform activities in a number of nations. Yes. Cass Sunstein. So these guys use behavioral psychology to nudge people into their, preferred what what the state would prefer how the state would prefer them to act. So this is an article from the Wall Street Journal, called secondary sources, credit crisis, authoritarian fed nudges.
And more on nudges. Writing for the Financial Times, Katherine Stein and Richard Thaler, who wrote a book on nudging people to make better choices, look at political proposals that are backing their findings. It is not surprising that the policy teams for Barack Obama, the US Democratic, presidential candidate, and David Cameron, the UK's conservative party leader, have shown an interest in nudge like solutions to social problems. In dealing with the credit crisis in the US, mister Obama favors a policy of disclosure and transparency. His mortgage, policy is designed not to preclude choices but to ensure that consumers have a better sense of what they are getting.
In dealing with environmental problems and crime, mister Cameron seeks to enlist the power of social norms, pricking people's consciousness to inspire them to do better. Ideas of this kind suggest the development of an approach called libertarian paternalism by the government, trying to move people in good directions without imposing penalties, mandates, or bans. No. By using psychology by using psychology, people's minds, tricking them into doing whatever you want rather than telling them what you need to do, who you want. That's what nudging is.
From Obama to Cameron, and this is from The Guardian newspaper in 2008. From Obama to Cameron, why do so many politicians want to be so Richard Thaler? Tory's plan weekend retreat with economics guru. Academics back right wing means for progressive ends. So this is Aditya Chakraborty, in for The Guardian, Saturday, January July 12, 2008.
And it shows a picture of Richard Thaler at the top of Brownlee. What is the big idea of Richard Thaler, the common economist quoted by David Cameron and Barack Obama? They come, it comes down to this. You're not as smart as you think. Humans, he believes, are less rational and more influenced by peer pressure and suggestion than governments and economists reckon.
Peer pressure and suggestion. Do you want people telling you what to do by using peer pressure and suggestion or just saying it out loud? Economists assume people have brains like supercomputers that can solve anything, says Thaler. But human minds are more like really old Apple Macs with slow processing speeds and prone to frequent crashes. According to this view, voters are less mister Spock than Homer Simpson, and they could do with a bit of help.
What Fela terms a nudge to save more, eat more healthy, and do all the other things that they know they should. They know they should. The government knows you should, so you should know you should. Cameron is so interested in the idea that in a speech last month, he mentioned Nathalie, the co author his co author, Cass Sunstein, and even the fact that they had a new book out, Nudge. Then he summed up the their argument.
One of the most important influences on people's behavior is what other people do. With the right prompting, we'll change our behavior to fit in with what we see around us. It was surely the best plug to Chicago academics with a book about the obscure discipline of behavioral economics could hope for. But Tory interest in Thaler is not stopped there. When he arrived in London last week to do some teaching, 5 senior conservatives met him for more than an hour to discuss his ideas and how they might work together.
Steve Hilton, the party's head of strategy and Cameron's chief ideas man, was there as was director of research James O'Shaughnessy and Oliver Letwin, NP, the head of the party's policy review. Plans are being made for a weekend retreat in which shadow ministers or shadowy ministers get together with Thala and 2 or 3 of his associates to come up with policies, literally going out into the woods, making policies with its guy who's gonna tell him, use behavioral psychology to guilt trip people or force people into doing things that they don't want to do, but you want them to do. Cameron's aids name 3 areas where Thelma may be able to help, how to make it socially unacceptable for the young to carry knives, encouraging people to recycle, and tackling binge drinking and obesity. The Nudge agenda is starting to creep into Tory policy in the same speech in which he mentioned Thaler's new book. Cameron proposed that households should be told at the bottom of their gas and electric electricity bill whether they were using more energy than their neighbors or less.
By certainly using peer pressure, he argued, households might be encouraged into using energy more efficiently. One senior policy adviser to George Osborne made even grander claims for Thaler's influence. Behavioral economics might be our equivalent of Gordon Brown's neoclassical endogenous, growth theory. The reference to the philosophy as powers by Brown early in his tenure as a, as chancellor is a joke, but the suggestion that the Tories are taking behavioral economics seriously is not. It's very interesting.
This is very interesting, indeed. The thing is, it doesn't only, affect one side of the argument. One way failure ducks the political argument is describing nudges beyond left and right. It uses right wing means to achieve progressive ends. A third way.
You see how everything has to be a third way. And, of course, there's a little bit more, I think. Intrusive speech. You go, perhaps the most intriguing aspect of Thaler's reception in this country is what it tells us about per party politics. None of this territory is new to new labor.
It's just that Tories have made it a rather daring incursion into it. In 2004, Tony Blair's team put out a very well researched paper entitled change of behavior. More recently, the government has come up with nudge style pensions that will come into force in a few years. By, but by seizing on nudge over the past few weeks, however, incongruously, it sits with Thatcher era belief, the Tory party has rather effectively projected itself as being one with all the fresh ideas. There was a time when Labour would have been all over Thaler and Downing Street, would have pulled him in for a chat.
Now it's the other side that is showing that they are open to new ideas, says former government adviser Richard Reeves. Sadly, that tells you where the intellectual energy is in British politics. Reeves is taken upon himself to organize a dinner next week with Thaler and some government advisers and think tankers from the center. What does Thaler think of political jockeying over his ideas? He's not a Republican, is he?
No Democrat, he exclaims. Wouldn't that naturally mean I'm a friend of Labour? But David Cameron's, the one sweet talking me. And it may be the sunshine, but he appears to be winking. Yes.
They're trying to attract him in. Now they mentioned something which you can't find. This link no longer takes you to this PDF. Instead, you have to go through the Wayback Machine to find it. And it's, from the prime minister's strategy unit in 2004 under Tony Blair.
And it's personal responsibility and changing behavior, the state of knowledge and its implication for public policy. And this here is an in completely intriguing. It may keep making notes. Look. Says, no.
This is an issue paper for discussion purposes, not does not represent government policy, but talks about incorporating into policy and how you should definitely incorporate it into policy. Nudging people's behavior is exactly what we want. You know? Behaviourally based interventions can be significantly more cost effective than traditional services. They they're aiming to do that already, and you see that in conclusion, the paper concludes that the efficacy of government policy may be significantly enhanced and public behavior positively influenced by the application of more sophisticated approaches to support individuals and communities in changing behaviors.
To be effective and acceptable. Such approaches need to be built around co production and a sense of partnership between state individuals and communities. They people need to think it's their their their idea. Cost effectiveness of alternative methods of behavioral change. All about behavioral change in this policy document, which is available within the article, of course, There's a link within the article.
It's very detailed. It's not sorry. It's not a policy document, is it? It's just, an idea. It's increasingly accepted that the public have a central role to play in improving outcomes in public services, blah, blah, blah, blah.
This is very much policy tailored around a more unrealistic understanding of how people are to make choices and engage in society, twinned with sustained dialogue over the implications for the citizens and the states' responsibilities, should lead not only to more effective policy, but should also enable citizens to feel more in control of their own lives. And this is a policy document that looks at the same thing. It looks to change people's, minds through behavioral nudging to an extent. But then Nudge came out. This book, Nudge, Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, made what is essentially psychological operations by the governments possible and trendy.
They could get away with it. Now they could say, intellectuals are saying we should do this because it's nice and kind for you. And this sort of paternalism, this liberal paternalism is, or libertarian peter paternalism is a little bit icky, of course, but all comes down to the same sort of thing, looking for a third way. Anthony Giddens here, looking for a third way to do things, to nudge people and their behavior in a certain direction. And we see that Richard Thaler in 2008, when he released Nudge, that book there that we know about there, when he released that, he was doing the rounds in Edge.
Here's Richard Thaler next to Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia, for instance. This is Richard Thaler with another one. See, he's, Richard Thaler with a lot of different people. He was the star of the show, for this this one. That's, Larry Page?
I think it is. There you go. Again, you see repeated characters come up in these in this 2008. But as you see there with Jimmy Wales and with others, Richard Thaler is the center of the party when it comes to 2,008. And you can see that he was also involved in this, 6 classes that would be about behavioral economics.
Yes. And this is class number 1. Masterclass has 6 classes, as you can see here. The masterclass 2008, libertarian, paternalism, why it's impossible not to nudge. So why it's impossible not to resist nudging.
And you see the people involved in the first, masterclass with Daniel Hillis, Nathan Myhrvold, Daniel Kahneman, Jeff Bezos, and Centaline Manifan course. And the second class was improving choices with machine readable disclosure. And here we see Elon Musk is also in attendance, with Daniel Hillis, Paul Romer, Sean Parker. Now these, linked within the the articles, have full minutes for the meetings. So you can read everything, and there's videos attached.
So you can see them having the conversations, people like Musk. It's the one way to gain the system. Failure. Let's go on. I have a response to your comment, which is you are essentially saying there is information overload.
It's one way to gain the system, said Musk. I disagree with that, and the reason is that the websites that I imagine, emerging sort of solve that problem. So so this is a in-depth conversation and review of what they're doing, and it's a very small table. Look look at this. This is the 2nd class, and look how many people are involved.
Look. This is, one of the master classes. It's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 people involved, and Richard Phelan, Saint John Monaffan. And the 3 business the the these people who are involved include Jeff Bezos, head of Amazon, Nathan Merville, head of the biggest intellectual property company in the world, Sala Kamen as oh, one of the biggest. Sala Kamenga, who's the head of YouTube then.
Daniel Kahneman, who's the head of changing behavior and psychology at different, university. Danny Hillis, Paul Romer. Paul Romer ends up being, World Health Organization, isn't it? I think it's World Health Organization. Elon Musk and Sean Parker, these are the heads of all of the biggest heads of these biggest companies are all involved.
All of them. And it's quite astounding, to be perfectly honest. And these master classes, I cannot be understated and should not be understated at all. And, of course, it's not just one that that Elon Musk attended. He attended a few of these master classes.
Class 3 is a very interesting title indeed, if we ever get across to it. Let me see if I put it elsewhere. Oh, beep, beep, beep. Oh, so class 1's here. Class 3, is down here.
Class 3 is the psychology of scarcity. And this is one of the the things that come up in, in in this, that's really, really interesting in the actual article. This is a quote by, Sandil Molnafin. Listen to this. Let's put aside poverty alleviation for a second.
Let's ask, is there something intrinsic to poverty that has value and that is worth studying in and of itself? One of the reasons that, is that is the case is that purely aside from magic bullets, we need to understand, are there unifying principles under conditions of scarcity that can help us understand behavior and to craft intervention. If we feel that the conditions of scarcity evoke certain psychology, then that, not to mention pure scientific interest, will affect a vast majority of interventions. It's as import it's an important and no question. What they're saying is if people have poverty and have a psychology of scarcity, then there will be certain elements where they'll be able to control their behavior much better.
Do you understand the elite making people poor so they can change their behavior and nudge their behavior better is beyond behavioral economics? It goes to something else. It's using, behavioral economics at the extreme, the very extreme. It's insane. Now Daniel Kahneman, who's, mentioned there, has other.
He's in full earned Thaler Asset Management. So he has other connections with, Richard Thaler, but he's pretty important. He's Eugene Higgs professor of psychology and professor of psychology of public affairs. He's a really important psychologist and understands human behavior really well. Paul Romer, who was mentioned there, he's a leading economist.
Like I said, he, I mean, he goes on and works for other people, later on, big people on call. Salo Kamanga was head of YouTube at that time. Daniel Hillis, applied invention, applied minds. He's in a lot of these big companies, Disney even. This is very interesting.
He is the winner of many awards, including Dan David prize. The Dan David prize, as I said earlier, was what was given to Klaus Schwab to set up the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader program while Kissinger was on the board. So these people, again, very small circle. Sean Parker, the American entrepreneur, really, really massively important, figure in control, especially when he's in control of things like speed in control of Spotify, Apple Itunes, Facebook, Peter Thiel's founders fund as you see there, devoted himself to social network and helped negotiate financing for Facebook from PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel and the venture capital firm, Accel, Partners. So he had many different relationships with Peter Thiel over the years too.
Very telling. Peter Thiel's Founders Fund, which Sean Parker was involved in, gave who helped raise 280,000,000 for Musk's Neuralink. So they're all in the same circle at this point. They're all part could be in business in business with the same guys. And Nathan Myhrvold, who I've mentioned a few few full time founded Intellectual Ventures in 2000, has led the company since to its chief then as its chief executive officer.
Under Nathan's leadership, Ivy has grown from a handful of entrepreneurs into the world government into invention and investment business. He is among Ivy's most prolific inventors with 900 US patents awarded and several 100 patents pending. Someone told me he takes other people's patents, finds a fault in the patenting process, and semantically takes control of their patents. So that's patent theft through the back door. It's very clever, but it's if that's true, that's not very good.
And, again, we see the masterclass in 2008 to psychology of scarcity. And we you can see there's a on video, and they're having a long conversation about these things throughout it. Very interesting, it how how Musk, gets involved with this and what he's interested in during this period. You know, reading the minutes of this meeting, extremely these meetings in full are extremely telling. They suggest that there's a very small amount of people, maybe 8 or 9, who are deciding everything, on how our future technology should be and how we should interact with it and how it should be incorporated with things that will make us make other decisions.
You see there's a lot of meetings, a lot of conversations within these worlds, and and there's a lot of conversations to be had. A lot of conversations about whether or not this is right or wrong as well. Very worrying is the these master classes on behavioral economics, which, of course, continues on yes. There you go. That's still it.
Now the Institute of Government website in the UK, you'll be able to find about the nudge unit. These things have already been incorporated within government. This is a snapshot from 2023. Nudge unit. The behavioral insights team, properly known as nudge unit, is playing a big role in helping government formulate its response to yes, you see.
I'm not gonna say it out loud. Like, some of the things that they do is very interesting. David Halpin, who I talk about in the news hound about the Bayville Insights team, is, really someone who's worked on this a lot. And, of course, as you see, the nudge unit was created out of Nudging Theory by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. And we can see that things like, in particular, the use of disgust as an incentive to wash hands and the suggestion to sing happy birthday to ensure hands are washed for a requisite 20 seconds are some of the ideas that the Nudge Unit has come up with.
How nice of them. They make us discussed. They they have this we have discussed for ourselves. Now one of the reasons why this is also important, of course, is that you're in a room with the head of YouTube, the head of Google, the head of Amazon, and the head of the future everything app. Yes.
Musk, as we can see in his New York Times article, Elon Musk's quiz tautic quizotic, quest to turn x into an everything app. Mister Musk, the owner of Twitter, is the latest Silicon Valley mogul to pursue the all in one app, the kind that has 5 in Asia but not elsewhere. He already knows. They're gonna do it. They're gonna put in control.
They've already mapped out what technology looks like, and he is involved in that. That's Musk. Musk is involved in nudging your behavior. If you want people working on psychology, 2 big things that happen again, 2 things, big things happening in psychology today. Again, Elon Musk, class 4.
He's involved in these master classes for behavioral psychology, nudging, underhand, use of information, your information. They will use your information against you to nudge you against your psychology. Now we know that a lot of these people who get in datasets, and they make a mind map of your choices through all of the dataset they got about you. And then they decide what you would how you would both most likely best be communicated with that will make you make the decision they want you to make. And these mind maps are from the datasets they have about you.
And so Palantir is another company that has loads of datasets about you, and they will use that information to, affect your psychology. That's what they do. And what this used to be called back in the day back in the day before, you know, before the days that we call them nudge units and the like, this used to be called covert action and clandestine activities of intelligence communities. This is, this is very interesting. This is about COVA action, and this shows you the the what we're seeing.
But it's, it's out loud now. It's out loud. And you can go back in time, and you can look at how spies used to work and how they used to influence you. And now they're still doing it. This because it's the age of 5th generation warfare.
Here in this great dynamics, article about 5th generation warfare, it shows you what is 5 g I. 1st generation was ancient melee battle, muskets. 2nd was organized battle with gunpowder, blitzkrieg. 3rd was mechanized warfare focused on speed and maneuverability, terrorism. 4th was decentralized warfare is led by the state actors, primarily kinetic, mobile Internet and network effects.
And 5th, the information and perception, primarily nonkinetic. And that's where we are with nonkinetic warfare, and they know it as well. And we see here that JD Vance I mean, Musk is now entering into politics alongside JD Vance, alongside Peter Thiel's on the outskirts there, of course. These guys are now entering they're crossing the proverbial Rubicon, and they're entering into politics. So that third culture, the idea of scientists being able to affect social sciences is what is happening right now on a top level.
And that third culture is about replacing all instead of giving us proper solutions to the issues that we have in our society, instead masking it using technology, of course. Peter Thiel is, of course, behind JD Vance as well. So they're all LinkedIn, the eccentric billionaire patron. JD Vance says he's talking about leaving the US, or this is what they always say about these things. Peter Thiel isn't he's not a good guy.
This is not a good guy. I I think he's probably got, serious legal issues coming up. His one of his partners was found dead at some point. And another person, of course, who involved, who I mentioned at the start, is this lady, Nicole Youngerman. And Nicole Youngerman, who I did a 3 part articles on, and she heavily censored me, has loads of massive links to loads of different people, including, Peter Thiel.
Up here, you see Peter Thiel and Epstein and Ekwu Parac. She's in car by 911 with these guys. They were involved with the track and trace stuff. She's also involved in Grok, which has been incorporated into X, and she had Swarm. Swarm, her satellite array, if we go down this article, Swarm Technology.
While Elon Musk's 2020 global satellite display was promising to bring controversial 5 g access across the globe, Nicole Youngerman has been investing in the budget alternative, but she sold this across to, the it's now part of Starlink, and she's in return got a stake in SpaceX. So she's directly in business and has been in directly in business with Peter Thiel and Elon Musk and Jeffrey Epstein. That's a big one. Nicole Youngerman is an important one. And, of course, the second in that article, in the center of articles, was her riding on the Lolita Express with Epstein meeting senators on the 1st September 2002, at Les Wexner's mansion in the UK called Foxcoat House, to discuss probably the Wexner war in Iraq.
He was writing papers alongside other people, about, Lunt Frank Luntz, about the war in Iraq and how to make it beneficial for Israel, a beneficial campaign for Israel. And, of course, Musk, we must remember, Musk's family side family connection is is really important in this because this is the technocrats taking control. And Joshua Haldeman was one of the first of Technocratic Inc, back in when it was set up back in 19 thirties. And onwards, they did a lot of different things as well. And this is Musk's granddad, and it's a continuation of this.
So this is still the high up technocrats taking control of the world and in science we trust. This is from a CBC News article called In Science We Trust. Back in the first half of the twentyth century, a group called Technocracy Incorporated wanted to reorganize society by putting scientists in charge. The movement flamed out, but its underlying message still appeals to many in Silicon Valley. And they were heavily involved in 2019.
Musk tweeted accelerating Starship Development to build the Martian Technocracy. I I mean, what you have to understand is that Technocracy Inc at the start said that politicians were welcome, but they were looking to create radical alternatives to political situations. And that's seeing increase of the use of technology in to do such things. And to to get there to get there, you need to influence people because people won't sell out humanity for technocracy without a little bit of nudging. Nudging.
They got to be nudged, not not politicizing. They can't be politic, into changing their behavior. They've got to be nudged psychologically to become the technocrats in the future because the technocrats sell out humanity. And Musk has been very involved in that from a very young age due to being within the family. And his mother, as you see over here, is Maye Musk.
She created the image that is Elon Musk today. She did that very carefully. There you go. That is some of the source material that you will find in Musk and Epstein, the third culture dossier, The idea that a third culture can be formed by uniting science, the different types of science, social sciences, and actual formal science. The way that John Brockman saw it being able to be done would be through through cybernetics, would be through finding technological solutions for the issues that are made by creating alternative systems such as third way politics, which technological and technocratic solutions can be incorporated to be able to fill the gaps that are left by the policy that normally comes from the left and the right in that case.
That's why 3rd way politics marries up really well with, the 3rd culture. And that's why these articles are part of the same series, the 3rd series. It's the 3rd series. It's not my 3rd series, but it's the 3rd series. So it's a really important this one this one has been really important to go through so you can understand a little bit about behavioral economics, a little bit about how the head people I mean, this is a conspiracy.
2,008, they're conspiring in a room with 8 people in the room, 10 people in the room, funded by Jeffrey Epstein, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, these guys funded by Jeffrey Epstein to control your mind in the future, to get inside your mind, to find a way to influence you without you knowing it's happening. And there's a soft end to the stick. The soft end is like, oh, we'll reduce your credit cards. And there's a sharp end of the stick, which is we will tell you what to do at an algorithmic level so that you automatically do things that the computer is telling you to do. We don't even have to tell you what to do anymore.
That's crazy. It's a crazy level. Behavioral economics is only a little bit about economics and a lot about psychology. That's really important to understand how behavioral economics works because they're tricking you. They're getting inside your mind.
They're giving you things on your screen. You're on your Facebook. Dong dong dong dong dong. Google. Dong dong dong dong.
You're on your ex. Dong dong dong dong dong. You're on Amazon. Dong dong dong dong. And they're putting things inside your mind all of their time.
And in 2008, they sat in a Jeffrey Epstein funded program, and Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and others decided how to make you do what they want you to do even if it's against your best interest by using coercion, by using the the the disgust, by using your social, feeling that society, the people around you hate you for what you do. And it's not true they don't hate you. They're being made to believe they do. This is element of 5th generation warfare that comes out politically once we're during this time, and we're in this time now, and it's time to wake up. Because that was ages ago.
That was 16 years ago they started planning how to get inside your mind. And now they've done it. Now they're in control of all of these platforms. They're in control of you. When censorship comes was there anything recently?
Was there some sort of recent thing that happened where suddenly censorship come down like it was completely and utterly constructed to. Down, Google, down, Microsoft, down, YouTube, down. We will take you down 1 by 1. We will strict access to your information. We will test on you both physically, biologically, and mentally.
We will change your mind. We will nudge you into doing what we want you to do. They're the top guys. The if you wanna say, what's a conspiracy? The top people from the top companies deciding to use your psychology against you to make you do things surreptitiously and secretly in an underhand way so that they can meet both financial and, political ends.
That is insane. That is insane. So for the people who are like, Elon Musk, freedom of speech. Elon Musk, freedom of speech that is put in your mouth. It's not freedom of speech.
If they put things in your brain and it comes out your mouth, that's not you speaking. That's them telling you something that's making you react to something. That's them nudging you, making your behavior happen. That's not freedom of anything. That's a cage that exists to target you specifically.
At the moment, I went on, as people who follow me know, I went on a protest, and it was a protest against 15 minute cities. It's not a big big deal. It's not a big protest. It's not like end of the world stuff. There was a little group over there, little group over here.
I think it was peaceful. People had a couple of conversations in between each other. There are police everywhere, of course. But now we're in a world of AI. We're in a world of computers.
We're in a world of algorithms. And what the algorithm did and spat out was stop me, not anybody else. Everybody else gets to go on about their day. But I I I could individually, they know what I do. Individually, they know that I am someone who can explain to people what is going on.
They know that they don't want me hanging around in protest. They wouldn't want me to have freedom. And they're able to know that because they've got a massive data set about me from my interactions with them. So they know to get me out of the protest. So while I'm walking down with the protest and I saw on camera, they stopped me.
Right in front, boom, the police form a line, and it's only for me. Everybody else can go backwards and forwards. Everybody else is free. Everybody else can protest As long as you do it the way they want to do it, as long as you think the way they think, you can go on about your daily life and they'll know whether or not you're one of those people because these people have your messages. They have your history.
They know exactly what you're doing. They know exactly who you are. So they can manipulate your mind. They can change your direction. They can decide.
Everybody else, it looks free because everybody else gets freedom, but those few there will take their freedom away. We are in a new world, a brave new world, one where only the people who need to be targeted will be targeted, and the rest will think they're not being targeted while they've already been targeted. They've already been told what to think. They've already been nudged. They get the things on their screens that tell them what to do, and they go towards doing it.
They don't even realize they're being told what to do. They don't even realize that their decisions are being made for them. They don't realize. They're not human anymore. They're part of the machine.
They're part of the machine. They're taking away your humanity. And that is part of the thing about these two cultures. If you wanna incorporate science and technology, you take away the humanity. That is very that is a very important part in this piece in general.
If you want if you want to have your mind no. You've gotta follow their society. And if you don't, they will target you. They will use their psychology your psychology against you. They will use their their knowledge, and they will use information against you.
And the difference is with me, and I say this in the article the end of the article, the difference with me and fans of Elon Musk is that I've got extra information about Elon Musk that makes me make a different decision. Same thing. Information. They restrict information, cajole you, push you, nudge you, make you think Elon Musk is something else because they've got information on you, and they know how to push you to be a supporter. So the difference between me and supporters of Elon Musk is Elon Musk has got information on them, where I've got information on him.
That's why I make a different decision. And if you could see what he's doing and what part of the world he's he's part of, you'd realize it's just the same old thing. Psyops galore. That's it. Remember, my friends, I need your support.
News based is a rocking place to go. It's got loads of information. I try and explain things in a way that people can understand, and I try and go through it in grand detail so that you can and and this article itself, it has loads of different sources in, has loads of different videos in. You can get go and find out much more information. It can take you 3, 4 weeks to go through this article properly.
And that's how I like to build my work, and I need help to do that. That's not how the press do things. What I'm doing is trying to be a a better service to humanity as a journalist than what the mainstream is doing, and I think I'm doing it. So please support my work. Go to newspace.com.
You'll find the little buns. The best way is to support me regularly on Patreon. It really is. Buy me a coffee. Buy me a coffee is a great way.
Kofi is a great way to support me. You can help me out, and you can help me to map out this world that they're creating, to chain us, to mess with our minds so that I can map it out for you, give you more information, and then you can no longer be nudged. You see, once you've woken up to the information, once you've realized what they're doing and you realize their techniques, it does not work on you anymore. So open your eyes. Get involved.
Help me. Support me. Help me. Help every like, help me help you. If you're if you're like Jay McCrack, help me help you.
Help me help you. But I'm serious. Let let help me get more information to you all, and I will continue to do this job. I'll continue to produce podcasts, videos, article after article, which explains which will fundamentally do good for the next generation too in helping them understand how psychology works, how the system works, how we've got to where we are, how the intelligence infrastructure work. Do it.
Thank you for joining me. It's been emotional. Bye. What we know is that we will end up with many more unemployed.
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
Musk & Epstein: The Third Culture Dossier by @JohnnyVedmore "How Elon Musk Was Trained in Psychological Manipulation via a Jeffrey Epstein-Funded Program." In 2011, a small group of extremely influential people met to discuss the future of humanity. Among their ranks were Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Nathan Myhrvold, Sergey Brin, and the infamous pedophile child trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein. But this was not the first time these powerful and affluent technophiles had met to determine how best to control society. For many years, I have been unwittingly preparing to write this piece and a bulk of my previous investigations will intersect with this article. For those who aren’t aware, I have written extensively about Jeffrey Epstein’s influence on leading politicians and scientists; I have revealed previously unknown details behind the rise of Jeff Bezos; I have mapped out the history of modern Globalism; and I have written about the political influences behind such infamous leaders as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. In my NEWSHOUND series, I have covered the history of Elon Musk; his family life; his early businesses; as well as his more hidden ties to Microsoft. I’ve also examined the psychological “Nudge Units” adopted by Obama and Cameron respectively which were designed by the father of behavioural economics Richard Thaler and his colleague and co-author Cass Sunstein. And recently I revealed Eric Weinstein’s work for the UN, designing the current unfettered immigration we have seen happen all around the globe, along with his participation in Edge when it was almost fully funded by Jeffrey Epstein. However, I wasn’t expecting all these investigations to merge into one investigation eventually. Since I began reporting on Epstein and his accomplices in 2019, I have been searching for something rather specific. I have been trying to find people with previously unknown or unrevealed connections to the sex-offending intelligence operative. In doing so, I’ve been hopping around the internet archives on the hunt for concrete evidence that powerful people such as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk met in person with Jeffrey Epstein. Although there were many rumours which suggest as much, finding definitive proof of these powerful people all in the same room, at the same time, has been challenging. However, what I wasn’t expecting to find was Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk being trained to manipulate the masses via a Jeffrey Epstein-funded program. But, alas, here we are. Prepare to look behind the curtain of power, as we investigate more than just Musk and Bezos’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein. We’re going to discover how an elite psychological operations unit trained the future technocratic elite on how to manipulate our lives, our societies, and, most of all, our minds. 🧵4/20
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
The Four Factors for Control Those who want to take over and control society require four main components: A paradigm-shifting technology; a coherent political social science; a loyal leadership group; and, most importantly, political consent. Historically, many great thinkers have tried and failed to find some form of political panacea for all our ills and it is often a novel technological paradigm shift which has been the most effective way to drive real change. Any emerging technology capable of revolutionising certain aspects of our society can be implemented in several ways. Future technologies are almost always imagined and predicted decades before they arise, and those who understand the implications of a paradigm-shifting technology can also seek to control its evolution, implementation and its accessibility. Technological Paradigm Shift: The past is littered with technological paradigm shifts. The wheel; the road; bronze, iron and steel; steam trains; gunpowder, dynamite, and the atomic bomb have all had a massive impact on how human society has developed. Every time such a technology has emerged in the past, our society’s infrastructure has been irreversibly redrawn and this has led to people’s lives being shaken up like it’s a game. The vast majority of humans, as the pieces in this game, get redistributed around the board in preparation for the proverbial next level. And we again find ourselves on the precipice of such a predictable change. The world of tomorrow has already been extensively mapped out. For more than half a century, those in power have been designing the Globalist megacity utopia where humanity becomes inextricably entangled with Artificial Intelligence, nanotechnology and various implantables. A very small group of very wealthy actors have been in control of the design, implementation and direction of the major technologies of the future. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, and Elon Musk are four clear examples of the billionaire elite who have the ability to irrevocably change the course of humanity in many ways. Political Social Science: When faced with a technological shift into a new epoch, the prevailing Establishment usually jumps at the opportunity to redesign society. They often adopt an experimental branch of political social science which they think will best fit the developing paradigm. Adopting a social science which will hold firm in an ever-changing world is vital if those in power want to retain control over an emerging system. Within modern Western democracies, the preferred system of social governance has already been adopted. Whether you wanted it or not, the likes of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have forced Third Way politics, as imagined by Anthony Giddens, on America and Britain, with many other Western nation-states joining suit. Third Way ideology is essentially an ideological stepping stone which they intend to utilise to take us from democratic nation-states and onto a form of undemocratic multipolar Globalism. In the case of Third Way politics, we can see how this process unfolded. By the time Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992, he hadn’t only adopted the Third Way political science created by Giddens, but he was also preaching it from his political pulpit. At the same time, the future New Labour elite were in America and hanging on every word spoken by the likes of Anthony Giddens, Robert Reich, and Larry Summers. For instance, Yvette Cooper worked on the Clinton campaign in 1992, Blair and Brown came back from trips to America during this period and they attempted to push Third Way politics onto the then Labour leader John Smith, while Ed Balls was studying under Robert Reich and Larry Summers at Harvard. Eventually, the Labour upstarts designed the so-called “New Labour” party and modelled it on the reformed New Democrats of Bill Clinton.🧵5/20
Video Transcript AI Summary
Welcome to the read-through of "Blair and Clinton: The Third Way Dossier." This article explores how Tony Blair and Bill Clinton shifted their political parties toward a centrist ideology, known as Third Way politics, which suppressed traditional left and right views. This shift has contributed to societal unrest and a political landscape dominated by austerity and conflict. The piece highlights the influence of Anthony Giddens in shaping this ideology and traces the rise of New Labour under Blair, emphasizing the connections between UK and US political elites. The article argues that this centrist approach has led to a loss of genuine political representation and increased division, with consequences that continue to affect society today. Support for this work is encouraged to further explore these critical political dynamics.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, my friends, and welcome to another Johnny Vedmore read through with me, your host, Johnny Vedmore. And this is a read through for Blair and Clinton, the third way dossier. And I had to write this article. This article was extremely important. It was a a friend of mine, someone who I love, a guy called Darren Kenton, came to me and said, hey, Johnny.
Have you checked out this whole thing that's going on over here politically, this paradigm? I hadn't really understood it. We were looking more at Fabianism at the start. We were looking at the Fabians, how they it translated across the Atlantic. And I don't think I was expecting this to be the central theme.
You know? I didn't understand much, and most people don't. You ask people if they understand third way politics, even within, even within the sphere of people who are politically minded, they often don't know what you mean. They just don't understand what 3rd way politics is. But it's what's led us to this point with austerity all around where there's, violence on the streets, where everybody in society feels like they're having things taken away, where the the left and right have been purged from the political discourse.
And we end up with this central centrist blob, which makes up the 2 parties who have purged their their natural, flanks and then have replaced all of the solutions that exist in the left and right of politics. They've replaced that with austerity, with violent measures, with war, with perpetual confusion. You see, 3rd wave politics can promise you a lot. But like I say, the solutions are either on the right or left, the majority of them of politics. So being in the center means you don't have certain options.
But you'll understand this is a complicated article. We're gonna go through it. This image that I did for the front of this article is I I'm really proud of it. I mean, it's got the the pyramid in the center, which is, of course, the pyramid of power that everybody perceives power to be like. I don't necessarily think power works with a nice shiny point at the top, but lots of people do.
But I think I captured within the image of Blair and Clinton that sort of old dying empire theme, that statues, Ozymandias, the king of kings, you know, that are wilting over time, have stood for 1000 of years, but now have deadened eyes, leaning off to the side with parts of it defaced. You know, this is what I wanted to get across as an image because I think this is a crumbling empire too. It's about empire that's crumble. You know? You get to the peak, you get to bread and circus times like you are now, and it's the people like this who have to create what they see as the next stage.
And that stage, of course, is heavily linked with globalism, something that I do a lot of reporting on, especially with my World Economic Forum and Forum articles and the Klaus Schwab articles. But also, I mean, in general, look at I this is this is the end of an empire. Blair and Clinton are old now. They were the people who ruled from my twenties and, or my teens and my twenties. You know?
These were people who were extremely important to the political world that my generation grew up with. I was when Clinton took power in 1993, I just turned 13, really. I was just turning 13. So we most of my teenage and early adult life were experiencing, either Clinton or Blair and perpetual warfare, eventually in the Middle East. That was all part of this.
It's all really linked. The the third wave politics, we'll get into it in detail. This site, this article is on newspaced.com. Hey, my friends. Come and support me on newspaced.com.
I need your help to continue to do things like this. If if you help me, I'm able to get other people involved, and I'm able to, write more and make more stuff. I often don't have the time to do everything that I want to do, and I've got loads of articles on the go. And some of these are like this. They're a study of politics so you'll understand where you are right now in the world.
Right now in the world. And we are. We're in a special place right now. And it's a place where we can if we see what we're looking at, we can understand how we can fix what we're looking at. And we do need to fix what we're looking at.
But what we're gonna do first is, we're gonna go into this Johnny Venmo read through, and we're gonna go to the Newsbase site. And here we go. I'm in. We're in, my friends. Let me just have a little look here.
As you see, there's, mister Blair here, and there's mister Clinton here with her deadened eyes with the pyramid of power in the center leading up. I felt that was just a perfect, front cover for the 3rd way. You know? As well, it's not a colorful sort of, political ideology. So it makes sense that it's so dark and gray.
Let me put my glasses on for this. This is newspace.com. Blair and Clinton, the third way dossier. This is the story of how British and American politicians deserted their left wing political leanings to implement a new center ground political ideology, the third way politics, which both Clinton and Blair adopted into the Democratic Party and Labour Party, respectively, saw the suppression of the left and right wings and began to synthesize the 2 nations into a singular ideological pole of far west globalism. Let me, reframe this slightly.
Make more sense. There you go. There's, Again, written by Johnny Venmo with key researcher Darren Kenton. Darren Kenton really helped with this really, really amazing work. He's a beautiful man too, and I'm really, really lucky that, I had someone to help me like that.
This is what I mean, though, with help, I can do much more, and that's what I need. The political powder keg of the western world has been purposely rigged to explode, with our societies primed to be decimated as a result. The far right is on the rise. The far left will surely follow. The predictable ascendency of the two wings of the political spectrum is a direct consequence of a certain ideology.
Its success has seen all major parties in the United States and the United Kingdom lurch towards the center ground while at the same time purging and suppress suppressing the natural left and right wings of their own political parties. This is the story of how a handful of elite politicians and sociologists have led us to a state of deep division and perpetual unrest. There are only a handful of leaders who have had such an enormous impact on shaping the world we live in as former British prime minister Tony Blair and his American counterpart, Bill Clinton. Some of the consequences of their action while in office will reverberate around the world for decades to come. In this article, we'll trace the training of new labor elite via a range of programs, including Rockefeller founded deep state leadership programs, official American election campaigns, and via courses emanating from prestigious universities such as Harvard.
From as early as 1984, the future labor part new labor top brass were being systematically selected and trained within the halls of elite universities, such as Harvard and MIT, where they were being directly influenced by movers and shakers, such as Larry Summers, Robert Reich, and Bill Clinton. This new wave of center left politicians were being influenced by an alternative political ideology, or maybe it should be referred to as a new political magic trick called the 3rd way. Its creator, Antony Giddens, once was once described as the originator of Tony Blair's 3rd way politics by Daily Mail journalist Michael Seamark. And Giddens' influence on the relationship which formed between America and Britain cannot be understated. When Tony Blair was elected as prime minister, he didn't only align the United Kingdom with American foreign policy.
Blair also aligned the UK with Bill Clinton's new Democrat version of third way centrism. This is the story of how Blair and Clinton used Giddens' teaching to force the US and UK to become a far western pole of multipolar globalism. The political rise of Tony Blair. In May 1982, The Guardian newspaper described a 29 year old barrister who was standing for election in Beaconsfield, England. The Labour candidate, hoping at least to hold on to second position, is mister Tony Blair, Durham Cathedral School, Feds College in Oxford, the 29 year old barrister facing his 1st parliamentary contest.
If Beaconsfield Labour Party had been able to choose from a whole world of political aspirants, it could hardly have found a young man more agreeably attuned to the constituency. At the mention of mister Ben, he merely bows his head, says that he does not agree with him, and suggests that there is now a steady move in the Labour Party away from regarding him as a focal point for radical reform. Mister Blair did not vote for mister Ben in the deputy leadership election. In fact, he didn't vote for anybody. The young Tony Blair was strategically distancing himself from the well respected Tony Benn, who had been a driving force of the Labour Party of yesteryear.
However, this young Labour Party upstart was not going to take a Tory stronghold like Beaconsfield simply by turning turning his back on Tony Benn. In that election, the Conservative Party's Timothy Smith won Beaconsfield with 23,049 votes, while Tony Blair finished 3rd with a relatively weak 3,886 votes. And there is Tony Blair with Michael Foot. That he was the leader of the Labour Party, of course. Soon after the Beaconsfield election was over, Tony Blair wrote to the then Labour leader, Michael Foote.
Blair told of his own journey to left wing politics while also suggesting that he was still searching for his own political home. Like many middle class people, I came to socialism through Marxism, to be more specific, through Deutsche's biography of Trotsky. The trouble with Marxism is that it is fine if you make it your political servant, but terrible if it becomes your political master. I actually did trouble to read Marx firsthand. I found it illuminating in so many ways.
In particular, my perception of the relationship between the people and the society in which they live was irreversibly altered. But, ultimately, it was stifling because it sought to embrace in its philosophy every facet of existence. That, of course, is its attraction to many. It gives them a total perspective on life, but that can simply become an excuse to stop searching for the truth. Like many political leaders before him, Tony Blair was searching for the truth.
He was trying to find a political ideology which could be welcomed by the Labour electorate, yet was detached from Marxist teachings, which had dominated left wing British politics. In his communications with Michael Foote, Blair was attempting to sway the direction of the Labour Party by forming a closer relationship with a leader who soon had Blair writing his speeches. A year passed before Tony Blair stood again for constituency. And on this occasion, he was to be successfully elected to parliament. Blair was one of 20 people to be considered for the Labour nomination to run-in Sedgefield.
Michael Foote said of Blair, everywhere he goes, he spreads interest, excitement, and enthusiasm about the Labour Party, and this is the kind of candidate we want. Whatever the result, he's going to have a big future in British politics and will make a major contribution to the Labour Party. After a 3 and a half hour selection process, a 118 constituency Labour Party delegates for Sedgefield nominated Tony Blair as the party's candidate for elections, with Les Huckfield, a former MP for the Nitin, beaten by the young upstart. Sedgefield was a new constituency which had been formed from 5 others and was to see the conservative Toby Wharton face off against Tony Blair in the election proper. Blair was able to drum up a lot of publicity as he had married Cheri Boof, whose father, Tony Boof, had starred in the hit UK comedy till death do us part.
Tony Boof's partner was also a TV star. Pat Phoenix was a regular on the soap opera Coronation Street and hit campaign trail to support Blair. He won Sedgefield's won the Sedgefield seat with 8,008 281 majority over his Tory rival. And that's the Sedgefield, candidate flyer, let's see, for the Thursday, 9th June 1983. Tony Blair, your Labour candidate, will negotiate with withdrawal from the EEC, which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs.
Tony Blair, election manifesto, 1983. So saying he'll withdraw from the EEC. So by that point, the European Economic Community is that well, Europe was seen as a negative thing, of course. And, we know where that's led now. As the Labour Party Conference of September 1983 began, it was this newly elected MP from the newly created constituency who was one of the loudest voices.
On the 29th September, an editorial by Blair was published in the Northern Echo entitled, time is ripe for a Labour fight back, where Claire Blair exclaims, socialism is not starry eyed, but it is optimistic about people and the talents that they have given the social circumstances in which those talents can prosper. Tony Blair's local rival, who is representing the socialist democratic party social democratic party for Sedgefield, David Shand, wrote a response to Blair's editorials which begins, Tony Blair's articles for September 22nd 29th display his growing mastery of the old political dirty tricks of innuendo, understatement, and half rue truth. Under our existing voting systems, Tony Blair merged clear victor on June 9th. But will he now acknowledge that only 1 third of the electorate voted for him? In other words, in what used to be known as a labor heartland, 2 thirds did not support him.
Before long, Blair was modeling himself as a freedom fighter who was battling for the working class. He involved himself with the protest against the detention of Ishmael Sena, who was being held in the Uruguayan prison because of his years of trade union activities. He was hitting out at the dumping and nuclear waste in Billingham while also sending a hands off our hospitals warning to the Tory health minister. Then in 1984, Blair received his first front bench appointment as assistant treasury spokesman, and soon, he was being reported as a treasury spokesman, a position which had been occupied by Jack Straw and Roy Hattersley just prior. Tony Blair was on the rise, and that rise was going to become meteoric.
Also in 1984, Blair's eventual chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, was selected to travel to America to take part in the international visitors leadership program, which was an American deep state creation. Blair was to follow in his footsteps in 1986, although modern sources note that Blair only stood for the shadow cabinet in 1987. He was already being erroneously referred to as the shadow treasury minister in April 1986, and he was becoming a regular addition to the opposition front bench. In November 1986, Blair became part of a task force to draw up a new jobs program for Labour. This task force included many of the people who were to eventually populate Blair's cabinet, including Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, Claire Short and Harriet Harmon.
Labour's future generation was starting to design the policy of the Labour Party to come. It was only going to be a matter of time before their views clashed with the Labour Party of the past. As 1987 began, one thing seems certain. Margaret Thatcher was going to call the general election. The newspapers started to tip Blair as one of the young Labour candidates who stood to gain from the coming general election.
Chris Moncrief poll wrote in the Burton Mail. Who could be the political new names of 1987? One outstanding candidate is the young Tony Blair, Labour MP for Sedgefield and already a member of the opposition front bench treasury team. Tony has demonstrated an astonishing ability to master the most technical and complicated brief in a telling and comprehensive way. If I were a betting man, I would risk a modest sum on his early promotion to the shadow cabinet, and if Labour win the general election, a speedier set up the ministerial ladder.
The young upstarts. In August 1990, the current home secretary of the United Kingdom, Yvette Cooper, graduated from Balliol College, Oxford with a degree in philosophy, politics, and economics. She was a bright young lady with lots of potential and had graduated with a first class honors degree. The following year, Cooper won a Kennedy scholarship to study at Harvard University, putting her on course to be involved with the US election campaign of Bill Clinton's new democrats. However, after Yvette Cooper graduated from Oxford, she initially began working as an economic policy researcher for the Labour Party shadow chancellor, John Smith.
The left in the United Kingdom were looking for inspiration. Facturism had decimated the old Fabian socialists of the past, and the new Fabianism had started to bubble away in the melting pots of youthful exuberance. And the potential future labor leaders were all busy indulging in the Kool Aid. With a lack of new ideas coming from the stagnating labor party, this new generation of potential leaders started to look towards the United States for inspiration. And by the end of the 19 eighties and start of the 19 nineties, the future new Labour elite were busy studying their trade across the Atlantic.
The impetus for labor's American invasion was actually the then Delaware senator and future president of the United States, Joe Biden. In 1987, Biden was accused of plagiarizing a speech during his first presidential campaign, which was stolen from Labour leader Neil Kinnick. The Democrats were clearly watching what UK Labour would do was doing, and Kinnick had also been interested in the leftist American political scene too. In fact, Labour's next generation were all studying the American system. Labour's Douglas Alexander had volunteered for the 1988 Michael de Cakas campaign.
Gordon Brown had already attended the International Visitors Program in 1984. Tony Blair took part in 1986. David Miliband was studying at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, while Ed Balls, as a historian Richard Carr put it, could regularly be found tromping on a burger in Charlie's Kitchen in Boston reflecting on his latest chat with Robert Reich or Larry Summers at Harvard. There's a picture of Ed Balls and Beck Cooper married on in 1998 in Eastbourne. Ed Balls, who eventually married Yvette Cooper, had also studied at Oxford University where he was not only a member of the Labour Club, but was also signed up to the Liberal Club and the Oxford University Conservative Association.
In an independent article entitled, how Ed Balls was a Tory and a Thatcher, Guy Adams quotes friends of Balls as saying, Ed hasn't exactly advertised the fact, but he's never sought to hide it either. It even featured in the jokes of his wedding. He joined the Tories at Oxford because they used to book top flight political speakers and early members were allowed to attend their lectures. Ed was, however, also a member of the Labour Club. He was more active in that and was always at heart a man of the left.
After leaving Oxford, Ed Balls took up a post as a teaching fellow at Harvard University between 1988 1990. He had originally gained a place in the UK civil service via a fast stream scheme, but had deferred the position for 2 years when offered the Kennedy scholarship. In the last part of his time at Harvard, Bowles was studying economics with Larry Summers, a former Harvard economics professor who went on to become the US deputy set treasury secretary. Bowles had made many significant connections while at Harvard, including in 1989, where he took a class taught by Robert Reich. Reich was a democrat economist and thinker who later became secretary of labor under Bill Clinton.
As I covered in articles such as doctor Klaus Schwab or how the CFR taught me to stop worrying and love the bomb, Harvard had become the central base for American led globalism during the 19 sixties seventies. And this has continued to be the case ever since. By 1992, Yvette Cooper was based in America as the aforementioned historian Richard Carr points out in his article for the official Fabian website entitled Sweet Moderation, which states, in November 1992, Bill Clinton, backed by New Labour's Yvette Cooper, who survived on the diet to baked potatoes, sweet corn, and bananas when researching health and crime policies for Democrats, and Philip Gold advising on media strategy finally proved that progressives could win again. Women's Wiggs, Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown were in New York and Washington, probing new Democrats like Al Frome and Sydney Blumenthal on the latest DLC and PPI think tank pamphlets. Though impressed by Brown's detailed grasp of American politics, Blair appeared to Clinton pollster, Stan Greenberg, like a bull Clinton without all the complexity.
Their leader, John Smith, was less impressed, telling Manderson that we don't need any of that fucking Clinton stuff over here. But he was too late. Blair and Brown had fully bought in. Carr also quotes Bowles as accepting that the center left of politics had to really accept globalization, not only critically, but with a mindset that broadly said it was a good thing that we need to mitigate the risks of rather than seek to avoid. While at Harvard, Ed Balls reportedly told one of his professors that he was already preparing to govern.
The latter quote comes from a multipart series for The Economist entitled The American Connection, which also states, the transatlantic ties were strengthened further when several of mister Bull's Harvard gurus joined the Clinton administration. Larry Summers went to the treasury. Lawrence Katz, a prominent Harvard labor economist, was, for a while, chief economist at the Labor Department under Robert Reich, another Harvard man. The academics turned policymakers were now able to test their ideas in government. Messers Brown and Bowles, who visited Washington regularly, listened closely.
Larry Summers had become a great influence on Harvard's left wing British contingent throughout this period. However, it may have been Yvette Cooper Cooper's work on the initial Clinton presidential campaign in 1992, which cemented the future close cooperation between the transatlantic political left. An independent article from March 1999 entitled Ed Balls, Treasury Advisor, Chancellor's Golden Bull Boy states. However, he, Ed Balls, married a woman who is in the ways important for a successful long term relationship, very similar to him, a match for his intellect and his beliefs. Cooper too spent some time at Harvard and worked with the Democrats in the 1992 US campaign.
The 1992 Clinton campaign had an enormous influence on all of the Labour Party upstarts who were involved, and it wasn't only Yvette Cooper who had been deeply embedded within the Clintonites the during this period. There you go. That's, Yvette Cooper's staff card during her work on the Clinton Ghoul campaign. It's not for me to say she looks like an angry little, elf, pixie, gremlin type creature. You can probably make that out yourself.
That year, the UK Labour Party were defeated by the Conservatives. Once again, a loss which was mainly put down to Labour's income tax plan. In Richard Carr's book, The March of the Moderates, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and the Rebirth of Progressive Politics, the author writes, though there remain some skeptics of the new democrats, the election of Bill Clinton had certainly whetted Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's appetite for change. In the 1st week of January 1993, both traveled to Washington DC where they met democrat congressman and members of the transition team, Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan, and Sydney Blumenthal, the father of Greystone's Max Blumenthal, would be amongst those to press the flesh with the new 2 British pollin politicians that week. This came at a time where the American press reported some Labour traditionalists are suspicious, labeling Clinton program as Keynesian economics with an electric chair.
Yet as the paper also noted, many echo Gordon Brown's feelings of common roots with Clintonites and his call for a new settlement sounds very much like Bill Clinton's new covenant. The division this was opening up, were by then obvious. In fact, there were many similarities between Clinton's new democrats and the labor party under the leadership of Neil Kinnick. In Alwyn w Turner's book, A Classless Society, Britain in the 19 nineties, the author states, there was a sense that Clinton was doing little more than Neil Kinnock had tried, chasing after focus polls and attempting to tailor policy to the supposed middle ground. All the ideas oh, sorry.
All the ideas from Clinton are an elite few running the party on the basis of information they get from the poll, observed John Prescott in 1993. That is not the way the Labour Party has been run. And while we tried it in the last couple of elections, it does seem to be that we lost, doesn't it? The following year after Clinton had won the presidency, the World Economic Forum began its Global Leaders for Tomorrow leadership course, the precursor for their infamous Forum for Young Global Leaders. That first year saw Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Larry Summers become alumni alongside Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Angela Merkel, Nicholas Sarkozy, and many more.
Blair and Brown were to be competitors for the Labour leadership, a follow the following year when the Labour leader John Smith unexpectedly died. When John Smith won the leadership of the Labour Party, Tony Blair was already becoming a prominent face on the opposition front bench. Blair's desire to be the center of attention was not always appreciated by John Smith or Gordon Brown, who were both reportedly left furious when Tony Blair appeared on the front cover of the Sunday Times Magazine following Smith's appointment as leader alongside the title, the labor the leader labor missed. 3rd way rule. The Labour Party Young Guns who came to the fore during the late 19 nineties had no intention of representing the loyal Labour Party electorate of the previous era.
Rather, they were preparing to surreptitiously incorporate a modern social democratic political ideology into the Labour Party, an ideology emanating directly from the American elite, which would not only change the United Kingdom for the worse, but also much of Europe. The third way is the centrist attempt to overcome the conflicts inherent between center left right and center left political ideology. It attempts to merge together economic liberal thinking, social democratic economics, and center left social policies. The sociologist responsible for developing the 3rd way politics was Anthony Giddens, who eventually became known as Tony Blair's political guru. Giddens' early work had been focused on investigating the fundamentals of sociology.
And afterwards, he went on to map out the structure of social theory, which culminated in him publishing the constitution of society in 1984, a book which brought him international fame. After Gideon's work had attracted attention, he changed his focus to issues concerning modernity, politics, and globalization. There's the 3rd way designer, Anthony Giddens and the implementer, Bill Clinton. The 3rd way philosophy began to emerge once he published The Consequences of Modernity in 1990. Throughout the 1990s, Giddens continued to produce a detailed road map showing his future acolytes the route which led to the third way.
Giddens' influence on the presidential campaign of Bill Clinton became immediately apparent. In the New York Times article from the 26th September 1992, while current UK home secretary Yvette Cooper was working on the Clinton campaign entitled, Clinton Says He's Not Leaning Left, But Taking a New Third Way. Michael Kelly states, ever since the lessons of his first and last gubernatorial defeat, mister Clinton has positioned himself as a centrist, and the idea of third way politics is at the heart of his vision of himself and of a resurgent democratic party. For years, the Arkansas governor has been an active player in the somewhat vaguely defined school of policy and politics that seeks to escape the left right boundaries formed 60 years ago. Clinton's promise of a new way during the 1992 US presidential race resonated with voters who were utterly fed up with the same old left right political dynamic, which had been the prevailing order.
However, in many ways, they were buying into snake oil politics with promises to prioritize social justice without explaining the means of how to achieve social justice. The author of resolutions to problems without the proposition of practical solutions is the central theme of third way politics. Some may call it simply lying to the electorate. Regardless, disenfranchised voters respond well to pipe dream promises, and Bill Clinton's victory was to inspire a young Labour elite who were already being trained in the United States. The transformation of the Labour Party under Tony Blair before the 1997 election was to define what we now refer to as New Labour.
However, the only thing new about the Labour Party and the Blair was their incorporation of 3rd way politics. During the introduction to the Roberto Bobbio's book published in 1996 called Left and Right, the significance of political distinction, author Alan Cameron states, in Britain, the strategy of new labor seems almost muddled on Bobbio's definition of a third way based on submerging the left right distinction and somehow transcending it, an often repeated tactic which, according to Fabio, can never actually be put into practice, whatever is efficacy, as a means of survival when the other side appears to be particularly in the ascendant. Essentially, there are many examples of 3rd way being used to marry up center ground beliefs, which are distinctly similar, even though elements of those political groupings express views, which are diametric opposites. And that is really what the 3rd way achieves. It is a recipe to suppress and deny voices of those voters who hold political views, which are diametrically opposed to the central centrist political ruling elite.
Within the aforementioned book, Bobbio himself explains, in the political debate, the inclusive middle is usually presented as an attempt at a third way. That is to say, as something which transcends the politics of left and right, unlike the center, which is simply in between the left and right. In practice, the third way is in the center, but in theory, it claims to be a compromise between 2 extremes. But to supersede them both, and therefore, it accepts and suppresses them at the same time. In contrast to the included middle, which rejects and separates, It's not it is not then a mediated third, but a transcended third where the first and second entities are brought together in their interdependence and suppressed as unilateral assertions rather than being separated and left to survive in opposition to each other.
Every middle entity presupposes the existence of the other two entities, but the included middle realizes its own essence by driving them out and the inclusive middle by feeding off them. The included middle is essentially practical policies without the doctrine, whereas the inclusive middle is essentially a doctrine in search of a practical politics. And as soon as this is achieved, it reveals itself as centrist. This is a third way as defined by AP European history. Imperialism, and support self determination as long as the movement is not communist, the Soviet way.
Oppose imperialism and support self determination. Spread communism and economic equality. Support Communist Party abroad. Protect the Soviet Union. And the third way, oppose colonialism and dependence on other on former imperialists.
Avoid copying European Western ideas. Develop industrial economies. And racism pursue non alignment. In the same book, Bobbio goes on to posit that the third way is often used to marry up the contradictions between the left and the right of politics in relation to green issues while even being implemented in an attempt to bridge the divide between socialism and liberalism. However, the third way is implemented.
Suppression of the voices of voices follow soon after. The third way is used like a personal political plasticine by Clinton and Blair. The gaps between ideologies would be filled by the leader's own personal whims, wants, or desires. Tony Blair believed his political mandate gave him implied consent to apply his own, implied consent to apply his own personal values and principles whenever rapid change occurred. 3rd way politics allowed such dictatorial desires to be achieved.
Blair himself states this clearly in the document he wrote alongside Gerhard Schroder entitled Europe, the 3rd way, the new Mitt, which was produced by Frederick Ebert Foundation South African office, where Blair said, the politics of the new center and third way is about addressing the concerns of the people who live and cope within the societies undergoing rapid change, both winners and losers. In this newly emerging world, people want politicians who approach issues without ideological preconceptions and who, applying their values and principles, search for practical solutions to their problems through honest, well constructed, and pragmatic policies. Voters who, in their daily life, have to display initiative and adaptability in the face of economic and social change expect the same from their governments and their politicians. We can see many examples of how Blair incorporated his own values and principles into his political actions while in office. This included the forming of an unrestrained special relationship with the United States, which led to various joint military actions and the war on terror as a whole.
Blair's government lied to the electorate, suppressed information, increased surveillance and all supposedly in the name of freedom. An honest man. After the 1992 general election resulted in victory for John Major's Conservatives, Neil Kinnock stood down and John Smith was soon after elected leader of the Labour Party. Although the income tax plan, which had apparently scuppered Labour's chances to take power, had been designed by John Smith himself. He was seen as a safe pair of hands.
As, previously mentioned, Smith was not a fan of Clinton's leftist brand, Fabian style globalism, reportedly telling Peter Mangelsen, I know what their game is. Well, I can tell you that we don't need any of that fucking Clinton stuff over here. They're just drawing attention to themselves and rocking the boat. However, while John Smith was in charge of the Labour Party, the next generation who would eventually go on to design new Labour were busy throwing in their lot with the American globalists. John Smith was a consummate professional.
He knew that labor would be able to challenge at the next general election if they focused on where the conservatives were weakest even before their weaknesses had become defining issues. For example, his first speech in the in parliament was targeting the European exchange rate mechanism, which was a determining factor in the following general election. Smith was constantly under attack, and his attacks were very successful. Smith often used comedy to make his points. He described John Major and Norman Lamont as the Laurel and Hardy of British politics.
He told Labour members at the Sheffield rally that conservatives would have a box office disaster with honey, I shrunk the economy. And in 9 a 1993 debate, he hit out to John Major stating, the man with the non Midas touch is in charge. It is no wonder that we live in a country where the grand national does not start and hotels fall into the sea. While Smith was the labor leader, the party continuously led in the polls. The week before Smith died, the Conservatives were savaged in the local council elections where they suffered their worst defeat in over 3 decades.
By May 1994, John Smith's Labour Party had a massive 23 point lead in the polls ahead of a severely flagging conservative party. Even though the British economy was steadily recovering, Labour was expecting to take power in the next general election. That was before tragedy stuck struck. The aforementioned Alwyn w Turner also mentioned Labour's path to victory under John Smith as being set in stone, stating, the feeling that there was no need for change in direction was supported, as it happens, by the very polls that Prescott professed to despise. In the last opinion poll published before Smith's death in May 1994, Labour stood at 45.5 percent, with the Liberal Democrats and conservatives neck and neck, more than 20 points behind.
The assumption on behalf of the electorate was that Labour could almost certainly would, win the next election and that Smith was a serious leader. And there's John Smith and his family, Sarah, John himself, Elizabeth, Catherine oh, so Jane, Elizabeth, and Catherine. And that's from the John Smith Center. John Smith previously had a heart attack on the 9th October, 1988, and afterwards he changed his lifestyle considerably. He reformed his diet, gave up smoking, and took up hiking the Monroe mountains of Scotland.
He lost almost 3 stone, and it appeared that he was much healthier man in general. However, on 12th May 1994, Smith suffered a fatal heart attack at his flat in Central London. The unexpected death of the beloved Labour leader led to a showdown ensuing between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for the leadership of the party. According to some sources, the 2 World Economic Forum Global Leaders for tomorrow and International Visitors Leadership Program alumni made a backroom deal, which meant Blair became prime minister under the condition that Brown be became chancellor and that he'd be given total control over the economy. Although Blair and Brown won their 1997 election in the landslide, John Smith's biographer believed that Smith was on course to win a similar, if not slightly reduced, majority.
But this was not John Smith's Labour Party anymore. This was Blair's freshly rebranded new labor built in the image of Bill Clinton's democrats and manned by the like minded Fabians who were ready to pivot away from the interests of the British people and towards supporting American style militaristic globalism. The epitaph on John Smith's grave reads, An honest man's, the noblest work of God. The Rise of the Young Global Leaders. The Labour Party politics were never to be the same once John Smith was dead and buried.
Blair and Brown surrounded themselves with like minded globalist politicians, many of whom had cut their teeth studying under the democratic establishment in the US. Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls were central to selling out the Brit selling out British governments in exchange for prepackaged globalist ideology for the same think tanks and public public policy institutes, which had been created and designed by the American intellectual elite of Harvard 3 decades prior. Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls also completed the World Economic Forum Young Global Leaders Program. And by the time Ed Balls became a part of New Labour, he had begun to believe in the importance, of the salability of economic policy rather than the merit. Like most of the new wave of those in the Labour rank and file, Bahls became obsessed with spin doctrine, globalism and third way politics.
The young global leaders, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, there. David and Ed Miliband had both previously lived in America due to their father's work, with the former studying at MIT while the latter joined Yvette Cooper in 1993 to work for Harriet Harman as part of the labor shadow treasury team. John Prescott was part of this new wave too, although his opinion appears to be a lot more objective than the rest of the freshly formed new Labour elite. These personalities became central to creating a Great Britain with 2 main functions. They began to introduce the fundamental, the fundamental tenets of American aligned globalization into UK government policy, and they began to support American wars regardless of whether it was a benefit to the United Kingdom and whether or not they were legal under international law.
Tony Blair, alongside his number one spin doctor, Alastair Campbell, used the poorly designed propaganda, the infamous dodgy dossier, to take the British people to war in Iraq. This era of politics saw the new British Labour elite sympathizing politically with the American elite who had trained and mentored the main movers and shakers of Blair's government. The United Kingdom, as a whole, was never to be the same. Blair soon normalized the installation of World Economic Forum trained leaders into parliament from the 1st global leaders course, which saw Blair and Brown trained via program, which was originally designed and bought to fruition via CIA funded operation based in Harvard. The British people have seen the allegiance of their elected politician, lurch from Westminster to Davos.
Since then, the American intelligence linked globalist training mill has become a standard route for most of the leaders who are offered to us in general elections. Some of our leaders who were trained via the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader program and its precursors include Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband, David Cameron, William Hague, Liz Truss, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak. And this will continue to be the case until we take back control of our political institutions. When the BBC's Emily Maitlis po poise posed the basic dilemma to Labour leader Keir Starmer, parliament or Davos, The Labour leader did not hesitate to say Davos. Although with the current the current level of globalist policy infiltration in the UK as it is, there is very little difference between parliament and Davos.
Since then, Keir Starmer has become prime minister of the great of Great Britain with a seemingly unlimited mandate. It should also be noted that the World Economic Forum's young global leader program is not the only way in which foreign governments and intelligence agencies penetrate our cabinets. The American deep state intelligence linked leadership programs such as the international visitors leadership program have also been responsible for molding our political elite with, which include including prime ministers like Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair, and Humdzie Yousef also went through that course. Almost 30 years passed before the Labour Party were able to win a landslide victory reminiscent of Blair's 1997 election result. In this case, to marry up the center ground, Keir Starmer's Labour Party have had to decimate the left wing of their base by way of publicly enacted purge.
The party leadership have had to denounce core leftist values to allow Keir Starmer to become prime minister of the United Kingdom under what appears to be a centrist banner. However, on this occasion, the void which will be created by the suppressive nature of Gideon's 3rd way politics will be filled not with Keir Starmer's personal values and principles as was the case with Blair, but rather by the introduction of globalist public policy directly denoted to them by Davos and, most worryingly, an increasingly authoritarian national security state infrastructure. There are consequences to the suppression of voices. When the mainstream political parties of the left and right moved into the center ground, they became indistinguishable from each other and almost perfect representation of a uni party. This has increased the divide on the right with the factoring of the conservative party and the emergence of the reform party led by Nigel Farage.
We can be sure that as the center ground descends again under Keir Starmer, a new political force will also emerge on the left of British politics to cater for the voices suppressed by third way ideology. Tony Blair himself has not stopped pushing the globalist agenda on the British electorate, and this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Because when Tony Blair took office, he had already been forged into the archetypal young global leader. He was trained by American Fabians with a policy agenda which portrays his allegiance to his true masters, the prevailing global order. The violent unrest which accompanies third way politics is a perfect tool to manufacture consent for the expansion of the surveillance state, restricting freedom of the press while they implement an agenda which may be impossible to reverse.
The implementation of the globalist agenda will require a reformation of our entire society, not just in Britain and America. The people of the world are being purposely divided. Our voices are being systematically censored and silenced. Many of us have lost our political homes. Our cultures are under attack.
Our national values are disposable. Regardless of whether or not those in power admit it, we are being redesigned. We are being replaced. We are being reset. And there you go.
No well, Darren Kenton was super important to the creation of this article. His research has been superb, and it could not have been anywhere near as informative without his help. Darren Kenton is a scholar and a journalist. Yes. He is.
You can support this work on Patreon. Become a supporter now. At the bottom of the article is a link to my Patreon, please. I need your support if I'm gonna write articles like this, if I'm gonna produce work like this, if I'm gonna make pictures like this. I think this you now understand a little bit more when you look at that, understand, you know, what the third way is.
It's very complicated. Here as well, you can buy me a coffee, become a patron, support me on Ko Fi. And this is a course on Newspace. This is my site. This is my place.
This is a place I hang out where I publish my work, mostly publish my work. I'll just expand there. As you see, if you go to Newspace, you can, use the drop down menus to read any of my series. So the Schwab series, Epsilon 101 series, the Pottinger series, which I'm very proud of, Youngkin series, Blackhand series, and lots of my other articles are there. There's more on johnnyvedmore.com.
Of course, you can find all my links on my Linktree just by clicking that. Suddenly, boom, baka boom, you get yourself my Linktree where you got all of the links to my stuff. Ladies and gentlemen, that was Blair and Clinton, the 3rd way dossier. And I think it's an extremely important article. It's important to understand the political ideology that rules the roost, that molds us, that has led us to this place we are now, and understand what it means, what that suppression is.
You've seen the purging happening in in the parties. The purging that is happening is so that they can sell out our politics, our homes, our policies. They can sell us out to the globalists. This is what this is. Our these solutions that are available to us are suppressed along with us and our voices.
And instead, what we're given is centrist policies that don't work and cause more violence, cause more harm. They cause people like Blair and Clinton to be able to rewrite our society by lying to us while at the same time only giving us austerity and war, only giving us conflict. Why do you think Keir Starmer's now pushing towards more conflict? It's the same thing that Tony Blair did. Austerity is the same thing that they do.
Austerity and war. We're stuck in 3rd way politics. What do you get in the middle with Cameron? What did you get? Austerity and war?
What did you get with Sunak? Austerity and war? What did you get with Truss? Austerity and war? What did you get with Gordon Brown?
Austerity and war. What will you get if you do not fight anymore? Austerity and war. 3rd way politics, as created by Anthony Giddens, is a a a pernicious, nasty, evil politics, which lies to the electorate and promises things it can't deliver while at the same time hiding behind banners like, oh, we're not racist. We're destroying racism.
We're destroying inequality. We're doing all of that. Oh, also we have to be massive acts of austerity. We have to take the pensions away or the the winter fuel allowance away from old age pensioners while at the same time supplying 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 of of arms and weapons to Ukraine and trying to get them to be able to spark a world war so we can have the perpetual war that we're desperate for, that fills the holes of our destined for, that fills the holes of our political ideology, which is a failing ideology that will leave you and I, my friends, the electorate in poverty, will leave us in distress, will leave us with nothing, will leave us in war. See where you are.
See what led you there. Understand these people are not your friends. If you voted for Labour, if you're one of the 9,000,000 people who voted for Labour, you stand against the 57,000,000 who didn't vote for labor. If you're one of the 9,000,000, what you are is buying into something. Let's say with all of this politics now, They're creating globalism.
They're doing it by keeping us poor with austerity so we cannot fight, by keeping us scared with war so we cannot fight. The only battles we fight nowadays are their battles, not our battles, and their battles are corrupt. They're set up. They're created created by intelligence agencies, created by the National Security State, which is being thrown up all around us. Everywhere around us, there's cameras.
There's, warnings. There's un you know, everything is insecure, unfair. Everything is unjust. Everything is just like you'd expect under 3rd way rule. So that's it.
Again, aimless. Hey. Thank you to Darren Kenton. Support my work. Come to Patreon.
Support it. Come to newspace.com. Start supporting it. Watch any of my stuff online. Start supporting it.
Start giving likes. Share around the place. Please share it around. It'd be nice. And, you know, I've got a lot of work already that tries to explain a lot of these things, stuff that I feel passionate about as well.
I feel passionate about opposing globalism. I feel especially passionate when I can show you the way that globalism takes over your life and how your own countrymen are doing that to you. You know, these sort of things bring me passion. Please help support me do this sort of work. And thanks to all my patrons, all my supporters, all the people out there who have helped me get this far.
I really do appreciate it. I really do. And again, Darren Kenton, what a dude. There you go. But then, Clinton, the 3rd way dossier.
I'm me, John De Venmo with kiwi Search with Darren Kenton. Thank you for joining me. I hope you join me again. We've got plenty more videos out there. Bye.
Generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on. So we penetrate the cabinets.
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
Leadership Group: To drive people in a new direction, social scientists must first successfully gain the king’s ear. They must convince those who crave power, but are yet to gain power, that their brand-new branch of political science is what must be adopted. Whether it’s Klaus Schwab’s brand of Stakeholder Capitalism or Anthony Giddens’s Third Way politics, a young and aspiring leadership group must be recruited and trained to make it work. There are many examples of industrial leadership training programs, the most famous being the Forum for Young Global Leaders—originally the Global Leaders for Tomorrow program—run by the World Economic Forum. The first year of the latter program saw Tony Blair and Gordon Brown attend alongside Angela Merkel, Bill Gates, Nicolas Sarkozy and many other potential young leaders who were later installed into power. Also in attendance, alongside Blair and Brown, was Larry Summers, who was another proponent of Third Way politics and an Epstein associate, who was appointed Under Secretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton's administration. The leadership training mill was not limited to the WEF’s Young Global Leaders program. Blair and Brown had already been put through the US-run International Visitors Leadership Program which originated out of a wartime operation set up by Nelson Rockefeller. The German Marshall Fund also runs multiple leadership courses from their Harvard base which specifically target leadership candidates focused on European/Russian affairs. These sorts of leadership programs are a way for state apparatus to instil future leaders with the socio-economic philosophy which best suits the chosen political paradigm of the ruling elite. Consent: The fundamental issue with creating radical political change isn’t in the difficulty of persuading a small, tight-knit, leadership cabal to adopt a chosen brand of social science, the real issue is how to convince the majority of voters to cast their ballots for a newly developed and relatively untested social order. This is an especially pertinent problem when the chosen branch of social science doesn’t initially benefit the wider population. To convince the electorate to vote for their suppression, the consequences must be obscured. To enact real change, those in power don’t only require newly emerging technologies, a freshly created social science, and a group of leaders hungry for power who are willing to adopt a new paradigm, they also require a way to enact behavioural change on the masses. The people who want to control society must be able to harness behavioural economics and the social psychology of the population they seek to enforce control over. Most importantly, they must have control over the means for propagating information. In this regard, we currently see Mainstream Media being supplanted by social media platforms such as Facebook and X. The fact that the control of information is currently in the same hands as those who control technology should worry us all. This should increase exponentially once they head towards government. In this article, I will map out how the future technocrats were trained by the most prominent social and economic psychologists of the past 20 years, to manipulate society via courses directly funded by Jeffrey Epstein. 🧵6/20
Video Transcript AI Summary
The recent passing of Henry Kissinger prompted a review of the "Kissinger Continuum," which explores the origins of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders program. Kissinger's International Seminar at Harvard, funded by the CIA, aimed to train future global leaders aligned with U.S. interests. This initiative was part of a broader strategy to counteract communist influence post-World War II. The Young Global Leaders program, initiated by Klaus Schwab in 1992, mirrors Kissinger's seminar and has produced numerous influential political and business leaders. Schwab's connections to Kissinger and the CIA highlight a continuity in efforts to shape global governance through elite education and networking. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding these historical links to grasp current global leadership dynamics.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, hello there, ladies and gentlemen. It seemed like an opportune time, seeing miss Kissinger has died, to look through the third of the Schwab articles that I wrote. The famous 2, the most read 2, are Schwab Family Values and Doctor. Klaus Schwab or how the CFR told me to stop worrying and love the bomb. And the third one is the Kissinger continuum, the unauthorized history of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders program.
And so this really once I discovered in Doctor. Klaus Schwab that he had been recruited through a CIA funded course at Harvard, where he'd been trained by Henry Kissinger himself and being given John Kenneth Galbraith and Herman Kahn as mentors to go back and create the World Economic Forum proper. After that, I decided, let's define define what happened in the run up to that and the CIA outfits and conduits that were involved in funding Kissinger's international seminar. The CIA obviously had an idea of what they wanted to do, post their creation in 1947. They had a load of different plans for the future, and that comes out in this article, the Kissinger Continuum.
And it's quite an interest I mean, the reason why it was called the Kissinger Continuum was because of the continuation of, Kissinger's role as the organizer of a program to train up young global leaders outside the normal education establishment. So that's the continuum because in 2,004, as we'll find, Kissinger actually funded, helped to fund the Young Global Leaders program, something that wasn't known before this article as well. And this is the lesser known. Like I say, the lesser known. There's actually a 4th one as well about the German Marshall Fund because once Kissinger, the CIA funded Kissinger's International Seminar had been rumbled, they had to close the seminar down.
And, Abby Collins, who was running it for, Kissinger, went across to the German Marshall Fund, eventually, which was set up at Harvard by Guido Goldman, who's Kissinger's best friend. And they there started to do the international seminar, and what they were doing with the international seminar, to a more industrial scale, you could say. And we've a little bit more balls out. Now it was just going to be, Look, this is funded by the Rockefellers and others and the CFR, and we're not going to hide what we're doing. And so that's a really interesting one.
The following one is really interesting. But this one, the Kissinger continuum, is extremely important to understanding, as well how Henry Kissinger had an effect on our world. Because Henry Kissinger was, a number one, right old bastard of the highest order. I think we're all aware of that now, aren't we? So let me, share your screen and say welcome to this Johnny Vedmore read through of the Kissinger Continuum.
There we are. We're gonna read this on Newspaste. It is it was originally put up on unlimited hangout. I don't know how long Unlimited hangout's gonna remain my stuff up there. So I have some articles on Newspapers as well.
And here we go. That's wonderful picture. This was the perfect picture to use for this article because look at this. This is at Davos. This is at the World Economic Forum, and look.
It's Kissinger. He's, he's on the big screen. He's looking across. What's really interesting here, look at all these different people. There's the Azerbaijan representative, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and they all got their name and their country.
And then it's just Kissinger in big letters. Kissinger. He's Kissinger's like the globe, isn't he? He's a globalist. He's the perfect example for the globalist.
So, yeah, it's called the Kissinger Continuum. The World Economic Forum's Young Global Lead the unauthorized history of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader program. Yes. They would authorize this history that I wrote about them, and here we go. Let me have a little sip of tea just before we start this.
My cat's definitely wanting to get involved in in all of this. Chow Chow. She's, she likes likes the sound of it. Ciao. What are you doing?
Yeah. You might be able to hear her purr if you listen loud enough. The World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader program, Klaus Schwab's supposed brainchild, is actually an almost exact replica of Henry Kissinger's international seminar that was originally run out of Harvard and was funded by the CIA. In this article, Johnny Vedmore, that's me, investigates the people behind Kissinger's international seminar, the CIA conduits which funded the program, and Kissinger's key role in the creation of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders program itself. If you don't know about this, then this is a stormer.
This is a stormer. Okay. The World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader Initiative has been responsible for seeding many of the ruling elite into positions of power and influence within the worlds of business, civil society, and, most importantly, politics. The fall of the Soviet Union soon became an apparent catalyst for the creation of the Global Leaders for Tomorrow program, which was the precursor to the Young Global Leaders Initiative over a decade later. However, the supposed mastermind of the project, the World Economic Forum's lifetime leader, Klaus Schwab, had himself already been helped into his own influential position by a very similar program run out of Harvard University that was heavily funded by the American Central Intelligence Agency.
The Harvard initiative in question, often referred to as Henry Kissinger's International Seminar, was one of several programs set up by senior members of organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the newly created CIA. In fact, during the post war World War 2 era, the United States was proactively creating many such programs with the intention of grooming potential young foreign leaders and installing them into positions of power. The main motive behind the establishment of these programs was ostensibly to combat and prevent communist infiltration of foreign states while also assuring that future global leaders would be amenable to US interests. Originally, the United States created these secretive youth organizations with the aim of targeting potential future European leadership candidates. Yet soon, no country in the world would be safe from possible CIA sponsored political infiltration.
In this article, we will examine 1 of the front organizations which used mass amounts used vast amounts of CIA money to fund various Harvard projects, including Kissinger's International seminar. We will learn who the people are who created these funding platforms, and we'll also look at such educational, other such educational initiatives, some still in existence today, which have helped American intelligence infiltrate governments worldwide. And here we go. This is a big one. So, the CIA funding through Harvard, we're gonna go through it, and this is really interesting.
In 1967, it was a it was Harvard's own Humphrey Doorman who exposed that certain Harvard summer school courses and initiatives were actually being funded via CIA conduits. Even though almost a decade of funding throughout the 19 fifties remained undeclared, it was, revealed that between 1960 1966, Kissinger's international seminar received funding from 3 CIA conduits, the Asian Foundation, the Farfield Foundation, and the American Friends of the Middle East, the latter being one of the more well known influential and successful CIA conduits of the era. The CIA funded Harvard based International Seminar and the conduits which the Central Intelligence Agency used to supply the forum with necessary funds to run the program are of great historical significance. The American Friends of the Middle East was not just simply a front organization used to funnel secret CI money into their various projects. In fact, there were some very big names attached to this prominent post war organization.
The AFME was considered to be an international educational organization and was formed the same year that Henry Kissinger launched the international seminar at Harvard in 1951. There were 27 men and women who made up the AFME, which will which was led by Kermit Kim Roosevelt junior and grandson of former American president Theodore Roosevelt. The CIA had been formed in 1947 from what was originally the Office of strategic services, the OSS, and Kermit Roosevelt junior was extremely influential in the early years of both organizations. Kermit Roosevelt had been recruited by the mastermind behind the OSS, general William Joseph Wild Bill Donovan, in 1941, and he was soon placed into newly created office of coordinator of information, the precursor to the US, the OSS, as a special assistant to Dean Acheson. Working out to the state department, Acheson, who was then the assistant secretary of state, had may had been tasked during World War 2 with implementing president Franklin Roosevelt's policy of undermining Axis powers while at the same time supplying economic aid to Great Britain.
Kermit Roosevelt, who was distantly related to the president, had had an affinity with the Middle East from a very young age, with the Daily Mail of Hagerstown in Maryland reporting in September 1948 that mister Kermit Roosevelt's career as a writer began when he was a child with the composing of prophetic poem, The Lure of the East, for the American Boy Magazine. He was 11 at the time. Kermit's father, also named Kermit, had been in the shipping business as mentioned in the latter latter article. This had made Kermit Junior this meant had meant that Kermit Junior had traveled around the world at an early age. There he is, Kermit Roosevelt Junior, a 1950 photo of Kermit Roosevelt Junior grandson of US US President Theodore Roosevelt and a former Central Intelligence Agency official.
He's, I think, 4th cousin 4th cousin, I think it's something like that, of, other Roosevelt. So Franklin Roosevelt, who's in power during the war, of course. Permit spent the war years serving in the Middle East and Italy, traveling extensively throughout the war and was reported to have toured Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Palestine, Iran, and Ethiopia. His father had spent the war fighting mainly in Norway and Finland, but also served briefly in Egypt and died tragically in Alaska in 1943. The Abilene Reporter, newspaper reported on Sunday, 6th June 1943, that Kermit senior had passed away in Alaska the day before the article was published with the paper noting, ordinarily, the phrase killed in action is used to report a death in combat.
It was later confirmed that he he had actually committed suicide. By this time, Kermit Junior had already been recruited by the OSS. Kermit Junior continued to work for the OSS as Middle East expert once the war had ended, and he also began writing an edit in the history of the secret secretive organization. By 1947, the OSS had become the CIA, and Kermit was on the forefront of designing projects and programs for the newly founded intelligence agency. He also seemed generally concerned for the situation in the Middle East and soon took part in a lecture tour.
That tour, whether sponsored by the CIA or not, saw saw Kermit argue passionately on behalf of those who were suffering in Palestine. In December 1947, Kermit be began a lecture tour on the paper on a paper he had written concerning the Middle East entitled The Arabs That Live There Too, which discussed the Palestinian problem and looked at the basic issues between the Arabs and Jews who inhabited the region. The report, which was published in the Evening Post, warned that the situation deserves more than a cursory glance from Americans. Kermit described Palestine as the UN's baby and stated that America had taken over the job as nurse and governess of the region. With the lecture tour, the lecture tour was advertised in the Wakisha, daily Freeman on the 22nd December 1947, with Roosevelt stating within the articles, applying the principle of one of their proverbs, my enemy's enemy is my friend, the Arabs might move into closer alignment with the Soviet Union, going on to warn that Arabs will not blame Russia who voted for partition in the UN half as much as they will blame Britain and the United States.
Kermit Roosevelt believed that the Arab League would stop sho start short of all out war, describing an official declaration of war by any of the 7 Arab nations as being extremely unlikely. Roosevelt was eventually proved correct about the Arab nations not declaring war immediately and predicted instead that anytime the Arabs felt themselves strong enough, they would surely try to recover Palestine. Before Kermit began his first covert operations in Arabic countries, he had been initially sent to Tibet by then president Harry Truman to help ward off communist influence. The Delta Democrat Times in Mississippi reported on the 9th April 1950 that Kermit Roosevelt, son of GOP president, is also being used on a confidential mission to block communism in Tibet. Clement Roosevelt believed that forming alliances with Arab countries as they emerge from British and French rule would pay dividends for America while also preventing Soviet infiltration of Arabic nations.
However, that strategy would rely on western powers' ability to keep Arab nation nationalism at bay, whether by diplomacy or subterfuge. During 1943, Kermit worked for the state department in Cairo, and this was one of the first Middle East countries in the postwar years to experience the CIA backed coup d'etat. At the time, at the same time as Kissinger was commencing the pilot of Harvard the Harvard International Seminar in the early 19 fifties, Kermit Roosevelt was deeply involved in overthrowing the ruling Egyptian regime, running a special covert operation, which was gingerly named Operation Fat Fucker, normally referred to as simply Operation FF. Egypt, at the term of the fifties, was ruled by King Farouk, a notorious ruler who was already seen as corrupt in the eyes of most Egyptians. The project to depose him was led by CIA then director Alan Dulles alongside CIA station chief in Cairo Miles Copeland Junior.
Secretary of State Dean Acheson and Kermit Roosevelt Junior, who was officially a CIA operative at the time with the original aim of applying pressure on Farooq to enact certain political reforms within his country. When the initial pressure phase had failed, resulting in Farooq rejecting the American proposal, proposals, Kermit Roosevelt came up with the idea of how to orchestrate a peaceful revolution, which would see both the required reforms enacted and the country more open to American control, as historian Matthew f Holland puts it. Roosevelt met in secret with the Free Officers Movement, a nationalist revolutionary group which was led by Gamal Abdel Nasser and Mohammed Ngoob and which was already planning to overthrow the government. On 23rd July 1952, a good coup d'etat, which had been the brainchild of Roosevelt, saw Farooq forced into abdicating power, and he was sent into exile in, Italy. The CIA led coup had successfully installed a new government, which they believed would be more amenable to further American infiltration.
The CIA would then help the newly installed Egyptian government to create a General Intelligence Agency, Egypt's own CIA clone organization. The following year, in March 1953, the then Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, directed the CIA, which was still headed by his brother, Alan Dulles, to begin preparing a similar coup in Iran. The same people who had successfully installed NASA in Egypt were given $1,000,000 in fund funds equivalent to $12,128,464,173 in 2022, which were there to be used to bring about the fall of Iranian government, leader Mohammed Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh was successfully deposed on the 19th August 1953 in a coup orchestrated by both the CIA and Mi 6, again led by AFME's, Kermit Roosevelt Junior. In a project entitled Operation Ajax, the successful in a operate a project titled Operation Ajax, The successful coups in Egypt and Iran were not spontaneous events, but were instead well execute well executed in intricately planned operations.
However, the Americans were soon to learn that if they were to continue to overthrow governments, they would first need to have effective American aligned leaders already trained up and ready to install in their target countries. Before the newly created CIA had begun to enact the aforementioned coups in Egypt and Iran, Roosevelt had founded the Committee For Justice and Peace in the Holy Land with many of the same people who would later make up the American Friends of the Middle East. The Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land was formed in February 1948 by Roosevelt and a woman named Virginia Gildersleeve, whose sympathies, according to historian Robert Moats Miller, were indeed overwhelmingly with the Arabs and was leading, was a leading figure in the Christian opposition to the creation of the Israeli state. Gildersleeve had been the long term dean of Barnard College. But in 1947, she had stepped down from her position to concentrate on her activities.
In February 1948, The New York Times reported that she led a group opposed to the creation of the UN police force in Palestine. The article entitled 7 Leaders Proposed Truce in Palestine also stated that the group's members were terming the present conflict in Palestine far more dangerous to world peace than most Americans realize, with the group stating, we feel a moral and civic obligation to urge that most serious attention be given to our national policy in respect to Palestine, with that statement also began, also being cosigned by Kermit Roosevelt. Also prominent alongside Gildersleeve and Roosevelt in the creation of the AFME was Harry Emerson Fosdick, an American pastor described as an active anti Zionist and who later became a major influence to Martin Luther King Junior. Another notable member of the AFME was the controversial Dorothy Thompson. Thompson was an American journalist, a radio broadcaster who had been, who had the honor of being the 1st American journalist to be expelled from Nazi Germany in 1934.
Thompson was described in the 1939 Time Magazine piece as being equal in influence to Eleanor Roosevelt and was often referred to as the first lady of American journalism. However, Thompson also held extreme views concerning America's black voting population, describing them as notoriously venal, ignorant, and illiterate. The vast mass of Negroes are like this lower strata of the early industrial immigrants, and like them are Boston delivered in blocks by venal leaders, white and black. Thompson was the vocal was a vocal anti Zionist, coming to the conclusion that Zionism was a repair recipe for perpetual war. But even though Roosevelt, Gildersleeve and Thompson are publicly publicly all publicly opposed Zionism, the CIA in general would reap many benefits by creating a world which, if in if not in a state of perpetual war, was nearly always on the brink of perpetual war.
The American friends of the Middle East included some key people who were molding and influencing the post war intelligence push. Even though we could find many interesting facts in studying all 27 members of the AFME, we now know that their interest focus on education eventually resulted in the funding of a specific Harvard project that would create cadres of future international leaders who were amenable to America's political interests and desires, including Klaus Schwab. Just after World War 2, there were many differing opinions within the American political establishment concerning what should be done about the Palestinian problem. Although many members of the American friends in the Middle East may have been publicly anti Zionist, an upsurge in Arab nationalism had been triggered by the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians following the creation of Israel in 1948. This initially resulted in a divide in public opinion with many Americans eventually siding with the newly founded Israeli state and their occupying force.
Popular opinion among Arabic countries was much less divided. The Arab League closed their offices in Washington DC, referred to, to as the Arab office, in 1947 stating publicly that the United States had shown a complete and arrogant disregard for Arab rights, Arab interests, and Arab feelings. At this time, the United States was still heavily dependent on Arab oils and Arab oil. And the supply of this oil also relied on Americans, America having good relations with Arabic, with the Arabic world. The US Oil Consortium, Aramco, could only continue benefiting from Arab Petroleum if the US stayed on good terms with the Saudi king, Ibn Saud, who was an extreme anti Zionist.
Aramco soon set up offices in Washington so as to lobby government on behalf of the Arabs while also putting funds into educational institutions such as the Middle East Institute. Yet it wasn't only the Arab contingent of the American population who was concerned about the rise of Zionism. With the American Council For Judaism objecting to Zionism because they believed that the, that it conflated religion and nationality. Rabbi Elmer Berger of Michigan, who was an American council for Judaism leader at that time, campaigned for American Jews to stop supporting the creation of the state of Israel. At the time, the state department was also had also been worried about throwing their lock in with Zionists.
They were mainly concerned with the potential for the growth of communist influence in Arab countries if the US showed too much support for the newly created state of Israel. According to historian Hugh Wilford, it was to be Cairo based former OSS member who acted as the nexus of the network that would become the American Friends of the Middle East. As he makes note of in the paper entitled American Friends of the Middle East to CIA, US Citizens, and the Secret Battle for Public Opinion in the Arab Israeli Conflict 1947 to 1967. Wilfred also points out that Kermit Roosevelt associated with many anti Zionists of the period. For example, he was actually under the command of an anti Zionist descendant of missionaries named Stephen b l Penrose junior.
Roosevelt had also shared a room with George l Leveson, a state department officer of Jewish descent, who, later introduced Roosevelt to such leaders as the orphan aforementioned Alma Berger. Roosevelt, Levison, and Berger all became close friends with Levison, eventually being godparent to one of Roosevelt's ch children. Roosevelt was not only vital in setting up the original iteration of the American Friends in the Middle East, the Committee For Justice of Peace in the, of Justice and Peace in the Holy Land. He also ran the organization out of Washington Home alongside the organization's secretary Garland Evans Hopkins. Eventually, the anti Zionist activists within the government failed in their efforts to prevent the creation of the state of Israel when president Harry Truman officially recognized Israel's sovereignty.
Roosevelt continued to undermine future support for Israel. And a year after Truman's recognition of the country, Roosevelt and others formed the Holy Land Emergency Liaison Program, HELP, which was to coordinate aid for displaced Arabs in the region while also working to, as Hugh Wilford puts it, reduce US support for Israel. It is also around this time when Dorothy Thompson and others began to raise a profile of Roosevelt's organization. The battle for hearts and minds and the souls of future global leaders. The Harvard Summer School had been running for over 75 years by the time Henry Kissinger was finishing his studies at the university.
In 1950, Kissinger achieved his bachelor of arts degrees in political science and, during his studies, had received much attention from some very powerful Harvard grandees. In 1951, Kissinger launched the Harvard Magazine entitled Confluence, which was to run alongside the international seminar and became the publication's editor. This quarterly magazine was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and received contributions from others who were described as various luminaries who had previously been lecturers or students at the summer school. The international seminar was bay later boosted by extra funds totaling at least a $135,000, 1,635 7 1,342,000.74, in, 2022 by the Central Intelligence Agency between 1960 1966 alone, with any previous CIA funding since the seminar's creation in 19 50 being left undeclared. Harvard Summer Schools Harvard Summer Schools International Seminar Forum had originally been the brainchild of William Yandell Elliott, an important mentor of Kissinger who took a back seat and remained out of the public eye.
After the pilot event for the International Seminar Forum in 1951, the young Kissinger wrote to William Yandell Elliott saying, I was very much embarrassed to hear myself described as the guiding genius of the seminar. Going on to say, I, for 1, have no illusions in this score. Subsequently, the majority of the participants would recall the influence kissin of Kissinger rather than Elliott, with the forum eventually being commonly referred to as Kissinger's International Seminar. The CIA money for what was, described as a foreign seminar came via a known CIA conduit, the aforementioned Kermit Roosevelt's American friends in the Middle East. Kissinger in in his by and his biographer would claim that he was unaware of the organization's intelligence ties, describing Kissinger as flying into a rage upon learning that the American Friends in the Middle East was actually a front for the CIA.
However, Kissinger's letters to h Gates Lloyd during this period told a different story. They show that Kissinger had carefully itemized the expenses of the summer school. Other documents within William Yandell's Elliott's papers also reveal that Kissinger may have even acted as a contract consultant for the Office of Policy Coordination, OPC, which was to con which was the covert operation wing of the Central Intelligence Agency. In fact, Elliott had written a letter to Lloyd on the 15th November 1950, which urged progress with the summer school proposal and the creation of Kissinger's international seminar. With that letter, came certain papers directed to Kissinger himself, which showed he had discussed the proposal with Cleveland Cram, an infamous and powerful early member of the Central Intelligence Agency.
CRAM had originally sought a career in academia, but was recruited by the CIA in 1949. He was soon liaising with Yandell Elliott and Kissinger concerning the Harvard, the Harvard Summer School project. And after it was up and running, CRAM was sent to London to become the deputy station chief and chief and the official liaison between the CIA, Mi 5, and Mi 6. In this CIA Harvard nexus nexus of the late 19 forties early 19 fifties came the formation of what would, a generation later, evolve into the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader Initiative. One of the original reasons for the creation of the CIA had been to counter Soviet influence in foreign countries, and they used multipronged attack strategy to achieve their aims.
While Allen Dulles, Kermit Roosevelt Junior, and army were organizing and enacting coup d'etats in country after country, other CIA linked organizers and contributors were beginning to create the infrastructure that would allow them to recruit, train, and install young European leaders into positions of powers. Power leaders who believed, who they believed were unlikely to be susceptible to potential Soviet influence. Harvard was not alone in funding such projects. In fact, as Hugh Wilford notes in his fascinating and informative book, The Mighty Wurlitzer, Yale was the single most fertile recruiting ground for the agency in its 1st years, yielding, among others, Cord Meyer and 2 of the brightest stars of the golden age of COBRA operations, Richard Bissell and Tracy Barnes. Also noted by Wilfred are Yale's James j Angleton and Norman Holmes Pierson.
The later the latter, Wilfred notes, had graduated from Yale before serving in the USS and, returned to the, university after the war in order to set up the American Studies program. The CIA were essentially trying to win hearts and minds of young foreigners in direct competition with the Soviet Union. The communists had already been, busy targeting the impressionable youth for over 25 years before the end of World War 2, with Wilhelm Willie Munsonberg, a German born communist activist activist being the first leader of the Young Communist International Comintern as early as 1919. In 1945, a conference took place in London, which saw the launch of the, the anti imperialist World Federation of Democratic Youth. The following year saw the founding of another group with some members sympathetic communist ideals such as the World Federation of Trade Unions and the International Union of Students.
The latter being created in Prague and saw a 25 member intelligence linked delegate US delegation attend. As these entities were created, they each became virtual battlegrounds for east versus west ideology and the clash of Rhodesian imperialist capitalism and Soviet communism. In fact, the World Federation of Democratic Youth saw cold war rifts in their organization soon fester. And by 1949, the noncommunists had publicly withdrawn from the group, going on to create the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions instead. These sorts of organizations were invaluable instruments for spreading communist propaganda and had been defined by Lenin as levers or transmission belts because of the way they connect communist party with the masses and were often referred to as democratic or mass organizations in communist jargon, as a pamphlet entitled facts about international communists from front organizations described in April 1957.
In that particular pamphlet, a quote from Lenin, which it also appears in Lawrence and Wishart's 1947 book, the essential, the essentials of Lenin volume 2 states, every sacrifice must be made. The greatest obstacles must be overcome in order to create an agitation and, propaganda systematically, perseveringly and patiently, precisely in those institutions, societies and associations, even the most reactionary to which proletarian or semiproletarian masses belong. In essence, the CIA's creation and funding of youth organizations and their wider infiltration of American universities was a strategy that essentially came out of Lenin's own playbook. For the CIA's involvement, the British had been the ones taking before the CIA's involvement. Sorry.
The British had the British had been the ones taking the initiative by targeting the youth of Europe with the aim of countering Communist Party infiltration. The cultural relations department was tasked with developing strategies relevant to Western aligned youth groups, organizations, and conferences. The first of such groups was the World Assembly of Youth Way, which had been given a draft charter in England in February 1949. All youth related member organizations in the United Nations were invited to attend the international conference held at Westminster Hall in August the same year. Here, they officially established way and elected their first president, mister Maurice Suave of Canada.
It was around this time that the Americans first began organizing their efforts to educate the youth, which which eventually led to such initiatives as Henry Kissinger's International Seminar. At Harvard, the International Affairs Committee, Hyocom, began gathering the group of young veterans who had worked within intelligence during World War 2 in an effort to rival a much more advanced communist propaganda efforts. In December 1946, Hyacom officers were involved in organizing a meeting in Chicago, which discussed the idea of creating a national body to represent American students, as well as a wider American interest at international events. As a result, by the summer of 1947, the United States National Students Association, the NSA, was born. For the 2 years, prior to the launch of Kissinger's International Seminar, Harvard students had conducted surveys of international student opinion in order to identify potential anti communist allies oversee while also poaching potential members from rival organizations such as the International Union of Students.
The National Students Associations had their 2nd survey funded by 2 very interesting private donors via the Office For Policy Coordination. The Chicago lawyer and president of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, Laird Bell, and the Wilmington industrialist named Thomas Brittingham. Each provided the princely sum of $6,000 to the organization specifically to carry out the survey. Laird Bell was an extremely influential and well connected lawyer who had found himself frequently visiting Nazi Germany just before World War 2 in order to represent the interest of US bondholders who had lost more than $1,000,000,000 to the German Reichsbank. Bell would not be alone in working in the prewar Nazi Germany as his cocounsel for these cases was John Foster Dulles, who was representing the law firm Sullivan and Cromwell.
By 1945, Bell was officially serving in postwar occupied Germany, and Eisenhower soon appointed him as a delegate to United Nations. In 1948, Laird Bell became an overseer of Harvard College, where he stayed until 1954 throughout the creation of the international seminar. Thomas Brittingham was extremely important in the development of the Americas of America's effort to win over skeptical foreign youth, especially in Northern Europe, setting up the Britingham Scholarships just after the war. He targeted the youth in Scandinavian countries. Also referred to as the Viking students, he would attract young men to his collection of scholarship programs, which would eventually become named the Britingham Viking Scholarships and which were run out of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Many of Tom's Vikings, as they were also called, would become successful in organizations that programs, current, that the program's current website describe as their various industries, academic fields, and politics. See some Britney and Vikings just below there. Although there were many different youth groups throughout the various education establishments across the United States, Christians International Seminar, a Harvard summer school, was a very unique project. It was a focused event with a limited number of participants who were carefully chosen by a select few. The Harvard Crimson reported on the 1st February 1956 that a group of approximately 50 men and few women from the Orient, Middle East, and Europe, including members of various parliaments, editors, artists, writers, and other cultural leaders, will once more come together to form the International Seminar, a regular feature of the summer school.
This was a special elite group selected, groomed, and trained for powerful positions with their allegiances forever tied to the interests of the United States governments. And for those interests, and those interests would soon begin to fluctuate wildly over the following decades. The Kissinger Continuum. By 1992, the Berlin Wall had fallen, and the education of Schwab's specially selected globalist politicians of the future was just about to begin. During this time of great political change, Schwab's World Economic Forum had become a powerful globalist entity, and Schwab was ready to begin following in the model, following the model first established by Kissinger's CIA funded international seminar.
As Herman Kahn and his Hudson Institute colleagues had mapped out in 1967 document entitled ancillary pilot study for Educational Policy Research Center program final report, training a comprehensive future leadership group outside of the normal educational framework was of the highest priority. As previously reported, Carney was yet another mentor to Klaus Schwab. The first iteration of the World Economic Forum's young global leader called Young Global Leader Program called Global Leaders For Tomorrow was launched in 1992 and was described as a new community, which saw its first gathering of future leadership candidates take place in 1993. Some of the people who attended these first events were soon placed at the top positions of power in their respective countries. For example, Tony Blair was a participant of the first event.
And only 4 years later, he began his decade long rule of the UK. Gordon Brown also attended in 1993 and then served alongside Tony Blair, eventually becoming prime minister directly afterwards. This initial group was full to the brim with other future leaders and, many members who were destined to become the heads of state in their respective countries, well known leaders who intended to include Angela Merkel of Germany, Victor Orban of Hungary, Nicholas Sarkozy of France, Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium, Lee Hissing Long of Singapore, Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, and Jose Maria, Asner, Spain. Alongside these politicians in the first group, there were also notable business leaders in attendance such as Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Larry Summers, and Edgar Bronfman. In total, the 1st year the Global Leaders for Tomorrow program was comprised of 200 potential candidates who were all under 43 years old at the time.
For over a decade, the Global Leaders for Tomorrow program trained many elected officials. In 2004, the Global Leaders for Tomorrow program was rebranded as the Forum of Young Global Leaders and was relaunched after Schwab found funding from an old friend. The Harvard Kennedy Magazine of summer 2009 starts their lead article by stating, through alumni and teaching, Harvard Kennedy School play central role in form of Young Global Leaders Program, with the author Steve Naddis writing, in 2004, Klaus Schwab, MCMPA 1967, and a Harvard Kennedy School graduate who founded the World Economic Forum, won a $1,000,000 prize from the Dan David Foundation and tried to think of the best way he could use that money. Schwab decided to start a World Economic Forum affiliated program called the Forum of Young Global Leaders, which, as the name applies, will bring together a new generation of leaders from across the globe and turn them loose on the biggest problems of the day. Astoundingly, the Tel Aviv based Dan David Foundation that awarded Schwab the $1,000,000 which was directly used to create the Young Global Leaders Program, had one extremely significant member of note on their board, Henry a Kissinger.
Harvard's International Seminar and the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader Initiative were created to be extremely powerful vehicles for training and installing world leaders who would be sympathetic to a Kissinger style globalist government. They were also both made possible by organizing resistant, by organizing assistance and funding from Kissingers themselves. It isn't a surprise that Schwab's links with Kissinger prevailed throughout both their lifetimes. Schwab was a student of Henry Kissinger, and the two men also appeared to share many similar views. Yet what is really notable about Harvard Summer School and Kissinger's International Seminar in particular is that the programs, conference, and the basic elements involved were very similar to what the World Economic Forum still presents to their members annually to this day.
They are extremely similar projects aimed at achieving similar agendas. When the World Economic Forum began the Global Leaders for Tomorrow initiative in the early 19 nineties, Klaus Schwab or Klaus Schwab's organization implemented a program of recruitment and training for global leaders, which was almost indistinguishable from Kissinger's CIA funded international seminar. Schwab was treading in the footsteps of his mentor, Henry Kissinger. And it was a Dan David Foundation while Kissinger was seated on their board, which eventually awarded Schwab with the initial funding required to create the current iteration of the program, the Forum for Young Global Leaders. Is Klaus Schwab and others aboard a flight to Ukraine in 1993, for the World Economic Forum annual meeting yet?
Fall of the Soviet, fall of, communism. A few years later, the Global Leaders for Tomorrow program's going and the the World Economic Forum go to Ukraine instead of Davos. Very interesting. The World Economic Forum has spawned many globalist aligned heads of states, cabinet ministers, business leaders, entrepreneurs, and other powerful actors. Through their Global Leaders for Demand and Young Global Leaders Initiatives, Schwab has even spoken openly on how his organization has gone on to penetrate the cabinets of supposedly foreign, sovereign states.
And we should not be naive as he has been planning on doing exactly this for at least 3 decades. However, it isn't the thousands of participants who have completed this program who we should be most concerned about. Our real concern should be with the billions of Democratic voters who have been tricked into believing that any of the leaders produced by either Schwab or Kissinger have their best interests at heart. Klaus Schwab became the heir to Henry Kissinger's most important project, the infiltration of individuals and organizations in countries around the world with the aim of creating globalist aligned governments built within the framework of an outdated and soulless conceptualization of American imperialism. Klaus Schwab's activities since his his time at Harvard can be seen as simply a direct continuation of Kissinger's work during the 19 fifties 19 sixties.
And it would be naive of us to believe that there is not someone else already groomed and trained who is ready and willing to pick up Kissinger's political baton from Schwab and continue in their joint mission towards global governance.
Speaker 1: There you go. There you go.
Speaker 0: Cats and dogs sniffling around the place. I'm not sure if you can hear that, but that's that's happening right now. You can support my work on Newspace. If you wanna support me, if you wanted me to write more things like this, you need to support me directly. You know, you can become a patron.
You can buy me a coffee. There's actually other ways to donate on the site. You can also, our patrons get loads of of early stuff, and I'm planning on giving them much more as well when there's more. There's only I've only got a small band of supporters at the moment. I've just monetized, the news page to YouTube, so you can go there, become a member or a subscriber, drop me some funds.
I can put that towards writing more articles like this. I think this was a really important article, to write. Let me, close the screen and talk to you, properly. There you go. Hi.
Hi. Let me get a tea. It was a long read. I didn't didn't have much of a drink or a smoke through that, did I? So, it's really important to understand why that was necessary to write.
When I discovered that, the the Kissinger's International seminar had been a CIA funded organization, and that Klaus Schwab had gone through it. It wasn't enough for me. You know, I I I had, researched, Schwab's upbringing, his father. I had written Schwab's family values, and I thought, wow. I discovered that Klaus Schwab's father was a Nazi who ran a model Nazi company that was central to the atomic bomb program.
And then later, Schwab went on to help the same company merge with another company while selling, nuclear technology to the apartheid South African regime. That was a bit of a, like, knock it out of the park sort of, article. Never I I I looked so hard to find, a follow-up to that. And then to find the the CIA funding link, I what I try and explain to people is that when I finished the Schwab family values, kind of like it it was and then Schwab grew up, and then he went and formed the World Economic Forum. And then I was looking at the beginning of the World Economic Forum and stuff, and it was really hard to understand how it had started, what had given him the impetus.
And and that led me to to spend, a a year looking at everything that was going on at the time, all of the search for links, and eventually stumbled stumbled across the CIA funding of Kissinger's international seminar. And that was really massively important. That was a change in their you know, change in pace of those articles because it was like, okay. I'm onto a trail now. And this trail is more than one article for sure.
It had to it had to keep going. Because by the end of giving you the mentors and giving you an understanding of how it was a CIA funded program that was really, written up in the policy institutes such as, Council on Foreign Relations and brought to fruition, like the World Economic Forum project was brought to fruition by, really, the the the Council on Foreign Relations members pushing Schwab forward in that way. And that was really important to understand. Understanding how Kissinger rose to power was really important to understand. But then that led to this, which was understanding what how you get to a point where the CIA's funding course is in Harvard.
And it's quite simply they want to, get one up on the communist before the communist scam. You know? There's communists who are going for the students. Let's get there first. And so that's what they do.
That's what they do. They put in a load of money targeting children, the youth, children, young young adults, and future potential looking for future potential leadership candidates. And it is a really interesting fact that the people who created the CIA at the beginning were all anti Zionists. I mean, that changes in 1967, really, suddenly. Boom.
As soon as 19, 67 happens, then you you see, like, these people, get so much pressure from the press and stuff that they they all change. And then that rhetoric of America being, like, supporter of and Israel turning a blind eye to the Zionist sort of, like, side of it all, that really starts coming quickly then. That really is a big a big rolling ball going downhill leading us to where we are today. So, you know, the anti Zionist element of the CIA got knocked out pretty quickly. But even the anti Zionist, bent the knee and accepted that they were gonna do all of these other things as well, for the CIA and for American hegemony, knowing that it included, a recognition of Israel and the loss of Palestine for as it was, or as it could have been.
And they they really there was a load of people who really, say, saw that that would mean perpetual war in the future. But then in the 19 fifties, late fifties, Kissinger and his allies are suddenly developing the idea of limited perpetual warfare, and so it suits their ideology. And maybe they already kind of knew that before, and so they're developing these coups and these other things, and the creation of the state of Israel to destabilize the region constantly, and that seems to be what it is. And where the they started off was, like, we gotta we gotta do the youth groups. We gotta, get subvert all youth organizations as quickly as possible.
From 1945, 1946, 1947, that's what they did after the war. The British and Americans, the the intelligence, put a load of effort into, getting control of youth groups. And so that also, led to things like the Vienna, festival's infiltration by the independent, the information services, the independent services for information or whatever it was called, the Gloria Steinem project, set up again at Harvard, Bev Chek, and others, involved in that, and people who were there, heads of the National Student Association, former heads, had recruited Steinem in India when she gets back. She works for the CIA, and she starts organizing the American entourage to these, Soviet heavy youth festivals. And and it really showed the start of this, West versus East, and, the battle was at the ground level at the ground level at the youth.
So the Kissinger continue is really important because then you get to see how, later on, that developed into being the Young Global Leaders for Global Leaders for Tomorrow, and gave us all of these leaders that we know, today who have all been in charge. And then by 2,004, and the giving of the 1,000,000 pound prize money, by the Dan David Foundation while Kissinger's on the board meant that Schwab could then continue. And, really, it just seems to be other ways. Just at one point, like, you have to wonder, like, CIA is not the only tool. The CFR is not the only tool.
But they're all tools that are used for this agenda, and they're used by people who are ideologues, who are pushing along an agenda that is bigger than the CFR, bigger than the CIA, and is left in the hands of very few who we don't have access to. We don't get to see the workings out, the sums, the sum of all fears. No. The sums that make up the world we are in today. So there you go, the Kissinger continuum, a read through by me, Johnny Bedmore.
And I will be doing more read throughs, of course. I'll be continuing with the Pottinger read throughs. Expect the Searching for Stanley documentary to come out soon, and that's also going to touch on some of these things, including Gloria Steinem. There's a Gloria Steinem episode already available for the patrons. Listen.
If you become a patron, whatever level, you get on the credits of searching for Stanley because my patrons are funding me to make this documentary, funding me to make this article. So if you if you, get involved and help me out, then you get something. You get your name in lights. You get your name attached to a documentary that is gonna be, this is the first part of at least 4 parts, and it's coming out soon. And you can already watch, the first three draft part sections or 3 of the draft sections already out on my Patreon, and another one coming out tomorrow.
So there'll be 4 by the time this one comes out, that you can already see half of the documentary in a sense. You know? Or, you know, there's gonna be extras that I'm holding back as well. But, basically, it's going to lead to to explaining. It's coming from, all the way from the start, from Watergate and the, like, all the way through to Epstein, and it's one thread throughout the entire thing.
Stanley Partinger, well worth a look. I'll also probably do a read through eventually of the article that follows this up, which is a German Marshall Fund article. That's useful, for people to understand. I'm also probably gonna start, doing read throughs of the Black Hand series because that's a series that I'm probably gonna develop eventually into a book maybe, over time. And like I say, you get on on the ground level.
Come support my work. Even if you're just, like, checking me, $5 a month, that means you are, my, you're you're helping me produce my work. You're helping me produce my work. You're part of this, and I need you. I really do need you because, you know, time's tough.
Time's tough for everybody, but I tell you, I I I don't make a lot, and I I need to start actually making enough to survive because, otherwise, I'm gonna have to find a a normal job. Go back to the go back into the mines and start digging the coal. What do you mean the coal industry is dead? Damn you, Anyway, so thank you for being with me. This is John Venmo read through and this was new news paste on newspaste.com and I can't support the word.
Like, share, subscribe and I hope to see you later. Generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on. So we penetrate the cabinets.
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
The Intellectual Divide In the early seventeenth century, a German Rosicrucian pamphlet mentioned “The Invisible College”. This was a small meeting of noted scholars, which in the early years included the Irish natural philosopher Robert Boyle, and the infamous English architect, mathematician, astronomer and physicist, Christopher Wren. This sort of meeting of great minds continued later in the same century with the Republic of Letters which encouraged long-distance letter writing between the intellectual community. This was the intellectual community revolutionising how they communicated, spurred on by simple technological advances in writing tools and increased access to materials. This systematically encouraged and focused boost in intellectual networking gave rise to powerful organisations such as the Royal Society. What came out of this maelstrom of elite societies, scholarly organisations, and information exchange groups, hasn’t simply had a massive impact on our understanding of physics, chemistry and biology. Some of the most pernicious and dangerous developments in modern science have been in social theory, psychology and economics. Since the days of the Invisible College, many elite intellectual organisations have been formed to meet the darker side of humanity’s more nefarious ends, to push technological evangelism while controlling the pace of scientific development. While some of these organisations are created as a simple networking tool for certain sectors of the scientific or political elite, others have been made manifest to push an agenda of control over the vast majority of the global population. One man who was inspired by the invisible college of yesteryear was John Brockman. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, Brockman set up a comprehensive and distinct modern iteration of these intellectual endeavours which he eventually named “http://Edge.org”. Brockman was an extremely influential intellectual, who had been the author/editor of 19 books by 1995, which was the same year he published, "The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution". The latter work is extremely pertinent to this investigation in particular. 🧵7/20
Video Transcript AI Summary
Welcome to this important read-through of my article, "The Welcome 5: The Proximal Origin of COVID Control." Initially, I intended to write a shorter piece, but it expanded significantly as I uncovered the key figures behind the COVID response, particularly those linked to the Wellcome Trust. This group includes Jeremy Farrar, Richard Sykes, Roy Anderson, Edward Holmes, and Neil Ferguson, who played pivotal roles in shaping pandemic policies and narratives. Their influence has often gone unrecognized, despite their connections to significant events in public health. This article aims to expose their actions and the underlying structures that allowed them to operate with little accountability. As we explore their history and impact, it's crucial to understand how these individuals have shaped the current landscape of pandemic response and control. Thank you for joining me, and please consider supporting my work.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this very important and special edition of a Johnny Vedmore read through, possibly one of the most, yes, I'm gonna say it, important articles I've ever written. It's true. There's no joke here, and there really isn't a joke here. My cat's even come to join in because she knows how important this article is. It is the welcome 5, the proximal origin of COVID control, and it may be a little long tonight because this is a long article.
When I originally went to write this article, I got about a lot I'd say a a a tenth of the way in, hardly anything, when I realized I had to actually write another article first. And we'll do a read through of that article eventually, but I really wanna get straight to this one. I needed to do the other article because I needed to really give people an idea of who Brian Spratt was and his relationship with the report writing and the reviews of leaks from Port and Down, Porton Down being the biological, weapons site for the ministry. And so, yeah, that's where we're going. That's where we're going.
You know us. We like to go to the MOD. We like to get right up there ourselves, don't we? Yes. We do.
Hello, Kat. How do you feel? My cat feels very good about this. She knows it's gonna be good. There are 5, the welcome 5.
Originally, it was gonna be like, welcome 11 because there were so many. There are actually so many. But when I got to the point of trying to define which were the 11 that went in, I I kind of, like, narrowed it down, and it kept being extremely clear that there were 5 main people. So the article is originally modeled on Ocean's, 11 in that sense. You know, welcome 5 was originally welcome 11.
And the the actual cover is a a mock up of the cover for the original Ocean's Eleven movie, not the remake with George Clooney and stuff, but the original one with, I think, Sammy Davis junior and the like in it. Although the Rat Pack it was one of the Rat Pack movies once upon a time. And, writing this article was just really frustrating because I knew even when I put it out, it was out amongst the censorship, and it would take a long time for people to understand. I also had another problem. It was meant to go up on unlimited hangout, and, it was one of the many times that, me and Whitney broke up during that period.
So, it was it was really suspicious, to be honest, because it was the day before we I was meant to publish this, and everything just suddenly, like, we changed from being friends to me being an enemy all of a sudden. It has happened 4 times. So so I wasn't surprised about but it meant that that, basically, I had to then go and publish this article myself without my reach. And it was one of the most, I think, important articles through COVID to understand because everybody was looking at the American part of the operation. It was missing loads of bits, missing loads of sections.
When you looked at, people like Danzak, all of the the people who were Bill Gates and the like, the people who were the front and center in the, American, cover up, rollout, whatever it was, you know, flood the zone, all of this stuff happening. What people were missing out was that it was a massive British contingent that was employed to do the main parts of the mapping out how this was gonna work. And they had to be away from government. They had to be distant from government. You could not have them close to government.
So this was a very important article, the Welcome 5 article, likely to cause trouble still in the future, I'm sure. We should probably get straight into it just because, like I say, this is a long article. It was I was planning it to be about 7,500 words and it ended up being 15,000. So it's basically a small, a mini book. And here you are.
We're on johnnyvedmore.com. Yes. Look. This is johnnyvedmore.com. I changed it a bit.
You can buy me a coffee at the top. That's one of the best ways to support me is just donate me some funds. And you've got lots of different things here. I mean, you've got the menus at the top now. I've tried to make everything much simpler so you can see all the articles.
There's well, there's a lot of articles there. And then there's, of course, a lot of the posts that come up on johnnybedmore.com, some of the keywords, searches, become a patron, buy me a coffee. Thanks for buying me a coffee if you have. You can support my journalism easy just by scan and pay and PayPal at the bottom too. Loads of ways to support the work.
I need your help now more than ever if I'm gonna continue doing this work. And as we see here, like I say, it's a mock up of the Ocean's 11, the original Ocean's 11, cover. So Edward c Holmes, Neil Ferguson, bloody name. I always forget his bloody name. I don't Richard Sykes.
It's really annoying because it's easy to remember Jeremy Farrar, Roy Anderson, Neil Ferguson, and Edward c Holmes, but it's always hard because he's, like, the top guy. This is why he's front and center there. Really front and center. He is your top guy, Richard Sykes. We'll go through all of this.
So you see the the cast is there. Roy Anderson, Jeremy Ferrano Ferguson, Edward c Holmes with Richard Sykes, Brian Spratt, Andrew Rambo, Crystal Donnelly, including special guests, Robert May, John Krebs, and Christian g Anderson. No one forget Christian g Anderson. Last but not least, you get 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. You see, I had chosen 11 at the end of it, but still, that's the way it goes.
And there it is. It's called the welcome 5, the proximal origin of COVID control. And here we go. Let's do this read through. Thank you for joining me.
If you can like, share, and subscribe, that'd be good. Support me if you can so I can keep doing this sort of work. No one pays me for this. And in fact in fact, I get to the end, I think I'm gonna get an article up, and then it gets denied at the last minute because, obviously, you look at these articles. So as draconian COVID 19 control structures rise up around us, Johnny Redmore, me talking in the 3rd person here, investigates a very small group of close friends linked to a powerful philanthropic organization, the Wellcome Trust, who are responsible for some of the most defining events of the COVID 19 era.
In this article, we will look into the proximal origin of the welcome five, Jeremy Farrar, Richard Sykes, Roy Anderson, Edward Holmes, and Neil Ferguson, and their band of scientific mercenaries. There is a small group of elite British scientists who have been busy manipulating the COVID nineteen crisis to benefit the hit a hidden agenda. These core players at the center of creating authoritarian control structures under the guise of a COVID response have major connections to the Wellcome Trust, an ostensibly philanthropic endeavor known for funding medical research. These individual, individuals' efforts began long before the COVID era and even include first engineering the creation of a modern day Wellcome Trust as a byproduct of the birth of a pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline. This team of men are responsible for key components of global, COVID 19 response, the infamous Proximal Origin paper, the implementation of the entire UK vaccine rollout, and so much more.
Yet barely anyone knows a single name of the welcome five. At the beginning of January 2020, many people had no idea whatsoever about what was soon to unfold, but there was a handful of scientists from a very small group of elite British institutions who seemed to be well prepared for the coming storm. In fact, these men were not only made responsible for organizing extremely key events throughout the pandemic response, they were also responsible for pioneering the pandemic computer modeling methods used to send shock waves of fear throughout the world. They had also helped fund the research of many prominent supporters of their agenda and had even implemented a very similar totalitarian lockdown in response to a seemingly manufactured epidemic in the United Kingdom 2 decades before. On that occasion, these men became more powerful than any elected politician and were responsible responsible for burning fires of dead animals that, thanks to their discredited models, littered the British countryside.
This article will examine a core group of British elite scientists who are all close friends and colleagues and have historic ties to the modern incarnation of the Wellcome Trust. During COVID 19, one member of this small group of unaccountable actors, Jeremy Farrar, has been given almost absolute power over designing the WHO's global response to pandemics to the pandemic. Sorry. The same man led the production of the proximal origin of SARS COV 2 paper o over a 10 day period in a seemingly brazen attempt to cover up the true laboratory origins of the COVID 19 virus. In examining Farah's history, I discovered that this very small group of friends were all intricately involved in the modern evolution of pandemic responses and that they had pioneered large parts of the modeling texting techniques used to manufacture consent to introduce draconian lockdowns in the Anglo American world, which were then adopted as a gold standard in model pandemic responses by other nations globally.
Whilst the events I map out will give you a basic idea of the history and structure of this extremely powerful and effective team of welcome trust linked scientists. They are not the only group like this active during COVID 19 pandemic. In fact, this behavior is paralleled in other organizations across the globe who have all helped create this paradigm of authoritarian control we are experiencing today. It is our jobs as researchers and journalists to find these clandestine operations as best we can. I will continue to work as defining, at defining this particular operational unit emanating from the upper echelon of the Wellcome Trust.
But others must do their part too. Defining the structure of any shadowy outfit involved in the organization of such tyranny is not a simple task, but it must start somewhere. Oh, they're getting a bit normal. It must start somewhere. As countries all around the world have been implementing harsh authoritarian responses to the COVID 19 crisis and push for further restrictions to their citizens' freedom.
It is more important than ever to look at into this core band of unaccountable scientists who have been responsible for much of what we see today. For without the welcome 5, much of this nightmare wouldn't have been possible. Welcome to welcome. The welcome trust is a philanthropic organization, which funds large amounts of scientific research globally. The scientific grants given out by Wellcome are extremely lucrative and sometimes stretch over our researcher's entire career.
The Wellcome Trust was established to administer the fortune of the American born British pharmaceutical magnate, sir Henry Wellcome. It was initially entirely funded by income from Burroughs Wellcome in an early pharmaceutic an early pharmaceutical giant, which had been pioneers of medical technologies still used today. The trust was later renamed in the UK as a Wellcome Foundation Limited. In 1995, the Wellcome Trust divested itself of any interest in pharmaceuticals by selling all remaining Wellcome plc stock to Glaxo plc and, in doing so, creating Glaxo Wellcome plc. In 2000, the Wellcome name disappeared from the drug business altogether when Glaxo Wellcome merged with SmithKlineBeacham to form GlaxoSmithKline Plc, essentially removing the Wellcome name from the private sector.
This period of change saw the trust activities and their focus shift into recruiting and funding the very best scientists coming out of the United Kingdom's most prestigious universities. Before 2020, the Wellcome Trust was not a household name, and its employees and representatives had been relatively free from any outside scrutiny. However, a few well connected men tied to the Wellcome Trust had been responsible for key parts of the disastrous and overly authoritarian official COVID 19 response in the UK as well as having a massive impact and influence on responses globally. These powerful men formed their current operational unit in the mid nineties, rising from the Wellcome Trust rebranding during the same period. They used the fear of disease to take power on 2 definable occasions, firstly during the British foot of mouth disease epidemic of 2,001 and then again during COVID 19.
In the mid nineties, the Wellcome Trust was created anew as a philanthropic foundation. However, that didn't mean they left the pharmaceutical industry entirely. In reality, the trust used the great wealth they had amassed to fund large parts of modern scientific research at some of the most prestigious establishments, which not only aided the big pharmaceutical giants by proxy, but also allowed the people at Wellcome to redesign the direction of research to suit their allies within the pharmaceutical industry. Another benefit for Wellcome was that this system allowed them to recruit and groom an entire generation of scientists to advance the organization's agenda. Whilst the vast majority of scientists and researchers who are funded by the Wellcome Trust's lucrative grant scheme are likely completely unaware of the foundation's true political reach of power, they are often working as small cogs in a machine which they cannot really see from their relatively ground level perspectives.
When inspected closely, the welcome machine also appears to provide a mechanism for the UK Ministry of Defense or its allies aboard to continue potentially catastrophic gain of function experimentation while simultaneously being able to quickly cover up any lab leaks when they do happen. In this article, I will show you just a very small part of that machine focusing on its very very, very select five people who are all connected focused recruitment drive in 1994. In that year, the core of this group, Richard Sykes, Roy Anderson, who bought his colleague Neil Ferguson and Brian Spat Spatalong with him, Edward c Holmes, and Jeremy Farr created the processes and funding to recruit large swathes of those who now stand in their extremely, on who now stand on their extreme end of the public COVID 19 debate. Although I will specifically mention one inter incident of career long funding for 35 graduates during this article, this group also gave out large long term grants to 100 of other top scientific graduates from 1994 onwards. These men went on to redesign the entire face of pandemic modeling and response, as well as being responsible for the creation of multiple suspicious origin stories, including the infamous proximal origin of SARS COV 2 paper.
From the very beginning of the COVID 19 story, these men have played globally significant roles, including Edward c Holmes' translation of the original SARS COV 2 genomic c u sequence on 11th January 2020. Farrar, being given complete control over coordinating the entire COVID response by US and UK governments, outranking both Fauci in the US and Witte in the UK, Ferguson and Anderson's apocalyptic looking COVID 19 computer modeling, Holmes and Farrar's organization of the proximal origin paper cover up, and SYKES being put in charge of the entire vaccine rollout in the UK and promotion of the related vaccine innovation and technology. All of the aforementioned roles should have been tasked to officials who were elected by people, but instead, we have witnessed events being manufactured in such a way that it is almost impossible to hold anyone official to account. These people oh, again, I've moved it too fast. Lost plate.
These people connected to the Wellcome Trust have been pivotal in creating a medical autocracy, to which the public never consented. In this article, I will attempt to show how they have demonstrated the pattern of behavior in the past, which has been repeated through, during COVID 19. I will reveal how this select group of very close personal friends have been rolled out by the Ministry of Defense in the past to take part in official inquiries, only going on to certify that the government version of events, which could, cause further public, sorry, only going on to certify the government's versions of any events which could cause further public scrutiny. I will show you as much as I can in one article. Firstly, let's go to the top tier.
Top tier, Richard Sykes. The Glaxo man and vaccine king. Kicking it off. Richard Sykes is a man of great significance to not only the reformation of the Welcome Trust in the mid nineties, but also for his supreme position on the official UK vaccine rollout during COVID 19. In 2020, Sykes led an independent review of the workings of the vaccine task force.
And on 14th June 2021, Sykes was appointed chair of the vaccine tax task force. In this position, he became responsible for overseeing the delivery of the UK's COVID 19 vaccines, including the preparation for further booster programs. Sir Richard Brook Sykes was born 7th August 1942 near Huddersfield in West Yorkshire to Eric Muriel Sykes. He attended Roid's Hall Grammar School, the same school former prime minister Harold Wilson had once attended. Even before he finished his initial schooling, Sykes had found work at the as a technician in the pathology laboratory.
Sykes went on to be awarded a PhD in microbial biochemistry from University. And then in 1972, he was recruited by Glaxo Research Limited as the head of antibiotic research unit. The young Sykes later moved across the pond in 1979 to work for the Squibb Institute for Medical Research based in Princeton, New Jersey where between 1983 and 1986, he was vice president of infectious and metabolic diseases. In 1986, he rejoined Glaxo in the UK as deputy chief executive at Glaxo Group Research Limited and also became the group research and development director of Glaxo Plc. A year later, he became chairman as well as being chief executive at Glaxo Group Research Limited.
In March 1993, he was appointed deputy chairman and chief executive at Glaxo Plc. In 1995, the recently knighted sir Richard Sykes engineered the merger between Glaxo and Wellcome Plc, which also saw the default creation of a new envisioning of the original Wellcome Trust established as an independent charitable foundation. He then became chairman and chief executive at Glaxo Wellcome plc in May 1997. Stepping aside the following October, Glaxo Wellcome subsequently merged with Smith, Cline, Beauchamp to form Glaxo SmithKline Plc in 2000. In 1997, Richard Sykes, who insisted on being called doctor Sykes, published various papers contemplating the future of pharmaceutical industry, and the following year, wrote a paper on how to be a modern pharmaceutical company.
In this paper, he argued for companies to share their research scientific research data with each other. Between 1997 to 2,008, Sykes was also classed as a senior independent director for Rio Tinto plc, the Anglo Australia multinational were and world's 2nd largest metals and mining corporation, where Sykes served as chairman of the re new remuneration committee. Sykes was still serving as a nonexecutive director for Rio Tinto in 2003 when sir John Kerr was, was also appointed as a nonexecutive director. Cair had been a member of the UK diplomatic service for 36 years, and it's head from 1997 to 2002. I Think we come across care later.
On 20th May 2002, Sykes stood down as the chairman of GlaxoSmithKline PLC at their annual general meeting to concentrate on his role as rector of Imperial College London. In 2003, Imperial College faced accusation of fraudery in a prestigious medical journey after it was a journal. I do that all the time. After it was discovered that a member of their staff forged the signatures of 7 co authors on the paper. Sykes led the investigation after the New England Journal of Medicine was forced to make a rare step of publishing a retraction.
From 2008, Sykes became chairman of the NHS London. He stepped down in May 2010 over the decision of the Cameron government to stop the planned reorganization of health care in London. Over the next decade, he took up various board positions, at places such as Eurasian National Resources Corporation, Lonza Group, company which later partnered with Moderna to manufacture and produce their COVID 19 vaccine, NET Scientific Plc, the Economic Development Board International, PDF Biotechnology, as well as others. From 2012 until 2018, he was the chairman of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. At this time, he also held such positions as the chairman of the Royal Institution of Great Britain and the chancellor of Brunel University.
There he is. That's, Richard Sykes. Normally, I turn on the sound, but you'll be able to see him, in action. He's actually, he's actually in, arguing with a load of people about stuff. He turns up he seems to be like for me, he's like a John Kenneth Galbraith character in a sense.
He's very clever, pretending to be left wing, but seems to work with our beliefs on the right. And, yeah. So that's Richard Sykes there. In December 2020, Matt Hancock, MP, appointed sir Richard to conduct the, an independent review of the strategy and goals of the vaccine task force. He was later made chair of the UK government's vaccine task force, a group which was responsible for achieving 3 main objectives.
Let me just, pause that while ago. Secure access to the most promising vaccines for the UK population as quickly as possible. 2, make provisions for international distribution of vaccines so that the benefits of the UK leadership and investment in this area could be widely shared, and free. Support the UK's industrial strategy by establishing a long term vaccine strategy to prepare the UK for future pandemics. In June 2021, Richard Sykes was given an overall responsibility for overseeing the delivery of the COVID 19 vaccination program, including preparations for booster programs and encouraging vaccine innovations in the UK.
In the UK department for business, energy, and industrial strategy end of year report entitled UK vaccine task force 2020 achievements and future strategy, Sykes writes with within the introduction. In 1998, as CEO of Blackstone Welcome, I was instrumental in establishing and funding a freeway collaboration between government industry and academia designed to carry out the basic research necessary to develop and produce new vaccines. At the center of the collaboration was a new research institute named after the British vaccine pioneer, Edward Jenner, and officially opened by Peter Mandelson. Oh, nice, Mandelson. The Secretary of State for Industry.
Glaxo Welcome made a commitment to fund the institute for 10 years, following which it struggled to obtain government support and eventually ended up at Oxford University. So I'm extremely supportive of renewed approach to grow and strengthen the UK vaccine industry. Richard Sykes had been put in charge of the vaccine task force to make sure things were done quickly, something he claims he helped achieve in the aforementioned paper where he states, the number one priority for any vaccine remains its safety. In the normal course of events, developing a new and novel vaccine from research to market would take a minimum of 10 years. In the present climate, the combination of ETF leadership and private sector research and development has reduced this time scale dramatically.
In the rather self absorbed example of Sykes' out of control or out of touch, sorry, rhetoric. I'm out of control. He claims that the fast rollout to the experimental vaccinations are due to a combination of VTF leadership and private sector research and development rather than the decimation of usual safety protocols. One other very important note to come out of Sykes' VTF is that he had managed to create what he described as several world class clinical assets, which supported the development of COVID 19 vaccines, but will prove invaluable for future pandemics. These assets included the NHS Citizens Registry, which had over 360,000 people registered by December 2020.
Sir Richard Sykes had been instrumental in engineering the creation of, modern incarnation of the Wellcome Trust and GlaxoSmithKline. In the 19 nineties, as he was beginning his reformation of the 2 major pharmaceutical companies, Sykes had already formed a very, very defined vision of what he wanted to do. Sykes was not alone in enacting this vision of the future. His colleagues in the early nineties, Roy Anderson, who was then governor and director of the Wellcome Trust, helped Sykes to create what we are seeing and experiencing today. Oh, man.
Roy Anderson. So important. Sir Roy Anderson, the lord of lockdown and extermination. Sir Roy Malcolm Anderson is a British professor of epidemiology and is the link that connects many of Britain's major modern pandemic responses and the majority of the official covers, cover ups related to those events. He also happened to be the pioneer of pandemic computer modeling, models which, when applied in the real world situations, have often proven to be highly erroneous.
Nevertheless, his import his importance to and influence on the events of the last quarter of a century cannot be understated. Sir Roy Anderson is the British establishment's man for all seasons when it comes to pandemics. Anderson was born on 12th of April 1947 to James Anderson and Betty Watson Webberbourne. He was educated at both Dunscombe School and Hertford show Hertford Grammar School and went on to study at Imperial College, at the University of London. Between 1971 and 1973, Anderson was an IBM Research Fellow at the University of Oxford.
And from there, he went on to lecture for 4 years at King's College, University of London. Just quickly note, 1971 to 1973 was while IBM were running the limits to growth, depopulation, computer modeling for Club of Rome. Those years. Unbelievable. You see where Roy Anderson come from?
In the late 19 seventies, Anderson could be found lecturing at Imperial College London, where he was also noted as a reader. A reader denotes an an appointment of a senior academic to a Commonwealth further educational establishment with a distinguished international reputation in research or scholarship between 1980 and 1982. In 1982, he became the professor of parasite ecology, and he became the head of the UCL's biology department 2 years later. He held these two positions until 1993 when he became the Linacre Linacre, professor of zoology at Oxford University, a historic post first founded in 18/60. That same year, Anderson was also installed as head of department of zoology.
He was also named director of the Wellcome Trust. Anderson had already served as a governor at the Wellcome Trust beginning just 2 years before in 1991, and he went on to head this philanthropic organization until 2000, departing only when his behavior towards a particular lady at Oxford became an uncomfortable issue. Oh, yes. It did. Anderson received the establishment honor of being elected as the fellow of the Royal Society in 1986, and he became known for working on the modeling for of the AIDS virus.
He subsequently become an adviser for the Thatcher government. He then began making media appearance, such as an interview Anderson gave on the 24th September 1987, where he politely discussed the AIDS crisis with Colin Tuch on the British classical music station, BBC Radio 3. Anderson's opinions on AIDS was reported again in the then Robert Maxwell owned Daily Mirror a year later on the 10th September 1988. He made, he had made a speech to the Science Association at a meeting in Oxford where he was recorded as warning that the country may be on the borderline of an epidemic that could hit many heterosexuals. A survey conducted over the following, year found that some AIDS experts were concerned about the fight against the disease being downgraded because of the public perception that it only threatened homosexuals and drug addicts.
Remarkably, the survey's findings show that AIDS specialists believed that there were now medical advantages to treating HIV infected periods before they developed full bromates, people sorry. Treating HIV infected people before they develop full blown AIDS. The Liverpool Echo reported on the 28th November 1989 that professor Roy Anderson's prediction for the future of the spread of AIDS with the article stating that he believed the pessim the pessimistic view is that the second wave of the epidemic will appear as intravenous drug users, in intravenous drug users in 5 to 10 years' time. Anderson also stated that there might be a 3rd wave affecting mainly heterosexuals on a longer time scale of 20 to 30 years. It should be noted that whilst Anderson was starting to talk publicly about the potential HIV treatments, Burrows Wellcome, the then US pharmaceutical arm of UK's Wellcome plc, had started producing and marketing a new drug for HIV called AZT.
The compound was the first drug to be approved by the US, Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of what is was called at the time acquired immune deficiency syndrome. In 1988, Roy Anderson was also making a name for himself among concerned mothers who didn't trust the MMR vaccine. On 10th September 1988, a report in Aberdeen Evening Express with the headline compulsory jabs urge stated that children should not be allowed to attend primary school unless they have been vaccinated, according to a scientist. A small side note in the newspaper article goes on to say, professor Roy Amson of Imperial College London said many health regions achieve only 57% of immunization targets. This may be the first hint of Roy Anderson's penchant penchant for using totalitarian policies to increase vaccine uptake.
There's, Roy Anderson there. In 1998, Anderson again became a government adviser. And he soon had his attention diverted towards a new variant of bovine spongiform in encephalopathy, a progressive neurological disorder of cattle, which is, commonly referred to as Mad Cowes disease. Some cattle in Britain during this era were being fed a meat and bone meal that included the remains of other potentially affected cattle. One of the main issues was that it took 4 to 5 years to show up in affected cows.
This meant that by the time the cause was identified, identified and rectified, the damage had already been done. BSC had been discovered in 1985 by a junior pathologist who identified a spongy brain disease in the freezing cow. But the connection with the potentially new form of bun bovine encephalopathy had not been recognized by senior officials until 1987. In 1996, the UK government was advised that a new variant had been identified in humans. And later, in December 1997, it was announced that there was an inquiry, into the history and emergence of BSC and the government's response to the crisis up until March 1996.
The inquiry, which produced Roy Anderson as key witness, started on 12th January 1998. The BSE scandal was well managed affair. It needed to be as the Conservative government of the day had found themselves in a bit of hot water. During the period in 1983 until 1991, sir Donald Aixson had been the, government's chief medical officer and had downplayed the risk of potential cross species spread of the illness. A cat had been diagnosed with the illness.
And even with the example of cross species transmission of the disease, he had continuously recommended that it was safe to eat meat contaminated with BSC. Stating clearly in 1990, British beef can be eaten safely by everyone. Itson, wasn't the only representative of the scientific entity at the time to be more concerned with sales of meat and milk than human health. The Southwood Working Party, which was led by Eric Millstone and a man named Patrick Van Zwanberg, also claimed in the early nineties that the offal of infected car cattle was safe for adults but not for babies. How'd they come to that decision?
The disease was eventually transmitted to humans from the eating of contaminated beef beef. The original BSE inquiry, mostly attempted to shift blame from the poorly managed response away from the government and onto the early stooges who had been tasked with playing down the risks. This moment was important in Anderson's development. His usefulness in managing the narrative of precarious public inquiry had been noted by the establishment, and he and he henceforth became a useful tool in the government's toolbox. By the late nineties, Anderson's prestigious career had also seen him daubed with various honorary positions, titles, and memberships, including his fellowship at the very exclusive Royal Society and the zoological society as well as being a board member of many various international advisory panels.
Some of these positions were jeopardized by his own behavior. In 1999, Anderson was suspended from his position at Oxford after he stated that a colleague of his had only got her promotion by sleeping around. The person he was targeting was doctor Sunetra Gupta, who over 2 decades later exposed, opposed Anderson's extreme lockdown tactics during COVID crisis as a signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration. Notably, Gupta was married to Adrian Hill at the this time, the man who has affiliations to the Wellcome Trust who later co headed the creation of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine during COVID 19 alongside Sarah Gilbert. At first, Anderson refused to retract his statements about Gupta or apologize in any form, but eventually, he was allowed to return to his ultimate position under the condition that he write a private apology to the people he had slandered.
Anderson may have agreed to this proverbial slap on the wrist by the Oxford authorities, but doctor Gupta did not see this as an acceptable outcome. She demanded that he publicly retract his statement and that he also pay her a small amount of damages, which was to be donated to charity. The prophetic trauma, all to protect the ego of a misogynistic elite scientist, did not lead to Anderson retaining his position. A vote of no confidence from the board at Oxford was unanimous, infuriating Anderson. He framed his departure with a positive spin.
He had agreed with Imperial College London to move his research projects along with a grant worth over £7,000,000 from the Wellcome Trust and his band of Senti research staff to the ICL facility. Snubbing Oxford publicly in what appears to have been a pathetic example of pure egotistical spite. Along with his research team, professor Anderson brought with him professor Brian Spratt and Neil Ferguson, his close friends and colleagues. Even though Anderson, for he'd been, able to retain his position as director of the Wellcome Trust, it was financial irregularities which eventually saw Anderson removed from that specific position. It had surfaced that Anderson had an undeclared stake in a company receiving grants from the Wellcome Trust whilst he was also part of the committee which approved such grants.
The financial stake was large enough to have broken the rules, and along with Gupta's saga, still fresh in the collective mind of his colleagues, Anderson stood down as the director of the Wellcome Trust. However, he still continued to receive grants and funding from them. Then beginning in late 2000 through 2001, Anderson and his team became central figures in one of the most controversial epidemic, responses in British history. From foot and mouth to foot and mouth. Anderson's team made a bizarre change to their central focus of study in the closing months of 2,000 and during their relocation to Imperial College.
Although his team had been primarily focused on human pandemics and modeling of spread of human diseases, they suddenly, and without giving any public reasoning, diverted their focus to studying foot and mouth disease in November 2000. This sudden and dramatic sea change in focus was made even more strange given that they there hadn't been a significant foot and mouth disease outbreak in Britain since the late 19 sixties. Anderson's research team at the time included doctor Neil Ferguson and doctor Crystal Donnelly. Their team had pioneered the use of computers for modeling the epidemiology of human diseases such as AIDS, malaria, and TB. Yet none of these researchers had any veterinary, training or an understanding of the difference between modeling a human pandemic as opposed to an infectious outbreak in animals.
The BSE crisis, which was only significant animal disease response Roy Anderson had previously been involved in, he had, been related to contaminated cattle feed, was, not spread like a traditional virus capable of causing an infectious, epidemic. Get what I mean. The BSE crisis, which was the only significant animal disease response Roy Abson had previously been involved in, had been related to contaminated cow feed and not the spread of traditional virus capable of causing an infectious epidemic. Here you go. I understand it now.
Coincidentally, a few months after Andersen's team had begun researching foot and mouth disease, Britain recorded his first outbreak of the disease in over 3 decades. The subsequent actions of Roy Anderson, Neil Ferguson, and their accomplices should be common knowledge. But thanks to another convenient inquiry set up to fail, they were never held to account for their part in what proved to be a devastating response to the great foot and mouth epidemic of 2,001. This suspiciously convenient timing for an outbreak of foot and mouth put Anderson's team in a primary position to become government advisers. At the time, foot and mouth, outbreaks were for using a combination of methods.
1 of the most tried and tested ways was to control to control a foot and mouth disease outbreak was by using the vaccination ring method. Unlike humans, farmed cattle did not usually travel long distances. And thus, once an infection was noted, you then cull affected animals around, affected animals and begin vaccinating all the livestock within five mile radius or 3 mile radius, working your way back towards the original infection site. This is meant to effectively stop any outbreak within a week or 2. There were political reasons why max mass vaccinations Wait.
I don't know if we can move it too fast. Woo hoo. There were political reasons why mass vaccination wasn't possible at the time, but a small vaccination ring alongside a focused co had been successful in bringing recent FMD outbreaks in other countries under control quickly. The other methods besides vaccinating was culling the animals affected, and, there are, of course, different levels of culling response. If the government involved in the epidemic wants to mitigate the financial damage to farmers, then a combination of testing, vaccinating, and culling can be very effective.
However, it takes time, patience, persistence, and resources to do the whole process humanely, something the British government at the time, then led by Tony Blair, had no interest in. The MAFF, Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery, and Food, which was soon after abolished and replaced by the Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, had been trying to tackle the outbreak. But due to funding cuts made during the Thatcher government, their resources were insufficient for the task at hand. The FMD epidemic was a stage 3 outbreak by the time it was officially recognized, and it wasn't expected to be solved overnight. The mid the MAF, needed more funding and resources if they were going to tackle the outbreak humanely.
Anderson and Ferguson were soon brought in to advise the Blair government on the appropriate steps to take, and they went on to create computer computer models akin to Neil Ferguson's now infamous initial COVID 19 models. They predicted death and destruction on the scale beyond imagination of most, and asserted that this dire scenario undoubtedly would undoubtedly unfold if they did not immediately take over the design of the response to the epidemic from the Ministry of Animals, Fisheries, and Farms. Blair gave them the power they desired. Blair's lack of resistance to Anderson and his extreme methods could have been greatly influenced by the upcoming general election, which was, initially set to take place at May, only months away. What followed was a fear based and unscientific culling of mostly unaffected animals.
The countryside of Great Britain became littered with burning piles of livestock on a scale never seen before, and the mass killing of animals left farmers completely traumatized by these extreme intervention methods. The British Army, we even brought in to enact the culling process. The British countryside was put into a lockdown, and unlike the COVID response, vaccines were vigorously attacked by Anderson as ineffective and likely to do more harm than good. This stance on vaccines represents an almost complete reversal when compared to our current paradigm. The FMD vaccines were widely considered very safe and mostly effective, and there had been no negative side effects reported on humans consuming milk and meat of the animals who have been given the vaccine.
In addition, this vaccine had been used successfully to control FMD on almost every occasion it was used. In contrast, today's COVID vaccines are experimental, have many clear adverse reactions, and were not fully tried and tested beforehand. Yet the same people who have argued during the COVID pandemic for mass use of experimental vaccines had previously completely opposed a well studied vaccine which had no risk profile. What the British people weren't being told at the time was how and where the outbreak really began and the epidemic's plausible links to vaccine research, research which is often argued needs gain of function experimentation to aid in the development of potent and effective vaccines. Let me just, well oh, no.
How are we doing, badly? Boo boo. Ah, well, I I I attempted to to zoom in a bit, and that didn't really work, did it? Ah, there you go. Okay.
So like I we we I don't know I don't know how how far through we are, but I will say like, share, and subscribe. If you can throw me a few bucks for this hard work, then please do. I am in need of your support, especially on articles like this. This one will likely be censored as well. I'm not sure, you know, how long it'll stay up since some of these have been the first ones to be attacked during COVID.
Okay. Here we go. The first rumors of a potential lab leak emerged in an article originally released in The Evening Chronicle on 5th May 2001 entitled, did scientists start foot and mouth plague? The article revealed that there were 20 current foot and mouth disease experiments being conducted by the Institute of Animal Health at the Pirbright facility, including immune responses induced by foot and mouth disease vaccine, matching properties of foot and mouth disease virus strains in nose in field strains, and transmission of foot and mouth disease in sheep. The article also reminds us that during the crisis, the international vaccine bank for foot and mouth disease was based at Pirbright, Surrey, and at the time stored 500,000 doses of high potency vaccines for each of the 7 different varieties of the disease.
500,000 doses. That's like a lot of doses to keep. Well, anyway Anderson and Ferguson's computer modeling failed to help in bringing the outbreak under control. And with a general election coming up, the political situation was tense. What followed next was extraordinary public manipulation of date, of data to make it look as though the FMD crisis, cases were decreasing when they were not.
Tony Blair postponed general election for another month. The official data, like during the COVID era, began to be manipulated to suit government narrative and to aid the chances in the approaching election. The MAFF began changing the way in which they presented the statistics on the website. They began deleting the previous day's figures as well as declining to report the earlier stats. Soon, they split the main number into 3 categories to play down the true totals.
Anderson had his computer model show that the crisis was over that the crisis was over, conveniently ending or the crisis would be over, conveniently ending on the new general election date Tony Blair had called. But what the public hadn't been told was that the army had sped up the coal. The manipulation of the official government statistics left everyone who was attempting to calculate the actual number of culled animals completely baffled. No one knew the true figures anymore. Even the government's own lead in scientific experts on FMD, doctor Paul Kitching, criticized the approach of Anderson and Ferguson's computer modeling, saying when interviewed that Anderson's computer had certainly come up with some very seductive graphs, but the data available had been fed into the program was so inadequate that one has to question the value of the data coming out.
Kitching was particularly critical about the change of election date from May to June as well as the fact that the computer projections were being adjusted as the political situation advanced. Projections were being adjusted as the political situation advanced. After making those comments, Kitchen stated that he was resigning as deputy head of Pirbright Institute and was soon to take soon taking up a new post in Canada. When the public inquiries called into the foot of mouth, disease response, that was also heavily manipulated. The Blair government split the planned inquiry into 3 separate inquiries, each with different remits.
This allowed Roy Anderson to remain completely unaccountable for the consequences of his actions. In addition, 2 of the people involved in the review were also connected with Roy Anderson as the now, as the now defunct warm well website reports. What made this inquiry so particularly open to suspicion was the network of contacts intimately linked, to the little group of scientists who had been at the center of the crisis since March and who had been personally responsible for some of the most questionable aspects of the way it was handled. The Royal Society's president, Sir Robert May, the former government's chief scientist who had played a key part in recommending another fellow of the society, FRS, professor David King, to succeed him as a chief scientist and who had then stepped in to become mister Blair's chief adviser in the crisis. Another FRS was Sir Robert's former Oxford, colleague, sir John Krebs of the Food Standard Agency, who had played a key part in having professor Roy Anderson, FRS, put the charge of the government policy put in charge of government policy for controlling the epidemic.
Professor Anderson had coauthored 2 books with his former colleague, sir Robert May. The foot in mouth disease crisis is quite astounding when you compare it to COVID crisis. During FMD, Anderson and Ferguson produced a terrifying computer model, and this was central to the government response. They refused to consider anything but the harshest measures immediately and frowned upon any discussion of alternative policies. They used the army to slaughter millions of animals without any regard for the emotional economic harm they were causing on people or animals involved.
When their models failed, they created a new model and publicly manipulated the figures. Anderson became all powerful during FMD, and not even Blair dared to challenge him. The key components of this pattern repeated beginning in 2020. Ferguson produced a terrifying computer model which became central to the response. They refused to use any other strategies with COVID other than the harshest measures available.
There were again no discussions about alternative measures allowed. They used a medical establishment during COVID like they used the army during FMD, obedience to what were probably illegal orders. Then during COVID COVID, when their models again yet again failed, they began manipulating the numbers. Despite his role in the scandalous FMD response, in 2003, Anderson became a member of the World Health Organization, WHO advisory group on SARS, as well as the Health Protection Agency, a HIPAA, I d p a, advisory group on SARS. In 2004, Roy Malcolm Anderson also became the chief scientific, adviser to the UK Ministry of Defense until 2008, at which point he was installed as rector of Imperial College.
These rich rewards for a man who had managed to create a public perception of success out of an entirely disastrous FMD crisis of 2,001. Between 2,005 and 2,011, Anderson was made a member of Bill and Melinda Gates Scientific Advisory Board for the initiative on Grand Challenges on Global Health. By 2007, the awards and accolades for Anderson were getting, ridiculous. As well as becoming chairman of the World Health Organization Science and Technology Advisory Board on neglected tropical diseases. He also became the governor of the Institute of Government, trustee of the National Natural History Museum, and a council member for the Royal College of Art, just to name a few.
He also became a major adviser to various governments and national scientific bodies all across the globe, including in Malaysia, Thailand, Netherlands, Singapore, USA. He also boasts previous connections to institutions in Canada, Switzerland, and Germany. More than 5 years after the 2,001 foot and mouth outbreak, another scare happened when cattle tested positive for the disease. On this occasion, they managed to catch the outbreak very early, and it wasn't allowed to spread. On that occasion, the government accepted that major lab breaches had happened at the Institute For Animal Health at Pirbright, which had led to the disease being released.
In an article in the Irish Independent written on the 11th September 2007 entitled biosecurity breaches caused FMD, it states, 5 separate, breaches of biosecurity at the Institute of of Animal Affairs at Pirbright are being blamed for July's foot and mouth outbreak in Surrey. The piece reports that wastewater carrying the live virus entered the drainage pipework and then leaked out into, out and contaminated the surrounding soil. The investigation for the official reports were carried out by a man who the article describes as a health and safety executive and professor, a man named Brian Spat Sprat, who we will talk about later in this article. Anderson was the man who had trained the infamous Neil Ferguson with whom he helped design and create the computer modeling program, which was first introduced during the foot of mouth disease outbreak in Britain 2 decades before COVID. Neil Ferguson, Anderson's apprentice.
Over the past 2 decades, no one has made as many false predictions on potential pandemic numbers as Neil Ferguson. Ferguson attained his master of arts degrees in, degree in physics in 1990 at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford and went on to study for his PhD in theoretical theoretical physics in 1994 at Linacre College, Oxford, where Roy Anderson was a Linacre, professor of, zoology at the time and who soon became Ferguson's teacher and mentor. It was also Oxford where Ferguson attended a lecture by the aforementioned close friend and former colleague of Roy Anderson, Sir Robert May, on modeling the HIV epidemic. It was after talking to Robert May at the presentation where Ferguson reportedly became interested in mathematical modeling of infectious diseases. It appears that from that moment on, Ferguson worked closely with Roy Anderson.
Ferguson moved with Roy Anderson's group of infectious disease scientists from the University of Oxford to Imperial College in 2000. He also shifted his research focus to foot and mouth disease a few months before the crisis began, placing him in a prime position to immediately start working on modeling the FMD outbreak as it begun. During the epidemic, Ferguson's unproven predictive model models had successfully manufactured the consent needed to allow government to enact debut to a brutal culling policy. Approximately 10,000,000 animals were culled and burnt on piles around the UK, with the size and scale of the cull causing serious public concern. As a 2006 paper, which is entitled use and abuse of mathematical models, an illustration from 2,001 foot and mouth disease epidemic in the United Kingdom, which was produced by a team at Edinburgh University states, the experience should have been a warning of how models can be abused in the interest of scientific opportunitism opportunism.
Sorry. That paper headed by one of the other government's scientific advisers during the start of FMD crisis, the aforementioned doctor Kitching, included in its conclusion that modeling should only be countenanced if veterinarians and scientists agree that the design of the model and the information used to generate its results are correct and plausible from the known biology of the disease, otherwise models become exercises in mathematical sophistry. Ferguson's models had wreaked havoc on lives of millions of British farmers. Yet the following year, Neil Ferguson was honored by the queen with an OBE, Order of the British Empire, awarded to him for his service during the FMD crisis. The ashes of millions of slaughtered animals had barely settled before Niall Ferguson warned that sheep may have contracted BSC and that the disease could take kill tens of thousands of people.
He soon after produced a model of this new potential BSC outbreak, which he claims was just around the corner. Ferguson predicted the BSC would kill up to a 150,000 people. The disease was only actually responsible actually responsible for approximate 878 deaths. In that paper, again, written alongside Roy Anderson and Crystal Donnelly, the author states, we estimate the 95% confidence interval for future VCJD mortality to be 50 to 50,000 human death considered exposure, so exposure to bovine BSC alone with the upper bound increasing to 150,000 once we include exposure from the worst case ovine sheep. BSE scenario examined.
Ferguson's inability to accurately predict anything correctly didn't stop him from continuing to make few further predictions. In 2005, Ferguson predicted that deaths from bird flu worldwide, would reach up to 200,000,000 people with the WHO eventually, identifying the tote a total of 455 deaths of probable attributable to the virus. During the 2009 swine flu pandemic in the UK, Ferguson predicted 65,000 deaths, while the actual number of deaths due to the disease was around 283. See you repeat in the theme here. In 2006, Ferguson began talking about the need to create vaccines quickly.
So to respond effectively to a pandemic, he claimed, was emerging with bird flu, stating in the press that even a border closure that is 99.9% effective only slowed the pandemic by a few weeks at the most. That doesn't buy you much time to make a vaccine, Ferguson said going on to clarify. And that is what matters. The models show that if you could start giving people a vaccine based on the exact pandemic strain 30 days after it emerges, hitting 1% of the population a day, the maximum vaccine production rate, you might cut the number of cases by 97%. Of course, Neil Ferguson was wrong again, but his eagerness to predict mass death did not end there.
Ferguson's claims of imminent bird flu pandemic also saw the House of Lords recommend acid immunization of bird flu if bird flu reached the UK. There he is. Oh, god. These are awful. On the 22nd January 2020, Neil Ferguson was involved in the first meeting of SAGE, the UK Scientific advisory group.
The minutes of the meeting weren't released until the 29th May 2020 and were entitled simply coronavirus, COVID 19 response. Also appointed to the advisory group was Welcome Trust director Jeremy Farrar. The Sage group was chaired by the former president of research and development at GlaxoSmithKline, Patrick Vallance, who had left the global pharmaceutical giant in 2018 to become the United Kingdom scientific adviser. SAGE had already been set up by sir Robert May, the man who was who whose presentation had inspired Ferguson's career path over a decade prior, with their first meeting recorded in 2009 in response to the potential flu pandemic that never materialized and which Neil Ferguson's model falsely predicted mass global casualties, 200,000,000. Ferguson soon presented his computer models, which predicted half a 1000000 people would die of the COVID 19 vaccine virus in the UK alone.
If this prediction turned out to be true, the large mortality rate, mortality number would have made COVID 19 pandemic one of the worst viruses in time immemorial. The fear and panic induced by his false prophetic vision helped manufacture consent for one of the most severe and restrictive of pandemic responses in history. Of course, the history books will also record that Niall Ferguson's COVID 19 model, modeling was not the only thing to cause concern. Ferguson was caught having an affair during COVID 19 whilst he was meant to be strictly observing the nationwide lockdown, which his models had forced on the rest of the country. On 5th May 2020, the UK Guardian newspaper reported that Ferguson resigns from SAGE after admitting error of judgment.
It's error of judgment. The proximal origin of Jeremy Farrar. Jeremy Farrar is one of the most important members of the Wellcome Trust COVID cartel and was the initial reason I began investigating the Wellcome Trust. He has been vital in the planning, preparation, and the rollout of almost every part of the COVID nineteen response in the UK and US. And there are many, there may be no other human on Earth who has been so powerful during this crisis and, in turn, so culpable for the disaster which has unfolded whilst he was at the helm.
Because of his extremely significant and all powerful role in COVID 19 agenda, I decided to go back further into history of Jeremy Farrar than any other of the welcome five. Actually, even further again. Eventually, I'll have, eventually, I'll have a an article about going even further than this, We're going back to the 1800. Very interesting. Like, one of the most super interesting articles I've been working on for a while.
I say that. It's all pretty interesting. You always say it all the time. Eric Mitchell Farrar was born on the 24th August 1917. And by the time World War 2 had begun, he was 22 and and at the prime age for conscription.
In 1940, Eric joined Duke of Wellington's West Riding Company, a unit named after Yorkshire Heartland. As a corporal, it wasn't long before corporal Eric Farrar was reported as officially miss missing. Well, he was York to Ireland as a corporal. And it wasn't long before corporal Eric Farrar was reported as officially missing, last being seen outside Dunkirk on the 11th June 1940. On Friday, 21st August, the same year, it was reported in the Bradford Observer in an article entitled prisoners of war, Halifax and Huddersfield man, stating that corporal, Eric m Farah, medical orderly, and Duke of Wellington's regiment, Victoria Road, Lockwood, Huddersfield, is also reported to be a prisoner of war in Germany.
It was later confirmed that Eric Farrar was being held at Starlagh 38 3 Hohenfels in Bavaria, Germany, and later moved to Stalag 9 c, near Leipzig. On the 29th March 1945, the camp where Eric was imprisoned was evacuated, and the prisoners of war were forced to march towards the Allied lines. The Germans used these prisoners in an attempt to slow the advance, the advancing Americans, with some of the prisoners being forced to march for, for 4 weeks before they were finally freed by US forces. Eric was debriefed and declared no longer a prisoner of war on the 31st May 1945. And on 11th October 1945, his distinguished serve service was being acknowledged in the London Gazette.
He was again honored in 1946 in the long service and conduct, good conduct awards. Jeremy's father and mother were interesting pair during World War 2. Farrah's mother, Amy Annie Farrar, this is, yeah, Jeremy Farrar's. Amy Annie Farrar, born Melton, was also working for the army, driving army officials from bases in places like Scotland to various locations in the UK. On returning to Britain, Eric was driven from Scotland and onto the Ministry of Defence in London to pass on intelligence concerning the prisoner war camp where he had been held.
On this long journey, which would have taken the entire day to complete, Farah's mother and father met for the first time and began their own lifelong journey. It always were even it doesn't matter. They produced Jeremy Farah. People's journey makes me, makes me emotional. They married soon after their first meetings, their first meeting, officially tying the knot in North Kesteven in the county, of Amy's birth, Lincolnshire, in June 1946.
Described by Jeremy Farrar as itinerant in nature, his parents traveled the globe while they built up their family, which eventually extended to having 6 kids. Eric Farrar hadn't had the opportunity to go to university during the war, but he still became a teacher working in various, countries where they were based. Jeremy was born in Singapore on the 1st February 1961 while his father was teaching there. But Farah didn't grow up in Singapore with a family moving to countries including New Zealand, Cyprus, Malaysia, Egypt, Yemen, and Libya. This wonderful tale of postwar jet setting family is something I've seen over and over again when researching people who worked in intelligence.
Although there is little evidence to show that Eric Farah interacted with the MOD once he had once he had once even though although there is little evidence showing that, Eric Ferrard interacted with the MOD, Once he had to have a middle harsh military experience, which had proven his mental endurance and stamina, officers he reported back to after the war. Okay. I'm I'm not sure. I think I've gotta edit that line. Uh-oh.
Although there is little evidence showing that Eric Farrar interacted with the m o the MOD, he did have harsh military experience, which had proved his mental endurance and stamina to officers he reported back to after the war that once is rogue. His locations were where he settled are also suggestive of military placement, with Cyprus, Egypt, and Libya being prime places during this era to place assets. However, although I don't have direct evidence that Eric Farah continued to work for the British state in any compa capacity, I do have reasons to be suspicious. You see, however neat and tidy Eric Farah's family history appears, there's one glaring fact that has led me to believe that it's not as simple as it appears at first glance. If we are to believe what has been recorded, then Eric Farrar's mother and father were both 52 years old in 1917 when he was born.
This is extremely unlikely. And even all with all my experience in hunting ancestors, this is extremely likely. And even with all my experiences in hunting the ancestors of the powerful players, I have been unable to confirm the answer to this riddle. But I do have a hunch, And I've already almost written the article. Now I have, anyway.
Jeremy Farrar was the 6th child of Eric and Amy Farrar born in Singapore on the 1st September 161, where Amy was practicing her art, and Eric was employed as a teacher in a local school. Jeremy lived in Cyprus, Libya, and New Zealand before he started his formal education in Britain, initially educated at Church's College, where he's describe which is described as an independent fee charging school, day school for girls and boys. And later, he studied a at University College London Medical School, where he obtained a bachelor of, science degree in immunology in 1983 and a bachelor of medicine degree in 1986. Official sources state that Farrar completed his doctor of philosophy degree at University of Oxford in 1998 on myasthenia gravis oh, god. You medical people are gonna have a go with some of my pronunciation.
Although Farah has stated that he was finishing his first PhD from Oxford in 1994. In a TEDMED presentation given 3 years before the current coronavirus began, Farah describes a very important moment in his life in which he places linguistic on having occurred purely by chance. He states that in 1994, he had returned to Oxford University where he was finishing his PhD and that he was offered an opportunity to go live in Vietnam for a year, eventually staying for 18 years. He also claimed in 2014 Financial Times article that his decision to move to Vietnam was due to his disdain for, conference halls full of white men. In reality, it is around this time that he was first recruited by the Wellcome Trust through an Oxford University initiative.
Farrar was one of many signs to be offered continuous funding throughout their entire career via lucrative research grants supplied by the Wellcome Trust. Many scientists were more than willing to move for such generous ins for such generous institution, willing to work for such a generous institution, which had seemingly unhook themselves from the cutthroat world of private pharmaceutical industry. Farrar thrived in this culture of unlimited funding, and he was able to do more research in a country with less regulations in the United Kingdom. From 1996 until 2013, Ferrara is recorded as being director of the Oxford University Clinical Research Unit in Ho Chi Minh City. Oxford University began being partners to much of the Wellcome Trust efforts to recruit the best and brightest during the mid 19 nineties onwards.
There he is, Jen Reed Fahrrad, the med meeting, presentation, where he says about the by chance. How big's your, how long is your ethics there? Do you know what I mean? Oh, about that about that. By 2009, Farah found himself conveniently placed to respond to an emerging epidemic epidemiological crisis of the h five n one virus in Asia and helped develop its origin story, the quote from a previous unlimited hangout investigation on the trust's new, Welcome Leap Venture, An article published by Rockefeller University Press Journal of experimental medicine in 2009 is dramatically titled Jeremy Farrar, when disaster strikes.
Farrar, when referring to the h five n one origin story, stated, the the WHO people, and that is not a criticism, decided it was unlikely that the child had SARS or avian influenza. They left, but professor Haynes stayed, behind to talk with the child and her mum. The girl admitted that she'd been quite sad in the previous days with the death of her bet, duck. The girl and her brother had fought over burying the duck. Because of the and because of this argument, she had gone back, dug up the duck, and reburied it, probably so her brother wouldn't know where it was buried.
With that history, professor Hearne phoned me at home and said he was worried about the child. He took some swabs from the child nose and a throat and brought them back to the hospital. That night, the laboratory ran tests on the samples, and they were positive for influenza a. This quaint tale of deadly duck seems plausible to most, although the local authorities were less convinced by Farrar and Hien's supposed new discovery. But what should thoroughly be noted is that Jeremy Farrar was regularly found at ground 0 of various emerging global epidemiological threat responses.
Although still based in Vietnam around 2009, Farah was sent by Oxford to various locations around the globe to study other epidemics happening in real time, including subsequent global outbreaks and MERS 2012, Ebola, 2014, and Avian flu, 2014. In 2013, he took up his directorship of the Wellcome Trust, a position he still retains. Stepped down recently. Going to the hoop. During the Ebola crisis, Farrar also wrote papers such as infectious disease, tough choices to reduce Ebola transmission alongside both Neil Ferguson and Chris Whitty.
The latter headed up the official UK public relations side of the COVID 19 as a chief medical adviser to the UK government. In 2020, Farah's incredible reach became exposed to the general public after the release of the Fauci emails, one of the infamous Fauci emails dated 25th February 2020 and sent by Emily Ryu of The Who stated that Jeremy Farrar's official role at the time was to act as the board's focal point on the COVID 19 outbreak, to represent and advise the board on the science of the outbreak and the financing of the response. The Fauci emails also showed us the the preparation over a 10 day period of the paper entitled the Approximate Origin of SARS CoV 2, which was accepted for publication by Nature Magazine on March 17, 2020. The paper claimed that SARS CoV 2 virus came from a natural origin, as opposed to gain of function research. Ferrars' supreme authority over the organization of COVID 19 response was beginning to be exposed to the for the world to see, and soon people began questioning the scientific paper which he spearheaded as part of the major cover up.
Edward c Holmes welcomes men in China. Edward c Holmes has significant connections to Jeremy Farrar and the Wellcome Trust, which made him a key figure in the creation of its origin paper. He is also a scientist who released the translated genomic sequence of SARS COV 2 on the 11th January 2020. Holmes, who is currently a National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Fellow and a sitting professor at the University of Sydney, has had an impressive career. His CV shows that between 1994 to 1997, Holmes was a Wellcome Trust Fellow in biodiversity research at University of Oxford, UK.
The link between Holmes and Farah is is far and away the most important connection in relation to to Farrar's career. Starting in 1994, Holmes was tasked with the supervision of 35 graduate students with funding from various trust societies and institutions as well as being responsible for the allocation of some of the grants and seed funding. This is a position that Edward c Holmes still occupies today. This apparent coincidence of Farah and Holmes being at Oxford during the same period should be carefully studied. It appears that this is where Holmes may have originally given Farah his first opportunity to begin his research in countries like Vietnam.
There's Eddie Eddie Holmes. It isn't a surprise that professor Edward Holmes' remit for, recruiting potential graduates is to target the brightest. Some clues to the secretive recruitment process that would see Holmes have found with his within his CV. They pick mainly rogue scholars who usually study for their doctorate in philosophy at Oxford University. British scientific candidates are almost entirely funded by the Wellcome Trust throughout their career, careers, with the international members appear appearing to mainly, to be mainly linked to Harvard, if not Oxford, and with many connections to those involved with Ebola crisis in 2014 and 2000 15.
Edward c Holmes' supervision of 35 graduate students since 1994 has been funded by the Rhodes Trust. Not, the Rhodes Trust, the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Australian Research Council, the American Psychological Council, the, Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council of the UK, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Of course, it isn't surprising to see that the funding coming from the u outside the UK to help finance this professional grooming process originates from Australia, the US, and Canada, 3 countries which have enacted some of the most severe and far reaching public policy choices throughout the COVID era. It should also be highlighted that Edward Holmes relocated to work in China just before the pandemic in 2019 as president at Fudan University. K.
Here we go. Notable mentions. Brian Spat Sprat. Sorry. Roy Anderson's right hand.
Neil Ferguson had become Roy Anderson's shadow throughout large parts of his career, but he hasn't been Roy Anderson's only close friend, colleague, and collaborator. 1 of Roy Anderson's other right hand man is a man who, although hasn't played a, a part in COVID 19 yet, has played many previous post crisis roles during state run cover ups of publicly revealed state crimes including helping to play down and hide the true extent of the UK Ministry of Defence's testing biological and chemical agents on their own population illegally, which is obviously very relevant to our current situation. During my initial preparation for this article, it became clear to me that before writing this piece, I first needed to investigate the previous 100 years of state sanctioned crimes committed by the UK Ministry of Defence Chemical and Biological Research Projects at Borton Down. Borton Down, the British Centre For Virus Gain of Functional Research and the scene of mass illegal human experimentation over the last century has also had a relatively recent, need to cover up their historic crimes. When looking at those obvious cover ups, we can see many similarities, which, should give us cause for concern.
Sorry. Itchy back there. Just a little bit of an itch. In the late nineties, for instance, the independent safety review was called to investigate the illegal secret mass human experimentation they had conducted on the British public after telling me to laugh at that. I'm so ridiculous how how how clearly evil these guys are after it was revealed that port and down scientists had been performing germ warfare experiments with live bacteria on British population for decades.
The person put in charge of this review was professor Brian Spratt. Spratt, when questioned over his ability to give an impartial view, told BBC Spotlight program in 1998. I'm an independent microbiologist. I have no links to the Ministry of Defence. I wasn't chosen by the Ministry of Defence, so my independence is assured.
Yet within a decade of the independent safety review, professor Brian Spratt was facing questions about his finding. In 2004, professor Brian Spratt was asked about his Ministry of Defense, commissioned report entitled independent review of possible health hazards of large scale release of bacteria during the Dorset Defense trials. It had been discovered, bacteria during the Dorset defense trials. It had been discovered that the Ministry of Defense had not submitted details of 24 of a germ warfare test to professor Spratt for the Ministry of Defense Commission review. Spratt claimed that he had not received all the information, but he'll happily look at it if it was provided.
Of course, by that time, it was too late to be included in the evidence of the review. It's Spratt saying, oh, I don't know about this evidence. Oh, didn't get told. The House of Lords presented a clear rundown of Spratt's findings from his original report in the debate titled Spratt's report, Spratt Report, South Coast Biological Defense Trials, with the debate taking place on the 9th February 1999. Lord Gilbert announced oh, pardon me.
Professor Brian Spratt has now completed his review on the microbiological defense trials conducted along the south coast in the 19 sixties 19 seventies. The Ministry of Defense welcomes his main findings, that the trials would have caused no harm to the vast majority of people, that although there may have been an unquantifiable risk of infection in a small number of people who had serious underlying diseases such as cystic fibrosis, any such infections would have been infections of the chest or blood and would have occurred within days of release of the bacteria. That it was extremely unlikely that there is any link between bacteria released in the trials and the health problems reported by people who have suffered chronic ill health, miscarriages, and who have been, who have had children with disabilities. An unbelievable finding. Honestly, unbelievable.
The evidence that wasn't handed over to the MOD for this review was completely damning and revealed the damage that had been caused by their E. Coli experiments as well as spraying of Britain with a known chemical cast, carcinogen. A quote from my previous article entitled, Borton Down's Ideological Cloud, the toxic, secret experiments on millions of British people, to quote it. Borten Down was supposedly testing out how vulnerable Britain actually was to germ warfare attack by attacking its own population. Zinc cadmium sulfide was known to be highly toxic, with cadmium causing birth defects, which have been well noted in laboratory experiments on rats as well as being heavily carcinogenic.
In August 1959, the Royal Air Force aircraft flew above the North Sea before changing course to fly along the English Channel, spraying the compound as it flew. The Ministry of Defence, what many referred to as day were were as what many referred to as today as chemtrailing the south coast of England. The records of readings taken during the experiment show that the majority of the chemicals released were taken by the wind in the north easterly direction. But when the plane reached the end of its flight path, the remaining chemicals were dumped out in concentrations 1,000 times greater than anywhere else in the country. The people of Dorchester and the nearby town of East Loulworth had been dust with dusted with what can only be described as death particles from above.
These coastal, Dorset tourist hotspots would have been full of many visitors during the peak of summer, but it's studying, but it's studying the obvious consequences of porting down a Ministry of Defence Human Experimentation had on the residents of East Lowworth, which could break even the hardest heart. Although the folks at Porting Down won't take a proper look at the evidence, the residents of East Lowworth have suffered from miscarriages, birth defects, as well as all manner of other health issues affecting them and their children with at least 21 families affected. Even though Spratt had no obvious and clear links to the Ministry of Defense at the time he conducted his review, he was funded by the Wellcome Trust during that period and throughout his entire career. It's worth noting that the the former Wellcome Trust director, Roy Anderson, a close colleague and friend of Spratt's, eventually took up formal work with the Ministry of Defense. Spratt's heading in the Ministry of Defence Review was not his only establishment task.
On 12th January 2001, it was announced that professor Spratt, who was at the time based at Wellcome Trust Centre For Epidemiological epidemiology of infectious disease at University of Oxford, became the chair of the Royal Society's working group on depleted uranium. In the early 19 nineties, the UK Ministry of Defence needed to rebrand its port and dam facilities along with the wider biological and chemical weapons research programs due to the fact that Porton Dam was facing public pressure like they had never experienced before. This o, owed to 4 key historic crimes that came to light around this period. First was the decades of spraying the aforementioned cancerous compounds, zinc cadmium sulfide, from military aircraft, cars, ships, and trains on the unwitting British public. 2nd was the spraying of E.
Coli germs from boats in the southwest of England, and further complaints of birth defects, miscarriages, and other health issues resulting from these experiments. 3rd was their experimentation on humans with nerve gas, which eventually led to inquiry which exposed these actions publicly. 4th was the Anfract Island debacle, which became a PR disaster for the organization. The Ministry of Defense needed a few good men who they could rely on to help control these other cover ups in the future. Although Brian Spratt has not yet been directly involved with the COVID 19 response publicly, his previous history suggests he could potentially be rolled out in the event of official inquest and or inquiries.
Professor Spratt appears to be to fit a profile similar to the other of, to to other of Roy Anderson's apprentices, Jeremy Farrar and Edward c Holmes, who are discussed in later in detail later on in this investigation. They might already be discussed. Spratt, almost entirely welcome, trust funded, connect to both Oxford and Imperial College, and he had been put in charge of extremely sensitive establishment projects, in this case, official cover ups. In investigating professor, sir Brian Spratt, more thoroughly, I found his many connections with Roy Anderson, the man who had also been the mentor for Ryan Holmes, the man connected with almost every single group active in the global COVID totalitarian control structure currently dictating policy worldwide. Roy Anderson was governor and director of the Wellcome Trust during the era Spratt, Ferrar, and Holmes were all brought into the fold.
Oh, we're getting through it now, baby. Andrew Ambeau and Christian g Anderson, the Proximal Origin Cleanup Crew. I'd origin I had originally started out by building a picture, a picture of who these people were by looking at their families, schooling, career history, affiliations, and associations to try and see any potential patterns which could help, build a basic profile of these top table appointees. It cannot be understated. The individuals explored thus far in this article took up key roles, and their tasks was viewed as an incredibly sensitive one for those who have been driving the COVID agenda.
If we are to unravel the larger control network, we must build a profile of the people involved, as doing so is vital in aiding our recognition of other players. In this case, that necessary profile was very easy to form, thanks to the publication of the proximal origins of COV 2 paper. There are some very interesting scientists who were involved in the creation of the SARS COV 2 paper. The first being a man that fits the profile for one of the special 35 graduates who receive almost all their career long funding from the Wellcome Trust initiative that has been managed by Holmes since 1994. Andrew Rambow is a British evolutionary biologist who, as of 2020, held the position of professor of molecular evolution at University of Edinburgh.
If you were to look at the official Wikipedia entry for mister Rambeau, you notice that there is, as of writing this, no mention of his participation in the SARS CoV 2 paper. However, if you were to search his Wiki Wiki page's history, you discover that all mention of his part in the origin paper have been removed by a computer with the IP address 9223823586, which is also coincidentally based in Edinburgh. The aforementioned IP addresses edits have also included changes on SARS CoV 2 Wiki entry, suggesting that these actors are still successfully altering the public information. Andrew Rambault is a relatively young man. He has his entire career ahead of him.
So why has so why he agreed to being involved in such a nefarious gree scheme which was bound to be uncovered in the end? So why did he agree? One obvious reason why Andrew Rimbaud was chosen by Ferrat is because it was very much in professor Rimbaud's financial interest to do so. The reason why Jeremy Farrar and his welcome friends are so important to the establishment cannot be understated. Farrar and the philanthropic welcome, trust funds a large amount of expensive research, including projects led by Andrew Rambow.
Only 2 years prior to COVID 19 pandemic in January 2018, Bharat's Wellcome Trust had been funding professor Andrew Rambow's research. In fact, almost all of Andrew Rambow's research was funding has funding links to the Wellcome Trust. Since taking part in the fake COVID origins paper, Rambow has taken center stage at some Wellcome Trust events. Between 13 15th December 2021, professor Andrew Rambaud was a guest speaker for the Wellcome Trust Welcome Connecting Science Conference on Virus Genomics and Evolution. The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute had also published a case study authored by Andrew Rimbaud in 2017 as well as other past collaborations published while Farrar has been leading the Wellcome Trust.
Christian g Anderson's input in the origin origin paper organized by Farah is bizarre. Even though Anderson put his name on the paper, he was noted in the Fauci emails as studying the virus. And with the help of a small team coming to the conclusions that it was in fact man made, in the Fauci emails, Anderson states clearly. After discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with the expectations from evolutionary theory. So what made Professor Christian Andersen, become involved in the scientific paper, which was very soon after come to the opposite which was very soon after to come to the opposite conclusion.
By February 2020, Christian Andersen found himself having to defend his actions publicly, something none of these scientists seem to have been expecting. Andersen claimed that the emails to Anthony Fauci, showing that he had found a viral genome to be inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory was simply a clear example of the scientific process. There was no way for Anderson to avoid confronting the Fauci emails once they were published with professor Roger Peltz of, University Colorado Boulder asking Anderson on Twitter to explain what all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory actually means in layman's terms. Anderson's response was to double down on the original findings by stating, it specifically means we fought on preliminary look that the virus could have been engineered and or manipulated. Turns out the data suggests otherwise, which is a conclusion of the paper.
In a further tweet, Anson stated, conspiracies have created a narrative where we all dismissed it, the lab leak hypothesis, out of hand, stating that the very idea was absurd and couldn't be further from the truth. It's just the data don't support the hypothesis. So knowing now that the lab leak theory is being accepted as probable source, we can only conclude that either professor Christian Andersen is really incompetent at his job, or he was complicit in creation of fake science conjured up in an attempt to hide the true origins of star SARS CoV 2. That's, Christian Andersen and, Bob Gary. Mare?
Although at first glance, it may appear that Andersen has no obvious links to Wellcome Trust, his pope post doctoral adviser, Harvard linked Ward Institute, was Pardis Sabeti, who I will mention shortly. Anderson heads up Scripps Research, Anderson's lab, where, Anderson Lab, which also includes external research contributions from fellow Proximal Origin paper authors, Andrew Rabeau and Bob Garey. There are more. There are many more people standing center stage in the COVID 19 response who have strong ties to the Welcome Trust and the so called Welcome 5, Informing a profile to aid in the hunt for potential matches, for others who have in who have significant links to those covered in the article so far, it became clear that many who are a perfect match, are some of the movers and shakers behind the COVID 19 agenda. Before I conclude this piece, let's look at 3 individuals who are tied in multiple ways to our band of scientific totalitarian elites.
Debbie Shrider. You know her? I think she's, she deleted her Twitter now. Debbie Shrider is described as an American public health researcher and is based at the University of Edinburgh along with Andrew Rambeau. She fits a profile of someone the welcome five would target for recruitment for various reasons.
Debbie was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford completing a MPhil in, medical anthropology in 2005 following Biodefill in anthropology in 2006. She's also part of the UK scientific advisory group, SAGE, and has previously worked with the Harvard Global Health Institute and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which assesses international responses to the 2014 Ebola outbreak. Shreedhar also compiled the 1st Wellcome Trust Open Research on the topic of global public health during COVID 19. Sreedhar was added to the Scottish government's time limited expert group set up on the 25th March 2020 to help develop and improve its plan for handling the COVID 19 pandemic in Scotland. Sreedhar also coauthored an open letter in The Lancet on the 15th October 2020, which has been referred to as the John Snow memorandum, missus Tauer.
The letter calls for science based public health policy and rejects naturally acquired herd immunity as a dangerous fallacy. The, letter received 2,000 signatures from the science and health care community with within 24 hours and appears to revise everything we know about naturally acquired herd immunity. Shreedhar also worked with Chelsea Clinton and used principal agent theory to study the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria and the Gavi Alliance. There she is. Debbie Schreede, would not trust her at all.
Beth Shapiro is described as an American evolutionary molecular biologist and is possibly one of the biggest female names in science today. She's a Rhodes Scholar and completed a DPhil at Oxford. She's also a MacArthur Fellow, known as a Genius Grant, is also a Wellcome Trust Research Fellow. She has the prestigious title of being director of Henry Wellcome Bio Molecules Center. Beth Shapiro's most recent book, Life as We Made It, attempts to assuage public fears around the risky advances in biotechnology.
The the website, reaction dot life, stated in their review of the book. This book brings readers up to date assessing the impact on research of the COVID 19 event and the appetite for adopting riskier technologies more quickly. Unbelievable there she is. Beth Shapiro, unbelievable. All of them.
Taking advantage. They all are they all want they all want extra money, don't they? Pardes Sabeti worked on Ebola while, which links her to Farrah, Holmes, Rambo, and Shreedhar. During the Ebola outbreak, she and her team helped sequence the the virus behind Ebola using data from infected pay patients. She is described as an Iranian American computational biologist, medical geneticist, and evolutionary geneticist.
She was a Rhodes Scholar and previously studied at both Harvard and Oxford. She has in the past been funded from the Wellcome Trust, is an expert on genomic sequencing, and has links to Elon Musk and Eric Lander. So Betty, as previously mentioned, was also Christian g Anderson's postdoctoral adviser, a Harvard Linked Broad Institute. During COVID 19, Sibeti has been creating digital tech surveillance with the Broad Institute's MIT research team. Through the engineering of, symptom tracking app called Scout, when referring to the data collection aspect of digital tools, so Betty stated, it's definitely the kind of analytics that people talk about having, but nobody actual can has access to in this way.
In the past, Sabeti has also written papers with Proximal Origin paper creator Robert Gary and her apprentice, Christian g Anderson. And there she is again. Hi, Lisa Betty. Here you go. This small sample group of actors are all involved in some way way with the global global coronavirus pandemic response and the future plans and preparations for such events.
They fit the profile of the kind of graduates who were groomed with long term financial and career incentives by Edward c Holmes and his colleagues as well as having various links with the welcome 5. Here we go. Okay. Thank you everybody for joining me. We're at the end now.
We're at the last part of this. We're gonna have a little stretch. So, like, share, and subscribe when you have a chance, please. Donate if you can. Buy me a coffee if you can.
Become a patron if you can. Regular subscribers are much appreciated. If you subscribe to me, you also get your name in lights. You'll be on the next, series of Searching for Stanley and the the documentary that follows. You can watch Searching for Stanley now.
By the time this comes out, you the feature of a length version will also be out on this channel, Johnny Bedmore on YouTube and in docuseries 4 on newspastepaste. The welcome 5 well, here we go. Personal origin of COVID controllers, the welcome 5's Royal Society HQ. The welcome 5 are sir Roy Anderson, FRS, sir Richard Sykes, FRS, sir Jeremy Parra, FRS, Edward c Holmes, FRS, and Neil Ferguson, OBE, FRS. And they have been aided by others featured in this piece, sir Brian Spratt, FRS, Andrew Rambo, Christian, Crystal Donnelly, CBE, FRS, sir Robert May, FRS, Baron of Oxford, sir John Krebs, FRS, with a special guest appearance from Christian g Anderson.
These 11 scientists were central to the events outlined in this article, which focused on the evolution of the pandemic control response specifically within the United Kingdom, but with significant global reach, especially in the US. One thing you may notice from my list of members who make up the welcome five and their friends is, that most of them have three letters after their name. The FRS placed after someone's name denotes that they are a fellow of the Royal Society. The Royal Society is a very elite and prestigious British scientific institution, which has given membership to almost every one of these scientists. Notably, Ferguson is a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, and Rambo took up the Royal Society University Research Fellowship position and became chair of molecular evolution at the University of Edinburgh in 2010, being later elected a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 2014.
The Royal Society has thousands of members made up of, as far as the members, only a few 1,000, made up of the most famous figures, of the elites, scientific elite, including individuals like David Attenborough and Elon Musk, as well as historic members such as Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Whilst researching this article, the Royal Society became, came up over and over again. Although not all the members of such a organization are aware of the more nefarious activities happening within their group. It appears as though a small number of their ranks are provably involved in planning, creating, and implementing large parts of the authoritarian control structure put in place during COVID 19. 2 members of the Wellcome cartel, who will be a central figure to future investigations, are the men responsible for recruiting and managing the Wellcome Trust link team, which created this medical dystopia, sir John Krebs, son of famous Jewish German scientist, Anne Hans Adolph Krebs, and sir Robert May, one of the presidents of the Royal Society.
Both are well respected scientists and fellows of the Royal Society. And I've just got a very quick note down. Something that's come to me. See, this is journalism in action. I'm just thinking.
Just thinking. I should make a note of note, things that I'm thinking. Sir Robert May is more important, is the more important of these 2 in in relation to this investigation in particular as the evidence shows that he has significant links to the recruitment of the men profiled in this article, including the former Royal Society president, Robert May, being the reason Neil Ferguson says he chose his career path, as well as coauthoring 2 books alongside his friend, Roy Anderson. The fact that every one of these people have in I have investigated have some links to the Royal Society should make us all ask questions about this powerful reach of such a historic institution, which is consist consistently involved in obscure ways with public policy concerning science and technology. The Royal Society appears to be a major base of operations for groups which are driving the type of scientific research, which, if examined honestly and openly, cannot muster public support, let alone gain assured public consent.
Without a doubt, we are living for a moment in history which will be studied for many decades to come in a world awash where our mass of information. It is only a matter of time before a detailed picture of these events form. For this investigation, I had originally focused on the events which have been emblematic of the entire official COVID nineteen response, the Proximal Origin of SARS COV 2 paper. That notorious scientific paper published in the prestigious Nature saw the scientists involved enter into, an absurd public spectacle, which many onlookers can clearly see is one of the most defining moments of COVID 19 era. It's very similar to the dodgy dossier produced by the British government during the run up to Iraq War.
It is a very significant historical moment in our shared human experience. The establishment appears to have been caught off guard, and we're possibly expecting that their efforts at censorship and social coercion during COVID 19 could actually wipe out the majority of dissent, and that the constant drama held people's attention for long enough for the commencement of some other distracting major event. Whilst some of the welcome five are behind, many of the most important parts of the Anglo American response to COVID 19, Their manufacturing of SARS COV 2 Proximal Origin paper was an attempt to cover up the true origins of a pandemic from the entire global population. This small group of close friends and colleagues went to extraordinary lengths in an attempt to pull off the scientific heist of the millennium by conspiring to steal the truth behind COVID nineteen from the people of the world. But in the end, they have been utterly exposed, and every person on this globe should be demanding that the core of this wealthy scientific elite be held criminally responsible for the unsuccessful cover up of SARS COV 2, as well as the commencement of a complete transparent full investigation and review of the Wellcome Trust's many scientific programs around the world.
That's really important. I know that there's a lot of information here to digest, but if you've been paying close enough attention, then it's important the the important issue is clearly visible. Computer modeling could be used to change the world, improve lives, and help to predict the outcomes of complicated data intensive events such as pandemics. But instead, we have computer modeling being used to deceive the majority of the population by creating a constant and intense fear of impending doom so as to control public opinion. It's not the sophistication of any tool that will predict a given outcome.
It will always be the competence and integrity of those who wield that said tool, which will lead us to the eventual conclusion. In 2000, Roy Anderson, Neil Ferguson, and Crystal Donnelly changed facilities and turned their attention to an animal disease, which had been absent in the UK for over 3 decades. Alongside the second foot and mouth disease outbreak, which was accepted as coming from a lab leak, and their actions during COVID crisis, it's hard to give these viciously dangerous establishment actors the benefit of the doubt and not automatically assume that the 2,001 foot in mouth disease outbreak was actually either a purposely manufactured event or simply another lab leak. What is very relevant in relation to the links between the official response to FMD and that of COVID 19 is that the possible practice run, that is that as the possible practice run for the main event resulted in the unnecessary culling of millions of creatures. In time, we may see that reckless global experimental vaccine drive has had exactly the same outcome.
This small group of elite scientists seem to have been instrumental in the origin story of many of the modern outbreaks. And from what we know now about the veracity of the, proximal origin of SARS CoV 2 paper, It should make us question and reexamine all other origin stories any of these people have seeded into the annals of history. These people are using some of the most dangerous biological agents known to man with blatant disregard. We had no reverence for the potential harm which the these infectious agents could do to all life on Earth. In 2014, The Guardian reported the health and safety executive revealed that more than 70 incidents of government, university, and hospital labs were were serious enough to investigate, lab leaks.
Incidents that yeah. Many led to enforcement letters or Crown Prohibition notices, CPN, ordering labs to shut down, shut until improvements were made. Some were so serious, they ended in legal action. The situation we are faced with is unnecessarily precarious, and none of us should feel comfortable while least, this is considered the normal state of affairs. If we continue on this path, it is only a matter of time before something much worse than COVID 19 escapes from one of the many poorly managed government laboratories which are dotted all around the world.
With the 4th industrial revolution at our doorstep, we have entered into an era of boundless possibilities, and every part of our societal structure is experiencing fundamental of our social structure is experienced fundamental changes, which will be nigh on impossible to roll back once implemented. Yet whilst having one foot in the future, we also have one foot firmly stuck in a muddy past. These archaic and shadowy institutions, such as the Wellcome Trust, the Rhodes Trust, and many more, the Royal Society, have become fundamental in pushing forward the scientific community's necessary and unnecessary endeavors alike. Behind the facade of a historic philanthropic organization, the Wellcome Trust has become an unaccountable behemoth capable of taking control of health policies and protocols in response to any real or potentially manufactured health crisis. What should be even more concerning is that these men have often appeared to be expecting and preparing for these events to happen beforehand and are hoisted quickly into key positions to act as the vanguard to responses, which should only be the remit of elected officials rather than so called philanthropists.
Philanthropists. The main concern for us all should be the glaring warning signs of the same old agenda of population control via mass extermination is rearing its head ugly head again. Fundamentally, a few unelected men should not have this much sway over public health policies. They shouldn't become more powerful than prime minister or a president with zero public consent. And if they want to be given this level of influence on public policy, they should be a 100% transparent and entirely accountable.
We currently do not have an effective structure in place which is capable of safeguarding some of the most basic human rights, and do not be deceived. Our system is built that way on purpose. When the Newenburg code was designed and put into writing, it should have also been adopted as a strict set of laws and regulations which could never be broken. Instead, after watching the pharmaceutical elite indulge in their mass human medical experimentation fetish, we again stand on the doorstep of genocide with very little protection from those who wish to slaughter us like cattle. Oh, author's dedications.
That's me. I'm the author of this. This piece is dedicated to every woman who has had a miscarriage due to being biologically or chemically experimented on, by the government scientists of the world. I promise I will never forget what they have stolen from you. Author, sorry.
Author's acknowledgments. Past Johnny snuck up on me with that one. Thanks to the people trying to piece together, the voucher emails aside, of this over at, formosahat.com, it can be a, a real adventure to follow, and their research helped me on a few things. A big thank you to the person who once started warm well site, which was a very valuable resource, although it's now available only through the archives. Got to give a big thanks to you, the people who keep supporting me and keep getting this information out there.
Sometimes we need independent media screaming into the proverbial wind to get our voices here heard. And your help and support is literally my oxygen, and I love you all. You can share on, Twitter, Facebook, or Uber, whatever. You can like it. You I did a couple of people who could comment.
I didn't even know comments were open. You can you can become a patron and buy me a coffee. You've got some trending articles, and you can also at the end of here, you can drop me some box via PayPal. Buy Me A Coffee is also a very good way. PayPal Coffee.
There's also a support section with extra parts on. Wow. I I I I choked up at the end there. So that was it. Look at those guys.
You see that? It's a long article. I mean, we've we've been taking a long time there. But it was an important article to write. And once I realized what I was looking at what I was looking at was let me, change it.
Let me stop the share. What I was looking at was the cover up. Everybody else was watching the birdie, I feel. So the American side was the birdie. Like, I'm in this one.
I suppose it's that, ain't it? Watch a birdie for me, and then you come in whenever he's like, watch a birdie, watch a birdie. Bang. And the real punch was coming from the, Wellcome Trust linked contingent Oxford Wellcome, linked contingent. They were unaccountable unaccountable in all sorts of ways, responsible at such a high level above presidents, above prime ministers, above, the the health officials.
They were given the responsibility completely unaccountable in another country. Why the Americans haven't really held Farah's feet to the fire? Oh, that's because it's Royal Society. No way. The Americans just gets awestruck when they get to the Royal Society anyway.
And it's a disgusting institution if it's allowed to you know, it seems like governments go to the Royal Society to get those guys to do things so they can get away with their things, and then they're not, accountable. So it's very clever. Very clever. It's used as a proxy so that we don't get to hold these people to account during the most important time, during this whole experimenting on humans, all of this sort of stuff. This is a time where they've unaccounted an unaccountable body from outside your country is deciding on the most important things in the world, and you don't even know.
You don't even know who they are. You're still watching the birdie. Still watching the birdie. Did do do does anybody in, America, apart from the people who are right up on top of the the scientific community or people who read this article? Do they know about Richard Sykes?
Do they know his importance? Do they know about Roy Anderson and his inventing and computer modeling in in general, what we use nowadays? They know Neil Ferguson's name. They know Jeremy Farrar a little bit, but do they know their importance? And they rather do know Edward c Holmes.
All these little names that pop up that they don't think have any relevance, but all have a massive connection. And that's why I felt this was the punch. These are the punch boys. The the rest the rest was just all watching birdies. Like, you know, everybody's just keeping looking across and saying, oh, yeah.
These people do all of these things. Look. It's all those people, and they're not even seeing the people who are written down there, in the Fauci emails. There's Jeremy Frost, the one who who takes over everything. There's another there's an the article I wrote before, I'm gonna do a read through that, eventually.
It's a it's a it's a fairly competent article. This one was 15,000 words. There's still a couple of mistakes even though that that, you know, I've gone through it a couple of times. There's still a couple of mistakes because I don't have, like, at this stage as well, I didn't really had have the draft and, experience, to be able to do it properly. So a lot of this is me just like, you know, I'm I'm an an amateur.
I'd I especially earlier on, I was an amateur journalist compared to most. But that's because I was trying to aim at something really high and and that no one else was doing, and it had to be done. So sorry if it's bitty here and there. But it's a really important article, the welcome 5. And I just still don't think you know, people people like I've talked to loads of different people in the medical community, who appreciated this, like, people who who are respected around the place, who really appreciate this article.
A couple of them, like, one one of them in particular, photo, like, got on a video call with me and was just like, what you know, it it it made me realize what I was, like, swimming through when I was in my career. And, lots of other people have said roughly the same thing. They're like, oh, wait. So that's what that person's role was. Well, they came into my life, and then they they, disappeared again.
So it's, like, extremely important article to write, not only for me, but for the people of the scientific community who were missing that part of the puzzle. And it was really appreciated. That part of the puzzle was really appreciated because no one else went there. Just why no one else went there, I don't know. I I know that Vanessa Bealey, did a little bit about, Roy Anderson's involvement in the foot of mouth crisis, around the same time.
But I I didn't really notice that till afterwards because I was too I I'm I'm very much I don't I don't look at what other journalists at the time. I look for evidence. So I'm not looking at what other journalists are saying until after I've written a piece, and then I put it all together, and then I do all my checks over the top. Then I check out what other people have done. So I was like, I saw the way she handled that, and it was like it it was very good explainer of different parts of foot and mouth, but it's really I look at the infrastructure, the bosses at top, and who's pushing these pieces and playing the game, who's the one who's pushing the game out there.
And so this was something where, like, the welcome 5 was massively important. It's a shame it didn't get out quicker. I really wanted it to get out quicker, but there's another part there's another part coming. I'm trying to I I'm trying to see if UK column, wants it. But I go back into history.
Unbelievable. Like, the past is unbelievable. It'll blow your mind. Blow your mind. Again, it'll blow your mind.
Blow your mind. I'll show you COVID 19 over a 100 years ago. I'll show you the same things happening. The same family. The same person, basically.
Same genetic strand doing exactly the same things. Unbelievable. I mean, really unbelievable. Blow your blow your mind. And, that's why I love doing this sort of stuff because I keep getting my mind blown by this information.
Like, what? Oh my god. For the you know, I I wonder why other people don't necessarily see it, believe. It's hard. It's hard.
There's so much to see, and everybody gets caught along the way. You know, I go traveling back in time, and I try and get, like, uber context about everything. I get uber contextual. I wanna know about this person now, so I find about how he got there through, like, his ancestors and stuff. And what what I do is I learn so much more than I think I was gonna learn at the start.
And so I go a really super long route, and that means I don't get stuck back there. When I'm when I'm when I'm starting in the future and then going back to the past, I don't get stuck in the future. I don't get stuck at that point. Oh god. Look.
That person did that. I got angry with that person. You know? I I I look back and I go, okay. I see that person.
Let's go back, see what else I find. And then I see that person now, and then go back and then, like, this. With this, it was like, you know, Farrar. I'm looking into Farrar. I, part wrote the Welcome Leap article with Whitney Webb on Unlimited Hangout, and it's written at the end that I helped write it instead of co offering because that's what Whitney did.
And the sections that I wrote was really the ForR section and really focused on on, I did a lot of research on Farah, and I was just like, wow. I found loads of things. I found loads of things. And then, you know, it it was trying to unpick them and unpack them was really hard to come a bit of time to do that, and then it led to this. Led to me discovering about who who, Jeremy Ferrari is.
I almost said, someone who I think is one of his ancestors. His name is because he's the same person. You'll you'll learn about that eventually. I I found Farah really interesting then, and the more I I dug away, who he was and why I had to go back in time, the more I went back in time, the more these other names kept coming up. And then I realized I was on the track of something.
I couldn't work out what it was at first until I had, like, a really small group of people who were really the most important so vital to really key parts of the cause in this COVID pandemic to go out of control and lead to experimental vaccines being authorized across the world with no sort of accountability for these bloodthirsty scientists, who were desperate to make this happen before. I mean, if you look at 200,000,000, the the Ferguson was saying, and and it was nowhere near that for for, bird flu, I think it was. So so you've got you've got this constant. They wanted to spark a pandemic, and then eventually that worked. He tried over and over again to make people afraid.
And maybe if we were weak in society or the time was right, or it was better for them to manipulate back in 2006, 7, 8, 9, that they would have sparked something back then. But it was I think I think people were fed up with the wars going on. Iraq, Afghanistan, there's too many psyops. Everybody was confused and distracted that they didn't really need something on top. It's almost like, that'll only work once the government needs to distract from a load of other things, then they'll start accepting panic easier, You know?
Whether it be panic about a virus or panic about terrorism or panic about what or what what, they'll accept panic easier if they know that eventually it's gonna, meet their ends. That's it. It's a long one. This was the longest Johnny Bedmore read through so far. I hope you enjoyed it.
I hope you enjoyed it. And, and please like, share, subscribe. Come support my work. Buy me a coffee. Give me a tip.
Whatever whatever way you can support my work. I need your help. I don't get paid by big people because I write stories like this, because I write articles like this, like, get taken down from places, get hidden from places, get censored. I need your help. I need your help.
You help me. I'll write more articles. I'll do more Johnny Bed, more read throughs, and I'll dance. I'll dance for you. Oh, yes.
Anyway, thank you very much for your your time, and you have a lovely time, a lovely day. A great reset for the post Corona era.
Edge.org
edge.org
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
Brockman was born in 1941, seven months before America entered World War II. He began his career in 1965, working at the Film-Makers' Cinematheque. His mother was a registered nurse, while his father was a well-known flower broker known throughout Boston as the “carnation king”. He grew up as a Jew in an Irish Catholic neighbourhood, where he and his brother Philip regularly got into fights. Philip was a scientist by trade, being of the initial group employed by NASA to work on their space program and later retraining as a laser scientist in the 1970s. Throughout the 1960s, John Brockman was directly influenced by the composer John Cage, who handed Brockman a copy of a Norbert Wiener book entitled “Cybernetics” during a 1965 New York dinner. According to Brockman, this began his obsession with what he called “the cybernetic idea” while also influencing his desire to create more opportunities for intellectual encounters. In 1981, John Brockman founded “The Reality Club”, which saw a small group of mostly New York-based intellectuals meet for seminars on scientific topics trending amongst the intellectual Establishment. The Reality Club’s members included some of the greatest minds of the era, some of those who were attempting to push scientific frontiers to the max, such as Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker. Originally, Brockman created the Edge Foundation in 1988 but it was only once the World Wide Web had been properly developed that Edge found its home online. Edge soon became the focus of Brockman’s attention and the Reality Club was eventually reorganised into the Edge Foundation in January 1997. With the Edge Foundation online, John Brockman began to gather intellectuals. The first Edge meeting took place on 21 December 1996, and included a talk by Richard Dawkins entitled: "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder". The scientists involved in the Reality Club, and then Edge, were some of the most sought-after thinkers of the day. The offer of networking with big names was already attracting further scientific celebrities and Edge soon became central to the plans of a certain New York money-man named Jeffrey Epstein. Such networking wasn’t only successful because the regular Edge attendees were so illustrious and well-known, much of Edge’s popularity was down to John Brockman himself. Howard Rheingold, an American writer and teacher, who specialises in the cultural, social and political implications of modern communication media, once said of Brockman: “John Brockman has an uncanny way of knowing people who know something important and a talent for putting those people together.” And Rheingold’s assertion was correct, Brockman had embedded himself within the deep state Establishment from the 1960s onwards and, alongside his knack for predicting the future, he was always a successful top-flight interlocutor. As a rule of thumb, Brockman surrounded himself with movers and shakers and this took more of a scientific bent the closer he got to old age. For Brockman to understand which intellectuals he should entice, first he needed to decipher which scientific advancements were most pertinent to our unfolding reality. He wasn’t the only one who craved such knowledge. A vast array of power players could see the obvious benefits of knowing the future that the reigning intellectual elite had already predicted to emerge, and Edge was created to be a vehicle towards such ends. 🧵8/20
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
However, Brockman’s gatherings were designed to be pointedly different from most of the scientific societies of the past. Brockman was looking to create what he termed a “Third Culture” to make scientific endeavour accessible to the wider intellectual community. To understand this, we must first examine Brockman’s reason for using the term “Third Culture”. In a 1959 book by C. P. Snow entitled “The Two Cultures”, the author explained how academics were split into two diverse intellectual groups. The academics within the humanities appeared to have little to no understanding or knowledge of those intellectuals from the traditional natural sciences, and vice versa. Snow’s point was best summarised in this well-quoted part of his thesis: “A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?” To both Snow and Brockman, the general knowledge gap between social and natural scientists was a clear issue. Where both men saw the two groups as separate and distinct cultural entities, Brockman was intent on creating an alternative culture, where they could synthesise and learn from each other. Although he claimed to have been the first to attempt to bridge this intellectual divide, many organisations had wrestled with the same issue. Brockman’s intentions were clear, he knew that real power did not reside in one place and that physics, biology and chemistry could only have a significant impact on wider society if their importance were truly understood at the level where they could be implemented into policy. However hard he tried to overcome the divide between intellectuals of these distinctly separate disciplines, Brockman’s Third Culture became more of a mishmash of the elite scientific Establishment. Regardless, his organisation would have more than simple networking benefits for those involved. 🧵9/20
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
When Jeffrey Met Elon Those who attended Edge from the late 1990s were more than just scientists, essentially they were elite, rock star status, celebrity intellectuals, who had already obtained vast wealth, power and influence. Membership of Edge became inextricably linked with the ability to generate vast wealth. Those directing Edge weren’t looking to fill up stadiums with scientists of every ilk, instead, they wanted to fill up small meeting rooms with the ruling class of the elite scientific circles, and that’s exactly what they did. This gave rise to Edge’s so-called “Billionaires Dinner”. Most people who have looked into the Epstein case have seen images of Epstein attending a Billionaires Dinner or two, alongside members of his operation such as Sarah Kellen and even some of his known sex-trafficked victims like Cindy Lopez. Many of the attendees at Edge spoke highly of Epstein’s intellect, even after he had been convicted, jailed, and publicly vilified. Steven Pinker was one of those regular attendees of Brockman’s scientific gatherings who was roundly criticised in the media for his lack of regret for associating with Jeffrey Epstein, something of which Bill Gates was also guilty. However, once Epstein was arrested the second time and the case blew up in the Mainstream Media, many other regular Edge members either dissociated themselves publicly from the infamous money-man or simply refused to comment to the press. Finding direct links between Epstein and the high-profile elites who were proactively distancing themselves from him, was always going to be difficult. Especially as many of those involved can systematically censor the information. Those who were most keen to hide their connections to Jeffrey Epstein are in total control of the major social media and video platforms such as Google, YouTube, Twitter/X, Facebook and Amazon. Edge was a perfect platform to allow Epstein to network with some of the most important people in science. This includes some of the most influential people responsible for designing the technocratic panopticon taking shape around us. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, could have met Epstein on several occasions. Bezos was based in New York during the early 1990s, where he had been working his way up to becoming the vice president of D. E. Shaw’s hedge fund before he started setting up Amazon. D. E. Shaw’s founder, David Shaw himself, had become an economic policy advisor for the Clinton administration when Mark Middleton and Jeffrey Epstein visited Bill Clinton’s White House 17 times over two years. Jeff Bezos was also already turning in the same circles of the New York elite as Jeffrey Epstein. Bezos even entered into an online partnership with Sotheby’s during the late 1990s while Mega Group member and Epstein’s main funder Les Wexner was on the board of the auction house. He also shared a love of Formula One racing with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and there were plenty of other opportunities where Bezos could have interacted with Epstein, but it was at Edge where a direct connection would most likely be found. Bezos attended Brockman’s Billionaire Dinners almost religiously and was a regular participant in the courses Edge ran for their elite members. 🧵10/20
Video Transcript AI Summary
Welcome to the first part of the Epstein 101 series, focusing on the lure, grooming, and seduction techniques used by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. This series draws from extensive research for Whitney Webb's "1 Nation Under Blackmail." Epstein and Maxwell operated one of the most sophisticated child trafficking networks, targeting vulnerable young girls and women. Grooming, often misunderstood, is a multi-stage process involving manipulation and coercion. Their tactics included financial incentives and promises of opportunities, creating a false sense of security among victims. Many were drawn from poorer backgrounds, making them easy targets. The series will explore the criminal profiles of Epstein and Maxwell and the testimonies of their victims, shedding light on their heinous operations. Support for this work is crucial for its continuation. Join for more insights in upcoming parts of this series.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to a Johnny Badmoor read through with me. Your host, Johnny Badmoor. That's me. Hi. We're gonna go through, one of my series today.
We're gonna start off. It's the first of the series, so you know it's only a a limited number of series one man can have written already by this point. So I got the Uncomen series, of course, the Pottinger series. I got the Blackham series, the Schwab series. I got Data Diving series.
Couple of other bits and bobs here. I suppose I've got a couple of little miniseries here and there. Stanley Sette is a double 2 parter. The murder Stanley Sette will go through that eventually. But, this one is part 1 of and we should we should go in without any further ado.
We should get into it, and we should get talking about it. So the first thing that I do whenever I'm going to, show you an Important article. Yes. I've read it. It take you to my screen share.
Hello, and welcome, people. Welcome to newspaste.com. Because of a financial constraint, I'm trying to work out what I need to do. Maybe I need to merge johnnyvedmore.com and newspace so that you go to the same site anyway. But this is newspaced, and they roughly have the same information set up in multiple different ways, slightly different.
So I think they need to be merged eventually, but I've changed top screen of news based to make it easier for people to find previous series. As you see, you've got home, you've got post, and you've got support so that you could do those things. You could become a patron. You could buy me a coffee. These things are things you could do.
You could actually give me a WordPress plan so that, I can pay for the site, and make sure that I constantly can bring you read throughs and the like. So I said, we've been through some parts of the Schwab read through. I actually did when Kissinger died, I did the Kissinger Continuum. And the other parts, other people have done very well. Alex Thompson does a brilliant read through of Schwab Family Values.
And then other people did read throughs of Doctor. Klaus Schwab or how the CFR taught me to stop worrying and love the bomb, including a certain comedian who's very good, John f O'Donnell. John f. Donald. O'Donnell.
O'Donnell. Anyway, and then there's a Partinger series. We've done the read throughs for the pottinger series. As you see, they're in the drop down menu here. And the Youngerman series, we've done the read throughs for the first three parts of the Youngerman series.
The Daniel Korski part will come too soon. And Blackhand, we've done number 1, but we haven't done the next 4. And these ones really, really fun. Those are really fun. And I it's missing a couple of the articles here, but I've done read throughs of did you read through Pablo Melo, or did I do a NewsHound?
Well, we'll find out. David Shaw there, the genetics of Bill Gates, we did a read through of that, and the welcome five on the last couple. Who is Barbara Hewson? Theresa May's connection with, Papa's connection with a c a serial killer, we did a read through of that. The father, the son, and the Mencius Mobug will be doing a read through of very soon.
And there's a few more down there as well, who was Barbara Hewson and others. But today, we're going over here. Yes. We are. We're going to Epstein 101.
And these, I adapted from the parts I wrote for, and researched for Whitney Webb's 1 Nation Under Blackmail. I sent to basically, what was, 2 large chapters, and, did a load of other research and other things as well, 30,000 words in total, maybe more, actually, no more with the Wexner stuff. And so so, not all of it was used, and some of it then I decided to stuff that wasn't used and didn't go out For whatever reason, I decided to form into what was called the Epstein 101 series. So this was for 1 nation under blackmail, and this series has been adapted. So I I wrote this whole series afterwards.
I added to it. I also put in some parts I thought were, necessary to understand too. I don't really need these headphones on. I know that. I can understand that for sure.
So this first part thank you for joining me. This first part are the Epstein 101. It's called The Louer, Grooming and Seduction, and it's by me, Johnny Vedmore. And it's via Newspapers Originals, which is the site, newspace.com, my site. If the first part of this series in the first part of this series straight away, it should stop, shouldn't I?
Quick smoke, a drink. Maybe I should comment on this picture here. You see this picture? This picture here, of course, is not a real picture. I took her out.
I put her around the one where Epstein's got his arm out over a couch looking all cool. And that seemed like a perfect picture to go alongside it. And it really it really fit in. It's a fit into what we see Epstein and Maxwell is like, right? These young, unruly upstarts, this Bonnie and Clyde of the sexual compromise business, with a father's face lurking in the picture too.
It's, it's a real, I, I, I think it's one of the best bits of graphics and the easiest bits of graphics that I've made just to put together that easy. It was just those two pictures, and then you've got this. Like I say, very much like the Bonnie and Clyde of the, sexual compromise rather than blackmail. We'll get into that in this series, the difference between, blackmail and other forms of coercion. Epstein 101, the lure, grooming, and seduction.
In the first part of this series, we'll examine the the criminal profile of the notorious intelligence linked pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, and his main accomplices. We'll also study the selection process and techniques which Maxwell and Epstein adopted to successfully lure, groom, and seduce their young targets. Not well, this series was adapted from notes which I, made while helping with the research for 1 Nation Under Blackmail Volume 2 by Whitney Weber. Let me just, move my own screen a little bit smaller there so I can see all the letters. In among the maelstrom of varying intelligence operations that Epstein and Maxwell were involved in running at any one time any one time.
The majority of public attention has focused on the duo's grooming of minors for sexual exploitation. Indeed, throughout the 19 nineties and until around 2005, Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell ran one of the most sophisticated and unique child trafficking operations ever documented. The operation, which targeted children and young women, was implemented certainly, and the complex enterprise was more nuanced than US law enforcement agencies such as the FBI had encountered previously. In fact, while Epstein and Maxwell were beginning their many operations involving the trafficking of children and young girls, the FBI profiling methods, which were designed to identify such offenders, were only in their infancy, developmentally speaking. The word grooming may be a term which is verily used today when describing the entire process offenders use to manipulate their chosen victims.
But in actuality, grooming is a term which has only been in regular use when referring to child sexual exploitation since around 19 eighties. The use of the term grooming in relation to the abuse and manipulation of children is also often misunderstood by many people outside law enforcement and is, in fact, designed to describe just one part of a multistage process of organized child sexual exploitation. In modern times, it is a term which is often misused to generalize the entire process of what are essentially 2 different acts, the initial luring of a child victim and the grooming and or seduction of the victim. The term grooming does not apply to violent crimes against children, which are perpetrated by strangers. For instance, the offering of sweets to a child before an abductor were to kidnap their victim is not classified as a grooming technique, but instead the classic a a classic example of a lure.
Grooming generally refers to specific techniques used by some child molesters to gain access to and keep control of their child victims. The techniques a child molester employs are mostly influenced by the relationship between the offender and the victim. In an article from 1984 published in Social Service Review entitled The Justice System and Sexual Abuse of Children, The author, John Conte, describes the process of grooming accurately, stating, the perpetrator involves children in sexual abuse through a grooming process in which a combination of kindness, attention, material enticement, special privilege, and coercion are expertly applied. Conte added a footnote linking linking his own 1984 description to a 1979 book by Nicholas Groff entitled Men Who Rape, the Psychology of the Offender, which had been published by Plenham Press. Until 1987, most training seminars and official FBI programs didn't refer to this specific behavior as grooming.
But instead, they termed these actions as being part of the process of seduction. Ed Epstein controversy. Firstly, without the grooming and the exploitation of children aspect to the case, the majority of their other crimes would have probably gone largely unnoticed. And secondly, all of their other crimes became inextricably linked to the grooming and sexual abuse of unsuspecting young female victims. The act of grooming a child may seem like a very specific criminal trait, but Epstein and Maxwell also applied their grooming skills to adults, specifically people in power who had a weakness for forbidden fruit.
Epstein and Maxwell were compulsive in their exploitative behavior towards children, but they were also willing to exploit any human regardless of age to meet their operational goals. Whilst exploiting naive adults is something most people in society can suffer and tolerate to a large extent, the exploitation of children is an unforgivable act, which has made the Epstein case so well renowned. In examining the criminal behavior of Epstein and Maxwell, it's clear that they were guilty of abusing vulnerable girls. But depending on how the individual victims reacted to that abuse, they enacted different strategies to best utilize that person further. They were experts in normalizing completely outrageous behavior, and their deviant advances on their young victims and their target's initial response didn't seem to deter them from squeezing the most potential out of each of their quarry.
To understand this seemingly sadistic bent which Maxwell and Epstein showed towards their young victims, and how they could groom so many young girls to a point where those victims had become veritable sex slaves, one must first understand the category of sexual offender, which fits the criminal profiles of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. In basic criminal profiling terms, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein fit comfortably in the category of sadistic preferential child molesters. This simply means that as pedophiles, they have a sexual preference for children above adults, and that the relationship they form with their victims is based on sadistic control coercion and is essentially just a way to exert power over another human who is more vulnerable or naive due to their age and or experience. Sadistic preferential pedophiles are the most dangerous category of pedophile and are also the rarest. One of the ways in which sadistic preferential pedophiles differ to most other pedophiles is that they are likely to engage in a longer and more complex grooming process.
Epstein and Maxwell's grooming operation began properly in 19 nineties, and the majority of organizational aspects of these criminal activities were headed by Maxwell herself. Most criminal pedophile behavior experienced within society is committed not by preferential pedophiles like Epstein and Maxwell, but instead acts by criminals who are most often better categorized as situational pedophiles. Situational pedophiles will normally maintain typical sexual relationships with other adults, but situational pressure in their life will see them offend, often by downloading pedophile imagery in movies and storing them in a disorganized fashion. Preferential pedophiles are much more aware of the social taboo surrounding their actions and are more likely to be extremely organized, hiding their actions whenever possible. Epstein and Maxwell, although themselves probably best classified as sadistic preferential pedophiles, understood the sexual dynamics and the wild proclivities of their targets for influence and compromise operations.
These marks were often a mix of wealthy people who were all situated in pressure cooker like big business environments or affiliated to very stressful major political institutions or roles. Epstein and Maxwell used all of their skills and abilities to compromise these targets so they could later be manipulated into taking actions which were normally perceived as against Target's own best interests. When you examine the constituent parts of Epstein and Maxwell's industrial grooming operation, you discover that not all of the members of their team were preferential pedophiles. Instead, their group were a mix a complex mix of enablers, completely complicit coconspirators, unwitting brainwashed victims, grafting opportunists, as well as the completely naive and innocent minded. This same mix of characters also appears to be true for many of max Epstein and Maxwell's targets of their various compromised operations.
There were many people who were briefly exposed to Epsilon and Maxwell's organization and, once they saw what was really happening behind closed doors, swiftly distanced themselves from the pair. But there were also many others who knew every single detail of what was happening to the children and young girls groomed by these prolific sex offenders and who will con continue to assist them regardless. Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were experts in running a multitude of complicated, multifaceted operations simultaneously. As offenders, they were often found to be operating in a range of environments. And at each, each particular base of operations, they were regularly propagating more than one criminal endeavor at any one time.
Epstein and Maxwell were often more cunning than regular people can really grasp. Separately, they were experts in understanding effective tactics for manipulating their targets. But when they joined forces, they became almost unstoppable, using every underhand technique to meet their many sinister ends. For instance, in the late 19 nineties and through the turn of the millennium, Sotheby's auction house in New York became a fantastic base for various operations involving Ghislaine Maxwell in particular, where one could be so innocent
Speaker 1: and naive to think that Maxwell was simply passionate art
Speaker 0: lover treading the Maxwell was simply passionate art lover, treading the carpets of Sotheby's auction house in New York, looking for nothing more than a good deal, the reality was much more complex and sinister. Ghislaine wasn't a regular at Sotheby's events just to get a discount Dali, but rather the structure of Sotheby's was designed in such a way that allowed for Maxwell to be extremely influential. Within Sotheby's during this period, the elite and wealthy players in society, who the likes of Epsilon and Maxwell fed off, were busy competing among themselves to scoop up a deal during the prolonged period of exploding art prices. This access to the elite was exactly what Epsilon and Maxwell's wider operation relied on. But this isn't all Glane had to assist her at Sotheby's.
Sotheby's was under the leadership of Megagroup Grandee, a Alfred Taubman, and Les Wexner, who had both been close allies of Robert Maxwell. Also working at Sotheby's during this period was Maxwell and Epstein's close friend, Tiffany Dubin, who was the head of the fashion department at the auction house. These significantly powerful allies made Sotheby's a very controllable environment. There have also also always been severe restrictions around photography at the major auction houses, leaving whatever happened behind closed doors to remain there. This secretive nature of the major art auction houses such as Sotheby's and Christie's during this period allowed for Ghislaine Maxwell to commit one type of crime in particular, which was a specialty of the perverted duo, grooming.
Right. There you go. Here's Alfred Taubman, member of the mega group alongside Les Wexner, Rob Maxwell and others. Standing outside Sotheby's, estimate 1744. Even though Epstein and Maxwell worked within many different shady areas, nearly all of their activities included some sort of grooming.
The venues frequented by the wealthy New York elite were perfect places for Epstein and Maxwell to recruit potential collaborators, network with well connected establishment players, all potential targets for their influence and compromise operations. But these havens for the rich were also perfect places for Maxwell to find young aspiring female artists, which she often referred to as Gallerinas. These young ladies, who can be considered as prime targets of Ghislaine Maxwell and her billionaire Pedar's boyfriend, were often unassuming talented young women who were looking for a break in the art business, which made them fantastically easy game for wealthy and well connected predators like Maxwell. By the time Maxwell had coined the term Gallarinas, this group had evolved their grooming operation quite significantly. Many of their targets for sexual exploitation were not only talented young women who had been lured into the proverbial lion's den.
Much of Maxwell's operations is much more reminiscent of a cliched, but unfortunately often true, image of a dirty oak man offering sweets to children at the school gates. Epstein was key to grooming the wealthy and elite through sexual compromise and influence operations. But for that exploitation of young girls to occur, he required human fuel for their perverted fireplace. Ghislaine Maxwell was the person who was tasked with heading up the operation to identify and groom children and vulnerable young girls for the powerful elites to exploit and abuse. But Maxwell was also tasked with supplying herself and Jeffrey Epstein with a regular flow flow of vulnerable girls they could exploit and abuse also.
During that experience, the victims all enacted various coping mechanisms to deal with their abuse. One of the main things that Maxwell and Epstein were looking for were girls who could be manipulated into participating into a range of further activities. They only met their evil ends by going through the known and studied techniques associated with the despicable crime of child sexual exploitation. Let's break down the stages that Maxwell and Epstein used to capture, coerce, control, and manipulate their victims. Firstly, as is commonly known as is common knowledge, any predator must initially attack their prey.
Attract. Sorry. Attract to attack. The lure. In the United States, luring a minor for sexual exploitation is a class 3 felony.
And if the minor is under 15 years of age, it is supposed to be considered an even more serious crime. The luring of young girls in order for them to be sexually exploited is the, the, initial stage of a very long and sinister process of human control and coercion. Jeffrey Epstein's standard operation mainly revolved around a female proxy offering a potential young victim financial incentives in return for a simple massage. The initial massage usually became a coercive and forceful grooming technique. And afterwards, extra money was offered to the victim if they could successfully recruit other girls from their schools or individual friendship groups, often from the poorer areas of West Palm Beach, West of Palm Beach.
If the girls didn't manage to immediately extricate themselves effectively from this cabal of wealthy pedophiles and their many enablers, then they usually became the beneficiaries of further, more complex lures, which may include various gifts, opportunities to travel to far off places and even, in some cases, an entire education. These lures act as further incentives meant to suck their targets deeper into a twisted cycle of sexual abuse and leaving them to feel, in essence, captors. In the 2021 criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, minor victim 4, who was testifying under her first name, Carolyn, was a Florida victim of Jeffrey Epstein, who was sexually abused by him up to 3 times a week for several years. Caroline would testify that Glenn Maxwell routinely called us, to schedule massages and eventually invited the young girl to Epstein's private island. Carolyn was only 14 when Epstein began to abuse her, and she received a few $100 after giving Epstein a massage that finished with the perverted billionaire masturbating while he touched her.
Carolyn told the court, I was young, and $300 was a lot of money to me. She also testified that Epstein molested her more than a 100 times between 2,012,004 at his Palm Beach mansion. Once Carolyn was inside the group, she was offered further financial incentives by Epstein Maxwell and their close collaborators to engage in other sexual behavior. Carolyn testified that Sarah Kellen snapped nude photos of her in order on the orders of Jeffrey Epstein whilst there was no one else present. She told the court that she had received a phone call from Kevin, who told her that she would get paid 500 to $600 if she was allowed to take further nude photographs of her.
Epstein eventually pressurized Carolyn into bringing him younger friends, and she recruited 3 girls who were approximately the same age as she was at the time. She told the court in 2021 that she was paid $600 for luring in other victims. Carolyn would also tell the court that Epstein had asked me if I had any friends my age or younger. She responded on that occasion by telling the Peterborough billionaire, I don't hang out with younger people, but I have some friends I can ask. The act of giving these vulnerable young girls from the poorer parts of town money, gifts, and opportunities which were other otherwise unavailable to them was not only a successful technique to attract new blood to the operation, but it would also prime the victims with a powerful psychological fallacy.
After the girls had been abused and had received enough incentives, they often got caught in a simple fallacy trap, believing that they were in too deeply they were too deeply involved to, complain or get away from their captors, with most seeing themselves as complicit. With a false sense of responsibility instilled in their victims, Epstein and Maxwell had successfully captured hold of their lure. A very well documented example of how Maxwell used a stereotypical lure to recruit vulnerable girls is that of the much maligned Haley Robson. Robson. Sorry.
Haley was a vulnerable young girl who was in college when she was first offered a lucrative opportunity for such a young girl. The New York Times reported that Haley Robson was 16 year old high school student when she was approached by an acquaintance in Palm Beach Swimming Pool. Her friend asked her if she wanted to make money giving massages to a local billionaire. At the time, Robson was a Palm Beach Community College student from near Loch actually, Loch actually. And she soon had her first experience of Jeffrey Epstein's wandering hands.
Although Robson dismissed Epstein's advances very early on, showing her assertiveness, she had obviously also impressed Epstein in some other way, and she was soon offered more lucrative opportunity. This was the moment in which Hailey Robson began to be groomed, anchor worst, into recruiting other girl other local girls. Hailey was later accused of rounding up dozens of high school girls from impoverished rural populations just outside the Palm Beach area for Epstein and Maxwell. Robson received $200 payment for each new masseuse she brought to Epstein's home. According to police reports, court papers suggest, according to police reports, court papers suggest that Epstein thought that young miss Robson targeting these girls from poorer area bought the operation less attention and that any potentially distressed victims were less likely to go to the authorities.
In a later court deposition, Haley stated, I didn't have to convince them. I proposed to them. They took it. In October 2020, it was reported in Okay Magazine that police interviews from the time of Haley Robson's initial arrest in 2,005 suggested that she truly believed she was helping them by setting up these appointments with Epstein. Although she claimed complete innocence, Robson also famously compared herself to the so called Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss during one interview with Palm Beach Police.
She also said to the police that she was told off by Epstein for bringing back a woman of 23, with the detective noting that Robson had been told by Epstein, the younger, the better. Haley Robson during her appearance as part of ep Jeffrey Epstein's Filthy Rich, Dodgy documentary, in my opinion. Each individual that Maxwell and Epstein recruited into the wider op their wider operations had their own individual experience of being groomed. Maxwell and Epstein reacted fluidly when grooming young girls using responsive and adaptive techniques tailor made for their individual targets. Haley Bobson had refused Epstein's advances very early on, which had showed courage, But she was still a vulnerable young girl whose brain had not yet formed enough to understand the true gravity of the situation in which she had become embroiled.
She wasn't perceived as a candidate for further sexual grooming or to be used in compromise or influence operations. Instead, the spunky young lady was groomed by Maxwell and Epstein to become a recruiter and to bring them further victims. Haley Robson eventually got much criticism for her actions. And while some of what she did could be seen as entirely complicit, children and young people can easily be instilled with a false sense of moral and ethical values by people who they admire or who they see as appropriate senior role models. Haley Robson was groomed to recruit with a classic lure of cash and other rewards, but some were groomed for a range of more clandestine and secretive operations.
Epstein and Maxwell created an entire alternative reality within their various bases of operations. Epstein's Palm Beach property became an opaque bow bubble of immoral and unethical control where the abuse of young girls had been normalized. The offer of $200 to a young teenage girl for bringing their school friends into this criminal enterprise cannot be undervalued as a powerful tactic. Further victims have testified to their own abuse at the hands of Epstein and Maxwell having begun when they received a note in class or in a school in a school playground. And by the time each one of those girls had crossed over the threshold of Epsilon's Palm Beach residence, they'd leave instilled with a feeling of shame and firmly holding on to a secret that they'd be unlikely to ever reveal.
Although offering money to young girls who were from poor communities paid major dividends in relation to the successful recruitment of young victims, other victims were offered opportunities instead of cash rewards. Most of them never materialized. A court testimony from 2021, a survivor referred to as Jane Doe 11, stated, he promised me that he would write me a letter of recommendation for Harvard if I got the grades and scores needed for admission. He his word was worth a lot, he assured me, as he was in the midst of funding and leading Harvard study on human brain. And the president was his friend.
Mhmm. Epstein, once in a locked room with the aforementioned witness, threatened to kill her and then raped her. Maric Chiatouni also testified to having a similar experience of being lured into Epstein's orbit of influence by Glenn Maxwell stating, she told me he went to Cooper's Union. He was a mathematical genius, that he had favorite girls, that he would take her to Chanel for 15 minute all you can buy shopping trips. She told me his right hand person had connections to the arts and fashion world, and she could help me.
Many victims of Jeffrey Epstein were not lured into these situations via low level recruitment efforts seen in such places as the poorer area of West Palm Beach. Some were also lured for much more sophisticated overlapping operations in much more high class settings. The child sexual exploitation operations, which was run by Epstein and Maxwell, didn't only target local teenagers of Palm Beach or the young Gallerinas of New York. The operation was global. 1 of the young girls who was a victim of Epstein was also one of the people who would be later accused of being a willing accomplice.
Ma Nadia Masinkova was a Yugoslavian teen who became known as Epstein's personal sex slave and assistant. But in Nadia's case, there appeared to be no Louis involved. It is widely reported that Marcinkova had been purchased by the Peter Pau billionaire. It is almost impossible to contemplate the reality of what Nadia Marcinkova had to endure and how that affected her behavior afterwards. But she has also, been accused of participating in sex acts by some of Epstein's other victims.
Police records suggest that investigators had indications that Marcinkova could be have been underage herself when she was purchased by Epstein. Marcinkova later changed her name to Marcinko and declined to
Speaker 1: answer questions about Epstein's abuse of girls when she
Speaker 0: was deposed in a lawsuit. The had many different means at their disposal to aid them in luring young girls from all different walks of life. But regardless of their ability to attract a wide range of girls, there were one group of young women who were always easiest to enslave. That vulnerable group which I speak of are those young girls who'd already previously experienced abuse. It is hard for anyone to effectively overcome the experience of being groomed for sexual exploitation, yet let alone the experience of being sexually abused or raped.
Many people who have previously been groomed and abused by pedophiles are considered as being psychologically primed for potential further abuse. Once someone has been abused for a prolonged period of time, they begin to enact both conscious and unconscious coping mechanisms to manage the heightened stress and fear levels they experience. Once these survivors are exposed to further abuse in the future, they can easily slip back into automatic psychological avoidance mechanisms, which their psyche have enacted previously. One of the most prominent and vocal Epstein survivors, Virginia Robert Roberts Guthrie or Guthrie Roberts, had already been a victim of child abuse and was the perfect target for elite pedophiles. Virginia Roberts was only 16 years old when she claims to have first been lured by the author of a career from Ghislaine Maxwell while she was working in the locker as a locker room assistant at Donald Trump's Mar a Lago resort in Florida.
She has said that she was desperate for the opportunity, which can provide her with security and stability. She had longed for all through her childhood. The stability she had longed for for all through her childhood. Maxwell and Epstein took advantage of this eagerness which Virginia showed to forge a better life, and they lured her into a situation where they could begin to abuse her. The human psyche deals with unresolved sexual, physical, or psychological abuse in may in ways many of us can never understand.
When someone has experienced prolonged systematic abuse, they often, to the frustration of everyone who cares for them, return to the abuser. This also applies to someone who is abused by more than one person in their life. Quite simply, people who have unresolved experience of previous abuse are statistically much more likely to gravitate towards being in another be abusive relationship. Some of those people never manage to struggle free of this cycle of abuse while some go on to act out their own trauma on others. Epstein and Maxwell used various lures to coax each of their young victims into their circles.
But for some of the victims, the real lure was a false sense of security which came from being within an abusive relationship. And Epstein and Maxwell had plenty of abuse to go around. The second part of the Epsilon 101 series, we'll learn about the victims and some of their testimony relating to Maxwell and Epstein's use of grooming techniques. And here are the sources. Because I was writing it for 1 Nation under blackmail, I kept all the sources maintained in very classic source format.
So this was what what I was asked how I was asked to keep it. And so I've, I made sure these are all shared as well. Like I say, a lot of this wasn't, wasn't there, but, wasn't included. Some of this wasn't included in the book, so it's useful to know where it did come from. You can, at the end of all of these, I mean, you the Support page will give you other opportunities, but if you just want to support me in a different way, just scan and support.
You can become a patron. Buy me a coffee is really useful really useful for me. And becoming a patron is really useful, of course. I need help. Seriously, I don't know quite how I'm gonna keep going.
I keep saying that, but that's because that's how it is. But this is part 1 of a series, which is, of course, gives you a fundamental understanding of certain parts of the Epsilon and Maxwell's operation. And this first part was really about, the lure, grooming, and seduction. And what that would that was what a lot of their most famous enterprise was built on, luring young girls, grooming them, and then getting something back from that, you know, their input and output. And these they they were young.
When they started this after, they were young, and they developed their technique. They were younger, and they developed their techniques very well. And it is, like, truly a modern intelligence Bonnie and Clyde operation. I think even though it's obviously they've got connections to CIA, Mi5, Mi6, Israeli intelligence, they've got links to it all. They they were based in America.
That can't be understated. The Americans knew what were going on the entire time, and a lot of the people who worked with them were CIA. So it's clear that they were they were in in the loop. So that is the first of the, of the Epsilon 101 read throughs. And, some of the some of course, with read throughs, some of them will be shorter, and some of them will be longer.
So I'm not quite sure how long this has run to at the moment. I would think it's between 45 minutes and an hour. But the, the Wellcome Trust one I did last was, 15,000 words, and that took 2 hours to read through. So, please like, share, subscribe, you know, the the the usual, but also, support my work. I need support.
I am completely independent. I can only make this sort of work if I'm can remain independent. If you wanna ask me anything, my DMs are open on various platforms. Best get me on easiest to get me on Twitter, x. And I hope you enjoyed that.
Join me again for another Johnny Redmore read through at some point. I will appreciate your presence. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 1: you.
Speaker 2: Like Prime Minister Trudeau,
Speaker 1: President of Argentina and so on.
Speaker 2: So we penetrate the cabinets.
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
From the late 90s onwards, almost every top member of the future ruling technocratic Establishment was involved with Edge. Bill Gates of Microsoft was a regular, Sergey Brin of Google was also a stalwart attendee and the presence of Nathan Myhrvold of Intellectual Ventures should not be understated either. Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, who were also representing Google, were noted at Edge events, alongside Anne Wojcicki of 23andMe and Elon Musk, who was representing Space X and Tesla during the period he was attending Edge. Elon Musk has managed to remain distant and detached from the Epstein case. There is one photo in particular of Musk alongside Ghislaine Maxwell which has been heavily shared online and is often used as proof of some form of the connection between Musk and Epstein. However, evidentially speaking, a single photo of Musk and Maxwell is pretty inconclusive. This is especially so seeing as Ghislaine Maxwell regularly photo-bombed elites at high-brow events as part of her repertoire. It was also reported by Business Insider that Maxwell asked Musk on that occasion to “destroy the internet”. We know that Elon Musk had a profile page on http://Edge.org and we also know that he had attended a few well-documented meetings. It may have been difficult to find concrete evidence that Elon Musk was in the same room as Jeffrey Epstein, but it was not impossible. Epstein and Musk were both at one exclusive Edge event in particular. Only about 25 people attended the Edge Billionaires Dinner of 2011, an event which took place just after Jeffrey Epstein had been released from prison for his initial conviction. It was revealed in a BuzzFeed News article that Epstein was at the Billionaires Dinner that year. He was even caught in a blurry photo at the event which was also published by Buzz Feed News. However, what the reporters failed to notice in that article is that Elon Musk was actually in the same photo, too. You can see Jeffrey Epstein sitting at the same table as Zack Bogue of Montara Capital Partners, and just 3 metres away from Epstein is Elon Musk. Musk was attending the event alongside his then-wife Talulah Musk. Elon and Talulah had married a year before the event in question and they had divorced a year after. John Brockman was in attendance alongside his son Max Brockman who was managing Brockman Inc. Nathan Myhrvold, Jeff Bezos and Sergey Brin were also in attendance. Salar Kamangar represented YouTube, reporter David Brooks was there for the New York Times and even musician Peter Gabriel was noted amongst the attendees at the dinner. Jeffrey Epstein had become significantly more low profile after his prison term, so he’s not officially listed as an attendee at the event, but he was there, as we can see from one blurry photo taken at the dinner by Nathan Myhrvold and published on http://Edge.org. Although this photo shows Elon Musk and Jeffrey Epstein at the same Edge event, there was more to find. Tracing Elon Musk’s involvement with Edge while it was almost fully funded by Jeffrey Epstein leads us to a much more significant and worrying course: the standardisation of government-sponsored psychological operations to systematically manipulate an unwitting public. 🧵11/20
Edge.org
edge.org
Edge.org
edge.org
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
Elon Musk’s Training in Psychological Manipulation Funded by Epstein The psychological manipulation of the masses via various intelligence-linked programs is well-documented. The officially sanctioned, government-led programming of the general population is not a conspiracy theory, it has become accepted by many as a mainstream method to enact control. Such abhorrent and underhand manipulation used to be resigned to the realm of secretive and subversive intelligence programs or campaigns run by major PR companies, but that changed abruptly once Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein took their brand of behavioural economics on the road. It was the Democratic Party under Barack Obama that first welcomed the creators of what were eventually termed “nudge units” into the White House. This led to government-attached units set up to subtly “nudge" people into changing their behaviour on behalf of those who wish to control the future direction of society. In the United Kingdom, Richard Thaler also found a friend in David Cameron and his Conservative Party administration, and they soon created what was termed the behavioural insight unit in the United Kingdom. The British Governments during this period were already ahead of Thaler in many regards. In 2004, Tony Blair’s New Labour produced a paper entitled: “Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour: the state of knowledge and its implications for public policy”. Within this fascinating example of the Government overstepping what may be considered appropriate to the electorate, part of the paper “reviews the growing body of knowledge about alternative, and perhaps more subtle, ways in which government might affect personal behaviour.” The paper concludes that the use of behavioural change would be positive for government policy, stating: “Looking to the future there is an evident need to strengthen our theoretical and empirical understanding of what drives behaviour and behavioural change. Just as important will be the wider testing out of policy tools to develop a more sophisticated toolkit for policy-makers. Policy should not simply proclaim personal responsibility or blame, but needs to be shaped around the ways in which people actually think and feel, and the social and psychological forces that influence behaviour.” It wasn’t only the Tory government which was cooing at Richard Thaler. In a Guardian article from 12 July 2008, entitled: “From Obama to Cameron, why do so many politicians want a piece of Richard Thaler?”, New Labour’s Richard Reeves is also noted as desperate to get Thaler aboard, with Aditya Chakrabortty writing: "”There was a time when Labour would have been all over Thaler and Downing Street would have pulled him in for a chat. Now, it's the other side that are showing they are open to new ideas," says former government adviser Richard Reeves. "Sadly, that tells you where the intellectual energy is in British politics." Reeves has taken it upon himself to organise a dinner next Tuesday with Thaler and some government advisers and thinktankers from the centre left." After Richard Thaler, described as “the father of behavioural economics”, published his book in 2008, entitled: “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness”, those who wanted to manipulate people's behaviour began to flock to him. It wasn’t only Cameron and Obama who understood how the study of behavioural economics could be applied generally to change the behaviour of the general population. This was the perfect tool to systematically manufacture consent amongst the voting population and, if applied industrially, had the potential to change the entire world. 🧵12/20
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
Brockman and Epstein saw many benefits in Thaler’s teachings. They had certain aspects of total technological control covered; they had the ear of many world leaders, they had introduced the Third Way politics of the future into the public arena, with its creator Anthony Giddens also being involved in Edge; but they were yet to figure out how to manufacture the consent of the voting population efficiently. This was where Thaler’s newly created strain of behavioural economics came into play. Behavioural economics was the Establishment’s best hope for achieving change amongst regular people, most importantly, without those targeted realising how or why they were being manipulated. In 2008, Thaler was an attendee at the San Francisco dinner held by Edge, but this wouldn’t be his only involvement with Brockman and Epstein’s organisation. Thaler also went to Edge specifically to train an extremely select group of Edge members in his newly developed branch of psychological operations. In October 2008, Edge hosted a course, funded by Jeffrey Epstein, which focused on this new form of behavioural science. Richard Thaler and Sendhil Mullainathan, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, designed the six-part course themselves. This course was designed to be a “master class” something which the Edge website claimed was “the most recent iteration of Edge's development,” and had begun the previous year. The first Edge master class of 2008 was called: “Libertarian Paternalism: Why it is Impossible Not to Nudge”, while the second in the master class series was entitled: “Improving Choices with Machine Readable Disclosure”. The second part of the Edge Master Class saw only eight Edge members in attendance: Jeff Bezos, Nathan Myhrvold, Salar Kamangar, Daniel Kahneman, Danny Hilis, Paul Romer, Elon Musk and Sean Parker, while the third part also saw George Dyson and France LeClerc join the group. This wasn’t a random group of thinkers, these were some of the most powerful movers and shakers in the digital world. This Edge event saw the leading experts of behavioural economics training the very top echelons of Google, Amazon, YouTube, Space X, Intellectual Ventures, Facebook and Peter Thiel’s Founder Fund. Alongside Thaler and Mullainathan, Daniel Kahneman is one of the leading experts in not only behavioural economics but also cognitive psychology and the processes behind judgement and decision-making. Thaler and Kahneman started working together in the 1970s when Thaler arrived at Stanford. Kahneman also had a close business relationship with Richard Thaler by sitting on the board of Fuller and Thaler Asset Management, Inc. The attendees of this Edge Master Class would soon become the most powerful people in the world, more powerful than any president, prime minister or king. Paul Romer is an American economist and policy entrepreneur, who later became Chief Economist for the World Bank in 2016 and eventually shared a Nobel Prize in Economics alongside William Nordhaus. The year before the Edge event in question, Salar Kamangar replaced the founder of YouTube, Chad Hurley, as CEO of YouTube and, in February 2014, he left the company. Kamangar was replaced as CEO at YouTube by another staunch Edge regular, Susan Wojcicki. Danny Hillis had previously worked at Disney and had co-founded Applied Minds, but by this time he had founded Metaweb Technologies which was later acquired by Google. The infamous creator of Napster, Sean Parker, was already invested in Facebook by this point. However, maybe more notably, Parker had become a managing partner at Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, a San Francisco-based venture capital fund. The founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, was already a powerful mover and shaker by 2008, while Nathan Myhrvold’s Intellectual Ventures controlled almost 70,000 patents and patents pending at its peak. 🧵13/20
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk is viewed as a construct shaped to oppose the establishment, embodying a blend of defection and infiltration. The establishment, characterized by a unipolar power structure, now faces challenges from populist movements. Musk's vision diverges from traditional establishment views, advocating for meritocracy and addressing crime, which contrasts with the prevailing narratives. The discussion touches on historical influences, such as Herman Kahn's ideas versus those of the Club of Rome, highlighting competing visions for the future. Political realignments are seen as both manufactured and organic, with figures like Musk shifting from Democrat to Republican, potentially bringing their agendas into play. This evolving landscape suggests a complex interplay of power, where a counter elite may emerge, necessitating vigilance against their influence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So let's start off, my friend, as promised, and speak about Elon Musk. I have made the case on this show, on my social media posts, and in some of my other work that I believe Elon Musk to be a construct, selected, trained, molded, and designed to do everything we currently see him do. I see him playing the part of the antithesis of the establishment. Am I wrong, mistaken, or do you think I have it nailed?
Speaker 1: You know, I I sympathize with the view, and many times I've I've thought the same. As time progresses, I'm more inclined to believe that he represents, more of a defection than an infiltration. Maybe a bit of both, but as far as the establishment goes, you know, you think of, like the way I consider the establishment from an American point of view is the first and foremost what was a unipolar power structure, right, an American led globe that has in recent years dissolved into much more of a multipolar geopolitical arrangement. And a lot of American politics, especially democratic left wing politics, but also kind of normicon politics absolutely get their talking points from the kind of World Economic Forum group. Right?
The ideological hub there, also the UN, EU, Chatham House, all of these different organizations, Bilderberg, all these different organizations, you can see how those ideas trickle into American politics in very direct ways. So when you talk about the establishment, it already becomes kind of murky. But, you can see for certain that Wall Street, the military industrial complex largely driven by the US, the corporate structure of the US and all the major players who form at least, something like a monopoly over various sectors of the economy, Then you have the government that is by and large under those organizations. Occasionally, the government will be able to disrupt them, but for the most part, most of our politicians are bought and controlled. And then the media really functions as a mouthpiece for these.
And, you know, just to add one more element, you've got the intel agencies. Right? And but there are multiple intel agencies in the US, and they are definitely at cross purposes with one another. And within those intel agencies, there is a decom compartmentalized structure, which means that there are gonna be a lot of different agendas playing out, oftentimes under the same leaders. So this American establishment as a whole, I think has proven itself to be by and large against the interests of the populace.
That's why you have all these populist movements coming up. That's why Donald Trump came to power in 2016. Things have changed a lot since then, though. And so, you know, as you rightly note, now you see much more of an alignment with what we would consider to be that establishment. Right?
The the Wall Street military, corporate, you know, and and kinda normie governmental structure. And again, many of the media talking points, although we'll set that aside. But what I see more than anything is that you do have all of these kind of conflicting factions. And so in the case of Elon Musk, he is, as you say, he was trained to do what he is doing right now, which is to create a technological infrastructure and also to project a technological vision of the future for people to follow into. Right?
For people to follow along with. That I agree with completely. But more and more, I think that how this is done and in what direction it's going, that these are very much divergent from what has been the establishment point of view. The establishment point of view was was very much sort of a vision of stability, a quasi socialist, ruled by more corporate entities, but, you know, kind of quasi socialist, lefty, liberal, PC, multinational, multicultural blob. And I don't have any reason to believe that when Elon Musk is advocating for closing off the border and stopping immigration, when Elon Musk is advocating for meritocracy as opposed to the DEI model, when Elon Musk is talking about crime and the need to eliminate crime rather than to kind of foment crime in in order to, you know, take advantage of the instability as we see it being kind of the the the normie, way.
And also, Elon Musk's promotion of kind of, you know, of the western chauvinism. Whether you like that or not, as as put these ideas or that that sort of vision for the future, I do think that that is the flavor that he is trying to paint what is otherwise the kind of sim a similar AI, Cyborg, robot, genetic engineering sort of model for what this future should be. All that is in place, but it's that direction that makes a difference. And just to close that off, I I think that it the the reason that the distinction should be made is that if we, as regular people, have any hope whatsoever of imposing our will on this future to take our own futures in a different direction that the establishment or the kind of Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen sort of model, if we have any hope of that, I do think that we'll have to at least recognize where these bifurcations are occurring and to take advantage of them in any ways we can, and we're already very, very limited. And so if it was just one blob, right, if it was just one big monster, I I think that that would be very easy to solve because you could just locate the center of that monster, right, like the death star, and and blow it up.
But if it's, you know, dozens of death stars orbiting the Earth, then it's a much different problem. And, you know, I guess one could hope that these death stars destroy each other without destroying us or, that some other arrangement can be had. But, yeah, I do see I do see real distinctions. I see distinctions within the transhumanism movement. I see distinctions within the various agendas that are being pushed at the World Economic Forum over time and even at any given time.
So, you know, it may not ultimately make that much of a difference. It may ultimately amount to a big capital m machine, but I I think that it looks more to me like a fleet of machines that are are in many ways breaking away and the choices are being made. Which which types of machines will be embraced and also which direction is the fleet going to go? Who is going to command the fleet? I think that these questions are actually up for grabs.
Speaker 0: That vision of the future you talk about, that many of these people share, they just share the difference of where what that future kinda looks like. And maybe some of that is, of course, you know, them, squabbling over the power over who's going to to be, in charge of that future. It had to really start somewhere, start a a point where people said this is the vision of the future and I would point to 1967, 1968, there was a lot happening, but I've written about, Herman Kahn's work with Abdi j Weiner, on the year 2000, which basically predicted all of the technologies that we see coming in the future, and they were very accurate. It's they've managed to nail most of them down, and and we can see them being developed as we go. At the same time, they were also saying to in to create this world, we will all need to be in some form of unity.
So they were writing up an ancillary document within this at the same time, that was a state department funded ancillary document, which, talked about educating leadership groups outside society, dumbing down, the normal education establishments of society, and focusing on creating this the western poll, the American, British, and European poll of globalism. Do you do you talk now about a a fleet, but didn't that fleet manifest from really as a a an idea by a very small group?
Speaker 1: You know, Herman Kahn's a really good touch point for this. Right? So you've got with Herman Kahn, you know, coming out of Rand Corporation and then the Hudson Institute, Kahn had a monstrous imagination. He had a monstrous vision of the world. It was coupled with, a high degree of intellectual rigor, but, I mean, Herman Kahn's proposals, for instance, that nuclear war won't necessarily be that bad.
And that perhaps we should have it on the table for a first strike because, you know, we'll be okay. And even if we're not, we'll figure out ways to give the old people the radioactive water and give the young people the clean water so that long term we'd make it. I mean, these are monstrous ideas. He talked about spraying the the populace if you had an uprising of blacks in America. You could spray them with sedatives to put them down.
He he he just had a very, very monstrous point of view, and it it it has been incorporated into, what we now call the neocon structure in America. I actually, debated, a man from the Hudson Hudson Institute not long ago on the point of, artificial intelligence being used, at well, first off being embraced but then being used in in a a weapon system, where in a global system. And my position, of course, being that this is all madness, but, his position being this is necessary for American power. Herman Kahn is at the center of this. Right?
But you you had another antithetical poll, and I think that these really are in direct oppositions. You had people like Paul Ehrlich with the population bomb, and you had the whole Club of Rome Limits to Growth movement. And even though that movement would go on to be infused in much of the World Economic Forum ideology, that stands in direct opposition to many of Herman Kahn's ideas. Herman Kahn wanted unipolar western power, and Herman Kahn wanted people like Musk. He was very much pronatalist.
He wanted people to breed like rabbits, at least Americans, so that and and westerners, so that we could then dominate the planet. Whereas the the more technocratic in the the traditional sense, and and the more kind of, egalitarian, equitable, and and nature oriented viewpoint of Ehrlich and Meadows and all the people in and around that that Club of Rome movement wanted to rather kind of har or, like, to to tamp that down, to suppress this this will to power in order to both limit the gross of growth of, human population and human industry, but also to make room for for nature. There's a lot of kinda nature loving in it. So that really they really are yes. Both of them have all these, like, monstrous views.
Ehrlich is famous for his very callous ideas as to how the human population could be reduced and called. But these are these are just basically, we find ourselves as normal. I maybe shouldn't call myself normal, but as regular people, then, at this lower economic level with very little power, we find ourselves in many ways at the mercy of these monsters who are who are vying for these these bifurcated and just multiple visions of the future. So, again, I I think that, yes. I mean, you're right that you you should be looking at these these centers of power, especially far back in the past, that had this profound influence.
You'd mentioned, Musk's family, and I think that that's also really important. But at the same time, as we do go into this future, as it does unfold, I think that the the differing camps, it offers more confusion. It offers more, possibility for, I I guess, a a scapegoating of 1 group, and then, therefore, that, you know, a new monstrous future arises as we attack this one. But it does also for it creates cracks and fissures and instability. And I I have at least some hope, and I have never known for my my great hopefulness, but some hope that in the long run, this will allow for, those of us who do not want to live into that kind of future to, chart our own paths at least as as best we can.
Speaker 0: Competitive. Now I posted up yesterday's monologue about Ballroom of Power, and you responded by adding a post you previously written which makes some similar points and was very, very similar. However, I still believe that power is focused and often results in many conspiracies which benefit a hidden hand, regardless of who that hidden hand is. Is there a relatively small hidden cabal dictating world events, or is that way too simplistic?
Speaker 1: I would say that power is absolutely concentrated in very, very few hands. It doesn't mean to say that they are the that there's any one single cabal under the Alps, or, you know, under, you know, Israel or under, the Moscow. But it it it does it is to say that these there are many mountain peaks, but each of those mountains has a peak. And those peaks are oftentimes communicating with each other and even if they do even if they conflict from our perspective at the lower level of the mountain, it might as well be one peak in many ways. But but it it it doesn't mean though that they are always aligned.
So, I I would say yes, but, yes, power is absolutely concentrated. There is an oftentimes in ways that are not readily evident to the public. But, my sense, especially in the last 3 years of being involved in politics, is that it is all a production, but it is not necessarily all fake. And behind the scenes I've worked in entertainment my entire adult life. Behind the scenes, behind that production is even more chaos than would appear to the our outer world.
Speaker 0: Yep. I I would agree with that. Now I I'm trying to also understand how that manifests, how it it becomes, like this in the first place. So even in my notion of the ballroom of power, I believe the best conspirators will win out regardless of whether they're competing entities or working ensemble. If at any given time power resides in a certain place, wouldn't that lead a small amount of power brokers, be to be in charge of our destiny?
And isn't that, in a sense, a small hidden group which are controlling the future and maybe then that turns into fleets?
Speaker 1: I mean, there have been a few ideological movements in the last couple of centuries that dreamt of the populace having real control. A few centuries, really, democracy is one such idea. Republic is another. A constitutional republic is in America. Marxism obviously has, at least at its basis, this idea that ultimately after the dictatorship, has run out of uses then all the, you know, we live in a stateless society and then of course anarchists.
So there there are visions in which power will not necessarily be concentrated or overly concentrated, but, realistically, for the next decade, 2 decades, the rest of our lives, we can expect there to be power brokers who are going to wield undue influence over everything, whether it be politics, the economy, even religious, inspiration. And so, to again, to carve out a path as the people or as I prefer to think that many, many peoples to carve out our paths into this future, you have to, a, recognize exactly what you're saying that we live in a world that is going to inevitably be hierarchical, and there are going to be power structures that are gonna be working against our interests. But, yeah, the the diversity at the top of that, I think, is also important.
Speaker 0: One of the things I think about the idea that that, you know, there's a very small amount of people who start off with a certain conspiracy, and then, you know, it branches out to being lots of people involved in making that so. But we're entering into a new stage with AI. If those many elites who are, in my opinion, conspiring together, using technology such as AI to focus their fire and create a combined narrative, then wouldn't AI eventually be their proxy by which they can control the narrative completely, drive the agenda, and take control of the society? Again, starting from a small amount of people visioning having this vision, many people input been involved in implementing it, back down to a very small amount of people who have control.
Speaker 1: Maybe one of the things that, really does disturb me, and at this point, I'm pretty numbed to most of it, but the idea that you would have one or many powers who utilize AI for surveillance, psychological manipulation, or security services both, external and domestic, and and they would gain so much power that that it would become either a multiple monoliths across the planet or a single monolith that would be in many ways indestructible. Right now, that's all kind of a vision out into the future. Everyone's scrambling for it. But one of the points you made, especially, like, I I think that this this idea that if we just keep it in a kinda simple, in a simple, schema, the World Economic Forum versus Elon Musk. Many people have pointed out, you pointed out many many times and accurately so that Elon Musk and the World Economic Forum share a lot of the same visions of the future.
You look at Klaus Schwab's 4th industrial revolution and it might as well be a blueprint for Elon Musk's companies with some differences. Right? But, what Klaus Schwab is doing, I mean, he's he's a kind of PR mouthpiece for these people. And what he's talking about, by and large, is people like Elon Musk, but he's also talking about people like Peter Thiel, also talking like peep about people like Larry Page, now Sam Altman coming to prominence, Bill Gates, obviously, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, on and on and on, plus all of their proxies at Baidu and Tencent and China and various in Israel. So what I see there is, like, this 4th industrial revolution is unquestionable.
Right? That is where we're at. We are at this point of the convergence of the physical, digital, and biological. And I I don't think that is driven so much by the World Economic Forum as it is that the World Economic Forum is attempting to steer it in a direction, in in which the the those who are centered in that ideological hub will benefit. And so with Elon Musk, I mean, he he ticks all the boxes.
Like I say, x AI pushing towards artificial general intelligence. Neuralink pushing towards a a a neurological and and spiritual connection with the AI. The Optimus slave bots, the Starlink system, which is now the vast majority of active satellites in the sky forming a comms network for all of this to operate. The DOD associations, especially with SpaceX, giving, you know, a kind of military might to the system. The you know, and before before the the the vax debacle, Elon Musk was very much in favor of mRNA, things like that for, you know, human biological manipulation.
His CureVac company produced, or his partnership with CureVac, with Tesla, was involved in all that. So, you know, he's part of it. But, again, the Elon Musk's vision does, I think, many ways, really, you can distinguish his vision from Sam Altman even despite their previous relationship. And the direction of AI, it won't it won't necessarily be just let's just assume that these AIs will be 70% as effective, at solving the world's problems and creating radical abundance and and and political dominance. If that's the case, if we are in a situation where the AI is going to get even 70% or even 50%, effective at at implementing any of these things, surveillance, biological manipulation, psychological manipulation, all that, then what we're looking at, I think, is is basically just a difference in flavor.
To make it really, really simple, what you're looking at is a kind of cheesy, retardated version of AI that you see coming out of Google, coming out of OpenAI under Microsoft. And then you have more of the based AI of of Grok, or smaller companies like Gab and Gab AI. Right? So is it gonna be like this big multicultural, multiracial blob type AI, or is it going to be more of a kind of race realist, western chauvinist, western nationalist type AI? But it ultimately, we end up, as you, I think, rightly point out, it's it's just a matter of different flavors of the same future.
This future vision has hypnotized most of the people of any relevance on the planet. And even our presence here doing what we're doing shows that digital technology is necessary to remain relevant. And it's it's a very, very big problem. It's not one I think that we're gonna vote our way out of. It's not one I think that we're gonna boycott our way out of.
In many ways, I think it's not a problem that's gonna be solved, within the system. It's gonna be a problem that's gonna be solved within people's spirits, and we're just gonna have to endure as these various, you know, either call it technocratic or transhumanist, whatever sort of label you wanna put on it, but these technological technologically infused societies, the momentum is there. The money is there. The political will is there. I think that we are going to have to strategize in ways that aren't necessarily within that system even if we can take advantage of certain shifts in the system.
Speaker 0: If people knew what was coming technologically speaking before TV, before the invention of TV, at the start of the invention of TV, they would have said, you know, a small amount of people have to be in control of this technology, and then there would be a melee of different people eventually getting involved, loads of people making shows, etcetera. But then once they've worked out the dynamics while the technology exists, they would then be able to control television in a way, and then you would get to the point where only a few companies control nearly every single network. Isn't that what we've seen in the same way? Is this just a natural order of technology that people it's introduced, we worry about it. It's it is slowly controlled until it gets back to that one moment at the beginning where there's a small amount of people in control.
Is this something that is gonna repeat as a cycle?
Speaker 1: That's the the nightmarish vision. Yeah. And that is I think your description of television and and the the history of television is a really important way of looking at what's happening right now. You know, it began in America with the 3 major stations, CBS, ABC, NBC. You had Operation Mockingbird and various other intel agencies that were shaping and cultivating the narratives coming out of these.
They begin to branch out and then, you know, famously in the nineties, the mid to late nineties, you had suddenly the news branched out into CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and now a bazillion different ones. So at the same time though, these are being bought up and held under the larger corporate umbrellas. Right? News Corp, Disney, Bertleman, and, you know, famously, like, 5 or 6 companies. But there there's a lot of different things happening there.
Right? So, at the same time as television is starting to take off, and and and and diversify, only to then be kinda collapsed under umbrella corporations and then to diversify again with the Internet, only now to be collapsing under, umbrellas, certain corporate and, in some cases, governmental umbrellas across the world. You see something very similar with the newspaper. So, I I think that the newspaper and and just literacy in general, you know, with the publication of books and all that, you had so many different independent independent publishers, so many different independent newspapers. Yes.
Some of them were controlled and some of them were syndicated, but you had a lot of, you know, shoe leather reporting. David Simon, for all of his faults, really described this in great detail and and very accurately. And you you had, I think, a populist that it was kind of reached its peak in the sixties or seventies that was able to look at all these different perspectives and had much more of a literary approach to life. They could think about things abstractly and weigh different ideas. And then the the newspaper, especially with the advent of the Internet, just got demolished.
And now there's just a couple of different companies that run most of the publishing, whether it be books, newspapers, magazines, what have you. You have an explosion of the Internet, but, yeah, that just means everybody's in their little silos. But I think that the the the point I'm trying to make there, there's 2 points. 1, yes, you have this kind of this flux, this ebb and flow of centralized control versus decentralized information. But the most important transformation in my mind, and this is why I'm much more on the luddite end of this than I am on the technological, is that you had people who could think for themselves largely because they were literate, largely because they were not simply, you know, taking in all of the eye candy and the brain candy and little snippets, but they were able at least a large proportion were able to really reason through these things.
And now even the most intelligent among us are addicted to the the kind of technological brain candy. And what I see happening is that whatever direction this is going, the gravity is so much more in favor of the machine than the human. And, that's something that, that we at least have some control over in our own lives to some degree. And I I think that the more we are able to detach ourselves from that machine and keep cultivating both kind of literary intellectualism or at least just a literary awareness and also organic networks and connections out in the world, the better off we're gonna be. But, again, I think that we are gonna look a lot more like the Jews under the Roman Empire or Babylon, or the Christians under an under Rome, than we will, the kind of, Ned Ludd revolutions that were were dreamt of, and and and pretty much squashed by, Ted Kaczynski's, rash behavior.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Rache behavior isn't a big part. Still, Ted Ted, gave us things to think about. That's for sure. Now we we running a course.
We're always against the clock. So I mean, you're gonna have to come back on. We're gonna have to discuss more of this because I I mean, I've got low loads more questions that need to be answered. But I'm gonna finish with one final question. Musk claims to have been a natural democrat voter of yesteryear, but has now switched sides to republicans just as Trump is receiving support from other Silicon Valley bigwigs such as Peter Thiel.
Do you think that this political realignment is a is natural or is it manufactured? Could the wave of Democrat support to bigwigs who are moving over to Republicans such as Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr, and Musk also be a process of political synthesis blatantly happening in front of our eyes?
Speaker 1: There have been a lot of political realignments in the US, you know, most famously white Democrats moving over to the Republican party and completely changing the direction of that party. This may be something similar. Is it manufactured? In a sense, yes. All politics are manufactured.
All of it is a production. But is it also organic? I think, yes. In a sense, it is. I think that the interests of the establishment blob have have broken away so much from the interest of certain people.
And, you you know, I I guess if I'm gonna be a little bit idealistic people, the people, that you have all these people defecting to, the republican party. At the same time, what that brings with it, and this is the downside of this is what I think I've tried to instill the war room. I'm, not exactly getting a lot of traction there, but that what it also means is that these people are gonna bring their agendas to what's happening. Right? Trump is not Trump is always gonna be pulled one way or the other.
He's not a blank slate, but he's definitely gonna be pulled one way or the other. Any politician or political movement will be. And this you know, Peter Thiel's been there from the beginning, but now you have Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, and and now you have Elon Musk. They are going to be bringing a lot of influence on this. And so what once was a populist uprising in 2016 is now looking more and more like, an elite, an established elite, and a counter elite.
And we are going to have to deal with the agendas of that counter elite, And I am not one to accept those agendas, but we also have to accept that it may be necessary if we wanna close the border, if we want to crush at least certain elements within our own political establishment, and and if we want to see the erasure of this kind of DEI, nonsense, maybe that will be necessary. But in the end, I think that it's gonna be really important to stay sober and not become hypnotized by the counter elite that's moving in.
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
The third Jeffrey Epstein-funded Master Class in the series which Elon Musk attended was entitled: “The Psychology of Scarcity”, and it begins with a Sendhil Mullainathan quote that suggested they were imagining how to benefit from an impoverished population, stating: “Let's put aside poverty alleviation for a second, and let's ask, "Is there something intrinsic to poverty that has value and that is worth studying in and of itself?" One of the reasons that is the case is that, purely aside from magic bullets, we need to understand are there unifying principles under conditions of scarcity that can help us understand behavior and to craft intervention. If we feel that conditions of scarcity evoke certain psychology, then that, not to mention pure scientific interest, will affect a vast majority of interventions. It's an important and old question.” The United Kingdom’s Behavioural Insight’s team have since been used to coerce the population during the coronavirus pandemic with the Nudge Unit coordinating closely with the Department of Health and Social Care in “crafting the government response”. The Institute for Government noted the Nudge Unit’s “use of “disgust” as an incentive to wash hands and the suggestion of singing Happy Birthday to ensure hands are washed for the requisite 20 seconds.” Regardless of how powerful the majority of the attendees of Richard Thaler’s Master Class in behavioural psychology were, Elon Musk was the real rising star in this room. Officially, Musk represented Space X and Tesla, but his growing business portfolio, alongside his wealth, power and influence, has increased exponentially ever since. When Elon Musk bought Twitter, he made his intentions for the future direction of the app clear. Musk intends to turn http://X.com into the Western equivalent of WeChat, an everything app which will not only be the biggest social media platform in the world, but will also be a payment platform from where you’ll be able to manage your money, bills, shopping, and much more. The development of X is fundamentally a prescient step towards what Musk perceives as an inevitable new paradigm. The psychological manipulation of the public via powerful social media platforms won’t only be used to reap potential economic benefits for those in control of sites like X, Facebook, or Google, they will be used by the government to sway popular opinion, too. So, as Elon Musk crosses the proverbial Rubicon from being someone who is in direct control of a platform which has the potential to create mass social change, onto Government, big questions must be asked. 🧵14/20
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this episode of NewsHound, we explore the early career of Elon Musk, focusing on his first company, Zip 2. Founded in the mid-1990s, Zip 2 aimed to create online city guides by combining maps with local business listings. Despite Musk's eventual ousting as CEO, the company thrived, leading to its sale for over $300 million in 1999. This venture laid the groundwork for Musk's future successes, including his involvement in PayPal. The discussion touches on Musk's intelligence, connections with major media, and the evolving landscape of the internet and data collection. Ultimately, Musk's journey reflects a blend of innovation and the complexities of power in the tech industry.
This has been NewsHound.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to introduce you to an episode of NewsHound. Hello. I'm Johnny Redmore. Welcome to this episode of NewsHound. There's lots of people talking about one person in particular online, Elon Musk.
So let's go find out something about him that you might not have known before instead of finding out loads of things that you've been told over and over again by every single news station around. And at Newtown, what we tend to do is go into the archives. And so I wanted to find out, and this is really relevant. It's really interesting how these link up. I wanted to find out where you would find stuff about Elon Musk in the archives, how far back it would go, looking at old newspapers, looking at old articles, seeing if there's something special, something that no one's noticed.
And, well, of course, I was I I've got my basic limited knowledge of Musk at the moment. I haven't gone into him loads and loads and loads. So we're at the start of this little adventure into the Musk the land of Musk, the land of, Sylvester McMusky McBean. If anybody seen the Sneetches and Doctor Seuss, he's a man who convinces, the all of the sneetchers who don't have stars on their bellies. That if they had stars on their bellies, then they they'd be happier.
And then the other ones end up wanting the stars off their belly. And he can do that for you too. And then before you knew it, no one knows who's got the stars on their belly. Well, Sylvester McMusky McBean has been busy away buying up, an, Twitter for the reason that he wants to turn it into the Everything app. And this has been something that's a long time coming.
And if you look at the history of Musk in general, you will discover that, a lot of his history has been about taking data and combining it into one place. That's where to be honest, that's most of the Internet. So if you've worked in creating Internet sites or other things and, you know, you do that in some way, shape, or form. But Muskie has been doing it in a very particular way, shape, and form from the very start. Now a lot of people, you would say to, and how did Musk come to success?
How did he get known? And people would say, PayPal. He he he he invented PayPal, which, of course, isn't true. 3 other guys, kind of in invented PayPal, and it's a lot more complicated. And there was mergers between companies, and eventually, Musk was part of the team.
But originally, Musk came to, fame with something called Zip 2. And not many of you will know Zip 2. And I thought, I'll go back in time and I'll discover what Zip 2 is, and I'll I'll I'll work out what what's actually happening there, because, you know, you you can't go into these things with a conspiracy conspiracy minded, approach. You've gotta go and look at these things with the idea that they could be innocent, but they could not be. They could be something that was used just as they were meant to they they're said to be or sold as at the time, or they could be something else.
And if you look at people like Musk and other people, you work out very quickly that there's some form of intelligence linking a lot of what he does. You know, you don't get to be head to SpaceX and NASA doing all this stuff without, at some point, on numerous occasions, being vetted and accepted by the people above. And that vetting is usually done, by intelligence agencies and the intelligence apparatus, national security apparatus, which, of course, is completely aligned and interwoven with intelligence. And it's really interesting to find out, okay, you can see now the trajectory he's been on since, at least, him his involvement in PayPal has been upwards. He's richest man in the world, is he?
He's got all of this stuff. He can buy Twitter. He could buy you. You know, he's if if Elon Musk wanted you dead, wanted you just to disappear, Bob could do it. You know, he could he could pay for that.
He wants to go to space. He wants to colonize Mars. He wants to do all of these things. This is like fairy tale, fantasy land. And, of course, because we're living in these times, we're like, oh, well, that guy exists, and that's the dynamic.
So we'll just accept it, and it this is normal. And that's how it always is. But if you had gone back in time, that person would always be the villain if they were portrayed in any form of drama, pre 19, 99. You know? The person who wants it all, wants to create all these things, they would never be seen as a hero, or a hero combining all of this data together.
It's not quite kind of what we see heroes as. And and Musk has played this strange part. So he's obviously got links with, nationally. He must have links with Department of Defense, National Security. I I know personally that he's got some very strange links.
Like, he's honorary member of the Royal Society, which is like a roundtable group, in my opinion, is a roundtable group for achieving, nefarious scientific ends if needs be and detached from government like a conduit. There's lots of these organizations that are just conduits for the government to distance themselves from an action where it might come back against them or people in general. Just people who are power saying, I don't want that thing to affect me. These people are going to sort it out from this way via this, and they're going to get these people and it's going to distance slowly distance like NGOs distance, you know. You got MGDO, so non governmental development organizations, and they fund then NGOs And then those fund, certain things on the street that maybe, leaflet handing out leaflets or giving advice or legal services or things like this on the street.
And those those then have an actual effect. But if you actually go back, it's not just the NGO or the grant making companies that make the NGO exist. It's actually usually a state body, a governmental body who needs to distance themselves from the governmental operation that they're putting in there for propaganda reasons or other things. So so there's always like, I'm studying this at the moment. And there's always, like, this distance they gotta put between government and what actually happens.
So Elon Musk is, like, this private, entrepreneur who has risen up through the ranks for all of this technology. He's one of the most cleverest people in the world. You know? Really clever guy. Oh.
And he's been given this mythos and this, is like synthetic light around him. And that's always going to be suspicious, especially to those who are who investigate things. That's always got to be suspicious If you investigate things and everything seems too good to be true and it all revolves 1 round 1 guy and he's the be all and end all of everything, you know you've got problems. And that's not just from overdramatizing a situation. That is from reality.
I mean, if you've got one guy who's responsible for everything, that one guy is going to make a mistake and he's gonna be held accountable. But if he's got too much power to be held to account, then he won't be held accountable. And loads of people will suffer, and they etcetera, etcetera. So it's only a matter of time before Elon Musk does something which puts him, in a position where he isn't seen as mister nice guy anymore. And with this march towards future tech, the march towards space travel, mining, and the 4th Industrial Revolution right around the corner, you can see that Musk is somebody who's gonna be play a vital role in everything.
His character, his part in this play will be 1, high level one, right now. And in the grand scheme of things will be, an obvious, part that we'll be able to define clearer with when history is unfolded. For now, we need to find out who Musk is. And so I always say, let's go to the very beginning. A very good place to start.
And let's go back to, a project he was working on originally, before PayPal. And it's the first mentions of him, within the, it's the first mentions of him within the computer archives, the the archives, the newspaper archives. Here we are. New York Times, Monday, September 14, 1998. And here we are.
I love this. I always love it. We're NewsHound, everybody. This is NewsHound. This is what we do.
We go and look at the proper papers. I mean, it it's I I always like to look at things that are far in the past. So this one is gonna be a mix. We're gonna have some of those far in the past, but then we're gonna look at some of the, the archive sites, of this company in itself. We're also going to, look at some of the details around it and some of the other things, and we're gonna find out that some of this is interesting.
Some of this may not be all it seems. And that if you use your brain power to say, logically, to say, Elon Musk is this person now, you have to accept that he could have been that person all along. And so that means that should give you, different light to look at this information and say, okay. Is it this? Is it this?
Is it this? Or is it this? So have more choices to what you think it might be. So we're back in The New York Times now. I like New York Times.
They have fantastic archive. The gray lady. Gray she is. Gray she is. And here we are.
Oh, it's, the real Internet action is local. Online city guys compete in increasingly crowded field. So this is already an extremely interesting piece in my opinion. And, let me see if I can make it bigger. Oh, yeah.
Yeah. No. So this is by Laurie Flynn, and and this talks about something that Elon Musk was involved in. So this is one of his first now this is, I'll explain the company in more detail. I think his involvement is from about 1995, 1996, and this is the first big sort of step he's got onto the world.
So we'll see the first mention of him soon. And there's someone else who's got a really silly name. The real Internet action is local. It's what this article says. Online city guide guides compete in increasingly crowded field.
Now 1998, the the Internet was announced in, 1991 by Tim Berners Lee on Usenet. By 1994, Jeff Bezos is setting up Amazon, and, Hailey Minor is setting up CNET. Things are developing quickly, all around the place. Windows 95 is on its way, and that will revolutionize desktop computing operating systems and give us this real sense, like, go from, I think, with Windows 3.12 or whatever, will give us this new world of home computing. And that's what they were trying to design.
They were trying to make sure that we all got on to computers. And by 1998, most of us didn't have much in the way of a computer in our house. At this point, we were my my dad had had a computer for about 2 years, 3 years. It it it broken many times, and I had to learn to fix it. It was a tiny computer.
It was 266 megahertz processor in it. I think that's what it was. It was so I mean, that's it was really hard to run anything. He wanted it to do loads, but he couldn't do loads, of course, because this technology wasn't ready. And by 1998, that was the first time where we got proper computer rooms.
Like, we got whole IT section put into our school. Before, it had just been a computer room with mostly computers that don't work where you could only run a couple of programs. So computer, IT was sort of like, not something that was taken seriously until around this time. So you see it being talked more about in the papers. And there's a reason behind it.
Forget all the talk about global free willing internet. Nearly 2 years after the first online city guides appeared, many companies are still sorry about that. Many companies are still betting on the, betting that the real action on the Internet is in such local online markets. From its start, the business of producing locally orientated websites Some cities Some cities boast as many as half a dozen full blown websites clamoring for a share of local advertising, media support, and loyal users. Now don't be don't don't and and to value what they're saying is extremely true.
The ones who knew what the Internet was gonna be were gonna make loads of money, you know? I mean, I covered this in the Jeff Bezos article. I mentioned Jeff Bezos and Hailey Minor because I I personally, come across that information myself and vetted it when I I was, writing the Jeff Bezos piece. And Dee, sure, the the people that kind of, like, rose Jeff Bezos to power had, foreseen that the Internet was gonna be big and knew that that would mean that only certain platforms, like, in each sector would sort of win out. And they would end up being some sort of, like, almost like communist sort of, like, entity online.
One big thing to do every different thing. And then, eventually, that would turn into one app or website that would do everything. So think about this. Think about what your your your what it says here. From it starts business of producing locally orientated websites that offer everything from constant listings and restaurant views to commuter traffic reports to school lunch menus.
Everything. The everything at already, it's a start. The you know, the the people can see it or people cannot see it at this point. And, personally, I wouldn't have been able to see it at this point. None of us knew.
We were like, oh, always step by step. Oh, we've just got computers. Oh, we just got the next new game. Oh, we just got this computer, package that allows us to do photographs. Oh, that'll keep us busy for a year and a half.
Oh, we just got this new word processing package or translation tool. You know? And all of these things would keep us busy and keep us interested, but we wouldn't see necessarily be able to see how that's gonna unfold down the line. The lure is tempting indeed. Local businesses in the United States will spend a total of $70,000,000,000 on advertising this year.
Of that, says Jupiter Communications, the Internet search firm in New York, 700,000,000 will be spent online, a figure that analysts, say will almost double in 1999 and will continue to rise well into the next century. Clearly, not all the local web guides that have sprung up can survive in the market crowded with nearly, indistinguishable with nearly indistinguishable competitors. Already, the business has shown signs of cracking. Earlier this year, the Microsoft Corporation was forced back to the labs for a new approach in its network of local guides, laying off a quarter of his editorial staff in the meantime. Likewise, America Online's Digital City has regrouped in a process that cut 80 staff members.
It's one of those areas where you have too many, people doing close to the same thing, Patrick Keenan, an analyst at Jupiter Communications, said. So far, there have been, few real casualties and new partnerships are leading, are leading to new sites and new business strategies every day. Most certainly, for example, Citysearch, a pioneer in City Guides, merged with Ticketmaster unit of the USA, of USA Networks with the idea of more closely integrating event listings with the ability to sell tickets immediately to the event. Now I'm gonna, skip through some of this and get down to here. Citysearch of Pasadena, California is in quite, is in a quiet period as it prepares to go public, so executives were not able to comment on their strategy.
But the merger with Ticketmaster last month, is perhaps the best signal yet that online guides are quickly moving from simply providing informations to performing transactions. Perhaps the most notable online activity recently has been, in the newspaper business. Think about this. Where the aggressive upstart, Zip 2, very important, this is Elon Musk's first proper company, has managed to forge partnerships with a 100 and 60 papers around the country. 20 of those deals have led to full scale city guides, says Elon Musk, chairman and founder of Zip 2, which is based in Mountview, California.
The remaining deals have produced local guides within newspapers, websites. Among the full scale guide is New York. Today, a result of a partnership between Zip 2 and The New York Times, what we're reading, one of the primary things Zip 2 provides newspapers, is an online yellow pages with links directly to store listings and reviews. Zip 2 also offers a personalization feature, calendar listing, and free email. Through a deal with Zip 2, the Boston Globe, New York Times Company newspaper offer events and local information as part of boston.com, the regional website it created in 1995.
Most analysts agree that local newspapers could have an inherent advantage in, local online market because they can tap material they already developed for print and use the strength of their brand to attract both advertisers and customers. We always said that, said it's newspaper's industry battle to lose. It's the newspaper's industry's battle to lose, said mister Keane. Oh, wait a minute. Let's see where he's on now, said mister Keane of Jupiter.
CitySearch also linked up with newspapers including Los Angeles Time, which owns a Times Mirror Company, the Times Out New York, a weekly art, entertainment magazine, the Toronto Star owned by the TourStar Corporation is working with Citysearch and Tallydirect, a local phone company that supplies, Yellow Page listings. Likewise, in the crowded New York market, Microsoft Sidewalk licenses, entertainment listings from Village Voice. Look at this name coming up now. The most innovative newspaper effort may be the Real Cities Network started a year ago by Knight Ridder, publisher of a chain that includes the Miami Herald, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the San Jose Mercury News. The the idea is to give online media buyers to network, buyers a network for placing local web ads while giving the website to the needs of each user.
Now that I did notice when I read the the article briefly before. But, don't tell anyone. They've got a NewsHound program. Oh my god. I this is you're watching NewsHound, but in the future.
This is 24 years onwards and a new NewsHound has arisen, one which doesn't put a space in between and is just one big news hound in capital letters. You are watching the news hound program unfold in front of you, which delivers news personalized to the needs of each users. Now that's something that we saw much, much more as we went on, you know, the use of cookies to give you personalized news. You want personalized news? Yeah.
I want personalized news. What does that mean? What we want to tell you? Okay. Night Ridders of the fact that must be a fake like he's made up that name.
You know what these guys like. Night Ridders strategy is similar to that of Cox Enterprises, which last year opened a series of websites based on the newspaper and television, on its newspaper and television properties. But perhaps the greatest competitive threat comes from, one of the Internet's oldest properties properties. They like to call it properties. Yahoo, which offers links to local content and has become a front door for millions of Internet users.
Though Yahoo's half dozen local sites do not offer much in the way of original content, they do carry brand recognition, and they already have a captive audience, which might be crucial in the long run. We think the real battle with is with Yahoo and AOL to become a local portal, mister Musk of Zip 2 said. They're building down to the local level, whereas we're building up to it. So there you go. That's that's, a a must quote there.
One of the earliest must quote the earliest one I can find in New York Times, the earliest one I can find in, 4 or 5 in the newspaper archive. We think the real bow I mean, he he he's he's mentioned over here, but, we think the real battle is with Yahoo and AOL to become a local portal. And that was true. And who won? Well, I would say Yahoo temporarily.
And then that didn't work out well for him in the long term. Long term, really, did it? I mean, eventually, we're taken, run roughshod by their competitors. So the the immediate competition isn't always how the game plays out. But, yeah, we think the real battle is with Yahoo and AOL to become the local portal, mister Musk of Zip 2 said, they're building down to the local level, whereas we're building up to it.
So they're saying, you know, they're they're they're trying to do a global big scale thing, and they're slowly adding bits that work their way down with these guys, helping, build up from the top. I'm not sure if that's completely true, but, basically, these guys were all in control of the information that would go on the web. That is massively important, especially for, seeing as it's the biggest tool out there. Yeah. Microsoft and America Online, despite their perceived missteps, appeared to have been gearing up for a fight again.
Microsoft Sidewalk now publishes in 9 cities, is readying, is readying version 3.0 of its service for rollout at the end of the year. The idea is to offer a national version in which some of the content will be identical from, one city state to another, but will be supplemented with local information about restaurants, performances, and retailers, and will carry combination of local and national ads. The new sidewalk will place a greater emphasis on helping consumer shop in, including the addition of yellow pages said to services product manager Gail Trowberman. Peter Akins, Sidewalk's general manager for advertising, sales, and marketing, said has said, more and more merchants want to come online and reach people right when they want to, buy anecdotal evidence, which suggests that local businesses are indeed coming online, selling everything from clothing to computers to hotel rooms and vacation packages, and realizing a decent return on their investment. Sal Patel, reservations manager, Decempti Room Union Square Hotel, says his monthly listing in Citysearch San Francisco typically pays for itself within a day or 2.
But analysts predict, the pace of development of the new online city guides will probably not last long. Despite all the interest from advertisers, no city guide has consistently shown profit. Oh, I just lost it. Oh my god. Well, that was bad for them, isn't it?
No. Consistently show we're seeing isolated incidents where incidents where these sites are making money, said Peter Krasilinski, an analyst at Ireland Communication, a research company that studies interact interactive transactions. But mostly they're spending with minimum returns. Many producers of online guides oh, sorry, I'm still doing his voice. Many producers of online guide acknowledge that the effort has proved a more expensive proposition than they expected.
Mister Musk says by hooking up with the major media players, Zip 2 expects to be profitable sooner than the companies that tried to do the bulk of the editorial work themselves. True enough. Though the demand for local information and services is huge, it is anybody's guess just how many competing services each market can support and whether the services can return investment into profits. Lisa Allen, a new media analyst at Forrester Research, said becoming a media operation and making money at it are a lot easier said than done. Right.
Right. So that was a a fairly interesting article, and it comes with some stuff in, the middle. And this is from 1998. So it says, let's just be your guide. Oh, you always trust in newspapers.
Good idea. That one will see you become a cropper. The market for online city guides is growing rapidly with, it seems, just about everyone putting together a site on the web. Here are a few national site guides to New York City. So Digital City, AOL Digital City, they show that.
This looks like it's, Bill Bill Clinton over there. I can't really see that. Mistakes led to lay off of 80 people, but it's a great brand recognition. Oh, what a great brand recognition, although the it fails to produce anything. Newyorkcitysearch.com.
Citysearch. Oh, has a here we go. With its merger with US Network, Ticketmaster, it can sell to events it lists. New York City says, well, that's that's gonna be pretty, Microsoft Sidewalk, laid a quarter of its staff earlier this year, but is rolling out a new version of its service. Yahoo Get Local is down there.
Oh, 3,700,000 views. It does not have much original content, but it has great brand recognition. They took very open about it. And Zip 2, this is Elon Musk when they put down the bottom here. 1,500,000 for something that is just about the one topic, doesn't draw in customers like Yahoo and stuff.
That was obviously a big jump in, in people visiting. Gets local guides for newspapers like New York Today from New York Times. Yeah. Okay. So New York Today, New York Times.
You can go and you can check out what's going on in the different places. It combines it all together. All very clever. This, whole thing is the start of something, isn't it? It's the start of Elon Musk's career and the beginning of him creating companies that can collate people's information and make financial profit from that.
Because you know that all of this stuff here, all of this business would be making deals with big papers, other big, entities to share information. And then people are logging on, putting their cookie information in, and you're just getting more information. And so the reason why all of these sites, were knowing that they could have investment and the investors weren't worried about getting their money back straight away, was partially because these sites would be dealing in people's information and constantly gathering people's information. And, no, it's not said explicitly in this newspaper article. That's what, a lot of these businesses were making their money from, selling out your information to these other people.
I mean, that eventually became controversial, and we now have new cookie policies and stuff, which most people do the same thing, accept, accept, accept. But that information is being used, being sold sold, being bought. You know? That is that is where a lot of the money is. Information, data, data, data, data.
And they're doing a business. They he created a business that was about taking information and having information put in from other places. More information. More information. So on top of all the user information, you got all this other information coming in constantly and being added by other people.
And that was quite a clever idea, seeing most of it was, like, the companies themselves have to add them on to, like, Microsoft sidewalk or things like this. You have to put your menu on yourself. And people didn't have access to computers, so that would take time. Now we know we can go to all of these different apps, all of these different, we got all these different tool, all these different websites where we can go and view all of this information, but back then, not so. So this is a start.
This is Elon Musk's first mention that I find in newspaper archive that's of no of his business, 1998, September 14th. So it's, extremely interesting. And, just not that long after, just in February, 25th February the next year. Yeah. Thursday, 25th February the next year.
They're talking about this new exciting opportunity. They're talking about it in the daily it is in the Daily Record. This is probably the yeah. The Daily Record. Scotland's leading newspaper, The Daily Record and The Sunday Mail, have announced a partnership with Zip 2, the world's number one provider of Internet platform solutions for media companies.
As well as the result of this partnership, The Daily Record and Sunday Mail are now recruiting a number of staff to develop a new Europe's first home based portal and establish new Internet venture as Scotland's leading destination site. While knowledge of the Internet is desirable, it's not essential. No. No. You wouldn't get any of these.
So the this is, the Daily Record and Sunday Mail recruiting because they've had a partnership with Zip 2, and they wanna be at the ground floor now. They've obviously been convinced, hey. You're gonna be this is really important. You're gonna come and, be part of a new project where we put all of this information online. And then when people are looking for events and stuff, they go to our site, they look at your information and your advertise there, and we're becoming one of the biggest sites around.
So that's good for you, and, it'll be advertised on the web advertising. In this point, they're giving up money all over the place for advertising on the web, but a lot of people don't even know what good advertising on the web looks like. So it's very interesting, this Zip 2, advert here for daily records and deep. So Zip 2 had a bigger effect. I mean, they were they they were, oh, gone too far in there.
They were employing people, for this project that was a partnership. Now how long it lasted, I do not know, but this is what Elon Musk did really well. He outsourced the responsibility and the work to other people who would then recruit, and so they no longer have to recruit. So Zip 2, even though, another company would have to employ all of these people to do this job separately in any infrastructure, have offices, have all of this stuff. They don't need to do that.
He just, k, in in gets people to, like, run their own sort of enterprise that will join up with them and has obviously sold it to them like that, which is really interesting. I find it interesting anyway. And around the same time, so this is, literally within a couple of days, 23rd, 1999. Look at that photo there. Good one.
We see another quote from, Elon Musk where Zip 2 is top of the net top on the net. So Zip 2 had obviously won through all of the rest of these sites because it's its own site dedicated to this thing. Rather than it being an add on for Yahoo, an add on for Microsoft, an add on for AOL, like all of us wanted to, to have been created and was targeted, was laser focused on producing, this content in this way, would have to do less of the work to achieve it. So it was a very clever idea. But, again, this is about getting information, saving data, saving information, and selling off information as well because they would have been doing that all of the time.
Now I'm not gonna read all of this. As you can see, the bigger and post and mail has taken a major step in his Internet strategy. So you just saw the Scotland Scottish record, the daily record. So Scotland are like, oh, we've been sold this thing, and we're gonna do it. Now this Ponzi scheme, the Zip 2 Ponzi scheme has been given over to the Birmingham Post and Mail.
They've been convinced to, become strategic partners with Zip 2, provider of an Internet platform solution for media companies. As a result and that's what he listen to what they call it, strategic partnership with Zip 2, provider of Internet platform solutions for media companies. So they weren't limiting themselves, and they were aiming targeting the media companies. Originally, it was so that they could bring the users content. That was the reason.
But now it's just so that they can raise the brand. It's been redesigned as you can raise a brand of your own, media organization by having an online presence and all of your listings down there, so people are typing in your name on the search bars. The deal marks an expansion of Mirror's Internet activities. So, obviously, this was a a a previous deal with the Mirror Group. So it says parent company, Mirror Group, has entered into a partnership.
Mirror Group, used to be run by Robert Maxwell at one point. Not by here, though. Robert Maxwell is, dead dead by this point. But Mirror is still, throughout history, intertwined with, intelligence within propaganda and stuff. So it's not a surprise if this was anything other than what it is that it would be here as well.
I mean, it seems like an interesting story. Look. They're they're developing nodes, and they they talk about lots of different things. And, you know, Zip 2 develops, hosts, and maintains nearly 200 consumer websites in the US metropolitan area, including New York Times, Knight Ridder, Morris Communications, and Range of State Circulation Newspapers. Like, radar.
What's all that? Anyway, it but you go over to here. This this service with network operations capabilities allowed Zip 2 clients to establish market leadership positions in the highest growth areas of Internet usage. You're hearing directly from the marketing and promotion of Zip 2 what they say, and they just re rehashed it and put in an article. You know, that is that is marketing line.
This service, with its network operations capability, allows Zip 2 clients to establish market leadership positions in the highest growth areas of the Internet usage. You can make lots of money on the Internet. You know, this is very much a sales scam as well. Zip 2 founder and executive vice president, Elon Musk, said that this is a comprehensive agreement that takes full advantage of Zip 2 home based offering. People at home and abroad are looking for an alternative.
Sorry. Going in too far there. People at home and abroad are looking for an alternative to large, impersonal, and confusing sites, which offer a wide range of services but no real guidance on how to get the most out of them. These macro sites lack the regional resources of user specific gateway, offering only the services they actually require when the consumers begin and end their web journey. Our collaboration with The Mirror Group will provide it with technology to service both national and strong local interest, based on its brand and media assets.
Now so that's Elon Musk talking there about what Zip 2 offers. And it's really interesting because for a man who's now lining up to try and make Twitter the everything app and trying to make everything, like, global a bit globalism there, globalist tech. People at home and abroad has said this. People at home and abroad are looking for an alternative to large, impersonal, and confusing sites, which offer a wide range of service but no real guidance of how to get the most out of them. These macro sites lack the regional resources of user specific gateway, offering only the services they actually actually require when the user can begin and end their web journey.
So this is already Elon Musk saying, you know, people don't want these big, impersonal, confusing sites. They do they just don't want them. No. They want what we're offering here. Well, what he's offering will change over time, won't they, to dig in personal sites?
But that's what happens when you go up the ladder. I thought I'd show you that. I think it's very interesting. Let's look at that picture again. That's a silly picture.
Yes. It is. Oh, and there's more. Yeah. Sorry.
That was a a repeat there. So let's go to the site itself. Here we go. Here we we are here. We are here.
We are here. We are here. Let me, pull this up a little bit so you can see. Change the size of the screen there. And we have gone to zip2.com.
What's become of the yellow pages? Search accurately for 60,000,000 businesses in, USA. And so we're in 1996 at the moment. That's where we should be. We should be, 99 7.
We're in January 3, 1997. This is one of the earliest. There's one earlier before it might not come up. But you can see this is the basic. This is a year before the one, advert, and it's basically look.
American Business Information. It's so it's trying to become a yellow pages and then, changes slightly into becoming something slightly that revolutionizes the city guide. Zip 2's city guide was big. Zip 2's city guide is fast, easy, interactive way to get around town, but it is. And look at the partners.
Now this is really important because newspapers are purveyors of information. They they deal out information. That's what they do. They deal in data. They write down data, but they also take data.
They get delivered all over the place. Data. Data. Data. And these guys, they're already partners with New York Times and others who have really, Seattle Times, Boston Globe.
These, Miami Herald, these are big newspapers. You know? These are big newspapers, and Zip 2 is already there. Let's go back again to 90 January 1997. And let's let's go discover about Zip 2 back then.
So you can see I've just clicked on a couple of these already. I want to check if they work. So, already, you've got a Zip 2 management team. You can see Richard Sorkin was there, previously. Oh, Richard has also held positions in Phoenix Technologies, Prokett Computer, Ashton Tate, Goldman Sachs Equity Research, and Bain and Company.
You have been capitalized by Richard received his master's of business from Stanford. Isn't that where, Teal graduated from as well? Lots of people do. And graduated with honors from Yale. Oh, not a surprise.
All establishment all the way down. All turtles all the way down. Multimedia production for IBM compatible PCs and developer screens. So he's been doing some interesting stuff. And there you go.
CTO and founder, Elon Musk from, WebCAPTCHA page 1997. So this is the earliest record we've gone. Going back to on this, news how the Elon published his first computer program at the age of 12, and 4 years later, achieved the highest possible grade in the IBM aptitude test for engineers. Elon went on to work for Pinnacle Research, rocket science, and Microsoft. I didn't know you worked for Microsoft.
Did you know you worked for Microsoft? That's interesting. I wonder what he was doing at Microsoft then. Do you wonder what he was doing at Microsoft? I wonder why he was doing at Microsoft.
I'd really like to know. I mean, IBM, that's a a unit to go through, isn't it? Unit, you want an aptitude test test. Yeah. Does that include any type of salutes or anything?
Who knows? Well, you know, just saying they've got a history. But, yeah, worked for went on to work for Pinnacle Research, Rocket Science, and Microsoft. I just did not know he worked for Microsoft. Wow.
He was a Microsoft engineer at one point. That's interesting. Or Microsoft something. He developed original business concept and initial technology for Zip 2 and is now chief technology officer for the company. Elon graduated with a degree in finance from the Wharton School.
That's a that's a place. A degree in physics from the University of Pennsylvania and deferred graduate study in energy physics at Stanford to cofound Zip 2. So he was also doing something at Stanford. Maybe reason why he, teal ended up getting together. And, obviously, there's a few other guys.
The the the here here you go. This is Jim Ambrose. Developer Magic provided, silicone graphic workstations with technology that created realistic effects used by industrial light and magic for films such as Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, Judgment Day, and Twister. Forgive them of everything. They are they are forgiven.
Teresa Kerstin, vice president of marketing, of course, they're gonna get the woman in to do the marketing, back then. There you go. Bruce Murray, another Yale College graduate down there. Kimbal Musk, of course, because Kimbal and Elon were in this company together. So Kimball Musk found out after managing a thriving small business for 2 years, Kimball joined the Internet hardware firm as a market analysis and sales manager, convinced of the Internet's potential.
He's not on there. Kimball left to cofound Zip 2, seeing the Internet as a new and better media for connecting the consumer and local and the local merchant. With a strong feel for local business, for the local business owner owner and a clear understanding of the Internet consumer, Kimball has worked from, the very beginning to ensure that these two groups have always found value at Zip 2 Services. Oh god. They just don't stop.
So Kimball graduated from Queen's University Business School in Canada. That's an interesting one to have gone to. And Greg Koori, who's one of the main founders of this, he is one of the main founders. Real estate developer in the United States, etcetera. Graduated Western Ontario.
Cofounders at 2. Yes. Okay. Now what I really do find interesting there is this mention that Elon Musk worked for Microsoft. I did not know that.
I did not know that. I want to go and learn more, but my path, is, aligned with trying to find out what Elon Musk has been up to in the past. So it's only a matter of time before I do find out what's been going on, mister Musk. So back here, as you see, this was down in power out auto. This is the, their website back in 97.
That gives us a good example of who's who and who they're working with. And, and time goes on eventually. Oh, wait a minute. Let me I so we're looking at Time Magazine's little, rundown of, the life and times. The complete timeline of Elon Musk's business endeavors.
And so I wanna have a look at this because we're looking at zip 2 here. We're just having a little look, just having a little kusikanda, just seeing if we find any information that's interesting. It says on the time line, along with his brother, Musk found Zip 2, an online business directory, as an online alternative to standard, paper yellow pages. Google would not launch until 1998. He sold it for over 300,000,000 in 1999 to Compact Computer Corporation.
Compact. Musk was ousted as c I as CEO in 1996. However, when the board of directors decided to install, more experienced leader in his stead. So he was actually ousted in 1996, is it? But they had him speaking a lot.
Musk invested some of his windfall from the Zip 2 sale into his next venture, Xcom, an online bank launched with 3 other cofounders. Xcom's business model was innovative for its time. In that, it was incentivized sign ups and eased the process of transferring funds digitally with no need for mail or traditional banking infrastructure. In an interview with CBS MarketWatch at the time of the launch, Musk explained his business they explained his business. There are no minimum balances.
You can open an account and receive $20 promotional offer in your checking account. You can move $8 to your S and P fund, $3 each to your money market and bond fund, and, be left with $6 in your checking. So checking account. Oh, they're trying to market to me. Give me a second.
Climate is everything. Oh, you assholes. This is, of course, it's Marc Benioff, so this is Time Magazine is a a pain in the ass bullshit. Don't listen to him. He went on to expand more philosophically philosophically on the new company.
In my view, the Internet had gone through a couple of stages and was ready for another stage, he said. The first stage was where people could trust the Internet for information, information that he dealt in, as we've seen with Zip 2. This was, perhaps 95 or 96. The second was to trust the Internet for purchases and begin to use credit cards online to buy books, toys, pets, pet food, and that kind of thing. I think we're at the 3rd stage now where people are ready for the u to use the Internet for their main financial repository.
Now that's really interesting because he recognizes something, and then comes 2,000 PayPal. Xcom merges with software company, Confinity, just 1 year later forming PayPal. So that's just after look at that dude. Look at it. Like, Teal looks like the most evil man.
He's like they what what what Damien should look like when he's grown up in Yeoman is just exactly right. And look at this. Oh my god. That look. That look.
Look at it. Oh, can't get over it. So that's 2,000. So we're looking at premillennial, introduction of this. And it's really interesting, that he says something here that's really important.
That there's, like, multiple stages of what they're expecting the Internet to be, and he's acting, according to what he believes those stages to be. And a lot of the people involved at this high level knew already what had been mapped out. Even in, late eighties, I've shown in the Bezos article with D. E. Shaw that D.
E. Shaw's, hedge fund knew what was coming, knew what the Internet looked like, and knew what would be the winners before the Internet had even been created. So we're always late to the party on this. And this is the monopolization before anybody else has sniffed that there's, anything that can be gained from this. So xcom, x.com, which turns into PayPal eventually with the merger with Confinity very soon after, is is that's an investment that he makes after selling Zip 2 to Compaq, and Compaq, which used to sell terrible computers.
So for 300,000,000, so they were really interested. But what they were interested in was saying, right, okay. This technology, this SIP 2 technology is better than AOL's technology, is better than Microsoft's technology, is better than, all of these big fish technologies, Yahoo technology. So let's buy it, and then it'll be better. But, you know, they're gonna buy it and change it into their technology, and it's not gonna work anymore.
And I think that's probably roughly what has happened. Who knows? I don't know if Zip 2 actually become more, interesting, bigger later. Now here's another picture, a little bit of a better picture of Elon Musk, a little bit younger Musk there so you don't have the bold receding hairline looking to dabble. That last picture is just I mean, you should really.
Let's let's just go quickly. Go have a look at it again. Wow. Wow, buddy. You don't want that lingering around on the Internet for all of time.
So Tom Kriegelstein on LinkedIn said, 3 ways Elon Musk struggle to manage struggle to manage people is Zip 2. So so when he's young, this is before PayPal, before he's receiving hairline. He's, pretty fresh based. He's popular, but not popular enough to keep the company together. So by 96, he's asked to the CEO because everybody's had enough of him.
So they they say, Elon Musk's first so this this Kriegelstein says, Elon Musk's first company was called Zip 2. In Elon Musk's biography, Elon talks about how, how he made a bunch of management mistakes at Zip 2 that led to massive turnover employees and cost ton of money. He boiled his management issues down to three reasons. However, he still made 300,000,000. So knowledge gap.
Sometimes his tin the team didn't have the access didn't have access to the same information as him. He thought if he knew it, then everyone else did it did as well. But the reality was, and still is, that Elon is wicked smart, and he digs deep into the research like no other. This information gap caused friction in communication because he assumed they were the same level of knowledge. But he was just too clever for them all.
He just knows too much, does Elon. Knowledge usage. Even if someone had the exact and same knowledge as him most of, the time, they didn't think about in the same way as him. Elon was and still is, great at seeing how the information he learns now can be applied in multiple ways that most might never see. Now, again, this is like, I'm so much cleverer than you.
And so I got asked as the CEO because no one could understand how clever I was and how I could use that knowledge and and how I how how quickly I could absorb it, knowledge speed. Elon is super quick at absorbing, processing, and using knowledge. The ability, of his team not to keep up cause friction in communication. So there's all these excuses why, eventually, he was ousted, from, Zip to I I would say it's probably because he's an asshole to someone and someone else. During the conversation, Elon would get angry and belittle his employees because he was baffled that they didn't understand what he was talking about, which only made the situation worse.
So he talks about him being a bit of an asshole. Back in the days of Zip 2, Elon wasn't, who he is today. So most of his employees weren't interested in having their characters consistently be paraded, so they quit, which was a big issue for him. Oh, a big issue for him. What they they were like, this guy's a wanker.
I'm out of here. Nowadays, Elon is still known as an aggressive leader, but he's built up a management team around him to deal with human issues. He's working on the project, projects that are so inspiring that more people are willing to put up with the lack of empathy in his communication for the sake of the project and for their future career. Basically, he's now surrounded by a load of suck asses who realize he's worth a lot of money and are, like, super dazzled by his celebrity status. And so go, I love you, Elon.
And he could shit on them, smear it in their face. And then, like, I love you, Elon. I need you, Elon. That's Elon Musk. That's his power.
And next time you are in communication with your team and it doesn't go well, instead of quickly passing the blame to your employees, be willing to object, and all that this, you know, this guy goes on about how to, how to sort out your leadership team because, yeah, Tom Kriegel's team, he knows it from studying a young Elon Musk. And so what's what's interesting, I found on Quora, I was having a little look around, and I found this one guy. They're talking about, Elon Musk, and his time is at 2. And this guy said, I'll have to disagree with everyone here and say he is overrated because everybody's, of course, licking his ass. That's what everybody does with maths.
They're like, oh, please give me a little bit of the arse to lick so you could give me a little bit of your cake. It's it's it's sickening, it's hero worship, and hero worship only leads to disappointment to those who worship the hero. Well, let's start beginning. Zip 2 is first company. The company was started with US $28,000 from Errol Musk, Elon Musk, Farfetch.
So to start, he was born into a pretty rich family. Now he was. In his biography, it said that his family had the biggest house in the neighborhood where he lived in Pretoria. So yeah. Yeah.
They had a lot of money. This doesn't prove Elon doesn't have value. Just because, you're born to a rich family doesn't mean you're rich trash, but I rant. Let me get back to the point. Zip 2, this company had a pretty good premises, premise.
They got maps from the city of Palo Alto, from Navtech. Elon convinced them to give them the maps for free, and they added, to the addresses of various companies, to this said map. So imagine a primitive version of Google Maps. Pretty good. Right?
The guy had a vision, and the company was sold in 1999 for $307,000,000 of which Elon received US 22,000,000. Elon was 28 at the time, so he made a fortune at a very young age. Awesome. But he didn't stop there. He then created x.com, which sounds like a porn site, but was actually an online banking company.
Pay attention to the world banking. Pay attention to the world banking. It wasn't only, it wasn't an online payment system, just to be clear. Yeah. So it would become an online payment only after they merged with Coinfinity, co Confinity.
Sorry. To make a long story short, there was another company that was doing something of the sort, Confinity, which later became PayPal. After some competition, the 2 companies merged and formed PayPal. So, technically, PayPal wasn't even his idea. And that is true.
That is exactly how it went. Elon Musk was born on afterwards. If you look if you type, I haven't got it up, but I'm pretty positive that you can find it. It's really, really good idea. If we just, type in the old PayPal on the Google search, and we go down to the basic of Wikipedia, Let's have a look at the founders.
Who are the founders? Who founded by these guys? Max Levchin, Peter Thiel, Luke Norszek, Ken Harry, and Yu Pan. So you got this wonderful picture of Elon Musk and Peter Tull, PayPal, PayPal, PayPal. But, Elon Musk didn't found PayPal.
He just got on board afterwards once the company merged. Interesting, I don't think I like this. I I always like a little bit of something like this. Elon Musk's big business card from 1995. There you go.
So Zip 2. This was what his, his company card looked like, and he had, I think something like 20,000 of them made or something like this. So they were they were pretty, they were pretty keen on their advertising. He eventually put chairman of the board, chief technology officer, and cofounder. Well, he wasn't gonna be chairman of the board forever, was he know he was gonna be knocked off of that eventually.
So the the standard definition of what, Zip 2 was can be found in, say, Britannica. I don't like to use Wikipedia, and he looked it for PayPal just to show you that he's not found as a founder. Musk conceived the idea of making it possible for computer users to find local businesses at a time when computers were not, yet ubiquitous, which isn't a surprise, is it? The before, people have worked out how, important computers are gonna be, someone gets there first, and Musk did do that. There was a lot of people who did do that, to be perfectly honest.
A lot of people, but they were people who had knowledge, who had a little bit of something in the know. So there you go. Kimball, Musk, and Frank, Gregory Curie and his partners. In 1995, after acquiring, a disk containing a business directory, must persuade a Navtech, a provider of electronic navigable apps to give him free mapping software. He then wrote the code necessary to put the 2 databases, business listing, and map together.
Musk described the company's mission by saying that everyone ought to be able to find the closest piece to pizza parlor and to be able to figure out how to get there, unable to persuade potential investors to get in financing. Musk and his partners lived in their office to keep expenses low. All of the old, fairy tale is emerging again. The company expanded its listing by convincing businesses to pay for an expanded its listing by convincing businesses to pay for inclusion. And after about a year in early 1996, Moore Davido Ventures, agreed, to invest some $3,000,000 in Zip 2, in exchange for majority ownership.
In addition, Musk was replaced as CEO. So there you go. That's why he was placed as CEO by more experienced businessmen. He already said he wasn't liked around the place, and that would have been something that any, company would have known. Richard Sorkin, Richard Sorkin, but remained executive vice president and chief technology officer.
Under Sorkin, Zip 2 began offering its platform to newspapers, allowing it to create local directories to to their online subscribers. Interesting. Interesting. Interesting. The New York Times was an early customer, and many other major newspapers and newspaper chains followed.
By that time, Zip 2 also included an arts and entertainment guide and specific directories for different categories of business. However, Musk disagreed with Sorkin's business policies. When Sorkin arraigned in 19, 98, for Zip 2 to merge with CitySearch, which provided similar service, monk, Musk organized a revolt and prevailed among the board of directors to remove Sorkin as CEO. So he was removed to CEO, and it will bring down the next CEO with 9 Jaz, and Sorkin was replaced by Derek Prodian. In 1999, Compact Computer Corporation purchased Zip 2 for 307,000,000, and Zip 2 become the, a unit of the search engine Alta AltaVista, which Compaq had recently acquired.
Zip 2's online city guide added local breadth to AltaVista's features. Wow. It becomes something else. That's written by Patricia Bauer. Here's Elon Musk talking about Zip 2, and he says Zip 2 also called newspaper publishing platform that brought 100 of regional and city papers online for the first time and made major functionality abandonment to the New York Times, Boston Globe, and Knight Ridder reps websites.
New York Times, KR, and Hearst were all major investors in Zip 2. That's interesting. They were all major investors. They had some big major investors. So we go back to top of this, and he was talking about this.
19 years ago, My first company got bought. Yes. It did. So it's an interesting I mean, of course, with anything like this, there's interesting, history behind it. There's a a lot of history behind it, but, basically, Vasquez is good at convincing these big players to trust him.
And to convince big players to trust him, you've gotta have some form of knowledge. You've gotta have some form of, dog in the fight. So I think he already had dog in the fight. So it's all very interesting. Let's let's just close that down too.
And let's finish up on here in 2,003, where this is after I mean, he's now already Musk is already at PayPal and the like. And so we're gonna go back to New York Times. And what's next? Why a foam brush holds the future of rocket science? Article by John, Schwartz from 9th December 2,003, and talks about, NASA, where they're going in the future, what they should be doing, president Bush and his vision for NASA.
Now by this point, the the war on terror is happening and everything is such a joke. All money is being diverted away from, such things as NASH, spaceflight and the like. So so by this point, you know, people aren't believing what what the Bush administration is saying anyway, mostly. Let's start by the Hitler. Even without a new space race, good ideas abound.
Websites like spacefuture.com are packed with dreams, of systems for space travel, commerce, and inquiry. One proposal is seemingly nifty as Sean O'Keefe's foam brush, unless from, something early in the article. To build a new orbiting state space station that can be constructed from shuttle's external fuel tank. Instead of dropping the enormous tank during ascent so it can be reused, the shuttle would hold on to it until it reached orbit. Over time, many tanks will be joined inexpensively and fitted, and fitted with laboratories for commercial development of space technology without having to create entirely new flight systems, says NASA scientist, who wrote the proposal in an, unofficial capacity.
Oh, who writes proposals? It was a NASA scientist who writes proposals in an unofficial capacity. That sounds like it has got, intelligence written all over it. Oh, I'm a NASA scientist who wrote a proposal in an unofficial capacity. I'm also on a lot of boards of some very nefarious, instruments of state.
Many of the most ardent space fans say that the answer will not come from NASA at all. This is why I talk about this, because 2,003, and they're saying they look rather to private enterprises that are trying to develop space vehicles to start an age of space tourism. Many of these groups are pa participating in the X Prize, a contest designed to kick start passenger travel in space. Teams in the competition include a group financed by Elon Musk, a cofounder of PayPal. Not a cofounder of PayPal.
Wrong. New York Times, you need to do your research, and you're in partnership with them. You should know better. And John Carmack, a cofounder of ID Software, the computer game maker. A smaller group of companies pursuing space flight without participating in the XPRIZE said doctor Charles Luria, a space consultant in Boston.
These companies like XO, Aerospace in Mojave, California, should blaze such a trail such a trail into space. The real innovation is starting to happen outside of NASA in small companies such as XCOR. It depends upon the sea changes in how one views space flight, he said. Rocket science isn't rocket science, mister Lourie added. It's just another set of skills that the creativity of the market can bring to practicality.
That's something that the present space establishment can't do. No. Because they're not really into taking you to space. You see, NASA was never really that interested in taking you to space. No.
No. No. They weren't, and they still are not. Ladies and gentlemen, right, we have done some adventuring through space and time. Oh, there's, I have a little stretch there.
You saw a personal moment there where I stretched. Mm-mm. It was nice. You've gone through, a bit of space and time with me to look at Elon Musk and where he started from. And what I find interesting about that last article is that at this point, you know, I I like I was saying, the war on terrorism, is on its way, is is is building up momentum.
It's already here. Afghanistan and Iraq unfolding, And lots of money had been diverted by the Bush administration, Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld and the like, and it's being diverted away from things like space program. Now who knows whether we went to the moon in the first place? I'm seriously starting to doubt it when people repeat how, small or how inferior the technology was that were meant to get us to the moon. I mean, you just can't do anything with that.
It would be like the type of technology that was going to the moon, so it didn't make any sense. So whether it's true or not, I I don't I just don't care. I just don't care whether people landed on the moon or didn't land on the moon. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna die in any sort of on any sort of, like, head of stool on that regard. I'm not interested in in in defending evil idea, but what is pretty clear is that NASA, by 2,003, isn't seen as a way to get people to the moon.
And that's because all of the money is being pulled towards war, limited warfare, propaganda, etcetera, all of these different things. And so it was being seen as private enterprise is more likely gonna go to space. Now this is one of the things. Nationalized in space, everybody knows due to the Star Wars fiasco, back in the eighties nineties, and the race for space, by the communist communist, Soviet Russia and, the west. You know, there was a race for a space race that was supposedly won, but then nothing happened afterwards.
We've never gone back. Never needed to. It's all very suspicious. So the the real people, the people who were gonna take this mantle on, were always gonna be private enterprise because they're gonna end up having all of the money. That's how it works.
Parade to distribution. All the money goes up, ends up in this elite circle at the top. So the people who have all the money at the top there, have all of the ability to do all of the nifty little tricks like trying to take people off the planet and stuff. And that's what we've seen with Elon Musk, that push towards that. And that was the first time like, the early noise was the first time where they were like, okay.
Let's compete to be the companies that are gonna take people to space. And have we seen that? I don't think it's even close. I mean, there's so many so many interesting points. I know it's a different kind of different era to a kind of different point in the technological revolution, the Internet revolution that Elon Musk at the start says, oh, you know, people don't want these big overarching technologies that do everything.
And now he's trying to lead the way in creating the everything app. There's there's obviously massive there's different periods in technological advancement as well. So it's not too much of a surprise that there's a, a different agenda at play by these people. What's really interesting is Elon Musk has been heading in a direction of information, money, and then space. But the space thing, well, like I say, a lot of what they do if we all had Teslas, if we all had electric vehicles, we would have it to have lots of African children mining, lithium and just destroying, like, massive habitats to be able to mine, all of the the necessary parts, necessary component to to make the necessary components, the the the resources to, make the necessary components.
And a lot of people think that that would just destroy everything. We'd we'd just be going through everything. And like Herman Kahn in the past, said, you know, you don't have to we don't have to worry. By the time we get to the point where we're doing big technological stuff, we're gonna be able to to space and mine meteors and asteroids or whatever. But that's not that's not been what we've seen.
We've seen, still companies like Elon Musk with exploding rockets and and, cars that explode, everything that explodes. And Twitter, will that explode? Now would it be great? Is it is it just a cover to say, oh, we're gonna create an app and then just slowly dismantle it, from the inside or make it into something else, something that it was before? Who knows?
But I thought it was really important to go back to Zip 2, have a little look. And what that says to me is that he was in one of the many important, cyber realm businesses of collecting information and sourcing information and collecting information. And it would be more than just the information for about which bar to go in the it would also be personal information. Back then, it was like a free fall on people's personal information because the rules hadn't been put in. The cookie policies hadn't been created.
They were just taking as much information as possible and so, in using it for whatever. And so I think that's what you see within that period. You see them being able to make a lot of money off people's information. And then, you can also see that there's been this like, most people believe he's the founder of PayPal, and it's not easy. He he has had another company that merged with PayPal.
Eventually, very soon after, he's standing next to Peter Thiel, at computer with a receding hairline, and, and not long later, he's having probably butt hair stuck into his head. You know, that's how they do it. So Elon Musk has taken a bit of a journey in that time, and that's not rags to riches because he got given money originally by his dad. As as someone said, I don't I haven't backed that up. I will be backing up eventually.
I will be looking into Elon Musk's family history, and I will go back a bit, and I will have a a gander to see if there's anything there. Because people like this, they don't just rise to poverty. People don't become the richest, most powerful man in the world out of nothing. They it's not like you you grow a seed. It's like, wow.
Look at this seed. This is amazing. No. No. That seed's been carefully, bred, hybridized, backcrossed, throughout history to get, what you've got today.
So Elon Musk isn't a accident. He's not a mistake. He's made. He's made to be the way he is, and he's made and I'm not saying necessarily his parents, but the society, the state, the apparatus that he's gone into, the businesses that he's produced has led him to be the person he is today. If you look in the past, you see someone who says that, you know, you big big these big organizations reason all the info.
That's not what people want. Now that's what people want. So that's a little bit about Elon Musk. Zip 2, the start and the rise of his career, and I thought it would make a good news hound. So I hope you've enjoyed it, and I will leave you there.
Please come look at my work on fungy monkey dotcom, fungimonkey.com, where you'll find a lot of the media stuff. Jollybedmill.com, for a lot of articles. We've got some good ones coming out soon. You I'm on unlimited hangout. I'm starting to write for, UK column news right now.
And life is wonderful, isn't it? Brilliant. Yes. So, please, I hope you enjoy and, get in touch if you wanna talk about everything. I'm always happy to talk.
This has been NewsHound. See you later. Bye. What we know is that we will end up with many more unemployed.
Twitter. It’s what’s happening
From breaking news and entertainment to sports and politics, get the full story with all the live commentary.
twitter.com
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
Exacting Behavioural Change In this article, I will attempt to briefly describe the breadth of what is termed "behavioural economics", but once you begin researching this subject one thing becomes extremely clear—everything we do, every action we take, and every decision we make is encompassed by behavioural economics. It’s not simply a case of nudging people’s behaviour concerning purchases or credit cards, you can use these techniques to create a range of behavioural changes in people outside of economics, too. To a behavioural economist, people's actions are mappable. Everyone is driven by a mental model, and altering their mental models will, in turn, change their behaviour by giving their targets specific stimuli designed to nudge them into choosing an alternative option. During the third class of the 2008 Edge course, Mullainathan describes it like this: “It's about how there's a large set of programs where we're trying to encourage behavioral change in some form, and one of the underlying themes that emerges that unifies them is can we effectively elicit the mental model people operate with and then use that to then create behavioral change. It's a structured way to think about the behavioral change literature.” One of the aforementioned attendees Daniel Kahneman, a leading expert in cognitive psychology and the processes behind judgement and decision-making, recognised the psychological potential of this technology, stating on Edge: “What we're saying is that there is a technology emerging from behavioral economics. It's not only an abstract thing. You can do things with it. We are just at the beginning. I thought that the input of psychology into behavioral economics was done. But hearing Sendhil was very encouraging because there was a lot of new psychology there. That conversation is continuing and it looks to me as if that conversation is going to go forward. It's pretty intuitive, based on research, good theory, and important.” Although we believe ourselves to be somewhat discerning when making tough decisions, human behaviour is very predictable and, ergo, easy to manipulate. A lot of behavioural economics is data-driven, it’s as simple as: if we are confronted with our data output in a certain way, we will often choose to make different decisions. The more information they have about you, the more they can design their "nudges" to best sway your behaviour, whether you want them to or not. And that is the crux of behavioural economics, the more information they have about you, the easier it is to manipulate you into making certain decisions. 🧵15/20
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
When Thaler and Sunstein officially went on the road in 2008 to convince people of Nudge theory, they weren't shy about it's potential to overstep previously unspoken red lines. In a Boston Globe article on 2 March 2008, written by Drake Bennett, entitled: "When Shove Comes to Push", Bennett states: "Thaler, Sunstein, and other similar-minded thinkers argue that this approach has a panoply of applications: Besides improving people's financial and energy habits, it could restructure health insurance and medical care. In the social realm, some economists are experimenting with contracts to get people to lose weight; in their book, Thaler and Sunstein even suggest changes to the marriage contract." After they had released Nudge, Thaler and Sunstein wrote articles in several papers setting out their stall. In the Chicago Tribune on 6 April 2008, Thaler and Sunstein wrote an article entitled: "A Gentle Prod to Go Green", the behavioural tinkerers wrote: "Behavioral economics is an exciting new field that combines standard economics with an understanding of human psychology. From the standpoint of behavioral economics, it is important to focus on both the economic and the psychological aspects of the climate change problem. The economic aspect has to do with people's incentives. Neither big companies nor individual consumers are required to pay their full share of the environmental costs they impose on everyone else." In reality, within behavioural economics as practiced by Thaler and Sunstein, the general public is unwittingly convinced to accept the final bill for whatever policies those in power wish to enact. Whenever the politicians in power think that they know better than everyone else, they are free to systematically manipulate the general public via subversive psychological methods. In fact, much of Thaler and Sunstein's teachings interfere unduly with personal choice, the very definition of the "nanny state". Thaler and Sunstein referred to their branch of psychology as "libertarian paternalism" and they saw the desire to nudge as a natural part of a capitalist system. In an article written by Thaler an Sunstein for the Los Angeles Times on 2 April 2008, entitled: "Designing Better Choices", it states: "We find ourselves these days mired in political battles that pit laissez-faire capitalism, with it's reliance on unrestricted free markets, against heavily regulated capitalism, which favours government mandates and bans in an effort to ensure "good" outcomes. But this opposition is false and misleading. Any system of free markets will include some kind of choice architecture, and that means libertarian paternalism can offer a real "third way" around the battleground." 🧵16/20
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this 20th edition of NewsHound, the focus is on psychological operations and behavioral insights, particularly how they have been used to manipulate public opinion over the years. The discussion highlights the rise of "nudge units," which aim to influence behavior without direct intervention. The speaker examines the origins of these tactics, tracing them back to historical psychological operations and their modern applications, especially during events like COVID-19. Key figures such as Richard Thaler are mentioned for their roles in shaping behavioral economics. The conversation emphasizes the importance of recognizing these manipulative strategies in media and government policies, urging viewers to question the underlying motives behind behavioral nudges. The speaker also invites support for the ongoing project, emphasizing the need for independent journalism that challenges mainstream narratives.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everybody, and welcome to this 20th edition of news how. And we're going to look into your mind today. Yes. Your mind. We're gonna study something that they've been studying for, a a good deal of time, but have enacted in the past 15 years, which is just a form of PSIOPS, psychological operations.
And it shows when psychological operations became so mainstream that basically, any concerns had been allayed over time enough that people just didn't complain about it enough anymore. And so then they start again into your mind, using tactics that were akin to things that we saw in World War 2 and before to try and manipulate your mind and afterwards. Sorry. With the intelligence agencies used in loads of different operations, loads of different experiments to try and manipulate your mind, take over your mind, and make you make the right decision, their right decision, not your right decision. And, of course, this led to, what we saw during COVID, which was a massive psychological operation to change people's minds to do something that could be detrimental to their own health.
And we saw the majority of people fall for that crap. So that is worrying. And what we're looking at today is something called behavioral insights, nudge units. We're looking at the people who are pushing you on where it kind of started and where the, modern philosophy behind behavioral insight comes from. And now these teams have been and now these teams have been used not only in Britain.
They've been used in Canada. I think they've been used in, New Zealand. And they're a way to examine the population, examine how the population acts, and find ways to manipulate that population. That's you. You're the population.
So, seeing as you are so popular or populous, at least, let's go into this news hound, this double digit 20th edition. Oh my god. All the twos are there. And here we go. We're starting off at the Sydney Morning Herald on 9th December 2000.
So glad that we're back on NewsHound. I took a couple of weeks off because I had to open up and launch NewsPaste where NewsHound will now be found. And this is such a fun program for me to go through the history and what's been going on in the world with you. And a lot of this, I'll be reading for the first time. I'm gonna get my cheap glasses reading glasses on.
A lot of this, I'm gonna be reading for the first time. I don't even know why I've got these headphones on. This is really interesting for me as well as for you because, you know, this is a time where we are going to have psychological operations run on us, and we need to know and be able to recognize it. I'm sure you already do, but you really gotta make it so that when you see this sort of push, this nudging, you question what's truly going on behind the scenes and what the real reasons are. Because if they have to use behavioral, psychological, manipulation, then obviously what they're doing isn't going to be popular if they say it out loud.
Understand that dynamic is always present. And we start off with the Sydney Morning Herald. When we look at this lady, I think she comes up again. I think she's quite important in this whole in the whole doctrine and how it comes, it comes to pass. And I think, eventually, she actually goes against it.
She says she's not into it, but I might be wrong about that. It's I I seem to remember this. I I looked into a lot of this, and I researched a lot of this about a week ago, when I was looking at for, a podcast I was going on, and I wanted to talk about this. And so some of this really surprised me. It was really surprised how open it was.
And this is, Shoshana or Shoshana, Kockinski. Sounds like a Jewish, Polish name. Jewish name, I was gonna say. Slip of the tongue for some reason. Maybe she's Polish Jew.
Who knows? I hope she enjoys that. Tap in the cultural melting pot, a recipe for success. And this is by Pam Kershaw. Many small businesses show a marked reluctance to engage with the issue of human diversity despite Australia's increase in multi, multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism with quotation marks, I think, and the globalization of business, Shashana Kockinski, clinical psychologist who is a director of behavioral insights and lecturer, Australian Graduate School of Management, says business people are generally threatened by human diversity and its impacts on the traditional power balance. Even at MBA level, executives tend to shun the subject unless it, it is examined in relationship to the bottom line. Otherwise, you don't get the attention of business, she says. But if you give them a rationalization, like, it's about business, so it's okay to investigate this, They'll put their foot in the water. So notice what this is.
This is her saying, they're not interested. Businesses aren't interested unless it affects their bottom line. So the only way to get their attention is to say, you need to be concerned about this, and then they'll put their foot in the water. So need to cause some form of concern. So some form of mental reaction, a behavioral change that makes them think differently.
While most companies show interest in change management, change management is being called here. This is before the term behavioral insights has been kind of entered into the modern, lexicon. Kikinski questions how they can properly embrace it without dealing with the diverse workplace around them. To my mind, it makes no sense without that context. But if people are so resistant to oh, jump back and change everything.
If, people are so resistant to, structural change, such as technological change, how resistant will they be to people change where the power threshold changes? Population statistics show almost 25% of Australia's population was born overseas, but less than 40% of the people come from English speaking countries. About 50 years ago, just over 80% of overseas born populations came from such countries. Kukinsky says small business must engage with human diversity because service industry gen industries generate about 3 quarters of national economy and employ almost 7,000,000 people. People who are buying are not going to be majority of white Anglo Saxon English people.
It just isn't the way anymore. Businesses oh, sorry. Businesses are dealing with the cultural differences every day and should employ staff who reflect their buy in public. But many executives show poor skills in managing these cross cultural relationships. Less managers I meet tried to point at me and say I'm colorblind, or I don't even notice that people are black, which is ridiculous because if somebody is black, they're black.
Almost as bad as the multicultural cookbook, where people assume I'm not sure. Oh, yeah. Where people assume all Asians, oh, no. This isn't her speaking anymore, so I should pass on by almost as bad as the multicultural cookbook, where people assume all Asians or all Arabs will have the same cultural traits. Kiekinski suggests executives involved in cultures, they know little about should simply say to their employees or client, I don't know much about your culture of origin, and I'd be really interested to hear about it from you.
They're admitting there, there are differences of culture at play in, relationship, and they're giving power to the other party by expressing the interest to learn from them and show respect from them. Donald Alexander, a lecturer in public relations and professional communication at Central Queensland University, previously worked in corporate affairs for a big insurance company, where marketing, campaign, to culturally diverse groups proved effective, both with customers and staff. Alexander says the company was unable to reach customers in about half a dozen language groups. A search of its own workforce revealed a number of employees in this group who were then trained to handle inquiries. Social functions were held to introduce the concept of ethnic community leaders.
Direct marketing was used, and companies were able to place bilingual experts on local ethnic radio stations. Business just shot up through the roof, Alexander said. 1 of the Chinese agents had 10 to 12% increase in business just from appearing on the local Chinese radio station, a voluntary basis, to talk about financial planning. There's there's Alexander guy. Oh, 10 to 12%.
Is that through the roof? Alexander says the campaign was very effective internally because it made the staff feel their diversity was recognized. It made them feel well, there wasn't, was it? Companies who fail to manage human diversity may suffer from greater staff losses as studies show the turnover of minority groups can at least double, that of non minority groups if they're not managed properly. Refusing to hire diverse workforce is counterproductive, as Kukinsky says.
Companies which gain a reputation as the best place to work for women and minority groups report an increased flow in high quality job applications. Research also shows a more diverse group arrive at more creative, high quality solutions to problems. Globalization is another imperative. Human diversity can be a driving force for business growth in the global marketplace as companies require complex internal environment to match that of the market and improve, their understanding of it. American Express recognized this when it set up its Western Pacific headquarters in Sydney, as the city would provide a workforce that was bilingual in English and every other language of the region, Kukinsky says.
Similar moves can be expected in telecommunications field during the next 5 years as Australia becomes a beach head for telecom communication carriers to expand into Asia Pacific region. So obviously, there's a shift going on, a business shift. It's a millennium. It's December. It's been a a it's it's almost a year into the millennium.
And here, Kukinski is explaining, listen, if you don't change your behaviors and change other people's behaviors, you're gonna, not have a bet the best workforce to choose from, and you won't increase your margins, as you want to. So, of course, most most businesses were starting to sniff around the idea of behavioral insight teams. You know? They would they they this was very easy for marketing and PR companies who were already quite industrialized to say, well, maybe I should be looking at this behavioral stuff because if people do this, then what did it pay? It was a while before it it took hold.
Now what you see most of the time that was a rare article about behavioral insight. Because before, then, for the millennium, it's not really mentioned as a science so much because it's got a lot of luggage baggage attached. If you think about the whole world and change in psychology through some form of propaganda, and then you call it behavioral insight when it's just Leninist propaganda, then, basically, eventually, you're going to be called out. And the place where it really was and as you see from this Daily Telegraph, article from the 18th April 2,001, My mom's birthday. Says, this one's about you, pet.
Why do writers turn to dogs for literally in literal, literary inspiration? Asked Judith Woods. A commonly held fallacy amongst dog owners is that there are altogether more robust species than the airy fairy cat lovers. They, we firmly believe, that all those brisk walks, scooping poop and issuing forceful commands, albeit with varying degrees of success, makes for a sensible, down to earth approach to our mutts. The expanding market in dog related writings would, however, suggest otherwise.
A browse through any bookshop will reveal rapidly growing canine canon of stirring day in the life tales and glaringly obvious behavioral insights. I'm not gonna read all this article, but it's one of the things I wanna mention. Beforehand, most of the time people talk about changing behaviors, they're talking about animals. When they're talking about behavioral insights, insights to behavior, they're not doing it within the human realm as much as they're doing it within the animal realm. And at some time within, 10 years, from this article here, behavioral insight will be a normal term that's used, and it's made famous by one man in particular who really creates this doctrine that surrounds behavioral insights and nudge units worldwide, mainly in the western world, but you can be sure.
Like what you can see in COVID, at times like that, as soon as the west do something, the rest of the world catches up eventually. Let's meet the man, shall we? There you go. Take a look while I drink a bit of tea. Here is Richard Thaler.
And this is in the Daily Telegraph, and this is ape 11th April 2009. So about 8 years after the previous article. And it says celebrated economist wins vote of politicians, and he did. Yes. He did.
And Richard Thaler is the guy who's really the man behind all of the, creation of modern behavioral insight teams, nudge units. And we'll find out how. There is celebrated congresswomen vote to politicians. US academic hailed for discoveries on choice. That's how they frame it now, is on choice, on not on making people choose.
Because if you were hailed for discoveries on how to make people choose, people would say, wait a minute. I I'm not sure if I want someone else making my decisions for me or manipulating me in a way, but no. Discoveries on choice. Choice words. Richard Thaler, author and economist, and he's a profile on the man in the daily paragraph.
And this is because he's getting pretty important. When Richard Thaler first met Barack Obama little over 5 years ago, he assumed the US president, then in his early stages of his campaign for US senate, was destined for a slide back into obscurity. I met him at a neighbor's apartment who was having a fundraiser for this guy, says Faylor. I'm sure he doesn't speak like that, but he is on this occasion. Well, he wandered in.
In curiosity and because of the funny name, I immediately thought, who is this guy? He's the real he was, he's the real deal. At the time, he was running through it in the primary for the senate election. So we thought, great guy. Probably never hear about him again.
Thank god, not least for Saylor himself, that he was wrong. Since then, not only has Obama become the most powerful man in the free world, Denied you all. But Thaler's own career has been catapulted into orbit. No longer merely a cult figure in the University of Chicago's renowned School of Economics, Thelach has become one of the world's most renowned economists. His book, Nudge, written with fellow Chicago legal academic, Cass Sunstein, is not only a bestseller, but one of those rare things, a crossover economics book as likely to be found on the bookshelves around the country as in the university libraries.
And this is really important. He releases this book with Cass Sunstein, and they call it a crossover economics book. Because what it is, it's not a crossover. It's a behavioral psychological, operations manual for how to run psychological operations and dress it up as marketing, and dress it up. And who's gonna adopt it?
Governments, of course. Companies, of course. Nasty capitalist monsters, of course. Nasty communist monsters, of course. Nasty fascist monsters, Of course, they're all all of them are the same.
They're all as bad as each other. The idea behind nudging is quite simple. It rests on the notion that people often take choices which are not really in long term interest. They binge on food, drink, and cigarettes in spite of the effects they have on their health. I'm just gonna smoke some weed in my brother.
They borrow more than they should, and they spend on items they ought not to buy. This might seem pretty logical to a normal human being but not to an economist. For centuries, economics has relied on the idea that humans are essentially rational creatures who take decisions in their own self interest. Now that's this is the thing is everything's taken to the extreme. That's the belief that the majority of humans are.
So I I and and that is rational self interest makes sense only in context of someone's own situation and dynamics, which means it doesn't necessarily come out with the same conclusion every time. And who who is writing this? Can we can we find out who's writing this? Because one of the thing, it doesn't really it it just says profile. I wonder if it is Gary White.
It doesn't actually say who oh, right. Edmond Conway. It's I know you've probably been screaming at the screen. It's Edmond Conway, you bloody idiot. You said it yourself at the start.
Well, Edmund Conway, can I just, like, say for, a journalist? Is he is he impartial? For god, not at least for failure himself, see Kyle, that he was wrong. Since then, not only has Obama become the most powerful man in the free world, Dick Hall, but Thaler's whole career has been catapulted into orbit, Dick Hall. Thank god.
Thank god. That's that's how it is. Thank god. Thank god he was wrong, or we would never have had Obama. Anyway.
Okay. Where am I? The idea behind nudging is quite simple. It rests on the notion that people often take choices which are not really in their long term interests. They binge on food, drinking cigarettes in spite of the effects they have on their health, and they should borrow, more than they should, and they spend on items they ought not to buy.
This might seem pretty logical, but to a normal human being, but not to an economist. For centuries, economics has relied on the idea that humans are essentially rational creatures who take decisions in their own self interest. Really important to to, put that down again, that you understand that because that is is what what the status quo was before or at least what they define the status quo, but it's not that simple. You know that. But behavioral economics, a relatively new and fashionable corner of the discipline of which Saylor has been a pioneer, has used economic and psychological experiments to show that often this simp is simply not true.
A nudge is simply a government policy which edges someone towards a particular choice which is in their best interest, but may not naturally jump out at them as the obvious best choice. Yeah. We should read that again, shouldn't we? What is behavioral insight? Well, it's a nudge.
A nudge is simply a government policy which edges someone towards a particular choice, which is in their best interest, but they may not naturally see Kyle jump out at them as the obvious best choicey Kyle. You see? That's I I think I think that that's a lot of what fascism is. You don't realize this is your best choice, but this is your best choice. Oh, yes.
Now it jumps out at me. Now you've told me you'll put me in a camp if I don't do what you say. And this is where this leads, of course, is this doesn't just lead to nudging. This leads to outright lying. This leads to conning.
This leads to fraud on a mass scale. You'll see. A familiar one concerns pensions. Although saving for retirement is something everyone ought to do, many do not enroll for their company scheme when they join, less through conscious choice, but through either confusion or ignorance. The Turner report on UK pensions recommended that people should be automatically enrolled into a savings scheme, but with the option to opt out ease with the option to opt out easily available.
One could easily involve similar nudges in other realms of public policy. Indeed, conservative shadow chancellor George Osborne has suggested that people would recycle more if they were given a direct financial incentive to do so and should, be entitled to a cooling off period after buying a store card. Another nudge inspired idea is to give everyone information on their electricity or phone bill that will enable them to work out quickly and easily if, given their consumption characteristics, they ought to change to a different price plan or move companies. Says Thaler, when the Obama administration decided to have tax cut as part of its stimulus package, there was a question over whether it would give it in a lump sum or spread it out. Behavioral economics research suggested that if you want people to spend it, you should spread it out because if you get a lump sum, you're more likely to save it.
That's how behavioral economics is changing things. It's not that there's a single answer to every problem. It's more that for every problem, there's a behavioral insight that will make it more effective. It's rather like the iPhone. We're not going to be the 1st to come up with the idea of putting music play in a phone, but we will try to do it better.
For instance, you'd like to have some of Apple's designers help design the forms you have to fill out for the government. So the other idea behind nudging is that by giving people the appropriate data, they will make better informed decisions. No. Giving people the select data, selected, carefully manipulated, and coerced data will make them choose to do something. And they give you some innocuous examples of a cooling off period on a store card, giving people financial benefits to, actual recycling.
But that's not what we saw. What we saw is what the real behavioral insight team analysis come up with is that you find people more for, not recycling. You take more money away, and people are more likely. And that's they use a a punitive measure. They don't use the measures they claim.
They do this to look to the public like they're looking at these things and they're doing these things, but they're not. They're just suggested. Just suggested. George Osborne has suggested that people would recycle more. Suggestion.
Suggestion. So the other idea behind nudging is that giving people appropriate data, they make better informed decisions. Thaler's contention is that such an attitude would have lessened besides the financial bubble which has just popped. Now back there, he was saying, you know, people are desperate for money. We wanna encourage them to spend, so we give them a stimulus package and and make it so that it's over a longer period so they're more likely to spend it.
So we will decide on their behavior. Now they may it may suit them and may be in their best interest, their self interest, to save that money. You see, they're saying about self interest earlier on. That's it. It might be in the self interest of that person to save that money, but they don't want that.
So they will incorporate things to make it so that it's you choose something that's in their best interest and against your self interest, and that's open. This is open. You can see this. This is very obvious in their in in the way they'd say things, in the way they word things. But we'll just pop.
Wow. This is some they tell his contention. Yeah. Do less of a take complex collateralized debt obligations. Why not publish details of, for instance, the credit rating of the borrower, information about the house and neighborhood, he says.
If it's all there electronically, then now all of a sudden, these CDOs are more transparent, and somebody, one of the employed rocket scientists perhaps, will write a program to figure how risky they are and do the job the credit rating agency, weren't doing properly. I think with enough disclosure, you can let the market decide. We sorry. We think with enough disclosure, you can let the market decide. We only learned how systematic ARG was after the fact.
That should have been public. What I'm arguing for is threading a needle. The goal is to seek enough disclosure for the markets and regulators to monitor this sort of risk without forcing so much disclosure that people can no longer make money. We can't tell a hedge fund, George Soros, for instance, to tell us every every single trade, but we are entitled to know how much leverage he has and if he's big enough. If you're too big to fail, you're too big to hide.
It's plain to see why Thaler's ideas have inspired both sides of political spectrum. They're not prescriptive as such. So don't undermine the idea of free markets and free choice. Yes. They do.
But acknowledge the fact that, occasionally, these markets are not perfectly structured. Such ideas are helping nudge to infiltrate the corridors of power. Obama is a fan. Indeed, Sunstein has been appointed his regulation czar. David Cameron made the book required summer reading for his conservative shadow shadow cabinet colleagues last summer.
Indeed, when Thaler visits the Daily Telegraph offices, it is hotfoot from a meeting at cent conservative central office where he is being consulted by Tories on future policy making. So he literally goes into the offices of the Daily Telegraph to give this interview. He literally goes in. They don't come to him. He's proactively shared is sharing his behavioral insights so he can manipulate people into thinking he's the right person.
This is what he does for a living. In comments, which will probably quietly, delight the Tories, Thaler considers there to be some degree of similarity between Cameron and Osborne. If the Tories end up winning, or you don't think you'll see a huge difference between them and the Obama administration, he says. No shit. Not in 2 party politics nowadays.
This is, this is obvious. Rodivian style makeup is 2 parties completely similar. We all know this. We don't know how different Cameron is from Blair for the man for that matter. So maybe the world is coalescing on a moderate pragmatism.
That's what they call it. That's what they call it. That's real. That's a pseudonym for globalism. Moderate pragmatism.
Barack Obama is not only a socialist. The people that say that, that, the people that say that are idiots, they don't know what socialism is. What do Cameron and Osborne have in common? It's pragmatism. They both strike me as very pragmatic men who want to do what it takes to solve a problem.
Ringing endorsement indeed. There you go. That is a really important start to this. Richard Thaler, this is a guy who began with this, this, behavioral insight, dragging it into politics properly properly. So who is he?
Anyway, he's born, September 12th, so right on the end of, World War 2 1945 in the East Orange in New Jersey. An American economist who has been awarded 2017 Nobel Prize for Economics for his contribution to behavioral economics, a field of microeconomics that applies the findings of psychology and other social sciences to the study of economic behavior. In published work spanning more than 4 decades, Thaler explored how economic decision making by both individuals and institutions is systematically and significantly influenced by natural human cognitive limitations and biases, among other psychological factors. His findings consistently refuted the common assumption within economic theory that individuals always act rationally and selfishly, an idealization that most economists had nevertheless accepted as valid for predictive purposes. Predicting the majority, not all of them.
If you said that everybody was that way, of course, you'd be wrong. And everybody who was within that school knew that too. Thaler's, identification of specific ways in which people, people's real economic behavior deviates from rational norms are important. Practical implications have important practical implications, suggesting that many pub public and private social policies could be made more effective by incorporating subtle inducements or nudges designed to steer people towards good decisions, making, without ultimately depriving them of freedom of choice, to choose an approach that Thaler and others called libertarian paternalism. Now he says a bit more about him down here.
And, of course, as you can imagine let me close a couple of pages. Just a sec. As you can imagine, he has a Wikipedia page, and you I don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. When I scan Wikipedia page for research, I'm looking, at what the establishment want you to believe, and then I'm deciding, on the rest of it. So I'm not saying that these guys are wrong.
Like, the this Wikipedia page will be all wrong, but you know that Thaler and his people themselves would have had some sort of, effect on it, so you can't take it as given. It can lead you to research other areas, and that will often open up, different avenues. There's also, of course, for anybody who knows how it works, there's also you can go to the history of a page. And within the history of a page, you can see when things have been taken out. For instance, a dead link taken out there.
So minus here, it says minus. It means that a certain amount of characters have been taken out of the article. And what you want to do, in this case, if you really want to research something, you see 1,000 added there. So someone's added a section on something there. 246 added there.
246 taken away there straight away. And they claim it's a sock puppet, but you never know what they're gonna be. So then you you can actually go and you can compare it with the current or previous, and you can see what was taken out. You can see us a link, and then you can follow that link through to, through archive.org or the like. Let's continue with this.
So, thinking fast and slow. This is Daniel Kahneman. He he studied, with, Taylor. So, as you see here, I think you mentioned Daniel Kahneman in his Wikipedia page. Between 1977, 1978, spent a year at Stanford University collaborating research with Daniel Kahneman and Asmosh Sieversky.
I don't know how you say that. Who, provided him with theoretical framework to fit many of his economic anomaly that he had identified such as the endowment effect, which is in psychology and behavioral economics, the endowment effect is finding that people are more likely to retain an object they own than acquire the same object they do not own. The endowment theory can be defined as an application of prospect theory positioning that loss aversion is associated with something or whatever. Well, Thinking Fast and Slow is another one of these books that kinda look at this idea of, behavioral economics, psychology, how it works, and there's some really interesting, stuff. So it talks about, really complex ways of looking at things.
And this is really important to know because as soon as you know what they know, then it's a little bit more difficult, isn't it? So the this got a lot of traction. This whole fact that Obama and Cameron were about to get Richard Thaler to come along with them. What was that? It was extremely interesting for most people.
Many years ago, when David Cameron was still at school, school, boys of his age would, fall about laughing at Monty Python sketch involving 2 men in a pub, One of whom was desperate to draw out information about the other sex life. What a terrible first line. Oh my god. I just I if I wrote that, I'd have to stop being a writer. And I do write stuff like that, so maybe I should stop.
No. No. But I I mean, that is a that is a terrible first line. His continually repeated phrase was nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more, say no more. So when Cameron was young and still at school, boys of his age would fall around laughing.
So they're trying to make you view a sense that, look, Cameron's like everybody else laughing at Monty Python, but it's not. It's it's like saying, oh, you're laughing. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Nudge, or without a wink, has a special meaning in the modern political theory, and was very much involved in mister Cameron's circles 2 years ago, before the current economic crisis began. Then it disappeared, as if they had decided to say no more.
Now it appears it is back. The man who elevated nudge into a political catchphrase, the Chicago based academic, Richard Thaler, says that his idea is at last getting serious attention in Downing Street as it is in Barack Obama's White House. If they got Barack Obama's White House was brilliant for PR. They got something in there. Everybody, around the world was like, we can now relate it with Barack Obama and say he did it and and ride that wave of popularity of that guy who's not gonna do anything, I think they would get worse under his leadership.
A behavioral insight team, known colloquially as a nudge unit, is reported to be growing in influence inside number 10. The team includes the academic David Halpin, former adviser to Tony Blair. He reports to Steve Hilton, mister Cameron's director of strategy, and the cabinet secretary, sir Gus O'Donnell. Vince Cable, the business sector, is said by miss Taylor to be very much on board. So Vince Cable, for those who don't know, was part of the, what do they call it?
When a when 2 parties, coalition government, they they came together, liberal democrats, and conservatives to defeat, Tony at Gordon Brown. And, in doing so, they created this weird coalition. And even though they acted like they were gonna be, like, steering the conservatives, they just did everything. Vince Cable was on board with everything. All of them were on board with everything.
They put up a little bit of fight pretend to fight publicly, but they did everything. They were just in government, loving power, just, you know, pretending that they're the boss, but they're not really, are they? Professor Thelha visited, Britain in 2008 to promote his theory, met Cameron, and made such an impression that for a time, he acted unpaid adviser to the Tory leader. Unpaid adviser. A nudge a psychological like a guy who mainstreams psychological operations offers to be an unpaid adviser to the most likely potential leader.
This sounds like an operation. This sounds like Thales isn't alone, just deciding to do this and just trying to get onboard as an adviser. This is about nudging foreign leadership from America into doing what it wants it to do. His day job is directing the Center For Decision Research at University of Chicago, where he studies behavioral economics and finance as well as the psychology of decision making, which lies in the gap between economics and psychology. No gap.
He also investigates the implications of relaxing standard economic assumption that everyone in the in the economy is rational and selfish, instead, entertaining the possibility that some agent in the economy are sometimes human. It's so stupid. It's like like, it's all one way or the other. It's the these are created paradigms that are always false, and they know they're false when they implement them. But they do it so they can get away with things during a certain period.
During the last period, it was easier to get away with certain things if you lived under the dynamic that said, we're doing this because everybody is this certain way. But they're not that certain way. Shut up. Get out. You're fired.
You're not thinking in line with everybody else. Yeah. But what you're thinking is wrong. Shut up. Because you're the minority, we've been able to identify you because you've been outside the grain.
Then the whole ethos changes, and, someone else is pushed out for another reason. And it's a way to keep the people on board who will do what they want, what the company wants. Company men. Find company men. To some people, this may sound like an obvious statement, bleeding obvious.
Young people would be behaving rationally if the money they spend on iPhones was put into a pension fund instead. But most are not going to do anything so farsighted without very heavy prompting. According to professor Thaler, we would all invest in the stock market if we were rational, but we do not. Smoking, overeating, and taking no exercise are other examples of irrational behavior. No.
No. No. No. No. It again, the this is really clever how they try and manipulate this.
According to professor Thaler, we would all invest in the stock market if we were rational. Not true. The stock market is only dependent on the era, on how finances is going, and whether you've got enough money to put into a stock market. Most people are living hand to mouth day after day, not being able to afford stuff. So they can't even process the idea of spending a large amount of time outside the obligations they have to their family, their work, and to their own keeping their own psychosis, from falling apart, the or from taking control of their actions.
They instead have to decide what I'm gonna go invest in the stock market and learn how to do that. That's not gonna happen. They're too busy with the other things. This is just it's that's shortsighted, easy, simplistic, simplifying human beings. And the stock market isn't for everybody and isn't very, it doesn't just create wealth.
It doesn't mean that you're just rational. So it is there there is a lot of, stupid stuff about it. So where are we? Yeah. So we would invest in the stock market if we were rational, but we do not.
Smoking, overeating, and taking no exercise, and other examples of irrational behavior. No. They're not. They're completely rational. Smoking is to relax because everything's stressful.
Overeating to relax because everything's stressful. No taking, no exercise is to relax because you're tired after everything's so stressful because everything's so stressful because people are constantly nudging you to do stuff. Nudge theory is an attempt to resolve the classic conservative dilemma. Since they believe in the small state and no taxation, should the conservatives just leave us to our bad habits and accept the undesirable social consequences that will follow, or use the leaders of state to try and improve our behavior. See, they're selling it to you improve.
It's not improve, it's to change our behavior. Because it's only improving depending on whether their policies work and their policies don't work on all different scale. And that will reflect that when they're implementing in a more psychological way. But instead of implementing in a psychological way something they can retract, they've then implanted something in your brain forever. That's not it's not retractable.
You can't go back on on it afterwards. You know? You'd you'd have to break people's minds and open up, open up their brains, and they're not gonna do that. So it's about giving you stuff, irrelevant of whether that's going to be beneficial for you in long term or short term. It's about it being beneficial for them in the short term.
There is a powerful libertarian wing within the party whose general prejudice is to allow people to do as they please, provided they do not break the law. There are also, paternalists who believe that the fortunate in society have a duty to protect the less fortunate from consequences of their own folly. Libertarianism and paternalism are assumed to be necessarily necessarily in conflict. In 2008, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein wrote a book called Nudge Improving Decisions About What Health, Wealth, and Happiness, in which they claimed that there is a middle way that enables the state to be both paternalist and libertarian instead of ordering people around or leaving them to behave in self defeating way. The state can nudge them into behaving sensibly.
That's making them they know it's gonna have that effect. So it's making them do it. They're not sure that they're why they're doing it, but they're deciding to do it. They've been told to do it, so they do it. They discover it's not in their best self interest, but it makes no difference.
The example they gave, which has attracted most publicity, not because it's, it is the most important, but because it's so wacky, is a success story of public glue in Amsterdam Airport, where men were nudged into urinating urinating in the the pan despite, oh my God, many distractions which were apparently spoiling their aim. This small but desirable improvement in male behavior was achieved by painting a picture of a housefly on the porcelain. The quantity of misdirected urine is said to have fallen by 80%. You cannot measure this. This is, again, I would say bullshit.
It's not. It's human piss. In the UK, it has long been assumed that if people are given financial inducements to cut their fuel bills through better insulation, they will do it. Nudge theory allows that they are not necessarily that rational, but will be influenced by what their peers are doing. Therefore, the way to persuade people with excessive fuel bills to do something about it is to tell them what the average bill being paid along their street is.
Very few consumers will willingly pay more than their near neighbors. The authors called their philosophy libertarian paternalism. Another phrase they introduced was choice architecture, a concept implying that the state can be the architect that arranges personal choice in a way that nudges consumers in the right direction. You must change a word there, because let's read that again. The author called their philosophy libertarian paternalism.
Another phrase they introduced was choice architecture. A concept implying that the state can be the architect that arranges personal choice in ways that nudges their population in the right direction, in their direction. So this should say, arranges personal choice in a way that nudges the population in the political party's direction. Not everyone who had read their book was overwhelmed. The writer, Peter Wilby, thought it was pretty marginal to what politics ought to be about.
But it impressed David Cameron, who met professor Thaler at around the time the book was published. He and his adviser, Steve Hilton, were looking for a neat idea that would suggest the conservatives that found the idea medium between state intervention and laissez faire. In, August 2008, the book was included in the list of suggested summer readings circulated to Tory MPs. Then all went quiet as a con economic crisis hit the UK. There were more important or there were important things to talk about.
And the next time for Tories reached for a big idea, they produced the big society. But the big society left civil service cold, despite the fervent conviction of David Cameron, put in his exhaust exhaustions, extortation, sorry, extortion, will I? To the public, to be more, civic minded because it did not translate well into policies. It does not answer the question whether it is government business, to deter people from adopting bad habits that damage their health or wealth. Yet ministers have to make these choices.
If they intervene, they can be accused of running a nanny state. To do nothing risks appearing irresponsible and uncaring. But if the theory works, they can avoid either of those extremes by nudging. So this gave them best of both worlds, and this is what it was about. Best of both worlds.
And there you go. This is the nudge book. What do you think? Wonks at the White House. They are the wonks, wonks, 2 middle aged scholars from Chicago whose guests were explaining even the most complex legal and economic conundrums in terms, that Joe Public can understand has turned them into a cult figure in both industrials of academia and beyond.
But for men who are frequently hailed as visionaries and whose book, in particular, the hugely influential Nudge, have achieved a rare distinction of, filling libraries, holiday makers' suitcases, and presidential bedside tables. Cass Sunstein and Richard Phela boasts, surprisingly dodgy political antennae. The first time they encountered a local politician called Barack Obama, they presumed that his career was headed nowhere. I met him at neighborhood apartment, Baylor once recalled. At the time, he was running 3rd in the primary for senate elections.
So he thought, great guy. Probably never hear from him again. Fortunately for their careers, at least, they were wrong. Mister Obama's rise has propelled the academic career of failure hitherto and largely anonymous 64 year old economic theorist into orbit. So Obama caused this guy and his support to to go go big.
Sunstein, a formidably brainy law professor, has done even better. Now he has requested the White House regulatory as the White House regulators are bringing the ideas that inform Nudge to bear on the White House decisions from everything, from share shaming con companies so they pollute less, to getting people to make use of their tax free pension plans. With his wife, Samantha Power, who sits on the National Security Council, he forms one of Washington's foremost power couples. What? Sunstein?
His wife is Samantha Power? Oh, really? Wow. Isn't that interesting? Well, you can see that people who know how to change and manipulate people's behaviors are in the halls of power again.
And that's it. That's nudge. This is the book by Phala and, Sunstein. Look at the wonderful paternal elephant nudging along his little child. Keep walking forward.
It's a cliff there, daddy. Shut up. Keep going. I can't feed myself, so I'm not gonna feed you anymore. Goodbye.
Yes. That could be what is happening. And how do we know what we don't, do we? And it describes in the Wikipedia page on the notebook, it it describes different fallacies, anchoring, availability, heuristics, representative heuristics, status quo, bias, herd mentality. It, you know, it it basically examines how to make people do things that, they don't necessarily want to do, which is what Equity and Power wants to do, isn't it?
So we're nearly out the the the, abutment again. So, you know, by 2 in 2010, these all these articles come out, and I wanted to show this because we're gonna start getting, through some more stuff now. And, again, this talks about big society, and this shows you look. There's there's the fly in the, toilet pan in Amsterdam, I believe. There's a fly etched on this urinal.
Number 10 is looking very hard at its role in public life. So, you know, they're they're they're looking, they're advertising, and they're loving the idea that you can make people proverbially piss in the right place. 80% increase. I mean, if that peeing on the floor can be changed to people's decision making, you can always get people to do whatever you want. Think about that.
So it begins. By 2010, there's new people being brought in.
Speaker 1: Sassy and sexy. Isabella Spearman.
Speaker 0: Look at she got such a Tory face on this sassy and sexy. You say, what do you think? This is Evening Standard. Eventually, George Osborne would go work for Evening Standard. The conservatives are so aligned with Evening Standard.
So you can't trust anything they say on the Tory party. It says Sam Cameron's stylist is on the public payroll. So this is Samantha Cameron's stylist. David Cameron faces a fresh row over Whitehall appointment today as it emerged his wife's stylist and Tory's former brand guru had been hired at tax payers' expense. Isabel Spearman, a former PR designer Anja Hindmarsh, is missus Cameron's personal assistant.
Described as sassy, sexy, incredibly organized, she is reported to go shopping with missus Cameron to help her choose outfits. Anna Maren Ashford, 31, former head of brand communication for the Tories, has been put on a new behavioral insights team in the cabinet office, which looks at how to the government can persuade people to change their behavior. Mister Cameron is already under fire for putting personal photographer, Andrew Parsons, and former Webb Cameron editor, Nikki Woodhouse, on the public payroll. A government insider insisted missus Spearman's role was largely administrative, and miss Ashford was, not involved in imagery consultant but working on only on strategy strategy. This is the start of them pulling in people who are focused on brands, image, and PR into the behavioral insight team and trying to get these people who had been close to them.
Sorry, I was poking right by there with me and then didn't mean to do that. The poking getting them to poke people in the right way and teaching them this doctrine, which would allow them, of course, to progress in their own careers in a different way. And here we go. This is where it begins. Give me a second, though.
So just had to get a a quick drink of some German Cola. Oh, yeah. Frits Cola. They don't pay me for the advertising. They deserve to be advertised.
They're pretty nifty. Where were we? Nudge, nudge, theory. PM's guru shows how to cut student sex. David Cameron's nudge guru has claimed he knows how students could be made to have less sex and stop getting drunk so often.
Now come on. If you were a student, what's the fun of being a student? You gotta study all the time. You gotta put all this information into your head. Your brain hurts all the time.
You're learning to go from being a child and acting like a child to being an adult and acting like an adult. And it's a transitionary stage, and we all know it. We all those who, in student cities and towns I'm in a student city in Cardiff. You go out in Cardiff, when it's the start of student, time of students coming back or just before they leave, most weekends in between when they're here, it is bedlam. It is nightmarish.
People are out doing stupid things. Kids act stupid, act crazy, and they're growing up. So taking away having less sex, and stop getting drunk so often, that's part of the process. So they're taking the only trying to stop the only fun part of a really boring process. So what will that make humanity?
Will you see that pendulum and people being able to express themselves like that and learn how to get on in society and how to have fun? Or are we gonna are they trying to make a load of work ants that only do what they told and don't make any trouble, don't cause any issue, don't go out with the rounds, don't think outside the box? Because that's what it's all about. That is what it's all about. Doctor David Halpin told Lourdes inquiry some were indulging in nocturnal activities, to ape their boastful peers.
But in reality, these braggers were not living up as much as they claimed, living it up as much as they claimed. By shattering the myths around sex and alcohol excesses at universities, students could be persuaded to adopt healthier lifestyles, says doctor Halpern. He's the £100,000 a year head of the behavioral insights team at the cabinet office, which is looking at how the public can be persuaded to change behavior. Psychological operations. That's what a psychological operation is.
We wanna change people's psychology and what they do on a daily basis. It is inspired by nudge theory, which argues governments should make it easier for people to make better choices. At the House of Lords inquiry into chart changing people's conduct, he said individuals got locked into behavior. They thought friends were enjoying. Doctor Halpin added, sometimes oh, no.
He doesn't speak like this.
Speaker 1: He says, sometimes there's a route through that, where essentially what you want to do is make more explicit a certain behavioral norm. An example is alcohol consumption in students where, where most appear to overestimate how much others drink and overestimate how much sex other students have. Simply providing that information is interesting corrective. Now think about that. So
Speaker 0: what did they say earlier? They said, if you knew how much your neighbors were paying for electricity on your street, for water or whatever, you would stop, you would be less likely to overspend. Now they're saying, if you tell students how little amount of sex other students have, and how little they drink to what they say, then you'll see them do that. You'll see them do what their peers do, but you've gotta tell them what their peers are doing. How do you know what their peers are doing?
How do you know? Well, with the electricity and stuff, you got bills and things like that. So you collate the bills from the local areas, so you know how much people are spending. So you're basically got all of the data on people's energy consumption, and you're using it to manipulate behavior. That's why people don't like government having data because if they have the data, they'll manipulate your behavior.
Now that doesn't seem so bad. Save money on your bills? Why not? The next step is have less sex, have less drink, have less of a student experience. So one goes from spend less money to next, spend less money and have less of a life.
That's a pretty big jump. It's all about telling people or making people believe that you know what other people are doing, and they're not doing what you're doing to make you want to go with the rest of the crowd. And that is herd mentality. That's a herd that that's what they're doing. They're getting people to go up together and walk along because it's better for the pack.
But at the same time, they're telling you it is better for your self interest that you listen to us. That's the amazing thing. They're saying because they they're stressing. They're not even saying it. They're saying because what you do is against your self interest, then listening to us is better than that.
But that is also listening to them is also against your self interest. So what is your self interest? That's what you've gotta ask yourself. And, no, you the answer should be to have a life, to enjoy yourself, to go to university if you want, to study if you want, and to party and enjoy and meet other people and learn and get out that that youthfulness. Because later on, otherwise, later on, you will try and expel that out in other parts of your life when it shouldn't be expelled out.
That's how it works. So who is this David Halpin? Here we are at the behavioral insight team's website. It's a bit wider here. Behavioral insight team's website, and we're here with professor David Halpin, CBE, chief executive.
David Halpin, CBE, is the chief executive of the behavioral insights team. David has led the team since his inception in 2010. Prior to that, David was the 1st research director of the Institute For Government. And between 2,012,007, he was a chief analyst at the prime minister's strategy unit. So he was already working for Blair as chief analyst at the prime minister's strategy unit.
So he's already working for Blake, already in office. He then goes to work as a first research director of the Institute for Government. So he's all about government. He's all about government. He's all about government strategy and behavioral psychology.
David was also appointed as the What's Works national adviser in July 2013, a position he held until 2022, through which he led efforts to improve the use of evidence across government. Use of evidence to get what they want out of people by tricking them into thinking other people are doing things that they're probably not doing. Before entering government, David held tenure at Cambridge and post Oxford and Harvard. I can't remember where where I think it's Harvard where I couldn't find him at, Harvard at all. It might be in Oxford, but I did have a little look around for this.
I couldn't find him at all at Harvard, any mention of him. I always find that suspicious, of course. You know, I'm a researcher, and I know that there's a lot of strange scientists coming out of Harvard. And I've, well, done a lot of research into social sciences, especially targeting you from behavior, over the past 75 years at Harvard. So when someone's been at Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard, you've gotta be super suspicious.
Those are 3 of the centers of this sort of behavioral changing, regime. Oh, these people. German Cola. He has written several books and papers on areas relating to behavioral insights and well-being, including Social Capital 2005, The Hidden Wealth of Nations 2010, Online Harms and Manipulation 2019, Commonline Harms and Manipulation. Oh, he's so cheeky.
Easy Online Harm and Manipulator. And coauthor of Mindspace Report. In 2015, David wrote a book about the team entitled Inside the Nudge Unit, How Small Changes Can Make Big Difference. David was awarded a CBE in the New Year's honors in January 2022 for public service as What Works' national adviser. And this is he's awarded for telling the establishment what they need to do to make people do what they want them to do.
That is this is gold. This guy is gold. You're gonna see his team come out. We're gonna go through, a bit about this guy. We're gonna follow a bit about this guy now, and you're gonna you're gonna see his teeth come out and him be exposed at some point.
So let's have a look through. I'm not sure which ones of these we're we're gonna be looking. But anyway, there's his Wikipedia page. Here he is. He's helping at Chatham House in June 2014.
Well, of course, he's at Chatham House, the place which started, like, the the CFR, Chatham House, that sort of policy study group, ruling the world behind the scenes for people who are just bloody awful, bloody awful. So you can see, some of the things that they say on his Wikipedia page. We've done we've done most of it. But what I wanted to bring note to was, he is one of 56 individuals named by the UK government as contributing to the scientific advisory group emergencies in response to COVID 19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, focusing on behavioral changes such as increased handwashing. On 11th March 2020, he gave an interview to BBC on the importance of shielding vulnerable people during the COVID 19 pandemic until herd immunity had been achieved.
So proponent of the strategy behind COVID, and he's one of the many who were put on board because they needed the psychologist, because they needed to run a psychological operation during COVID. It was there was a massive amount of psychologists to use to try and change your behavior, to do something that was against your self interest, against your self interest, and against the interest of wider society. That's what perverted science looks like, my friends. That's what perverted psychology looks like. In 2016, Halpern was elected a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences.
He was appointed commander of the order of the British Empire 2023 New Year's honors list for public service. Of course, he was. Of course, he's given, that sort of a bonus. And, again, you can if you wanna know more about people like this, then you go to their histories, and, you can just give a click on that, and you better. It's David Halpin.
He's pretty important, isn't he? And now we start to see, from December 2010, what they were really looking at doing. It was a start seems positive. Smokers get free nicotine patches. What about addicts of German Cola?
What about assay? Damn you all. Anyway, so the twin campaign I'm gonna skip through some of this. Some of this is about research has shown they can be quite effective with studies quoted to patient UK websites suggesting that 17 in 100 smokers who take some form of nicotine replacement therapy manage to quit. Most nicotine patches can be bought over the counter without a prescription.
About half of all smokers die from smoking related diseases. Smoking cuts the average life expectancy by about 10 years. The Change For Life checkbooks will each contain 12 healthy style vouchers, entitling holders to a range of offers, including cheaper sessions, gyms and swimming pools. So here's one of their early initiatives. And, you'll see the twin campaign in victory for Oliver Letwin, the cabinet office minister, and Stephen Hilton, down, Downing Street strategist, who have pioneered the theory of nudging people to make changes rather than applying Manistate principles.
Ministers have set up a special nudge unit inside the cabinet office, formerly known as the behavioral insight team. It's run by David Halpern, a former adviser in Tony Blair's strategy unit. So this is the nudge unit, and this is a real, center of power, really, now. And originally called the behavioral insight team. They just took Thaler's name of nudge and have it called the nudge unit.
And so this guy was doing this through Tony Blair, probably through Gordon Brown, the who through the the Institute of Government or for government, and then, onwards, through David Cameron up until, like, very recently. And so here's another one. Musical stairs could set the tone for leading healthier daily life. So they start off by saying, look, you can do these little things to make people react differently. Stairs in stations and public buildings could be adapted to play tunes as people stand on each step, making them fun to climb, a government report suggested.
Encouraging people to take stairs instead of lift and escalators could cut obesity and increase public fitness, Whitehall has said. This suggestion was made by the behavioral insight team in the cabinet office, a group of economists and scientists who were devising ways to change public behavior without passing new laws. Its work is central to David Cameron's promise to end at nanny state government and put more faith in people to make their own choices. In the report, the behavioral team suggested a range of ways to nudge people into taking better care of themselves. So the study looked at innovative measures in a number of countries that can help make people, healthier without directly compelling them into changing their behavior.
But you are. You're just doing it secretly without outwardly, directly, and honestly compelling them to to change their behavior and saying what you're doing. You're just learning how to manipulate people without them even knowing what's going on. One example was a project in Stockholm metro station when Volkswagen stated motion sensors pia installed motion sensor piano keys that played tunes as people climbed the stairs. The result was 66% increase in people taking the stairs.
Making the stairs eye catching and fun to climb had a motor, motivating effect. In addition, more, people started taking the stairs. Others tended to follow, the report said. The report also raised the prospect of supermarket trolleys being redesigned. The team cited a study in New Mexico State University, which found that creating an area within the trolley for fruit and vegetables could prompt shoppers to buy more fresh produce.
Supermarkets could also be, be encouraged to design shelves to put healthier food in direct eye line of shoppers. Other suggestions include children could be given rewards for walking to school, Swipe machines could record miles walked and award points that could be swapped for cinema tickets or shopping vouchers. Fruit and vegetables could be rebranded sports candy to encourage children to eat them. Why? Wait a minute.
I'm gonna take another break. Now that German Cola that I was drinking there, that didn't give me wind. But the idea of renaming fruits and vegetables, sports candy, certainly has given me something inside. Pears coming up. Oh, it might be vomit.
Oh, god. Fruit and vegetable sports candy. This is doublespeak. We know what this is. We know it.
Eat your sport candy, child. It's broccoli, mom, and you know I hate it.
Speaker 1: Stick your sport candy in your mouth. Shut up and
Speaker 0: eat your sport but that's a candy. That's a carrot. It's not even the same thing. Shut up. It's sports candy or sport eat your sport candy pie.
It's peas, mom. I don't even like peas. I'm allergic to them. Shut up and eat your sports candy. They love it.
They love it. Children who wanted to go regular blood sugar tests to check for diabetes could get points that can be exchanged for computer games. Oh, teenagers should spend time supervising and playing with toddler to show how much work it is involved in rearing a child to to to to to to teenage pregnancy. Oh, give a a teenager a child. Go on.
Here you go, child. Give this child to this teenager. Off to the park. Boy, don't know what to do with it. Shout out to put it in the river.
Shut up and learn how to look after children. Nudge. Nudge, nudge, nudge. They don't really care about, any other possibilities apart from what they think will children will do this if we give them games. Okay.
So what happens once children do that? What then happens? What happens when you rebranded all vegetables sports candy? What happens then when kids are going, this is fucking stupid? That's something made up by people who don't understand anybody.
Because not every form of branding or rebranding works. You've got a load of marketers and PR people in a department that focuses on changing psychological behavior in manipulative ways. This is this is subverting democracy. This is subverting, law. This is subverting your mind, kids' mind, and not even only looking at the one positive consequence you're aiming at.
Not looking at what it means in the long term. Teenagers should spend time supervise yeah. Okay. Smokers trying to give up could be asked to sign a contract where they lose or keep rewards based on whether they pass regular tests. Listen to that.
It starts off, oh, you you get certain rewards, but you lose them. Oh, what's the reward? Eventually, it'll be your pay. Neil won't get so much pay if you don't stop smoking. And they did we saw this all through this period in different parts of the world.
We saw them, the the past, like, 15 years saying, oh, if you don't stop smoking, you can't work at this warehouse and stuff. We don't do smoking breaks at this warehouse. We don't have a smoking area. To try and nudge people. Nudge people.
Constantly nudging by incorporating rules that are like fascist. So basically enforcing a fascist state. Oh, right. Okay. That one it is.
Universities should begin advertising campaigns telling students that their peers are drinking less than they think. The team found that many people tried to match falsely high estimate for friends, consumption. I had friends back in the day who could drink 12 plus pints, in a night easy, so I don't know about that. All new drivers should have to make an active choice about registering an organ donor. As an organ donor, people should look after elderly neighbors in exchange for virtual money they can spend on their family's care.
You we're taking away the NHS care principle of free at the point of use, so that you can then be offered care. You can have care as long as you look after your elderly neighbor. This is a big society. That's what it was like. That's what the ideas were.
Similar citizen to citizen welfare schemes are already in use in Japan. Yeah. Oliver Letwin, the cabinet office minister, said, there are often cost effective ways of encouraging behavioral change that will lead to better results for individuals and pass a society. Speed oh, I need another no. So there you go.
That's intriguing, isn't it? Musical stairs. Yes. Of course. The Daily Telegraph.
But it's not just musical stairs. As you see, they listed out all the different things that they're looking to do. These are all the suggestions that by 2011 beginning of 2011, they're like, we're in a new world of behavioral psychology where we can make you do this, so we're gonna do this whether you like it or not. So they start going through and and they start releasing. So July 2011, shoppers to be told running cost of new appliances.
So shoppers are to be told the annual running cost of new television, dishwasher, and bridges to persuade them to save money and help the environment. Campaign groups claim that the current information on energy use is graded from a to f, does little to explain what impact buying different brands will be on electricity bills. Ministers are also convinced that people can be nudged into buying green with a promise of financial savings in the future. The consumer group, Which, and, business leaders from Confederation of British Industry Irene talks about drawing up a standard of how every electrical gadget and kitchen appliance can be labelled with its running costs. It would mirror the per year cost data already published for new cars.
Okay. That's easy to do on cars, less easy to do on other things, which I sort of think I don't think we've seen any of this, have we? Have you seen this? Have you seen the cost of things being run? A lot of these were just ideas.
They put them out there, and those ideas themselves, put them out into the ether, nudges some people into making a difference. So some people will be nudged by saying, oh, energy use, graded from a to f. I never realized that's what they're grading was, so they'll be nudged into looking at that. There there will be they would just even point out the ideas starts to, get people to change what they do. Big name retailers will be asked to sign up to voluntary scheme to spell out the real world cost of latest gizmos.
For example, some LCD televisions can be twice as expensive to run as more energy efficient brands, And the cost of running a washing machine can vary from 2.5p to more than 8p for each load. In some cases, cheaper appliances are also more efficient to run. Serious, 8p for each load. That's not that much, is it? I've always more than that.
According to data from Sustic website, a Sony PlayStation slim free cost £24.5 a year to run for 2 hours every day compared with £6.75 for Microsoft Xbox. Oh my god. A Gorengy medium, fridge freezer costs 780 to buy with an annual running cost of £24.12, whereas a similar £588 hot point model would use, 45.73 of electricity in 12 months. Chris Heun, untrustworthy, secretary of state Benjie believes this believes the key is to make costs real and tangible rather than abstract. Although energy rating on white goods are well understood, there's little awareness of how much it cost to money Keppel, a TV, or pledge.
Each day, each year, I choose. I don't know why to an agent at the end there. He said in a speech earlier this year, until you put the part of it, it's a day to ignore. It is hoped that by providing a financial incentive for buying a financial incentive providing a financial incentive for buyers to turn their back on polluting products. Manufacturers will be persuaded to invest in low energy technologies.
Some appliances are more expensive on shop shelves, could reap savings over cheaper models via their running costs. Richard Lloyd, executive director of which, said people tell us that they want to know the full lifetime cost of the of major products. So we calculate the annual running costs of all the refrigeration products and televisions we check. We're currently exploring rolling this out for other major household products. Our aim is that we this will shortly be available to all.
The move is part of a wider drive by government to steer the public towards making greener choices by buying goods, upgrading their homes, or going on holiday. Earlier this month, a report by the behavioral insight team known as David Cameron's nudge unit set out radical ideas aimed at persuading people to go green. It includes a trial with DIY store home base where local council will offer a month's rebate from council, tax bills to householders who buy products to cut their energy bills, such as loft insulation. In a separate pilot, people who club together to buy energy efficient projects will be offered bulk buy discounts. 5 householders, 5 householders could save up to 25%, the unit suggested.
People will also be sent details of average energy bills for similar homes to show how much they could could, be saving. So, again, these are all little things. All little things to nudge your behavior very slightly, nudging you here, nudging you there. Now here we go. This is where it changes gear.
2012, we start to see the real face of what is the nudge unit. Government adviser urges tax men to overcharge us. What do you call it when someone purposely overcharges you if it's not fraud? Now what if that fraud was on a mass scale and was systematic? Would you want that?
Would that make you want to vote for the person? Would you wanna vote for David Cameron if you knew he was committing mass scale fraud sanctioned by state, taking money off you, your neighbors, and your neighbors' neighbors. Would you be happy with that? 1 of David Cameron's most senior advisers has made a vain attempt to persuade tax officials to overcharge us all on purpose as a subtle way of making us happier about being taxed. At first reading, that may not be at first reading, that may not make much sense.
But the adviser in question runs down in the street's nudge unit, the people whose job it is to invent unusual and discrete ways to make us all change our behavior. Some people think the unit is hothouse of sharp, innovative thinking whose combined brainpower could save the government vast sums of money. Others suspect that it's a form, a a fount of silly gimmicks that appeal, to the ad man in David Cameron. Doctor David Halpin, above, head of the behavioral insights team, to give the nudge unit its correct name, who also used to be Tony Blair's chief strategy analyst, has observed that we hate it if the tax man the tax people come to us demanding money because they have made a mistake and undercharged us. Mistakes like that make people want to cheat on their tax returns.
But we love it if the revenue gets it wrong, owns up, and we get a check through the post. Therefore, HMRC should deliberately overcharge and so and so that every taxpayer gets a nice title, title refund. I think it's meant to be little. But nice title refund at the end of the year. Doctor Halpern told civil servants conference this month.
When people get oh, sorry. The his voice goes
Speaker 1: when people get tax back from the HMRC, they feel great. So we're trying to persuade you guys that's what you should do.
Speaker 0: He urged HMRC is not he urged HMRC is not impressed. We do not seek to collect more tax than is due from our customers, a spokesperson told at the in house, civil service world. Wow. So here you go. This is David Halpin telling HMRC they should systematically defraud the public to make them happier.
This is where within 2 years, the nudge unit goes to. The systematic theft of almost every British citizen. This is this is fraud. Yeah? And why is this guy not in jail?
Why is Halpin not in jail? Why is Halpin why why is he not kicked out by here? Why is he given an award eventually? Forward. Systematic, national, wide scale, mass Ford.
AUNSI scheme, basically. But the next year, they're still going at it. They're still doing the same thing. Switch off your cell phone. Set yourself free.
They're already trying to give you this is in the Ottawa Citizen. They're already trying to give you different behavioral insight teams around the place, all trying to give you the same the same thing. This is still from London, though. This guy filming. They're filming so that they can watch you.
The problem with smartphones, warned professor Paul Dolan of the London School of Economics, is that they distract users' attention from the people around them. We all know that. But why are they trying to make you put down your cell phone in 2013? Because for the governments, all the governments around the world, they they were not popular. News was bad all of the time.
They were they were, putting squeeze on spending on people, cutting services, and people were complaining. So they were going online. And people were collecting online, and they were forming groups. And they wanted you off your cell phone. Around that time it's around that time they wanted you off your cell phone.
And that's what they did. Switch off your phones cell phone. Set yourself free. They give you a reason why you should do this. Commentary.
Silence may be truly, may truly be golden in the age of the ubiquitous mobile devices. That is truly like, a line from, papers in the fifties sixties. It sounds like that. I read a lot of those. London.
Will miracles never cease? I learnt on Monday there's a team of officials in the UK Cabinet Office known as the Nudge Unit, charged with suggesting ways people can make small changes to improve their lives. Naturally, this sent the taxpayer and me into a love of indignation. No wonder the national debt is mountainous is so mountainous if crack pot initiatives like this are given the green light in Whitehall. But then wonders of wonder, out of the behavioral insights team, as it's formally known, emerged common sense, so beautiful and bracing that it was like being nudged by Marilyn Monroe.
What while she's high and naked and being passed around by gangsters? Is that what the Marilyn Monroe guy people people have a weird way of expressions. Is it Marilyn Monroe while she was o o d in? Is she nudging you then? Shouldn't you be nudging Marilyn Monroe?
Suppose, ask professor Paul Dolan of London School of Economics, a former stalwart of the unit, happiness is not owning the latest smart mobile phone but is, in fact, having that phone switched off. Amazing. Suppose silence truly is golden, a necessary antidote to a shrill, intrusive world. Stop listening to what's online. Stop listening to what's in the news.
Stop listening to what other people are saying to you. They because at the moment, all they're doing is telling you that our allies are bad and should be taken out of power. Stop listening to them. Get off your phones quickly. Quickly.
The problem with smartphones, Warren Stolan, is that they distract users' attention from people around them. Turning your phone off and enjoying being with your friends is much better for you than constantly checking your phones and emails. He told an audience at Hay Festival in Cartagena, Colombia. He is, hardly a lone voice. He is only articulating something that 1,000,000 share.
A vague sense of our super connected world is also dangerously disconnected from things that matter. And I agree with that, and this is what they do. They get in with what you agree with, and then they try and use it for their own purposes against your best interest and your self interest. Because at the end of the day, a lot of the time, we're in our phones for a good reason. We're sharing work.
We're doing other stuff. And, yeah, I I'd like to be out of it more. I don't want it attached into my head. I don't want it to be part of my makeup and my body. Of course.
But but there's certain levels that we go we give away to these technologies so that we can use them and have an easier life in a certain sense. So there is a balance to be had. Switching off your mobile can improve your emotional health. True. As I found from personal experience last year, I was traveling in the States, left my mobile phone at the hotel, and for the next 2 hours, felt anxious and disorientated.
Suppose something had happened to my loved ones. Suppose so and so needed to get hold of me. All unusual neurosis and middle aged men. Yes. But also true that people may need to get you through to you.
Because if something does happen to any of those one people, you will regret never being able to have your last words with someone. If imagine it. Imagine why we have convenience like that. You know what it was like before we had mobile phones. I could tell you what it was like.
You had to go to a phone box or you had to you had to arrange a certain time to speak with someone or you weren't gonna speak with them. You have to you, you know, have no one on the phone at home. You have to arrange it with your family, arrange it with your you know, life was not easy. A lot of the time people rang up, and they got engaged because someone else in the household is on the phone. They it's what I mean, what we have got in return is a lot of ability to do things on the run and on the fly, and that's good.
But we don't want it to go too far. That is the balance. And and it does matter that you have ability to connect with people instantly because that makes life easier. Of course. Of course.
But then as sanity returned, the feeling of anxiety abated. After 4 hours of being cut off from what I had come to regard as civilization, I felt as relaxed as if I had a particularly good, lunch. After 6 hours, I was in such a happy space that I finally got back to the hotel, and I was reunited with my phone. I felt not relief, but resentment. Didn't my life have to revolve around a little electronic tyrant?
Couldn't, couldn't it biddings wait? There's still this is all nudging. All of this. Do you reckon this guy really had this experience in this exact way and that's why he come from it? Or is that the way he's framing this article, who nudge your behavior into thinking the same way as his?
This is why it's so insipid, this sort of behavioral insight, because you don't even know if the article you're reading about the behavioral insight team is attempting to change your behavior because that's what it is. Psychological operations. The next day and for following 5 days, I left my home in the hotel, and I resolved to check my messages no more than once a day. The result was as dramatic as it was heartening. Until, you sever your links with the people you are in touch with 247, you don't realize quite how stressful those links are.
Wow. As soon as you that is not the phone anymore. Think about that. The result was as dramatic as it was heartening. Until you sever your links with the people you are in touch with 247, those people who are probably most important in your life, you don't realize quite how stress stressful those links are.
Get rid of those people. So, again, I'm saying they don't want you talking to your friends at this point because their campaigns are going badly, popularity is down, people are talking about new things, and they want you to stop. They just want you to stop focusing on what they're doing. So what they're doing? Manipulating you, of course.
Manipulating you. Telling you that the links with the people that you love are the things that stress you out. And that can be true to a lot a lot ways so it could be proven. But that's how life is. You we link with people.
We link with people. We keep those links. If someone needs us, they phone us, we answer the phone, and we say, what do you need? They want you to stop that. They want you to stop communicating.
They don't want you to have that sort. They want you to be isolated. They want you to be alone because their behavioral insight team will have worked out that someone without friends is more likely to take their decision on board than someone with friends. Because those people are looking to at their peers, and and they don't understand their peers because they don't have friends. Because they've been separated.
They've been separated by the technology, by society, by these people in society, by psychological operation for years years years. Wow. Dolan has clearly had similar epiphany. His plea for reduced dependency on mobile phones froze down the gauntlet to a generation that, in its fascination with the new technology, has got its priorities askew. One of the defining images of the 21st century century is rows of men in suits on airplanes switching on their phones without nanoseconds of their planes landing.
They have mistaken ergonomic efficiency for coolness. They think they are demon, demonstrating demon's boring. Demonstrating energy and dynamism. Dynamism. Oh, some word I have trouble saying.
They cannot see how pathetic they look, clutching their umbilical cord that links them to their boss' girlfriend bookmakers.
Speaker 1: Listen to that language.
Speaker 0: This is the behavioral insight team talking to you directly through, the Daily Telegraph because it's officially the Daily Telegraph even though it's being, republished and, syndicated to the Ottawa citizen.
Speaker 1: Listen to that language they had mistaken. It's coming out
Speaker 0: of David Halpin's mouth himself.
Speaker 1: They had mistaken ergonomic efficiency for coolness. They think they are demonstrating energy and dynamism. They they cannot see how pathetic they look, clutching their umbilical cords that link them to their bosses, girlfriends, bookmakers. You know, they cannot see how pathetic they look. You end up a flight you end a flight,
Speaker 0: and you've got a load of things you gotta do. You're you're about to go through ticket stuff, do other things. You it's the first time you get a signal. Everybody turns on their phone. Of course they do.
Of course they do, and everybody wants a look to see if they got a message that tells them their mom's dead or some shit like that. They people check their phones for those reasons, to check on their loved ones and to see if they're needed because they have care for other people and for other people's psychology. Not like these guys who don't care. No. No.
You're pathetic. Look how pathetic you look.
Speaker 1: With your phone turning it on to check things. Clutching it like an umbilical cord to your bosses or your girlfriend. What's good your girlfriend, silly bitch? You know,
Speaker 0: this is what they have. They have this disrespect for your life. They don't care why you do something. They want you to do it their way so they can get the bonuses of that, whatever it is. So they will make you hate yourself.
They will make you feel bad about yourself to change your, behavior because that is how psychological operations work. And this is outwardly a psychological operations, a psyops on human beings. The next time they land at Heathrow, they should try waiting 5 minutes before switching on their mobiles, then 10 minutes, then 20. It could re it it could be the saving of them. Or it could be the loss.
It could be the biggest regret they have. Who knows? You don't know. You're telling people that you do. You're telling people they're pathetic.
You're telling people they don't know what they're doing. That's what this is all about. So this is, 2013. You know, we're just gonna trudge through a few of these now. Nudge unit to become profit making business.
Interesting, isn't it? So the nudge unit, they have these professional free years where they're in government. And then the government say, oh, this is all getting a little bit too heated for us. There's too much attention. Let's detach you so we'll still employ you, but we'll do it as a private business.
So, legally, we won't be held responsible for things. The government's nudge unit will become a profit making business. Psychological operations becoming a profit making business, of course, and the plans to be launched today. The behavioral insights team will join with a commercial partners at John Lewis style mutual venture to become the 1st policy unit to be spun out of Whitehall. The first of the first ever policy unit.
It just happens to be a psyops behavioral changing unit. Not a surprise. The team was established after the 2010 election to find a way of nudging people to take and make better choices rather than through state intervention. As a mutual joint venture, the new business could would be part owned by the government with a partner, put in a new investment and the employees owning the remainder. A completion will be announced tomorrow to find the business partner for the unit.
So the behavioral insight team are going pro. They've discovered there's loads of money in this. They can nudge people officially, and they can work for multiple. And this isn't only what you think it is. This is about them leaving, public office so they can part work in America.
This is for them to be able to cross over because they're getting contracts all around the world now. And it's no it it it it's a real good going concern. They're still doing it. In December 2013, how organ donation is getting a nudge in the right direction. Pioneering trial could pave way for a 100,000 extra organ donors each year or extra donors each year.
More than a 100,000 extra people every year would More than a 100,000 extra people every year would sign up to become organ donors if they were asked to do so in the right way a pioneering government trial is found. Now here, you see an example of where computers and the Internet change the game. For years, the NHS has grappled with a conundrum of how to increase the number of people on Britain's organ donor register. Surveys show that 90% of us support the principle of donation, but yet only a third bothered to join the register. On average, 3 people a day die because there's not enough donors.
Now a government team has discovered that by making small changes to the language used to ask people to come become donors, they can make vast difference in the number of people signing up. Perhaps unsurprisingly appeal, unsurprisingly, appeals to self interest win the day. So the the team that said, that was based on the principle that people will decide outside their self interest still appeal to self interest. I mean, work it out. And one of the largest ever trials conducted, more than 1,000,000 people, renewing their tax disc or registering for a driving license online were randomly presented with 1 of 8 different messages encouraging them to join the organ donor register.
The study, which was conducted by government's, behavioral insight team or nudge unit, found that people were most receptive to message that appeared to affect them personally rather than peer pressure or shock value, which they claim peer pressure was the main thing, before, didn't they? That's how they started off. Oh, it's all peer pressure. It's all peer pressure. And now they say, oh, it's not.
There is it's what they choose to be whenever they choose it to be for their own purpose so that they can make you try and change your mind to do something that's we're not in your self interest. As a result of the trial and the changes to the website, which have now been implemented, it is estimated that more than a 100000 people, a year will carry donor cards. The randomized trial worked by testing a series of messages and pictures on a website to which people were directed after renewing their vehicle or tax registering, for a driving license. There's no space in between their vehicles. Sorry, independent.
Just saying. The trial ran for 5 weeks, during which time more than 1,000,000 people saw one of the variants, making it one of the largest trials ever conducted, in the UK public sector. It found that the least successful message was every fa every day, thousands of people who see this page decide not to reg decide to register as an organ donor, which ran alongside the picture of a group of smiling people. Not much better performing was the slogan, you could save or transform up to 9 lives as an organ donor. Even 3 people die every day because there are not enough organ donors was not the best way of getting people to sign up.
The most successful slogan was one which read, if you need an organ transplant, would you have one? If so, please help others. On average, people who saw that message were almost a third more likely to sign up than those who saw the lowest ranking version. The winning text has now become standard on the DVLA website. The study is the latest to be published by behavioral insight team, which has already had considerable success across other areas of government policy.
Since its creation in 2010, it is credited with saving the UK court services 30,000,000 a year, increasing the number of people who paid their fines by sending them personalized text messages. Again, so the main the one of the main credits is 3,000,000 a year for the court services, by carefully wording text messages, personalized for people that target their behavioral changes where those people wouldn't have reacted before. It has also worked with job centers to devise new programs to help people find work. In trials, 20% more people found work having been on the nudge program compared to traditional methods. The unit is currently being spun off from the cabinet office into a new mutual company so that it can be ex expand its work both in the public and private sector.
So now it's a mutual company, they decided, and provide revenue to central government. So government will still be in control. We'll be making money off manipulating people through psychological operations in broad daylight. Amazing. Frances Maude, the cabinet office minister, said the spin off would contribute to growth by combining the benefits of private sector experience and investment with commitment and innovation.
This study shows yet again they can make a real difference. Organ donations can transform people's lives. So I'm pleased the team has examined how, we can improve sign up rates, he said. Professor Anthony Warrens, president of British Transplantation Society, said they were excited by the findings. We have responsibility to help people understand what an amazing dietit is to glolate organs and how it can transform the lives of so many others.
And we very warmly welcome publication of this study on how to improve the way we ask people to join the organ donor register. Yes. So, again, how we get people to join the organ donor register? Well, it's by making them feel that they're gonna die. That's it.
You're gonna die one day. What are you gonna do about it now? You're gonna save these people who gonna die? What are you gonna do? And by 2014, David Halpin's a hero.
This mutual company is being created. You've got, a making money for government on psychological operations. Who could imagine that that would be allowed? The Independent, again, cover this. The Independent and The Telegraph, Evening Standard.
These these papers tend to cover a lot about this. You kind of see him as a hero. The nudge team oh, sorry. That's not my voice.
Speaker 1: The nudge team started a certain mission impossible.
Speaker 0: That's his voice. David Halpern, who runs the government's successful behavioral, insight team, tells Oliver Wright why it's being spun off. So, again, this is Halpern. Here he is. Halpern.
Halpern. Halpern. Yeah? He looks like the devil. That's what the devil looks like, people.
I'm sitting on a fabulous meeting room in a cabinet office with a man called David Halpern, and I'm about to hear one of the most surprising but simple insights into human nature that I've heard in a long time.
Speaker 1: Do you have kids? Halpern asks. No, I reply. Well, if you do, then this is worth remembering. Alpin begins to tell
Speaker 0: me about the work of American psychologist Carol Dweck, who has spent her career examining how you can improve the academic performance of children. In particular, one set of tests she devised to examine the effects of feedback on learning. So
Speaker 1: do a maths test and divide your study group into half, he explained. In one group, after they have done the test, you say, 'Good result. You're very smart.' And in the other half you say, 'Good result. That was a really good effort.' Then both groups are given a really hard mass test a week later. It is deliberately hard, and, of course, some kids give up in the face of that.
Then a couple of weeks later, the group are given a mass test to the same standard as the original. Now the kids who were told it was really good effort are doing about 20% better than they were originally. But the kids who were told you are really smart are doing 20% worse. It is one line difference in the way they are giving feedback. And the reason?
Imagine you hit a difficulty and certainly kids do with hard schoolwork. How do you interpret that? If you believe that it's just a matter of some people are smart and some people are not, You think, I must be dumb. But if you believe your performance is really to do with your effort, then you try harder. If you can put the kid down a trajectory of believing, it changes their trajectory in the face of challenge.
Speaker 0: Hear that? If you can put a kid down a trajectory of believing, that's believing maybe falsely, it changes their trajectory in the face of challenge. Means that they will continue to do what they believe they can do. So you give people false belief. They will continue to do that.
Now not many people outside the world of Whitehall will have heard of Halpern or the unit that he runs from the small cramped corner of treasury. But over the past 4 years, the government's behavioral insight team or nudge unit has had a profound effect on the way in which Whitehall interacts with people it's governing using simple techniques. Using simple techniques like the example above, the unit uses insights from behavioral economics and psychology to subtly change the processes, forms, and languages used by government to achieve outcomes that aid in the public good, not in your self interest, and save money. The team found, for example, that by changing the wording used to encourage all the new donations, bloody, bloody, bloody, blah. In another case, the unit experimented with sending a personalized text message, bloody, bloody, blah blah blah.
It found that texts, that were not personalized resulted in 23% of people paying their vine of fines, while 33% of people who received text paid. If no text was sent, only 5% paid. The unit has also worked to increase the number of people who pay their tax on time, redesigned the process around which people are required to look for work on benefits, and looked at encouraging people to give to charity, all with impressive results. So how did it all come about? Halpern, a former member of Tony Blair's strategy g unit, says he was always interested in the application to psychology in the real world since buying a secondhand textbook when he was 14 and thinking, oh my god.
This is so cool. But during the Blair years,
Speaker 1: Nudge didn't catch on, even though it was considered. The Blair administration was expanding the state, spending more and regulating more, which was Tony's, orientation often, Hopin says, in that environment. Nudge feels very different. It's like, we knew you were a nanny state, and now we know you're really an ultra nanny state.
Speaker 0: So, basically, if they're too obvious, then people know what they're up to, so they won't do it. And he recognizes that. But that all changed with the financial crash and the incoming conservative led government in 2010. The financial crash, which was put down onto the people and forced onto the people, and then they change your behavior so they can save money and charge you for all of the costs. It's what it is.
Speaker 1: Their instincts were generally, we've got no money, and we're not going to constrain the size of the state and deregulate. So now you are using these approaches as a soft alternative to regulation.
Speaker 0: But still, a lot of government were nervous of nudge, especially as it was being promoted by David Cameron's infamous blue sky thinker, Steve Hilton.
Speaker 1: We were skunk sorry. We were a skunkworks operation of a few people in a corner, he admits. You were sort of given this mission impossible and told you'll probably die and we'll say we've got nothing to do with you.
Speaker 0: But the academic theory did work in practice and the nudge team was suddenly in demand.
Speaker 1: The pivotal moment was about 8 months in when we did a presentation to permanent secretaries and we showed them our first results. You could see the Mandarins were thinking to begin with. Oh, we've seen it all before. The bright young things are coming into the number 10. If we keep our heads down, it will all go away.
But then they're not dumb, and they see these results. And they they realize that the marginal cost of these changes are almost nothing. They're all under pressure on budgets, and then you are putting in front of them an approach which is tangibly bet getting better results or potentially getting results tangibly gain.
Speaker 0: Now 4 years in, Nudge is about to be spun off into a new company partly owned by the government, partly owned by social enterprise charity, Nestor, and partly owned by Halpern and other employees. It will allow the unit to expand and take on more work outside the constraints of Whitehall. But given that one of Nudge's theories is friction cost, that the harder, you make it for people to do things, the less likely they are to do it. Surely, leaving Whitehall will make it less likely that they'll be used by government to solve problems. Halpern admits this could be a problem.
Look.
Speaker 1: This is an experiment. I do worry a bit that a lot of what's happening in government happens because you bump into people, at the margins, and you say, hey. What about this? But in some ways, given how Whitehall works, it may be easier for a government department to go to an outside body to help them with a piece of work than to another bit of government to do work for them. Certainly, the intention is to maintain the continuity of service.
Jamie Hayward, the cabinet secretary, will still be able to send an email to me at the weekend and ask, what do you think about so and so?
Speaker 0: But Nudge will expand to look at other areas as well. Halpern wants to examine ways of unlocking hidden entrepreneurs who adapt products that could grow the economy but never get beyond garages.
Speaker 1: The famous example is a mountain bike that was created not by a manufacturer, by someone using bits from other bikes and putting it together in their garage. Studies suggested that 6% of Britons have come up with significant adaptations in the last year, but most of them never diffused. If more than of them did, then the benefits would be enormous. We are going to do a study to identify how many good ideas there are and what is stopping them
Speaker 0: to few. Whether life outside Whitehall works for Halpern and behavioral insights team, time will tell. But that may not ultimately matter. They have already unlocked a mind change in Whitehall that is perceptible, across most government departments. That may be the only nudge that is necessary.
Yes. They have already had a massive influence on large parts of government with the way they do business, and they've shown people, Halpin, they've shown people this way forward, this government the way forward. Look. You can, nudge people looking more. Victoria's just I mean, what he's doing, his psychological operation is just terrible.
Now these people are are put as heroes. So, we'll go to November that same year, and they're still going, of course, behavioral insight teams, and we'll skip for a couple of these soon. Nappies could contain messages to get parents talking to babies. The behavioral insights team theories are nudging people to adopt better choices rather than using blood legislation, have proved so successful that the unit was partly sold off by the government as a profit making venture earlier this year. So it was successfully sold off.
And here, they're they're putting messages to encourage, women to talk to their babies. Studies have shown that often if we're talking frequently to babies and even pretending to understand their gurgles can greatly improve their language and vocabulary skills. But this is all very true, and this is all very good. You know? Maybe maybe this should be done by manufacturing.
Maybe. But for this psychological operation team doing other pernicious things to hide behind these things is what I don't like. Add a note on the front of the nappy encouraging parents to look up and talk to your baby or narrate what they are doing, as they change the nappy. Small prompts like this may be enough to my parents that every second of baby's brain develops 700 new neuron connections, and that this is a good time to help make those connections stronger. These sort of things are really nice.
They're, like I say, innocuous. You think they're they're good, but actual fact, they're not that good because you've got someone else coming over to your, life and changing the way you do things. Now look at those 2. What are they they? Trust is the key to prosperity and growth.
So why is it falling here? In the 19 fifties, 60% said they believe they could believe a stranger. Now that level is halved. Levels of trust between people in, Britain has declined and stagnated over the last 60 years with profound implications for country's future prosperity and economic growth, as senior government advisers warned. Just 30% of the public believe most people can be trusted, while nearly 70% say you need to be very careful when dealing with strangers.
Of course. Figures from the World Values Survey reveal. The number are significantly lower than when the question was first asked in 19 fifties, when nearly 60% of the public believed that strangers could be trusted. Even in 19 eighties, British trust levels stood at around 40%. Now David Halpin, the head of the behavioral insights team that advises ministers on the formulation of government policy across Whitehall, is calling for greater attention to be paid to increasing trust levels in society as an integral part of economic growth strategy.
Now this is exactly what Adelman PR does every year from the from 2,000 at the, Adelman Trust barometer in the World Economic Forum. They look at the trust, and they look at how to grow that trust so they can manipulate it. That's what PR and marketing do, but this is SIOP marketing. This is government, funded SIOPS. When you look at the figures,
Speaker 1: it is remarkable. Here we go.
Speaker 0: When you look at the figures, it's remarkable, he said. Social trust seems to be powerful predictor of economic growth, and a lack of trust can stunt national economic growth rates. This really is super important. It's quite astonishing that people very rarely look at the social capital when looking at how to encourage economic growth. Mister Halpin said the reason why trust was economically important was because it helped cut transaction cost of doing business, such as lawyers and overly complicated contracts, and discourage nepotism, where where where work is awarded to people you know rather than the best person for the job.
Studies have shown it can offer indications of economic growth potentials just as strongly as the building of physical capital, such as roads, and more powerfully than skill levels within the workforce, which mister Halpin pointed out that
Speaker 1: every government in the world worries about incessantly incestuously. I mean, incessantly. Yes.
Speaker 0: International surveys over the years have shown Britain has been fair fallen behind countries such as Australia and Germany, whose social cap capital has been increasing, while the UK have been declining. In Germany, 44% of the people say strangers can be trusted, while in Australia, the figure is now 57%. The best performing countries in North Europe, Norway, in trust level, 73%, and Sweden, 65%. However, Britain still performs better than France. Yay.
Where only 18% of people say others can be trusted. So do you want to have people in your society just randomly trust strangers? Isn't that just the road to losing loads of money? What they're doing is projecting that they themselves are the strangers, and they need to get people to trust them. And I think that's what they're looking at.
They're looking at their own strangeness. Professor Paul Whiteley of Essex University, who has carried out research into implications of social trust, said mister Halpin was right to highlight the importance of such indicators when looking at economic growth policies. The evidence is pretty good, and there is little doubt that social capital is important factor in the economic performance, he said. But the reverse is also true. If a country has a low level of social capital, growth will be inhibited.
Mister Halpin said in Britain, there was evidence to show that those who went, went to university had a higher level of trust than people who did not. And he suggested that government schemes such as National Citizen Service where 16 year olds are placed into groups with strangers to work collaboratively on community projects, could, in the long term, be important drivers of increased trust. Increased trust while they're manipulating you all around the society, and they're doing really nasty things to you. No. I mean, really.
Speaker 1: Everything we have seen suggests that you have to learn the habits of trusting early, he said. He cackled. With something like NCS, it's probably too soon to tell what effect it may have. But from what we know, we'd certainly expect it to be beneficial.
Speaker 0: He added that across government, it was an area of policy that needed to be given far more prominence and measure more, measured more systematically.
Speaker 1: We should be, concentrating much more on it, he said. Because if you don't, you are carrying a heavy load on the economy that will impede your growth.
Speaker 0: No need for a lawyer if you got a handshake. Right. So comment. So he makes a comment on this.
Speaker 1: Do you think most people can be trusted? Our answers to this question cannot only help predict economic performance, but can also be linked to everything from levels of life satisfaction to numbers of suicide. In short, it's not much fun living in a place where you don't think most other people could be trusted. Low trust implies a society where you have to keep an eye over your shoulder, where deal, deals need lawyers instead of handshakes, where you don't see the point of paying your tax or recycling your rubbish since you doubt your neighbor will do so, and where your employer, your cousin, or your brother-in-law to work, you were, for you rather than a stranger who would probably be much better at a job. Social trust is a deep seated indicator of the health of societies and our economies.
It merits much more attention than it gets. And here you go. Yes.
Speaker 0: So trying to get you to trust random strangers on the street. Says the strangers. The people who are the worst strangers, the most untrustworthy strangers in 2015 are busy trying to get you on board. Where were we? Okay.
So we're we're getting quite late. And now we're in, 2018, and we're looking at National Post, and it's we're looking a bit about Canada and free barriers to solid retirement planning. And so they're looking at retirement planning. And, I read with great interest a recently released Ontario Securities Commission report entitled encouraging retirement behavior through retirement planning through behavioral insights. It provides strategies for governments, employers, financial advisers, and those planning for retirement to implement to, make it easier to become financially independent.
Behavioral finance sorry. Behavioral finance has, risen in prominence recently, in part because of the work of the nudge economist, Richard Thaler, who won the Nobel Prize last year for his pioneering work in the field of behavioral economics. There can be psychological impediments to making financial decisions that are in our, own best interest, But there are still things we can do to encourage behavior today that leads to better outcomes tomorrow. The OSC and the behavioral insights team that prepared the report identified several barriers to retirement planning and provide potential remedies. I have narrowed down the elaborated upon my favorites.
So it's very interesting. I'm not gonna read all of this because we're coming to the end now. And as you see, this is exactly what they're doing. They they're trying they're trying to find ways to, manipulate you psychologically, still for every single part of your life from birth to death. They want to have control of it all, and they can't.
So they'll put little tidbits in papers here and there, but mostly, these papers are telling you what they are doing, without your consent. Here back at The Independent in Britain, and in his time, we're in 2021. So we're right near the end now. We're gonna look through some of the behavioral insight teams in a bit. But, this is October 21st.
Aviation curves withdrawn from PM's net zero policy. Boris Johnson's government has deleted a document that recommended oh, hold. I went in too far. Call the cops. Recommended that strong interventions to tackle aviation emissions, including curves on airport expansion, and subsidy, sub subsidies for the industry.
The government was criticized for failing to outline measures to curb emissions from flights as part of net zero strategy published on Tuesday prior to the next month's COP 26 climate summit. But a supporting document commissioned by the Department For Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy, BEIS, pulled from the government's website in the past 24 hours had urged ministers to consider a series of interventions. The document states that the government can lead by example and recognize a hugely impactful signal it sends to, for example, approve airport expansions or financially support the airline industry with little demand for decarbonization in return. Interesting. So all of the demand ends up with you, the people, not the industry, of course.
The recommendations made by the behavioral insights team includes included calls to reduce, demand amongst frequent business flyers and encourage more domestic travel. We've I don't know, David. How am I gonna read in this way?
Speaker 1: We believe a more realistic transition to net zero is therefore, through a combination of reduced demand in some select sectors, mainly frequent business flyers, with some potential to also promote domestic tourism, said the whip drawn paper entitled Net 0 Principles for Successful Behavioral Change Initiatives.
Speaker 0: The behavioral insights team, also known as Nudge Unit, is independent of government but partly owned by the cabinet office. Independent for government and owned by the cabinet office? I don't think so. This is being done on purpose because it's too dodgy. Because, again, they're talking about behavior change.
They're talking about that. Behavior change, that's another word for manipulated. It's for making propaganda for, Leninist style propaganda for the masses. This is just another way to formulate it and just another way to wrap it up in a package that you will find more acceptable than hearing that it's Leninist propaganda. The government spokesperson said, this this was an academic research paper, not governmental policy.
We have no plans whatsoever to dictate consumer behavior in this way. For that reason, our net zero burst strategy published yesterday contained no such plans. So, obviously, the behavioral insight team is still trying to push and lobby in government at this time, but they're getting more pushback. I think it's becoming harder to hide what they're doing after they've done it for a while. Careful and the rebranding is on its way.
And this is, one of the last. And I I you know, the last 2 are gonna be really about, this sort of, green agenda and how these behavioral insight teams, of course, they're pushing it. They're all on board. And, this is when they were covering the COP 26 in 2021. Fox News is currently airing a documentary hosted by Tucker Carlson called blown away, the people versus wind power, which aims to expose a hidden cost of green energy agenda.
You don't like that. Ignore the backlash at your own peril. Why green activists should watch Fox? So they've tried to turn people away from all of this stuff, and eventually they have to turn them back. So this will finish off on this one by Gillian Tett.
This is in the National Post in 2021. When environmental activists, government officials, and corporate leaders descend on Glasgow for COP 26, there will be plenty of articles, videos, and books floating around that extol the virtues of being green. One piece of content, unlikely to be circling much, is blown away. The People Versus Wind, a documentary currently airing on Fox News in the US. But Glasgow attendees would do well to watch it.
The film features Tucker Carlson, the genial looking TV host with a dis dyspeptic streak, who underwent a conversion from bow tie wearing prep into right wing Barker in the Trump era. In a 26 minute film, he travels across the country to expose your hidden cost of the green energy agenda, which he seems most angry about is the death and destruction brought on, by these monstrosities known as wind turbines. Never mind the fact that most Glasgow attendees view wind power as such a self evidently wonderful thing that turbine photos plaster the COP 6 program. Carlson, so you think the Glasgow attendees so they're trying to make it like the Scottish people love turbines so much that they've put them all over the COP 26 program. No.
The COP 26 are advertising wind turbines because it's propaganda that they're bossing upon people, and the Glasgow attendees are from all around the place. So to dress it up like that, it's not the people. It's still businesses. It's still government. It's still all of these people who are the ones who plaster this propaganda crap about the place.
Carlson thinks that wind farms threaten the lively, livelihood of fishermen because turbines are being built offshore, harm pristine forests, and jeopardize the safety of ordinary US workers since they can sometimes fail and cause power cuts. This is about enriching the most powerful people in the country at the expense of the most vulnerable. It's exploitation of the weak by the powerful, says Carlson. It's foreign companies that will make a fortune. More specifically, he hates the fact that companies from Spain, Norway, and Denmark are running the turbines, and that finances such as Warren Buffett and banks, including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan are involved.
If you're in Glasgow, you're no doubt rolling your eyes by now or perhaps correctly retorting that, say, a coal mine does more damage than any Scandinavian turbine. But even if you disagree with Carlson's attacks, it would be a mistake to ignore him, for at least three reasons. 1st and most obvious, we live in an era where political tribes are losing the ability to empathize with others, and when it's dangerously easy for anyone, particularly activists, to slip into groupthink, which is exactly what these guys are all doing and exactly what this article sounds like when you hear it. Oh, we we all rolling. Oh, you don't become sick.
We all know this. Not only has lockdown kept us trapped with our own social groups for a long period, but as we have dashed online, we have attended to intensify our tribal affiliations. Technology, after all, makes it so easy to customize our identity and conform, confirm our biases. As a result, I suspect few Glasgow attendees even know that Carlson is so angry about wind turbines or are likely to see clips of the diatribes in their social media feeds. Even though the show he fronts, Tucker Carlson Tonight, is the highest rated on American cable TV with 3.3,420,000 nightly viewers.
2nd, viewers. 2nd, even if you, dislike Carlson's overall stance, there are grain of truth in some of what he says. Uh-oh. Take his charge about elitism. As blown away reports, one feature wind farms is that they tend to be located in remote rural areas or places subject to what call wind engineers call the Starbucks rule.
As one explains on camera, never try to cite cite a wind, project within 30 miles of a Starbucks because the demographic that is willing to pay a premium price for Starbucks coffee has the education and wherewithal to organize to resist wind projects. NIMBYism, not in my backyard, predominates. This was recently on display in the Hamptons, the wealth enclave near New York, when the wind farm company proposed running a cable through 1 beach town. Such was the local outcry that the project was shelved. This is far from the only inequitable issue haunting green policies.
If gas prices rise because of carbon tax, it is poor, not elite voters who suffer relatively more. If coal mines are shut down, it will not be urban voters who lose their jobs. True enough. Green activists ignore this at their peril. Without government actions to offset these effects, we'll see more episodes like the Chile John demonstrations against fuel price hikes that erupted in Paris a few years ago for a few years and was hidden by the press, and more angry Fox News coverage, which leads to my third point.
Cultural issues and affiliations matter. COVID 19 showed us you cannot beat the pandemic without medical and computing science alone with medical and computing science alone. You need to shift behavior too. You need to shift behavior to COVID. Need to shift behavior.
No. It was an excuse to shift behavior by people who were malevolent. The same applies to green policies. People who fear that wind turbines are destroying their livelihoods, who, or who define their political identity by watching Fox, will not listen to lectures by scientists. Behavior will only change if green issues are presented in different communities with empathy and respect and proper incentives.
This will not be easy. Last week, the UK government's behavioral insight team published a research paper urging ministers to use social science insights to nudge people to be green. However, it was withdrawn from the government's website a few hours later. Yet even if the gulf between Fox News and COP 26 crowd seems hopelessly wide, neither can afford to simply dismiss or derive the other. Think of that when you see glossy photos of turbines in Glasgow.
Carlson's resistance isn't entirely hot air. Right. You see what is happening here and why I covered that one. That's the, the the last one. But the behavioral insight team that started in 2,010, had already really had a hole with David Halpin and his ideology in previous administration of Tony Blair and within, Institute of Governments, while Brown was in office.
So they'd already had the ability to make an impact, but it took them nearly 10 to 15 years to get to the point where people no longer trusted them to a point that if they put a paper with their behavioral analysis on how to nudge change up on the government website, it got pulled down soon after. Because through COVID, these people, David Halpin, was in charge, of with alongside a very small group, a a select elite group of people. They include lots of psychologists who were there manipulating your behavior in in a complete, aversion, opposing your self interest. They made you take experimental gene therapy jabs. They made you lock down.
They ruined. I I can't even tell you. You all know this. Anybody who's in Britain, probably in America, probably in probably in the rest of the world, anybody will know that the current generation of teenagers, the ones who are 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, who are coming up now, have missed out an important part of their year their couple of years through lockdown and COVID that has completely and utterly destroyed massive parts of their ability to, interact with the public. I'm seeing fires all over the place.
I'm seeing kids in gangs being completely and utterly reckless in ways I've never seen before. And they're detached from the community because they were not brought up in the community. They were brought up in their house, locked away for important vital years. And they were warned. Behaviorally, they were warned.
This will happen. And the people who were heads of behavioral insight and new to psychology were controlling it and knew it would happen and did it anyway and used all of their power to manipulate you and coerce you in a way that was so overt that now in 2021, 2022, 2023, the behavioral insight team says stuff, and they have to quickly hide what they say because they are so obviously manipulating people in an evil way. Evil. True evil. Like Hitler, Nazi, evil.
Let's see with some of them. You've seen David Halpern? Let's see some of them, shall we? These are some of the behavioral insight teams. You'll find these at bi.team.
That's their website, behavioral insights team. This is a nudge unit. And we looked at Halpin earlier, and I'm gonna read some more of these. So you know because these guys I can promise you, these guys will start entering in to political power at sometime soon. Be pro the behavioral scientists are one step away from being the politicians.
These are the people who are about to rule the roost, the people who can manipulate you, and the people who will be upfront. Director, home affairs, security, and international, development, Ed Bradden. Ed is a leader of our home affairs, security, and international development practice, whatever that means. Since joining the team in London in 2014, Ed has worked to establish the international footprint of behavioral insights, first as a founding member of our first overseas office in Sydney, Australia, and then across the Asia Pacific region. Increasingly, his focus is on how organizations can build behavioral principles into their structures to create high, performing teams.
Prior to joining the team, Ed worked as a strategy consultant with OC and C, advising senior, senior management leading companies in technology, media, reader, blah blah blah blah at University of Oxford. K. So Ed Bradden, Home Affairs, QT and International Development. Promise you, he is heading towards some sort of, political, political office at some point. And you see a lot of these people have in some way, leading policy research on economic growth, public spending, employment.
She has also worked in the House of Commons where she provides economic advice to MPs and select committees. This is Nida Broughton, who's director of economic policy, from Birkbeck. And I'm gonna just get through some of these, so we are gonna look at them very quickly. But these are the type of people who are trying to change your mind. Elizabeth Costa, managing director.
So she she's much more the person who's, managing, but she's coauthored papers on consumer decision making on regulated markets, household finance, online arm manipulation, that I think was done alongside Halpin, business behaviors, the behavioral economy. Elizabeth, regularly contributes to policy discussions and public debate on digital markets and online decision making, financial behavior, and consumer vulnerability. Elizabeth is currently a senior visiting fellow at the London School of Economics in the Department of Psychological and Behavioral Science. Prior to joining the behavioral insight team, Elizabeth had held senior roles Australian Treasury and completed her both graduate studies at Harvard Law School. What a surprise.
Another manipulator from Harvard. Oh, that's a surprise. Rachel Coyle is on there. She's global in global managing director. She previously ran SRMs.
That's, SRM International, head of corporate intelligence at SRM, South Africa's office, corporate intelligence. And she was awarded MBE for services to defense in 2013. Defense. Oh, why? Earlier in her career, Rachel was a civil servant at the Ministry of Defense where she worked as a national security policy cybersecurity and intelligence analyst.
What? So someone who comes from intelligence background, trained in defense by the Ministry of Defense, worked in the Ministry of Defense, is working on changing the behavior of people. Not a surprise, is it? That this is a military this is military grade psychological operations with military grade components. Doctor Rory, Gallagher.
Rory is the managing director of our works across a a Australian, Asia Pacific. So, obviously, this is Australia, you know, Pacific, guy behavior change from Cambridge University, UK Department of Education. Rory worked in UK's prime minister's strategy unit at the UK depart yeah. Yeah. Of course of course, they they'd be aiming at children.
The next one's interesting. Alex Guiana, who he's he's, people are gonna say he's likely, to be in office in the future. Alex is a director of behavioral insights team Australian office. He's been based in Sydney since 2014. Previously, Alex oversaw the team's research and evaluation across Singapore, Australia, Aotearoa, New Zealand, and ran the office at Aotearoa New Zealand from 2018 to 2021.
If you know how to say it, please tell me. Since joining the team in 2012, he has worked in a diverse set of fields from domestic violence, energy regulation, health system efficiency, obesity, regulate financial regulation, employment services to education. His PhD focused on encouraging people with anxiety and depression to seek treatment using a mobile phone app and encourage psychological therapists who use evidence based treatments. In 2018, he was named, one of 8 political's 100 future government leaders. Keep an eye out for this psychological operation, Rana Khadija.
That's what he does. He runs a psychological operation, of course. And doctor Michael Holzwar? What do you think he he's been? Michael was previously senior policy adviser, cabinet office for the UK government.
He also was involved in Mindspace and some others. Game. So government again. Hugo Harper, he's an interesting one. Hugo Harper is the director.
Yeah. Behavioral Insight team. Hugo is the mission director for Nesta's A Healthy Life Mission. At least BIT's work on health, in the UK. He has been with the team for the last 9 years, running projects with the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England, Public Health England, and Cabinet Office.
He has worked behavioral insights to a large range of implementation and policy issues, but has particular interest in obesity. During the pandemic, Hugo spent almost all his time on COVID nineteen response and sat on the SAGE subgroup, SBIB. So it wasn't just Halpin who was involved in the behavioral insight team. There were other people involved in the SAGE response. He has spent time in both Singapore and Australia developing the adaptation of more behavioral approach to policy implementation Interesting sentence.
Including several projects for Singaporean Prime Minister office. Hugo holds an MSC with distinction in behavioral economic sciences from University of Warwick, as well as a BA in psychology and physiology from Oxford University. And here he goes, Nestor, Oxford University Public Health guy and, behavioral insights team he grew up. But before he was, of course, he was a cabinet office in the cabinet office. And, of course, he's at University of Oxford as well.
Why wouldn't he be? Of course, he is. Very interesting, who these guys are. And this is probably the last one. Sasha Treggabob, the director of, the behavioral insights team in Canada.
And so Sasha is the director of the BIT Canter, leading BIT's team in Toronto, and it's work across Canada. BIT Canada works for a wide range of Canadian organizations that are dedicated to social impact. We have done work with the government of British Columbia's, public service agency, Environment and Climate Change Canada, the McConnell Foundation, University Health Network Ontario Securities Commission, and the Region Appeal among others. Previous to taking this cover role, Sasha oversaw BIT's work with local government through What Works Cities initiative. This helped, this initiative helps, US cities build their capacity for using data and evidence, including the application of behavioral insights through What Works Cities.
BIT launched over 95 randomized controlled trials with its city partners, rigorously testing the impact of concrete ideas informed by behavioral science. Now can you imagine how this wraps in world economic forms, 15 minute city agendas, and megacities? Can you work out how these guides are gonna be fundamental to making these things possible? Prior to joining BIT, Sasha co developed and led Daliot's, Canadian Behavioural Insights Capabilities, where he consulted to public sector sector organizations across Canada with focus on strategy, innovation, the application of human centered design. He began his career as a policy adviser with the government of Ontario.
Sasha holds a master degree administration of bloody, bloody, blah, bloody, bloody blue. Kind of attached to the cabinet office, still making money for the cabinet office in the UK by selling psychological operations to the English speaking world at least at the very least. And this ideology of changing people's behavior by nudging them, giving them reasons here and there, showing them peer, examples of what their peers are doing, and then guilting them or shaming them into doing the same thing, to making them believe things that just aren't true, to making to stealing money off them via taxes, to extending out the idea of what is fundamentally, one of the biggest fraud schemes that could possibly ever have been implemented, the idea of stealing too much tax from people. Because how many people they know that a lot of those people aren't gonna claim back that tax, so that was a way to steal. And they thought that that that government would like that.
So you've gotta think, where does this policy come from? When you see things in the newspaper, and this is part of the reason why I do NewsHound, so you could be aware why you're reading this in the newspaper. If you read a whole newspaper and you come across the article where people are looking at their mobile phone and it says something really sensible, like, people should stop looking at their mobile phone as much. You read it, you empathize, you agree with it, and you take on board what it says, and you may go away. And in the future, someone will say to you, do we use our phones too much?
And you will start using the reasons from something you've read. You can't quite remember where it came from. You don't know what's behind it. But the fact is that was propaganda. In my opinion, that was propaganda to get people to put down their phones so they weren't arguing about government.
They weren't organizing online. They weren't doing the things that they need to do to hold government to account, and that's how government uses these tools. If to these tools, psychological operation tool, behavioral insight themes are put into government or a part government, governments will use them to enact policies that are gonna be negative to people's self interest. Just the way it is. That's how governments work.
Governments use the tools to make you do the things they want you to do. So this behavioral insight team that David Halpin set up is less, a government organization. It's much more a military psychological operations. What we see what would have been, hidden in the past is now out in the open. It's normal.
It's normal to manipulate people like this. It's fine. Fine for for us to do this. We've got full control now. And I think that full control is coming from the fact that all of these different young global leaders and other leadership groups have all been, put into these roles, placed into these roles in a faux democracy.
You can only vote for young global leader on one side or young global leader on the other. For years, the decades is like this. William Hague, Tony Blair, both your global leaders. David Cameron, Tony Blair, young global leaders. Tony David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Young Global Leaders.
David Cameron, and, Ed Miliband and, Ed Balls, all Young Global Leaders. Brian Epstein, the back cuboid, Young Global Leaders. You're being tricked. And by 2010, they realized, we don't even need to hide that we're tricking you now. We're in control.
We're able to get David Cameron in the government, and we, of course, are in control. We can do anything. Both sides are the same. They're not gonna get power. We can destroy society, recreate it to how we like, nudge people, use psychological operations to cause people and coerce people into actions that are against their best in their self interest.
Speaker 1: Think about that.
Speaker 0: And we're at the deep end. We're deep into that. And we see it happening all around. And when you read that newspaper and you come across that article, you've got to realize, look for the signs, look for the behavioral insight team, look for the the signs. Just assume, no thing will drift away.
Where it says now in newspapers, oh, this is this research was done by the behavioral insight team, soon it'll just tell you that's what you need to do. And you've read it so much, you just believe it. You take it on board. You can't even remember when you repeat it, and you will repeat a lot of this. What you read, you repeat.
Often, it's fact. And some if someone turns around and says, where did you read that? You go, oh, I don't remember. It's one of these one of these many articles that you flick through while you're doing your your your having to read in the morning or you're you're reading on a bus or you're in a library or you just found a, for me, I used to work nights in hotels, so we used to get the newspapers really early, and I used to just read them all. Just read all just flick through all of the stuff and a load of it.
I used to believe. Because when someone tells you something, you wanna believe it. And they will use they will say to you, you should do all of these things that are obvious that you should do. It's good for you. Yeah.
You should do it. That's good for you. Yeah. You should do it. That's good for you.
Oh, it's obvious. You should do it. And then they'll do some ways, like, and you should do that. And you're like, wait a minute. But that's not good for me.
No. You should do it, though. You don't realize why you should do it, but you should definitely do it. K. Oh, and you should also, you should also probably check your tax return.
Why? Oh, nothing. Nothing. Just check and be more proactive. Oh, oh, wait a minute.
If I hadn't checked that, I wouldn't have realized I'd have been overcharged on tax. Oh, you're not actually telling me to check the tax return, are you? Because that's what they don't tell you. They told the tax man to take more money, but they don't tell you to take a check tax return. They're just stealing, finding ways for the government to fill their coffers in another way.
Take money from you. Take money from you. Take consent from you. Take your behavior from you. Take your decisions from you, take your choice from you, take free will from you, and force you, coerce you into live in a situation that suddenly you agree with that you would never agree with if you knew how bad it was for yourself, interesting for your family, and for your friends.
But that's what behavioral insight's all about, changing your behavior. Not just insight. It's just not knowing. Soon as they know, they know forever. So that's been this NewsHound with me, Johnny Bradmore.
Now permanently on newspaced.com, and newspaced.com is a really special project that's gonna continue, will bring you, behavioral insights from the rich and famous. We'll give you insights into things that you won't find anywhere else. Even the independent platforms around the place, you know, a lot of them are split up and in their their in their own sections, in their own areas, and they're scared to talk with everybody. They have to keep their narrative. If you ask for them to break their narrative and study something else, they often flip out because they've created themselves this little careful box, most of them out there.
I'm not living in that box. Don't want newspaste.com to be about that. I want it to be about us conversing and us understanding and realizing things like behavioral insights exist and working out how to get rounded together. So I need your support. I need it.
I I I just will be able to survive, will be able to keep it going unless I get your support. And that can be just tiny little support. On newsbase.com, you've got Patreon. You've got all of the other things. And I've just only started up my Patreon account, so anybody who joins up will get special benefits at the start.
I'm actually just literally having a conversation with each of the members so far and just being like, do you wanna have a chat with me for a while and see what I can do for you? Because I'm literally in a situation where I'm like, I don't want to be the type of journalist who doesn't communicate with you who who are watching. You're you're my buddies. You're you're if you've got past the first part of listening to me about any subject, then we're able to speak. We're able to you know, I I'm I'm appreciative of that so much so that I'll consider you a friend.
So I the with my journalism, with my platform, it will be backwards and forwards. You invest in me, and I will invest in you, and I really mean that. So I ask for your help, and, in all sorts of ways. I don't mind helping all sorts of ways, but every little bit means that I can do a whole lot more, and I don't have to worry about whether I can pay the bill doing this. Because at the moment, I'm looking maybe I need to get a job, like, outside, and I will have to like, half of my my output goes straight away.
And, I don't wanna be put in that situation because I wanna keep delivering stuff to you, and I've got a load of stuff. I've got a load of stuff lined up. Really interesting. So, again, support me if you can. Newspace.com.
Thank you for watching NewsHound, and thank you for being my buddy. Appreciate it. For me, Johnny Bebmore, goodbye. Shaping a great reset for the post corona era.
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
However, to make this "third way" viable, Thaler and Sunstein have not only had to redefine "psyops" as "behavioural economics", they have also redefined some "humans" as something they call "Econs". These are predictable, rational actors whose behaviour is extremely influenced by sudden economic change. Thaler and Sunstein mention Econs a lot during Nudge, separating them from the humans who require nudging: "Econs respond primarily to incentives. If the government taxes candy, they will buy less candy, but they are not influenced by such "irrelevant" factors as the order in which options are displayed. Humans respond to incentives too, but they are also influenced by nudges. By properly deploying both incentives and nudges we can improve people's lives, and help solve many of society's major problems. And we can do so while still insisting on everyone's freedom to choose." It is clear that Thaler and Sunstein attempt to redefine what it means to be human. For them, humans need to be cajoled to make them act as the ruling class would like them to act. They clearly believe that humans would make worse decisions than Econs if they were left to their own devices but, in turn, that is based on the presupposition that the government always makes better decisions than the general population. It's true that some of the reasons why humans make poor decisions is due to a lack of specific information. However, like with the psychology of scarcity in relation to poverty, the unspoken issue here is actually concerning the psychology of scarcity concerning information. If everyone were given access to all the information from the start, then people would make better choices about who they were governed by and how society is constructed or, in this case, constricted. The digital panopticon is fuelled by the control of information. As with Bentham's design of a hypothetical panopticon prison, in Thaler's world, the state has access to all the information they require to nudge us while the general public is denied accurate information systematically. This manufactured information scarcity is not only a tool which the government uses to coerce our behaviour and decision-making, it has also become a commonly used tool of the biggest social media organisations and search engines. Musk now owns one of the biggest social media platforms in the world and the amount of data his company can harvest about each user is excessive. They know what you watch, what you like, what you share, your private messages, and a growing selection of individual data sets which will allow them to build mental models of each individual. At the same time, Peter Thiel’s Palantir is also growing its datasets on individuals, while YouTube, Facebook, Amazon and Google are doing alike. These organisations are blatantly guilty of systematically controlling, hiding and censoring information from their users. At the moment, we are providing major companies with masses of our personal information daily and, in return, they are profiling us in more ways than one. That mass of data we supply to these companies allows them to control almost every action we take without us even realising it’s happening. The next step is for Artificial Intelligence to be programmed to systemise this mechanism further until the vast majority of our decisions are controlled by our personal devices. 🧵17/20
Video Transcript AI Summary
Welcome to Newspaste. Today, I’ll summarize my article on Eric R. Weinstein and the concept of the "great replacement." In the early 2000s, the UN promoted economic migration, which has been unpopular among native workers. Weinstein, involved with the UN, proposed a model that suggested lowering wages for native workers while increasing the number of migrants to boost productivity. This approach, which he framed as beneficial, has led to income redistribution away from native populations. Despite his claims of supporting native workers, his past writings reveal a focus on maximizing employer benefits at the expense of local labor. Weinstein's connections to elite circles and organizations raise questions about his integrity and the impact of his policies on society. Ultimately, his actions reflect a troubling contradiction between his advocacy for economic migration and the adverse effects it has on native workers. Thank you for joining me today.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So welcome to my website, Newspaste, where you can find most of my articles. And this is gonna be a very special edition of NewsHound because I'm going to do a little read through of the article first because this article's only, a 1,500 words or so. Normally, my article's about 7,500 words sourced up the wazoo, so it takes about an hour and a half to read through the article and then usually about 2 to 3 hours to go through the source material in detail. On this case, so, of course, there's a lot less, to go through. And so I'm combining them together.
It's called Eric R. Weinstein's great replacement by me, Johnny Bedmore. Let's go to the article proper. Eric R. Weinstein's great replacement.
At the turn of the millennium, the United Nations was busily trying to encourage economic migration to the Western world. However, encouraging unfettered economic migration, as we are experiencing today, is highly unpopular with the native workers of target countries. There you go. There's the, UN manipulator there, the guy who was working for the UN who now claims to be on the opposite side. But you'll see, isn't that simple?
That's how it is with Eric Weinstein. Never that simple. The United Nations International Labour Organization in Geneva set up the migrant division to analyze and find solutions to these issues. To lead the unit, the UN appointed Manola Abele to be chief migrant who, chief of migrant, who is now linked with the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, and University of Oxford, and others. Their stated challenge was to find a free market solution to let employers reap the productivity benefit from decreasing their costs while boosting the income of native workers to the point where their interests become aligned with their employers.
So the employers reap the productivity benefit, but the this whole boosting the income of native workers, it actually means that they're gonna it's going to drop. It actually means the opposite. And they know this and they study this and yet they still implement it. To achieve this goal, they decided on a solution. They wrote, native workers will not support programs which lower their total incomes, yet migration can be counted upon to produce a reliable net benefit to in host countries only if it is allowed to decrease wages.
Thus, the solution is to realize that total income must rise while wage income is allowed to fall like we're seeing, And we we're not seeing total income rise. This suggests that any natural free market solution must involve a natural income stream to host country workers which has previously been obscured or hidden. We then discover that if the highly valuable right of host country citizens to block access to, labor markets is properly converted into salable rights, workers are made better off since salable rights, is always more financially valuable than non salable ones. We thus convert the rights to preferential labor market access into rights of workers to license migrant work permits to employers. We find that with a little bit of care, the market will now return, an efficient solution with all parties being made better off, which, of course, we know is is false.
Essentially, the UN decided that the democratic voters of nation state should oppose unfettered economic migration as we are experiencing today. And the folks of this globalist entity believed they knew better. To achieve their goals, the United Nations needed to subversively introduce this agenda in an an undemocratic manner without gaining the consent of the native citizens of the democracies that they were to target. The man they chose to analyze and map out the scheme, which many refer to now as the great replacement, was Eric r Weinstein, who has since become a central figure in the intellectual dark web, whose members include Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Jordan b Peterson, Sam Harris, Douglas Murray, Joe Rogan, and Eric's brother, Brett Weinstein. There you go.
The initial intellectual dark web there. We got Jordan b Peterson, Eric Weinstein, Ben Shapiro, David Rubin. Over here, Joe Rogan, and, of course, the the man Sam Harris. Sam Harris and Eric Weinstein both were part of Jeffrey Epstein's EDGE Foundation, include Sam Harris with his wife as well involved. Eric Weinstein was employed by the UN to produce a document entitled Migration for the Benefit of All Towards a New Paradigm of Economic Migration.
So let let me make that clear. That title is not against migration. That title is, say, towards a new paradigm of economic immigration. What we are seeing now is the new paradigm of economic migration being put into action. Weinstein was aware of the damage which economic migration would do to the native population in places such as United States and United Kingdom.
In one part of the document he produced for this nefarious United Nations agenda entitled Preferences for Migrants Undercutting of Natives, Weinstein wrote, when a migrant to native workers of comparable value to the employer are asked to compete, it is to be expected that the employer will take the applicant who cost him or her less. If, however, the respective terms of employment of the native and migrant workers differ considerably, the employer may develop a preference between otherwise equal candidates. If migrant workers are not permitted to seek alternative work in the host country, then their company loyalty is reduced to a matter of law and regulation. In such circumstances, employers know that they will not have to earn migrant worker loyalty with the expenditure of resources that would be needed in the case of native workers. Thus, it is to be expected that in systems tethering migrant workers to their employer sponsors, some migrants will be outcompete natives of comparable or greater value, simply by virtue of terms of employment set by the migrant working programs.
Since this is, precipitated by rational market response on the part of native employers, this consequence must be seen as natural, if unfortunate, byproduct of direct migrant sponsorship. So it will happen whether you like it or not. The Weinstein plan was always going to cost the government money as we see unfolding today. A meticulous and proactive plan would have to be enacted by the nation state in question to deal with the impact of large scale migration, and the author makes it clear in this document with Eric r Weinstein stating, in effect, the government would assume all the administrative and transport costs for the group of migrants as well as calculating the additional external impacts of hosting them. To indicate these costs, the government would calculate the expected migrant impact cost as a function of the number of migrants.
Such a function would be expected not only to grow as the number of migrants increased, but also to do so in accelerating fashion because of concerns for the environment, monitoring cost, societal stress, and security risks. The plan which was set out by Eric Weinstein predisposes the necessity of what he describes as a much larger redistribution of native income. The influx of migrants will always take wealth and opportunities away from the native population, And this has a knock on effect on how the self interested electorate of the nation state involved will vote. In the first instance, the tethering of migrants to employer sponsors creates a non market system with a host of inefficiencies, as well as potential for human rights violations. 2nd, naively opening markets to migrants from lower income countries can act as a kind of tax, redistributing native income away from the worker and towards the employers.
Of course, it can be argued that any proposed distribution, redistribution, is intrinsically neither good nor bad. Yet such transfers can make it nearly impossible to reach broad consensus on many important migration issues within the host country electorate. Rationality indicates that proposals which threaten to harm the majority of individuals are unlikely to be approved by self interested electorate. While comparing and analyzing different methods of controlling the influx of migrants, Weinstein also studies the Bohas model of, economic migration and the predictable effect of its implementation on native workers, stating native workers in the sector concerned may experience one of the economic benefits of migration program none of the economic benefits of, the migration program. In fact, in the absence of any compensation measures, they may experience a substantial loss of income as we are seeing.
As the benefit to the host country society stems from ability to lower wages while simultaneously increasing the number of workers employed. The problem of ghettoization and issues relating to long term native shortages are brought up by Weinstein as known consequences of the redistribution of income away from native populations. But at no point are these problems expressed as reasons not to force economic migration upon target populations. In this United Nations document, Eric Weinstein specifically pushes Marxist ideology concerning the redistribution of income and wealth, which benefits economic migrants at the expense of the native population. That, I'll discuss, just afterwards, how it is Marx and it is Marxist.
Eric Weinstein proudly advertised his work for the United Nations on his website at the time, as well as posing himself as an expert on the subject. Under the title international migration, Weinstein even had a special email address for issues concerning migrations where it was written, if you are interested in the creation of efficient markets for facilitating increased international labor migration, please contact me at migration, ericweinstein.net, regarding the article, migration for the benefit of all to appear in 2,002 in the International Labor Review. It is a pleasure to thank the migrant division of the United Nations ILO in Geneva for sponsoring this work, 2 years sponsoring, the work. He started in 2000, finishes in 2002. Whether you like him or not, Eric Weinstein has not been honest about his part in designing the failed globalist system of economic migration, which many people today refer to as the great replacement.
He also hasn't advertised in his previous involvement with the United Nations and his connection to Edge while it was, fully funded by Jeffrey Epstein. During this time, Weinstein has also produced models for JPMorgan, one of Epstein's keenest employers. Yeah. There's lots of things that are wrong with, this. You can support such work here down at the bottom of my site on Newspace.
You could buy me a coffee, become a patron. If you become a patron, that's really, really, useful, of course, for me. It supports my work and allows me to do more work and investigate more things like this. There's also some other ways, you can actually, support my work too. And like I say, it's on Newspace, newspace.com, where if you go to newspace.com, you'll find a load of drop down menus where, for instance, you'll find the, Schwab articles about, Klaus Schwab, all of the Schwab series, the Epstein 101 series, the Pottinger series, which is one of my favorites to write and to have investigated, The Younkerman series, extremely important, Black Hand series, which is epic series of, murder, controversy, gangland, crime, the downfall of governments.
It's downfall of governments. It's amazing. Satanism galore. It's all true, backed up, masses of evidence, sources linked all throughout. All my articles have sources linked all throughout.
And other articles include, the rise of Jeff Bezos or the true, rise of Jeff Bezos. Pablo Miller, who was Sergei Skripal's handler and who's Christopher Steele of the Trump Russia dossier, who is a Wright medler. MI6 guy was his operator, Pablo Miller's operator. The genetics of Bill Gates, which goes through, the history of Bill Gates. The Welcome 5, which goes through the cover up.
It's a very large article going through the cover up of the Foxconn origin paper. Who is Barbara Hewson very interested in? She's interested in back story. Serial killer in the prime minister's father about Theresa May's father working with a famous serial killer who killed over a 130 people. That's about how we got to Ukraine, nongovernmental octopus.
The father, the son, and the Mencius mob bug showing that the far right, blogger and a techno, pioneer Mencius mob bug known as Curtis Yarvin, his brother was probably the pipe bomber in 2003, Yale pipe bombing. Port Adams' Ideological Cloud and Tim West would experience a very important articles. You can also find Newsbase podcast here. You can that's the pre the the one as I'm filming this, the last one was Tim Hinchliffe. And the one before that was here, doctor Marcus Papadopoulos, which you can watch on the site.
And there's loads to take in. There's lots of information on newspace.com, lots of other articles that aren't even mentioned at the top. NewsHound, which you're watching a version of NewsHound now. This is one about Richard Athaler who's also part of Edge, Jeffrey Epstein and John Brockman's organization. And he's part he is the pioneer of the behavioral nudge units, the modern psychological government operations units that were implemented properly by, Cameron and Obama to go inside your mind and twist it.
You can find other things like who do they think they are, where I go through Jordan Peterson's family history all the way back to 750 BC. That's BC. That's right. Epstein 101 series there and lot more that you can find. There's loads on newspace.com.
Support the work. Become a patron. You can do it. You can do it. If you support my work, I will be able to produce more work now.
Let's go on to looking at some evidence. So here we are back at the main page on Newspace. And Eric R. Weinstein, as we see him here, of course, I, as I put forward, was involved in a UN paper between 20,021,000 and 3. And he didn't talk about this much when he was when he was writing this piece for the UN, this sponsored work that started in 2,000, ended in 2002.
Afterwards, he didn't talk about it that much, at least once he had a little bit of fame, a little sniff of the limelight. And that was by the time that was, like, 2016, 17, 18, 19. He starts coming on to, the the, center stage of the intellectual dark web, partly brought into prominence by Brett Weinstein's emergence. And he doesn't talk in all of his interviews, he would go back to his hedge fund that he worked in at one point, and then working for Thiel, he would talk about, doing work with scientists on the theory of everything he would talk about. But he wouldn't talk about much else.
He wouldn't go into detail about things. He wouldn't go back further than the hedge fund he worked in around 2006. And I saw this over and over again. And it just kept saying to me, what did he do beforehand? And so I went to his website, and his website was this ericweinstein.org.
All one word, Eric Weinstein. Look. He's got this picture. Look. Physics.
He may tries to make him look like a genius, of course. He tries to and he he's always been a website designer. He designed his first websites too. You know, they they're showing all of these. He's showing all of these little speeches.
He's trying to make it kind of look like he's an Einstein. And he's a very clever fella in many ways. He's not so clever when it comes to hiding the past because he can change his website address. But if you go back into the archives, you'll find he had another website. Once upon a time, he had another website, and this is from June 22, 2003 that we can find ericweinstein.net.
Erichyphenweinstein.net. Analytic and Strategic Consulting. It's very interesting that you go to the page back then, and you've got a few things on top home about finance, hedge fund and risk management, international migration, high skilled labor markets, gauge theory and economics, contact downloads. You see some of these are highlighted because I went into them recently. International migration is what he, the in the in the section international migration, he goes through about this this sponsorship sponsored paper for the United Nations International Labor Organization, migrant division that we looked at.
And he says, problem. This is his own words. In theory, allowing free international migration with global labor markets allows employers to boost productivity, resulting in net gains in host country income. In practice, voters in high income countries generally frustrate employer freedom to hire abroad, citing net losses to workers. The problem is further complicated by sponsored migrants' tendency to distort markets due to their inability to respond to wage signals from other employers.
See the partners there, United Nations ILO, Geneva Migrant Division, Manolo Abela, Chief of Migrant Peace, World Economic Forum, All the different world organizations he's in with, that man. Challenge. This is the challenge. This is what he said. Find a free market solution to let employers reap the productivity benefit from decreasing their costs while boosting the income of native workers to the point where their interests become aligned with their employers.
So employers get let employers reap the productivity benefit from decreasing their cost. And then he says, while boosting the income of native workers. But as you see in the paper, it lowers the overall income and then they boost the income of the native workers alongside the migrant workers. So there's this gap in between where you have to trust them that they'll pay you more. You have to trust the businesses that they'll actually spend out on this sort of stuff.
So it's pie in the sky. Customized toolkit. For this problem, we chose to approach of using Coasian analysis, which is a mainstay of Neoclassical economic theory. We adapted it to the problem at hand by changing the variables of the problem given to us: borders as the market barriers to entry, work visas as government issued commodities to set of to a set of variables which better invited Market Solutions Citizenship as a salable right to invite migrants tradable work permits as market to be commoditized. Tradable work permits as market to be commoditized.
So selling them off, selling off work permits at the expense of native population. Solution, his own solution. Native workers will not support programs which lower their total incomes, yet migration can be counted upon to produce a reliable net benefit to host countries only if it's allowed to decrease wages. Thus, the solution is to realize that total income must rise while wage income is allowed to fall, is his solution. This suggests that any natural free market solution must involve a natural income stream to host country workers, which has previously been obscured or hidden.
This is, I'll talk about this at the end. And this is one of the reasons why I said some of this is very Marxist. We then discover that if the highly valuable right of host countries to block access to labor markets is properly converted into salable rights, workers are made better off since salable rights always more financially valuable than non salable rights. But it's not the workers themselves who have the access to the profits of salable rights. It will be the employers once the wage income has been lowered.
We thus convert the right to preferential labor market access to the rights of workers to license migrant work permits to employers. We find that with a little bit of care, the market will now return an efficient solution with all parties made better off only after a period where the native workers are sacrificed, where they're not only are they lose their jobs, but their income's lower. That is the cost of this. And that's he's saying, oh, they'll be made better off eventually. He doesn't they don't say they don't say how they're gonna actually make them better off.
They just say, there's some fair workers something income stream to host country workers, which have previously been obscured or hidden. So that's the best you're gonna get. Oh, no. We'll introduce something which has been previously obscured or hidden. Oh, what is that?
We don't know because it's been obscured or hidden. So you can't just say that because then you could just say that about anything. Oh, we we're gonna make, candy floss free for everybody. Oh, how how are you gonna do how are you gonna pay for that? Oh, we're gonna do it in some way that has been previously obscured or hidden.
But what what way? Oh, we can't tell you because we don't know because it's previously been obscured or hidden. That doesn't make any sense. That says if the only way would be to redistribute wealth and then top up and have the state in control of the pay for the means of production and the workers, you know, starting to get into communist territory. This is for the publication, of course, that we just read.
Migration for all parts that we just read. Migration for the benefit of all. Very positive title. It's not, you know, it is a migration for the benefit of all. The migration, they come in and they they they lower the wages, but eventually the wages eventually, the wages will rise.
So it's for the benefit of all. How are they gonna rise? How are you gonna, equalize income or redistribute wealth and income to to help? Oh, you know, in previously obscured or hidden ways. And it says contact.
If you are interested in this topic, we invite you to contact us at migration at eric/, hyphen weinstein dot net. So he actually has a migration email specially made for his work on migration for the UN. Doesn't sound like a doesn't sound like he's just writing a paper separately for the UN. Now we can go also because as you've seen on the on that first page at the top here, there's downloads section. And if you click on the downloads section and you scroll down, you can see these different articles and papers that he's been involved in.
And down the bottom, you hear you see you've got curriculum vitae down here, CV. And so you can click on that, and it will open up this. And this is from April 6, 2003, as you see above. Again, this is on the Wayback Machine. And this is Eric R.
Weinstein, PhD. This is his education. So we can see what he did and where he did and where he was, something that is not on his modern website now, of course. He doesn't feel like he needs to tell you because he feels like he needs to obscure or hide it. Let's say obscure or hide it.
Harvard University, 85 to 1990 2, studying PhD in mathematical physics. That's after he's received his degree already from University of Pennsylvania, studying from 82 to 85, combined degree in mathematics. So his dissertation at Harvard was on extension of South Joule, Yang Mills' equations across the 8th dimension, So as some sort of esoteric bollocks. Let's work our way up for his professional work because his professional experience starts in 1991 to 1993, where he's employed by Hebrew University of Jerusalem as a postdoctoral fellow in both Raqqah University of Physics and Einstein Institute of Mathematics, co organizer of the Lie Groups and Physics 7. Yes he is, pursued research in higher dimensional elliptical gauge theory and closely related areas.
And then he went to the masses Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where we'll be, seeing a newspaper article from in a little bit, from 1993 to 1998. He's in structure, a National Science Foundation, part of a postdoctoral fellow in the department of mathematics, pursued research in mathematical physics, intertemporal economics, scientific labor markets, and differential geometry. Then he was at the National Bureau of Economic Research at Harvard University, 1998 Harvard. Of course, they're big players in controlling these sort of in between 1998 to 2001, so while he's also writing this paper. Co director of the project on the economics of advanced training in science, engineering, and related disciplines, research associate at Harvard Department of Economics pursued research in the intertemporal economics via the discovery of novel applications or differential geometry and mathematical physics to neoclassical theory, like he says, Coasian theory that has been the mainstay of Neoclassical theory, economic theory beforehand.
And then we can see 2000 to 2,002, so a long stretch there, a long stretch, United Nations International Labour Office in Geneva, Switzerland, external collaborator, he uses the word collaborator himself, analyzed and proposed a fundamental restructuring of foreign worker program of Kuwait as well, where we don't see, where migrants outnumber citizens. So he's also analyzing and proposing a fundamental restructuring of foreign workers' programs in Kuwait. Created permit market model using cohesion analysis to solve a collection of common migrant problems, which are now under consideration as a UN flagship model for international migration program pending adoption by migrant division in Geneva. What we see today is what he described they should do then. What he was advising them to do, what he was analyzing and solving, the collection of common problems, who has been implemented today.
He claims that they haven't. Later on in tweets, we'll also can look at as well because we did have a back and forward. Eric R. Weinstein had to he had loads of people. Once I published the article that we read at the beginning, he, had a lot of people contact him, and he couldn't ignore it all the time.
So first of all, he tried to smear me. 2nd of all, he tried to smear me, and then he apologized a little bit in a sense. Didn't actually apologize. He just and then he he went back into smearing me again. But he he said that they didn't use it, but it's what we see today.
It was a UN flagship model for international migration programs. He was it was to solve a collection of common migrant problems, which are now under consideration as a UN flagship model already adopted, already seen in the results today. And then at 2,000 and 1 to present, 2,003, is ADCAP LLC, Capital Risk Management Advisors in New York, head of research, consultant at large. He analyzed problems of transparencies endemic to hedge funds with illiquid exposure, created phantom pricing model to solve problems for performance reporting for portfolios holding illiquid instruments, provisional patent application for the protection of method filed jointly with a Abduly, September 2001. And there's some more.
There's the selected honors, so we can see what honors he got given. So, again, shows his CV, selected honors, fellowship, grants, and awards. We can see on ODEP, in Harvard University, nominated for university wide, Levinson Memorial Teaching Award. And this is really important. Fall 1985 to spring 1988, when he started at Harvard, Office of Naval Research.
That's basically intelligence. He won intelligence recruitment program, Office of Naval Research. He's working for the Office of Naval Research, ranked 1st in nationwide doctoral fellowship competition, fellowship residence, Harvard University. His fellowship is he got his fellowship from the office of Naval Research. Yes.
Then in 1992 to 1993, after, Harvard, he's at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, held Lainie Davis Fellowship, then Israeli Mathematical Union invited to organize and run a session in mathematical physics for annual nationwide conference in spring 1993, National Science Foundation, postdoctoral fellowship competition winner in between 1993 1997. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation comes up a lot in a lot of, these people who are big movers and shakers in mathematics, principal investigator on research grant supporting research into gauge theory and intertemporal economics, co principal investigator with professor Richard Freeman of Harvard University and the National Bureau For Economic Research on a research grant support research on the analysis of scientific labor markets, again, looking into labor markets mainly. And then Harvard University Trade Union Program guest faculty. So he's involved in the trade union program and in migration, in understanding migration.
And it shows his recent articles and publications. You see there's a few of them here, head fund transparency, migration for the benefit of all phantom prices, valuation and liquidity competition, careers in bioscience, careers and rewards in bioscience, tracking changes in bilateral trading patterns in the absence of PPP and on the problem of theory of intertemporal economics. And just down at the bottom, selected colloquy talks and addresses. And it shows different talks and addresses, including one that he did in June 21, 2000 and 1 about for the migrant division in Switzerland. And so that we know is Eric Weinstein.
Amazing that he is part of the he is recruited by the Office of Naval Research. Says something there. I think everybody should be suspicious about the fact that he's gone through that. And he comes out the other side designing the flagship program for U. N.
Migration, globalist migration. And this is the paper you can see on his old website as well. I've also saved this on newspace.com, where you can go through all of migration for the benefit of all paper. And you can see it is long, complex. Well, long as 29 pages.
That's basically a normal paper. And it's very intriguing when you read it all. It's sad. It makes you sad. These are sections on gutterization and long term native shortages, long term native shortages.
There's more in this than I've spotted out. You can actually go through this and discover a lot more. But this is flagship program for the UN, not to be trusted. And that shows where this is from the International Labour Review. This is volume 1 41 number 3.
This is where it appeared. And you can see migration for the benefit of all towards a new paradigm for economic immigration, Eric Weinstein Weinstein. And he says, Migrant Worker Programs, MWPs, offer the promise of increased productivity, lower consumer prices, cultural interchange, cultural interchange. He knows the the the what you know what that means. And higher living standards for workers earning, workers coming from poor countries.
Higher living standards. Unfortunately, these programs have regularly been bedeviled by various abuses and unintended consequences. Such failures have tended to mitigate popular support among native workers and citizens. This, in turn, has kept migrant worker programs below the level wanted by employers for maximum productivity. He's interested in the means of production.
He's interested in maximum productivity. In this article, an argument is made for new market based MWPs that seek to align the support and interest of native workers, employers, consumers, governments and the interests of migrants, very much the interest of migrants over the interests of native workers. Native workers will lose out, will at the end be paid less, will have to accept it. Don't worry, things that have been so far hidden and obscured will come to fruition and suddenly everybody will be happy. You can see also on eric weinstein.net that you've got finance hedge funds, risk management portfolio and this is his work on hedge funds.
You should note some of these people that he's working for. So he's working in risk for AIMA in 2002 and JPMorgan, MIT view of the market lecture, JPMorgan, New York. This is while Epstein's working with JPMorgan as well. And JPMorgan, of course, wrapped up in the Epstein case in many ways, had to pay out 100 of 1,000,000 100 of 1,000,000 to the Epstein victims' funds towards their part in employing this guy and allowing him to become so wealthy by doing backdoor deals for the bank. And here's another one of his paper, hedge fund transparency.
I mean, we won't go through these, but he's only a part of this paper. If you go down to the bottom, you'll see their short paper, 4 pages, you'll see references. Eric Weinstein and Ehab Abdoulaye is one of the references. Phantom Liquidity, the nuisance of translucence by Adil Abdoulaye, Leslie Rowe and Eric Weinstein. Again, this is another one of his papers, 9 pages, written up by free folks who talk about how to organize, assets in a way that is beneficial for hedge funds.
But at the end of the day, it's international migration. It's his work on international migration, which is going to be the most controversial, of course. If you go to on here, we've looked on all of these different parts. But if we just go to the home page, we can see that our home page, around 2,003, you've got all of this listed down. And he talks about his work in these different areas.
He says about international migration. If you're interested in the creation of efficient markets for facilitating increased international labor migration, so for facilitating this is for this is what it's for, facilitating increased international labor migration, which is what native populate people in America and UK do not want, and it's what's being forced upon us. The democratic population doesn't want it. He wanted to facilitate it and organize it. Please contact me at migration@errickweinstein.net.
Regarding the article, migration for the benefit of All, which appeared in 2002 International Labour Review. It is a pleasure to thank the migrant division of the United Nations ILO in Geneva for sponsoring this work, Massively important. So that's his website. I wanna go to a couple of bits in the newspaper. So here, we are in the Boston Globe.
I like going up to the top. We're in the Boston Globe. We're in page 20 of the Boston Globe. It's Thursday, April 17, 1986. He's been Harvard for a little bit of time already, hanging around with the intellectuals.
And is a little bit, is the Contras in Nicaragua is happening. And he's already involved politically, like making, taking what is the unpopular opinion that's on the side of state. So it says here, protesters shout shouts put end to chance to learn. This is what basically Eric Weinstein say. On March 31st, George Rosales of the contra press secretary spoke at UMASS in Amherst about the Nicaraguan revolution.
I went to the presentation with an open mind, and I was hoping to learn something. When I first arrived, I was greeted with a barrage of leaflets on the evils of both sides. There were protesters everywhere, some smattered with blood, others carrying signs of protested US involvement in Nicaragua. It was at that point that I knew I was in for a night of protest, not a night of free expression of speech. Throughout the presentation, there were outcries from the protesters.
The event ended early because more students outside were becoming rowdy. I learned nothing during that evening except how to engage in shouting match. Shortly after the incident at UMass, I read that Rosales was unable to speak at Wellesley College because he was, greeted with an assault of raw eggs. It is unfortunate that certain group of, certain people and groups will not allow students to have the opportunity to learn more about the issue that strikes so closely to home. I hope such demonstrators eventually realize that there are people who want to learn, who want to hear the other side, and the constitution guarantees the right to free speech.
And that disrupting program does nothing for them but cause, for their cause except to make them look bad. Aimhurst, Eric Weinstein. I think there, what he's really trying to do is sit on the side of the propagandists. And it's interesting that within in that, you got another article about the CIA, etcetera. Because by this point, he's on he's been recruited by the Office of Naval Research to do his degree, and he's already involved politically.
Very suspicious. Very sus. Now here comes the hypocrisy. We all like a little bit of hypocrisy, don't we? Oh, no.
We don't. It's from the San Francisco Examiner, Sunday, September 8, 1996. And we got a US immigration policy, devise mathematicians. Really? This is 4 years before 1996.
This is 4 years before he writes that paper. Very interesting that it would be saying something that seems a little bit opposed to it. So let's have a little read, shall we? US immigration policy divides mathematicians. Underemployed PhDs resent stiff competition from foreigners.
Native Workers resent stiff competition for foreigners by Michael M. Phillips, The Wall Street Journal. So this is originally from The Wall Street Journal. Washington. The latest Americans to blame their job frustrations on immigration work in ivy covered halls, not factory floors.
A group of young US mathematicians with doctorates from such schools as Princeton University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology are lobbying congress to repeal laws that now make it especially easy for universities to import foreign professors. Immigrants won 40% of the 720 mathematic jobs available last year, according to the American Mathematical Society. And that frustrated mathematicians and and the frustrated mathematicians say the influx helped to boost the unemployment rate into double digits among newly minted maths PhDs. We remain a fierce, merit orientated, anti xenophobic community, but the current situation knows no precedent, wrote Harvard trained mathematician Eric Weinstein and 20 other scholars in a recent plea to Capitol Hill. The mathematicians aren't the only high skilled workers who claim that immigrants cloud their employment prospects.
Engineers, computer programmers, and others have argued the same case recently with little legislative success. But the engineers have much less striking evidence at their disposal. Even the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers USA, a trade group that is outspoken, anti immigration, cites only a 1.7% unemployment rate among engineers. Recent maths PhDs, however, face a jobless rate that soars to 10.7% in 1995 from 2.2% in 1990, according to the Mathematical Society. The young mathematicians say changes in the US law created the surge in academic immigration, which in turn has led to higher joblessness.
Job joblessness. Yes. That's a strange word. The first change in 1976 identified professors and scientists as being in short supply, automatically qualifying them for visa certifications. The Immigration Act of 1990 added the Einstein exemption, which gave preference to foreigners of extraordinary ability and raised the annual cap for employment based immigrant visas to a 140,000 from 54,000.
Immigration of professors through employment based visas jumped to 1429 in 1995 to from 267 in 1976, according to the Immigration and Naturalization Services. During 1991 to 1995, the inflow totaled 9,219 professors, although the INS does not track how many were mathematicians. The US mathematicians alleged that foreign scholars take many of the best research jobs, reducing salaries and forcing Americans into non tenure track positions or lower quality schools. Since 1976, universities have been using immigration exemptions to import labor force of foreign scientists at great decrease greatly decreased cost, wrote Weinstein, who is a non tenure track postdoctoral fellow at MIT. Yes.
He is unbelievable. Really unbelievable. I mean, really unbelievable because it's such hypocrisy for from, the the the man. Really, such hypocrisy seeing is that within 4 years, he's going to be it's okay to lower the wages and income and opportunities of low skilled native workers, not high skilled native workers like Weinstein. How dare you do that?
How dare you do that? For their part, universities argue that they're simply hiring the best and brightest, foreign or domestic. But mathematicians looking for work say the competition is unwelcome and fair. If you if your management, you don't have to make any concessions at all, complains Mark Hovey, the National Science Foundation. So as you see, that is quite amazing because you've got Eric Weinstein complaining about the very thing that he's later designing a flagship program for the UN to introduce, yeah, to, make happen.
But he doesn't care about low skilled native workers. The working class, they're not in. He is up in arms when it comes to high-tech jobs, high skilled workers. It's disgusting. They shouldn't do it.
This is this is, you know, this is Eric Weinstein. He is up there. He is an elite. He's an elite. Looking down, you workers don't matter.
He and his friends do. So that's one thing that's amazing. That article really, when after discovering all of the rest of us to see that, it made me go, oh, you dirty roter. And he is a dirty roter. And he is mentioned again here in 1998, in 19th April 1998, just before I'm 18, in actual fact.
And it this is from something that's continued in page 1a in the Dayton Daily News, and it says workers, Dayton, Ohio, this is some unable to find high-tech jobs. And it's the same complaint that came. It's talking about foreign workers coming in, taking high rate jobs. And he's mentioned here, it says, the industry claims there is a shortage of workers when what they really mean is that there is a shortage of cheap workers in the form of new college graduates and imported foreign nationals, Martelof says. Eric Weinstein, a mathematician and labor analysis at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found a 10 year old internal National Science Foundation study outlining a strategy to bring in more foreign nationals to hold down salaries for scientists and high-tech engineers.
I desperately want high-tech to take off, but I've been told that my high-tech heroes are engaged in transparent deception, Weinstein said. So he described exactly the same thing happening to him as, the high-tech heroes engaging in transparent deception. And that's what I'm saying about him. He's engaged in transparent deception. That's pretty serious in general.
Yeah. Pretty serious in general. And, I mean, you don't have to look too hard into Eric Weinstein to realize, yeah, that he is a sneaky snake. He doesn't tell the truth. He spins things in any way he wants to.
So it's negative for high-tech workers to have immigration, positive for low paid workers to have immigration, and it's not so. It does have the same problem, the same issue he's complaining about on the one side is what he is putting forward as a UN flagship program, putting forward as a UN, for his own words, UN flagship program that he worked on. Really important to say that, really important to mention it. So here we are now on X on Twitter. And I released that at the end of September, very end of September, And loads of people were messaging Eric Weinstein, were posting, and Eric Weinstein saying, then they were quite rightly upset.
They could see what the article meant, what his involvement with a UN labor program for the migrant division in creating this flagship UN model that is very much the essence of the great replacement. He could see what that meant, but he was ignoring it. But he couldn't ignore it. He had to he had to say something about it eventually. And at one point, underneath the first time that we started, he tried to act.
You have to understand Eric Weinstein here is gonna try and act like he doesn't know who I am or what I am. I'm not saying that he does know, but he will have gone and checked. He will have gone and checked, and you can tell that by what he says and how he says it. And he pretends he hasn't gone, and he doesn't know anything about me. Yet he goes and has a look, obviously, because he says certain things.
So he's lying at that point. So in response to this, message, someone who follows me, Astral Monk, said, stop selling us out to the UN, you globalist show, and then tag me in. And he as you can see, he's like, hey. Hey. What do you mean?
Apparently, he's already replied to this 4 days ago. So he and he's now pretending he's gonna say that himself. He's now pretending that he doesn't know what he means. So, obviously, straight away, this looks like a constructed, exercise. It looks like he used, and I would assume that he used a fake account, he used Franklin Comerant Franklin Comerant 1 as a way to, as a tool to allow for for this conversation to take place.
He says, basically, a hard hitting journalist above me exposed your great replacement plan that you single handedly engineered for the UN in a super secret document. He did single handedly engineer it for the UN in a document that he didn't talk about afterwards. That openly that's openly available online. Yes. Only if you know what to look for.
If you just look at Eric Weinstein, you'll get a load of different Eric Weinsteins. I had to go through his old website to find links to it and etcetera properly. No one else had had brought it up. So, you know, it's it's on I never said it wasn't available online. Everything that I find, research wise, online is available online.
Hence, me finding it. Hence, me find I wouldn't be able to find it if it was, otherwise hidden or oh, you dirty, Rada Weinstein. And you may think, and you may also be the head of Spectre. So to make my point ridiculous, you'll be getting pinged by his followers trying to hook a gotcha. You can read all about it yourself in his factual unbiased expose or just celebrate your holiday weekend with the people you care about.
This sounds like Eric Weinstein speaking. It sounds like Eric Weinstein speaking. So I think this is, a vehicle for him to respond to it. And I responded to it. I said, he read the article.
This fake and I I make it clear. This fake backwards and forwards is clearly contrived and allow, to allow him to paint, him, paint me as something I'm not in order to avoid taking responsibility for the work he did on behalf of the UN, mapping out economic migration. It's in his own words. To be honest, this looks like Eric Weinstein is using one of his backup accounts in an attempt to hide away from confronting his own historic actions. All I did in the article was point out Weinstein's own words, work and words.
You painted him as the head of Spectre because you think that will undermine my point. My points were concise, clear, and true. Eric Weinstein was paid by the UN to map out the effects of economic migration that we see unfolding today. He was part of an agenda, and he was part of EDGE when it was a 100% funded by Jeffrey Epstein. These two points is what he needs to combat.
Instead, you're both using logical fallacies, unconnected personalities, and unrelated agendas to distance him from those concise points. This is totally what I predicted. Eric Weinstein is unable to take responsibility for his own actions and behaviors and will use logical fallacies instead. I was a 100% accurate about his response. This is a cowardly response, and I added this in.
That I'm responding to this this second part that because this is a response to his main messages. And the second part of the messages was, yikes. That seemed funny at first. Is this coming from the antisemite pro Hamas world? That's what he's trying to paint me as.
1st, he's trying to paint me as, like, I'm pro Hamas. Like, somehow, I'm on the streets with a Gaza flag going pro Hamas. I hate the fact that they're genociding tens of thousands of people, including up to 20,000 children have been bombed. It's unacceptable. I'm not doesn't mean I'm pro Hamas because I don't like, Israel bombing people.
I don't like Hamas killing people. I don't like Israel killing people. I don't like the killing part. He seems very happy about the one side of the killing part and to try and paint me as the other part. So again, the they, create it like I'm saying that he's the head of Spectre, and he's creating that I'm like pro Hamas.
They're fortunate. Then he says, the Whitney Webb world is coming from the anti Semite pro Hamas world? The Whitney Webb world. Whitney Webb was my ex partner. We don't speak.
We haven't spoken, properly in in a year. We have a kid, together. We don't get on. We don't see eye to eye on a load of things. And he's purposely acting like, oh, it could it come from here?
Acting like he doesn't know where it come from. Is it coming from the anti Semite or the Whitney Webb? Well, he must have gone and looked into who I was to be able to say that and pull one name from 7,000,000,000 names in the world that currently exist out of the hat. You know, that is just ridiculous. The Bitcoin maximalist world, I don't even like, I don't deal in crypto at all.
You know? I have, like, 20 quid or something in in Ray. I I don't really get involved with crypto stuff. I think it's all gonna crash through eventually that, the the systems are gonna be compromised, and that they're gonna be Bitcoin probably gonna be bought out by the government at some point and used as a form of CBDC. So I don't, see see this.
Or the pro pro peer review world, I don't even know what he means by the pro peer review world. Right? What people who would be for reviewing their peers' work? Why why would that be bad? Why would that be bad?
There are so many of these angry groups I lose track. So he's trying to paint me as something there, of course. He's trying to paint me as something. It's called smearing somebody. So you don't have to look at the fact that you worked on the UN flagship program, your own words, on how to lower the total income, of native workers by bringing in migrants at the rate that we see in where we see happening right now.
So, I mean, this is pretty low. There are seemingly, different worlds that attempt to enmesh me in their dramas. This was you doing it yourself. Usually, maybe 85% of the time, these ringleaders eventually turn out to have issues with Jews and or Israel no matter what the ostensible area of endeavor. That is a logical fallacy.
It's a form of whataboutism. Oh, what about these people who are against all of these things? Even if I hold the most abhorrent views, if I say Eric Weinstein worked on the UN flagship program where he modeled out what we're actually seeing now, look, this is the evidence. That is true. Whatever else I say, whatever else I say.
If I say King Kong, should be the ruler of the world, The earth is is, a dodecahedron. And, there's flies constantly fly out my butt. It would make no difference whether those weren't true. What I'm saying about Eric Weinstein's program is definitely true. He's trying to paint me as something else.
And, again, I respond to him with saying, here, you're attempting to use unconnected logical fallacies to paint me as a Jew hating conspiracy theorist when the article was factual and mostly in your own words. Conspiracy theorist when the article was factual and mostly in your own words. I predicted you do this rather than accept responsibility for your role in sponsored by the UN in creating this issue we see today with unfettered economic immigration. Your arguments in the post I'm responding to should be below you, and you should be tackling this issue head on. However, instead, you're using weekly veiled smears to deflect the questions about the real and provable agenda you were complicit in.
It is extremely telling that you choose to play this hand in an attempt to belittle something, which is not a conspiracy, not to do with Israel, not to do with Whitney Webb, not to do with Bitcoin, but it's to do with you spending 2 years in the pay of the United Nations to map out the agenda which is currently unfolding in front of our eyes. Your response is weak unsubstantiated fallacy to avoid responsibility for your own actions, and you call yourself an intellectual. And so he had to respond to me then because I, you know, I don't call just someone out. I say exactly what they're doing and let them go, oh god. Now I can't do that.
Because that's the most important thing. If you're honest and for for fright to people, then they have to be honest and for fright back or prove themselves to be lying. Bullshit. So in response to me, he says, let me first say hello to you. We have never met.
Of course, we've never met because you run-in elite circles. So I write this, I have no idea who you are. Yes. That's because I'm a working class guy whose father was a steel worker, whose mom washed test tubes in the hospital, and you wouldn't know me because you're too busy organizing with the elites to, lower our wages, lower our total incomes, lower our standard of living so you can have better, life and also arguing against that happening in your own world. So you yeah.
You do not know who I am. Definitely. I don't know if you're a pro Trumper, pro Harris. Again, what aboutism? Are you these?
What about these? What about these? Fallacy. Or if you are British or Peruvian, you just gonna go, fallacy. What about these?
Are you British, Peruvian? It doesn't matter. I don't know. I don't know if you're a Buddhist or if you are a die hard Jewish commando serving for the IDF. You and I don't know each other.
There is no desire on my part to further engage with a random account that is using facts in my life that I'm very proud of to working for a flagship program about migration to create what we see today today to make up a story to animate a group of accounts to harass me. So I'm animating a group of accounts to like I got that power. Like I got that power. Rise up my friends and harass him. I will show you the information, which is totally true.
Now you must harass him for that information, which is totally true. It's your own info it's what you did yourself that is making people angry, that made people respond to you, Eric Weinstein. It's not me. It's you. It's what you did yourself.
You were involved with this yourself. You made this decision yourself. It's not me who makes people angry about the current situation. They look out side their window. They see their communities changing completely beyond recognition like I do.
I look out and I see my communities change over the past 10 years completely. You helped map that out with a flagship UN program in your own words. It's unbelievable. And when it comes next, it's also unbelievable. There's no desire on me, to engage further with random account that needs a fax in my life that I'm proud of, to make up a story, no story made up, to animate a group of accounts to harass me.
Yoon are neither the first nor the only one doing this. In other dramas, I'm a Mossad agent, possible, or Peter Thiel's henchman or George Soros' agent. His wife worked for George Soros company, by all accounts. That's why I hear. I haven't checked that up fully myself.
And he spells he work he works for the man. He spelled Peter Thiel's name wrong. I mean, this guy, he puts a hyphen in between, like like Peter Thiel is some sort of p Peter Faye if failures. It's unbelievable. He's like the second in charge of Peter Thiel's, financial management company.
Of course. It's unbelievable. It's unbelievable that you wouldn't be seen as Peter Thiel's henchman, seeing as you probably are. But you should probably spell your boss's name right. That wasn't my first response.
My first response to being attacked was to respond to someone else 4 days ago because I thought they were a poor, confused soul. So that doesn't understand that doesn't so he should know. I don't understand. It had to be explained. Yet he now claims that 4 days ago, he responded to someone who he thought was an a poor, confused soul, an individual.
Now he's saying that even though you okay. One person contacted me and he responded to, and he's been harassed by a load of people. That that doesn't weigh up. It has to be 1 or tougher. You can't you can't have them both, be true, can you?
I have a policy of not responding to people telling stories to incite mobs against me. That's not happening there here at all. You are a liar, Eric Weinstein. It's hopeless. They don't listen, and they take the the, the real responses as denials, which animates them more.
Such people aren't critics. They are usually wounded and traumatized souls trying to figure out what is true in this crazy situation. And for that, I have a lot of sympathy. But my life is too short and too rich, and I want to live as a badly, to want to live as a badly sketched character in your story that your followers can hate lifelong progressive restrictionists as the architect of the world's uncontrolled migration. You were involved in the UN flagship program that has achieved exactly what we see today, Eric Weinstein.
Again, I can, however, do this. Read what I wrote 4 days ago. I posted and quoted a response 100 hours ago, where I thought this was one person. Apparently, he also thinks he was being constantly harassed by people. So is it one person or constantly harassed?
The Israel angle came up because I started to see accounts harassing that were fairly and consistently anti Jewish and or anti Israel. I do not mean to tie you with a broad budget doesn't apply to you. It's statistical observation. You are doing exactly what you're doing. You're smearing, and you got called called out.
And now you've written a long denial. I don't know your politics, but the idea that I'm a secret architect of the world migration system is ultimately disconnected from reality as to defy easy explanation. Yes. He's not a secret architect of the world's migration system. He is just one of the open architects of the world's migration system.
And please undo and disperse your mob of followers who you have convinced to harass me. Show me where I've convinced him to harass him. The fact is he has been done this himself. People are angry, and he can't handle the reaction. Bottom line, you are wrong.
I don't want you or or your followers posing as critics, demanding a conversation by harassing and threatening a stranger. There's no harassing and threatening going on. You're just having your own history catch up with you. I'm going to assume you personally are utmost, at worst, neutral on Jews and on Israel. I apologize if I raised that unfairly from observing the accounts attacking me suddenly over being the UN globalist migration czar.
But I am not going to get into a back and forth over the Internet oh, over this Internet theory with an account stirring up its followers into a mob to harass a stranger. Hope this helps truly, he says. He's acting like I'm Gaston from Beauty and the Beast. Rising up the villagers, marching with the bit folks, the poor old innocent Derek Weinstein who never ever worked for the UN and never ever planned out the flagship program for economic migration that undercuts workers' income. That's exactly what you're doing.
He, again, cannot take responsibility for his own action. He gives a a brief excuse. It's not very good excuse. And I said, debate me live. Instead of using veiled smears, logical fallacies, and tactics to avoid the point in question, To make debate me amiably on a live stream.
Stop avoiding response, for your own actions. The responsibility for your own actions. Man up. Debate me. Debate me, bro, he says.
Every damn time, I don't know what world you live in, but that tactic is how you get blocked, not intellectually engaged. You're creeping me out. I don't care. Don't take this the wrong way, but you're coming across as a drama seeking rather than truth seeking, and I avoid such accounts like the plague. I gave you my answer to one of my followers 4 days ago.
I'm reading what you write in horror, but I'm not interacting with you. See below, I'm sorry you're here, but I don't want to be sucked into your life trauma. Shabbat shalom. And then he posted something where I talk about Judaism throughout history, having an issue with being forced out of different places. I've done a lot of work on, but in Wurttemberg, for instance, the the blood libels that happened in the 1400 where Jews got pushed out, they got, accused of sacrificing babies and the like.
I don't think they were sacrificing babies, but I do think that there's lots of turmoil that happens between, Jewish immigrants, and migration and the native populations. And this is again an example of, how a population, external population, causes issues within, with the native populations and how if you don't solve it, it leads if you don't solve the issue and on the ground, it leads to violence, wars, blood libels, things like what we've seen. If you don't solve it, if you just avoid it and ignore it, nothing ever changes but to choose. And I said, Adults talk to each other. This is known.
And that was the end of it. That was Eric Weinstein responding to my article, and it was a poor response, a poor response indeed. And so there we are. Eric Weinstein, I would call him at this point because he's lied, because he's a coward, because he hasn't got the ability to focus and confront this, because he thinks it'll go away if he just goes like this, because he's an elite. He's an elite working in elite colleges who thinks it's one rule for them and one rule for us.
For us, they can lower our income over total income, and they can put my they they can flood us with migrants. For them, for the elites, it's disgusting that they would dare flood with migrants and lower their opportunities, lower their overall income. That's awful. He's a hypocrite. For me, I say, look at what you did in your own words and he says, you're a Jew hater.
This is Eric Weinstein. This is Eric Weinstein. It's not intellectual. He was recruited by the Office of Naval Research. He's done a load of work for the UN.
He didn't advertise it at all. Some people have said, oh, yes. He did. Oh, I remember him talking about it before. And then I say, show me, and no one's able to show me because I watched for a long time.
And he's not mentioned, working for the migrant division for Manuela Bola or whatever his name is, of the International Labour Organization. He didn't didn't mention it at all. So Eric Weinstein has lied, is a liar, has continued to lie, has continued to use logical fallacies, a range, multiple, 7, 8, 9, 10 times He's been using logical fallacies, different ones, to avoid to pick me as a a mob stirring anti Semite who hates him rather than someone who wrote an article about his work for the UN migrant division, which is all very brutal. I've never, at one point, said it was secret. I said he's never talked about it.
It was out there, but most of the information that's out there is hidden in amongst the Internet anyway. It's naturally hidden. This is what I do. I go and everybody who knows my work, if you go to newspace.com, you'll see it. I go around, and I look for this information.
I look for people who have hidden stuff or, who don't want you to know about certain things, and I, find a way. I've I've I research what it is that they're trying to hide. I I look for things that people wanna forget, and I find them. I don't look for secret things. I look for things that people wanna forget, and I find them, like with Klaus Schwab's Ancestry.
They they didn't have it on any of the records. I went back. I found it. Brought it to light. Jeffrey Epstein's stuff's the same.
Nicole Younkerman's stuff's the same. All the series that you'll see on news base, the same. I look for the information, and I find it. That's what I do as, for a living. I'm a journalist.
I look for information. That information isn't secret. It's just usually hidden and obscured by time. Now one thing is that Weinstein views the so called native populations and the immigrants being systematically moved in as different groups of the same underclass. This is how he perceives it.
With the ruling class of academics like himself and the bourgeoisie of such organizations as the United Nations controlling their production, his recommendations involved using redistribution of wealth and income in some way which has, in his words, been so far obscured or hidden until now to create equality of the pay for the underclass. Now his conclusions are to merge the 2 main groups of the underclass, which are the native workers and the migrant workers, while lowering the income of all to allow an increase in the means of production to benefit the underclass equally. This is all done knowing that the underclass will all become poorer the more migrants are brought in. And he directly focuses on social transformation and conflict while using a historic understanding of economic development to come to his conclusions. Essentially, he suggested a migration system which synthetically makes human labor power economically noncompetitive, potentially widening income inequality and then suggests using state intervention to create parity in the lower class while benefiting from the lowering of cost of production and the means of production.
This is all at the expense of native workers. Weinstein doesn't have to apply this thinking in historical context alone for it still to be Marxist in essence. He is directly looking at the future in context to history. That's also how his idea of what change means is derived. He can only be developing a future strategy by using the contrast of the resulting consequences of any potential change itself.
That's why, I called this Marxist. That's why I called, what Eric Weinstein's doing, as a Marxist lilt. It is true. It does. It is.
There's an element of Marxism about what Eric Weinstein is doing. You can't get away with it. He's saying, look at history and look at how to, fiddle with the means of production and with the workforce in a way that allows us to have one underclass, completely that becomes one unified, form. And that, is communistic. And he's working for the UN while doing it.
And we know where we're headed. We're communitarian, fascist, hidden behind stakeholder capitalist society is where we're heading. We know this. This is what's been written down in great detail. If you read Klaus Schwab's version of stakeholder capitalism, if you look at the World Economic Forum's plans that they've mapped out in full, I've gone through in full, you'll understand that this is the way.
So that's it. This edition of NewsHound, where I've gone through my interactions with Eric Weinstein, the swings I discovered about him, and you can make your own decision. Don't be a mob. You don't have to be. I don't intend anybody to be a mob.
But I do believe that people will be angry with Eric Weinstein because he's lied to his audience. He's created himself to be a persona that he's not, and that should be suspicious to absolutely everyone that he has created a massive illusion and then claims that it's not and he and when he's when he was, messaging me, that those messages, those tweets, those posts that were back in return were, for they they they were they were laughable. What he says is laughable. He's not very good at thinking. That's what I'm saying.
He may be able to use Coasian, economics theory to map out, you know, large economic movements, etcetera. But he's not very good when it comes to communicating as a human. He's not very good at understanding his own hypocrisy. He's not understanding why when he can fully experience and he's got the full experience, and we've seen this, the full experience of saying, this is unfair that high-tech jobs are being taken by migrant workers, To then introduce a flagship program which does the same thing to low skilled workers is despicable. It shows he knows what he's doing, and he doesn't see himself as those people down there.
He does not see himself as a proletariat. He sees himself as a bourgeoisie. That is Eric Beaujoisie, Weinstein. Yeah, the R in his name stands for Beaujoisie. There you go.
Thank you for joining me on this news out today. I hope it didn't bore you too much. It is pretty boring stuff, but still, I hope you'll join me again. You know where to find and support my work. Down in the the the comments, there'll be a link tree where you can find all the different places to support.
Become a patron. Why not? I can't do this work without help. And I don't get paid by anybody but supporters, by people like you, like the the working class. So, thank you so much, and see you later.
Bye. What we know is that we will end up with many more unemployed.
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
Look Who’s Nudging Now! Behavioural nudge units are not anything new. But, conventionally, those who would use our psychology against us have tended to act from the shadowy realm of clandestine intelligence operations, with their actions regarded as underhand by most. However, since Richard Thaler came on the scene, this murky branch of behavioural psychology has been rebranded as an everyday tool ready to be utilised by those who seek to govern. The act of nudging behaviour en masse is a form of psychological manipulation that is already being used by our military and police forces to influence people’s emotions, beliefs and behaviour. The term “psyops” is being rebranded as “nudging”, allowing it to be slowly but surely adopted by governments worldwide as a legitimate way to control the actions of the global population, and it isn’t only governments that will be enthusiastically adopting this tried and tested technique. The most effective way to use such psychological manipulation will be online, and it will be our personalised datasets that will be used to design how best to nudge us individually. There is no doubt that various online companies will use this technology to control more than just what we purchase. For this reason, it shouldn't be surprising that Bezos, Musk, Brin and their ilk have been trained in mass behavioural psychology. What should be much more of a surprise is that they were learning such techniques via a course funded by an elite child trafficking intelligence asset like Jeffrey Epstein. It’s hard to surprise most onlookers nowadays, partly because we have already entered the era of fifth-generation warfare and that may be why such a pernicious science is being so readily welcomed by governments and technocrats worldwide. It is no coincidence that behavioural economics is emerging now, just as a centralised digital panopticon takes shape around us, brought to fruition by the likes of Thiel, Musk, Gates, Bezos and Brin. Elon Musk may be the wealthiest and most powerful person on Earth and, because of his investments, his wealth will likely increase at an exponential rate. Many of Musk’s supporters are fanatical, many of them idolise him, while some of that energy is synthetically driven by technology which uses focused behavioural nudging to improve Musk’s PR image. For the potential future technocratic leaders to create the world of tomorrow, a step towards governance is required, and Musk is now making his move. We have seen a sudden lurch towards technocracy during the 2024 election, signalled by J.D. Vance, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk becoming major political players and getting one step closer to being part of the government. Another of Epstein’s associates who I’ve covered extensively has also become a colleague of Elon Musk recently, Nicole Junkermann. The German entrepreneur was invested in the Israeli Unit 8200 start-up company Carbyne911 alongside Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Thiel and former Israeli PM Ehud Barak. Junkermann became part of Space X after selling her Swarm satellite company to Musk’s Starlink. As well as her business links with Epstein, Nicole Junkermann had previously ridden on the Lolita Express on two separate occasions, which included a secretive meeting in the UK reportedly with two US senators at Wexner’s Foxcote House. 🧵18/20
Video Transcript AI Summary
Welcome to my exploration of Nicole Youngerman, an associate of Jeffrey Epstein. I first uncovered her connections in 2019, and since then, she has attempted to silence me through legal action. Youngerman, a Countess with ties to elite Italian families, has been linked to various scandals, including FIFA corruption and Israeli intelligence. Notably, she flew on Epstein's private jet multiple times, raising questions about her motives and connections. Her involvement in the UK's NHS through the HealthTech advisory board poses significant risks to patient data security. Despite attempts to erase negative information about her, I continue to investigate and share my findings. This story is crucial for understanding the intersection of power, data, and intelligence. Thank you for your support as I delve deeper into this narrative. More articles will follow.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, my friends, and welcome to Nummer Johnny Bedmore read through. We're going on an adventure today. We're going back in time. Not that far back in time. Actually, I'm saying back in time to, really, for the article.
It's 4 years. 4 years has passed. It's quite strange. 4a half maybe. This was 9 2019, but it's still ahead of its time.
I I don't know if anybody else would have got outed her beforehand as an Edstein associate, but it was definitely me who got there and and, revealed about this lady no one had talked to. Now the the I'll I'll talk about who she is, and I'll name her. And no doubt, YouTube will find that this video is removed. YouTube will have to remove it because the legal teams will act. It's available on Rock, Flynn and Rumble too.
But there's no doubt that when this goes up on YouTube, this will be brought down eventually. Because the lady's name's Nicole Youngerman, Countess Bruccetti Peretti, in her Italian title is married to count Ferdinando Bruccetti Peretti of the Bruccetti Peretti family, which was once just a Piretti family, but married and combined the names. And these are like higher elites from Italy, if anybody knows about politics, global politics, the family bloodlines and all of that, you know, the nobles in Italy have a weird, like, high level, high place in all of this. So it's not a surprise this is the one I've had the most pushback from. In actual fact, she's taken me to court in multiple countries.
She's had microtaskers work to have my name removed online. At one point, I, you know, there was probably more I was, like, releasing an article, and it was her selection of lawyers and other microtaskers working to find every way to seal that up and take it off Google, take it off offline, if they could. This article, this original article, got taken off, Vocal Media, Vocal dot Media. They just floated on the market. And, I'd been one of their 2 of my posts, at least 2, maybe 3 of my posts.
I might have been 3. 3 of my posts were their top posts in a month. You know? I was writing a couple of good things for them. And, I I mean, my first Theresa May article had them really excited because, of course, they they wanted me to write about weed.
That's what they they come to me with, like, you we noticed you wrote a couple of articles about marijuana. Maybe you wanna continue writing articles about marijuana. So I go, yeah. No. I don't really want to.
I wanna write about stuff that's interesting. So, eventually, this gets pulled down, this one, and it goes back up on unlimited hangout. And I know what's due for that site. So I've also put it up on newspace.com because this is a story that must stay up. This is an article that must stay up.
And, I tell you, it's it's, it it brought me a lot of attention. Listen to me leaving my phone on like that. How how viciously awful of me. It brought me a lot of attention. Some of it negative, some of it positive.
But it brought me, a lot of attention from the independent media. The independent media, realize a lot of the the not the I mean, the high level, yeah, a bit of them, but but it the the low level, mid level independent media hounds, those people doing their research at home, not necessarily publishing in article form, usually publishing threads or on on channels, just, for their supporters. Those guys were really impressed with this. You know? Some of them tried some of them tried to steal it.
There was one person in France who tried to steal all of this stuff as though it was their own and got lots of traction in France until I think people started to work out that it wasn't actually their own work. They were just retweeting mine and putting their own name on it. I once approached one of those people when I was being, because they were also being targeted by Nicole Yankerman. And they they crapped themselves when they talked to me. I remember it.
And then eventually disappeared. Lots of these guys disappear. You know? So I I did this is a really this was a really good article for me. Really dramatic.
Really clever. What I did for this article was pretty clever. I tried to look at the Epstein case and look at what every I watched everything, man. Watched everything, read every article. I was, aware of the Epstein case from, I I I think, about about, like, probably about 2,010, 2011.
But it might have been later because your memory just play tricks on you. But I'd been researching it from about 2014, 2015, because I was amazed that he hadn't gone to prison. I knew there was gonna be more coming. This is this is part of the the journalist, you know, the journalist journey. You're looking you're looking for articles which are not gonna die in time, you know, are gonna be fresh, are gonna be discovered eventually once the story comes out.
This you have to write the story that comes out. If you think about it like that, if you wanna be a good journalist, you've gotta get to the story first. So I looked at I I looked at the the flight log. You know, we only had our flight log, the the little black book, you know, a few bits and bobs from court stuff. You know, there was only certain information, spurious rumors, load of Internet websites going up that that claimed Jeffrey Epstein was a hero and some, of course, independent rumors about what was really going on.
So there was loads going on, loads going on. But, how do you find a story that hasn't been told? How do you find that? That's why a lot of people, at the start of their journalistic career, say, well, I just don't know. How am I meant to do that?
How am I meant to find the story that no one knows about? It's very very, it's a very tricky thing to make your mind work in a way that you're able to, use your initiative. Initiative and intuition. You know? You've got I was told someone was talking about intuition today being so important for what how they believe.
That's fine. Intuition is fine. If you've got good intuition, you can know what to stay away from, and you can know who to trust and who not to trust, but you might not know the reasons. But you'll know, oh, I don't trust that person over there. I don't trust this person over here.
And then later on, you may discover stuff or other people will come out with stuff or you go, oh, that's why I didn't like that person. Oh, that makes sense now. Like, you know, a lot of people say to me, I I couldn't understand why everybody worshipped Jimmy Savile because when I looked at him, he repulsed me and he made me scared. And I was like, I don't understand. You know, people used their intuition.
They knew that there was something wrong about him. There was loads of rumors because of that all around the place. Yeah. And when something comes up, people are like, oh, that's what my intuition was telling me. They used their brain to work out something was wrong over there, and they stayed away from it.
It was that simple. But what was wrong, why it was wrong, where it was wrong, and how to document what is wrong is not on their mind, of course. But a journalist has to go through these processes of trying to say, if I'm gonna use my intuition, it only works to a certain point. I would only be able to produce an article that's rumor, speculation, all of that, because I'd be speculating. I'd be putting out, I feel that this is this way.
And I wanted to find evidence. I wanted to find something really good, something concrete. So I took the flight manifest, and I color coded it. I mean, I I I took it took a while, and I'm not even sure if I've got the original, like, documents still that I color coded. But I color coded it, and one name came out nearly straight away.
Actually, 22. But there was a reason. I I color coded it in different ways. So how many times, Jeffrey Epstein, traveled with his entourage, got a normal code. You know?
Him, Ghislaine Maxwell, someone else. Him, Sarah Kellan, someone else. Him, someone else in their entourage and someone else. You know? That happened.
He flew on the plane like that a lot. And other people would fly with him and others. It wouldn't only be him on the plane with other people. Other people would fly. So you could say there's ones where it's Epstein's entourage.
It gets one color. It's ones where it's Epstein's entourage and a guest of importance. One's where it's Einstein's entourage, and it's a reoccurring guest within the the sort of, like, friendship group. 1 of the Luntz daughter, who wrote the the father wrote the Luntz Wexner analysis about the Iraq war that got leaked, and the the Luntz daughter used to, catch a plane a lot. Some of the the people who hung around in Epstein's New York circles used to catch the plane a bit.
So, you know, that was something. There's Epstein, Epstein, riding with his entourage, an Epstein rider with his entourage and a regular guest, while Epstein rides him with his entourage and a special guest. Yeah? And then what else was there? Well, there was other colors.
The plane being used without Epstein there. So Epstein sometimes would get the plane send the plane to pick up Alan Dershowitz, and Alan Dershowitz would fly alone on the plane back to Epstein and be brought to Epstein. This happened on a couple of occasions with few people. So that's a a 4th color down there. And then there was one other color that I put down, one other note that I put down when I was looking through these.
Times where Epstein flew alone with somebody else. Now I only had the limited, it was probably, I think it's something like 9 1998 to about 2,002 flight logs for at least the I say one of the planes. If I remember correctly, at one point, there was, like, 2 planes that were working in tandem of each other. But, basically, the Lolita Express flight logs, there was this that color had only 2 Marx, throughout all of these years of people flying backwards and forwards on the plane, when you looked at all of them, Epstein only flew alone without his entourage on two occasions. Now that is suspicious, isn't it?
If you're looking at patterns and you're looking Epstein flies with lots of people. Epstein flies with lots of people and a special guest. Epstein, sends his plane to get someone. Epstein flies with Ghislaine Maxwell or someone. Epstein flies alone without any of his entourage with one person.
Really super rare. You know, the rest of them were regular. That was really super rare. So who were they? And there was one, and he wasn't that important.
And I can't remember the reason why I didn't go into it fully, but for some reason, I didn't go into it fully. But the other one was a woman who had been on the flight manifest twice. One time with someone who I think she had, been, involved with while she was at Harvard and another time alone. That's really super rare. Just her and Epstein traveled twice in that weekend.
Was it August 30th? I think that it, it leaves and we'll find out now anyway when I'm doing the read through. August 30th, the plane, 2002, the plane leaves the tarmac in Paris. It's not the main airport. I think it's Saint Hubli or something like that it's called.
I can't remember I can't remember what the what the the the airport's called. And they flew to Birmingham Airport. Birmingham Airport's a really weird place to fly to in Britain. You know, there's Luton, there's Heathrow, there's Gatwick, Stansted, all down that way. So maybe it's like, oh, well, those London's ones are busy, expensive to land or something.
Well, there's Manchester, Bristol. You know, there's there's a load of airports started around the place in the UK. So why why Birmingham? Of all places, Birmingham Airport is in the south of Birmingham, which is useful for where they were going. You know, the second part of this, I find out where they were going rather than just finding out who it is.
Because this first part, well, shocked me. I didn't expect to find this. I thought, who's this woman no one's talking about? Nicole Yankerman. Who is she?
Why? Why did she fly an Epstein's plane? What's going on? And so I went into a a world of investigation and came out the other side by knowing who Nicole Youngerman is, knowing eventually what they were doing that weekend, and eventually being attacked by her in such a manner that I had to finish the job and find out her whole life from 1995 to the present day. And now, well, she's in business with Elon Musk now.
She's part of Skylink. She's part of SpaceX even. That's pretty big, and that's partly because her own satellite telecommunication company was bought out by them. That's how she got in. But it's not only SpaceX she was trying to get in infiltrate at one point.
There's also other things. Let me share my screen. We'll go through this, and we will go through this. I don't think you can see what I'm doing. I'm just slowing that down.
Let me just change my screen settings a little bit. And here we are on johnnyvetmore.com. Some of you know it, and some of you don't. And as you see, I've been releasing searching for Stanley. So, Martin Luther King Watergate, Kent State mask, and Wounded Knee have come out over Christmas.
Gotta have a read throughs, and, of course, you can go, down here, and it will tell you, it will show you many of the posts. And you can search on the bar, and that bar will either allow you to support me. Please support my work. You can also become a Patreon, become a Patreon and buy me a coffee, support in other ways. And, of course, there's a search bar there to search the site, but you also have a drop down menu on this, which allows you to go to the articles themselves.
But the Nicole Younkermann, Nicole Younkermann 1.0 on this was actually called Nicole Younkerman, the IDF Link Bongo infiltrating the UK NHS. Originally published on vocal.media, this heavily censored censored article was the first part of a trilogy investigating Nicole Younkerman and examining her links with Jeffrey Epstein, Israeli intelligence, and the UK NHS HealthTech advisory board led by UK health secretary, my Matt Hancock, MP. This article was eventually pulled down and censored by Vocal dot Media. There she is. Nicole Youngerman there.
Now this is, from a public site, this picture, but this is one of the tools she uses to send. So she tries to say that that image is copyrighted. Yeah. It's not copyrighted at all. It comes from a public site.
This is a news article, and it's been, changed in a certain way that means it isn't. But she's one of the ways that she does, or has in the past. I don't think that would be an easy sell for her, eventually, but it's one of the many different ways. Other than that, she's just tried every way to have me pulled offline. What she I mean, I'm not I'm not going to, but I I do have her phone number.
She doesn't know that. I could phone her up and say, will you stop censoring me, woman? But I decide not to. And here she is. The Epstein associate.
Nobody's talking about the IDF linked bongo infiltrating the UK NHS. FIFA Corruption, the Panama Papers and the Mossad by Johnny Bedmore. And so here it is. Let's do a read through of possibly, one of the most important articles to my career, in writing because this was the first time. So so I'm I do apologize if it's clunky in the way it reads because this was, I've had a lot of practice in a sense.
So I'm getting better. I have no qualifications in English. I, English language, I got 2 d's in, or an e, and I never did any other type of English. So this is all just ended up having to learn as we go along. I have a story to tell you, A story that causes my heart to pound and my blood pressure to rise as I type each and every word.
A true story of a woman of great wealth and power who rode on Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita Express private jet on several occasions. She appears to be a German born Israeli state intelligence operative based in London, an ex model whose name appears in the Panama Papers from the Mossack Fonseca leaks and who became embroiled in a FIFA corruption scandal with Seth Blatter and his family. She is perhaps the closest example you could find you could possibly find to a real life Bond girl. Yet she is almost completely unknown to the majority of us. This lady has recently infiltrated the NHS through the UK Department of Health and Social Care with the help of Matt Hancock, MP, and her presence signifies a major threat to the data security of every citizen in the United Kingdom.
Every single piece of data about you, your health issues, your blood type, the model of your wireless pacemaker keeping you alive, every detail of every embarrassing medical problem in the hands of the Israeli state apparatus and potentially sold off to the highest bidder. You may think that this doesn't concern you. Why would you need to worry about a foreign far right government who have been proven to meddle in the affairs of our country? Your data will be useless to them, surely. That's not the world we live in anymore.
Big data is a modern gold rush. The psychologists and marketing agents have mastered how to make you buy things. The next step is for them to successfully master making you do things. And for that kind of control over people, they need everybody's data. When I was first researching the Jeffrey Epstein case, I trawled through every piece of the official documentation that was available.
I knew that I was looking I knew what I was looking for and how very dangerous it was. I had begun attempting to identify state assets through their movements, actions, associations, and by good old fashioned detective work. I was interested in identifying any Mi 5 or Mi 6 agents, Israel Israeli Mossad, CIA or any other part of a nation, of a nation state's spying apparatus. It's possibly one of the most dangerous hobbies on Earth, spy hunting. And if I'm honest, I'm not even sure why I'm doing it.
Regardless, Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart deal was probably what they would give a foreign intelligence operative. Epstein was a per it was a perfect place to begin fishing for fishing for potential spooks. Of course, everybody knows now that, from my own research, I believe fully that Epstein was running the East Coast for the CIA, and he was an interlocutor between foreign state assets who wanted to do any type of work on the CIA's U. S. Domestically and the CIA's soil.
So they had to go through Epstein. One of the very rare CIA fixes right at the top, just like Pottenger, Epstein, Hunter Biden, others. Once I find somebody who I suspect have been involved in espionage, I will track down all existing information on that individual and build, the story of their lives as best I can. I learn every known habit they have, and instead of immediately writing an article about them, I just continue to note their activities with interest. I have been watching many potential state actors for a fair few years.
I've also missed out on breaking a few good stories by waiting too long. But I don't want to simply show you the past as much as I want to show you the present and even possibly the future. Investigation manifest. The Epstein flight manifest reveals the Younkerman connection to the people trafficking pedophile. There you go.
There's a picture, Nicole Younkerman and Jeffrey Epstein riding alone. And that's from Paris to, burn Birmingham and then Birmingham to Paris. August 31st, they leave, arrive back September 2nd, staying on September 1st at Fox Coat House. Just gonna drink. In the Epstein case, one of the best pieces of evidence, which we have available to research which was available to research, which was the flight manifest for this child trafficking molestation machine.
There were many coded initials and first a few famous names noted in the official documentation. As you probably already know, Bill Clinton and his Secret Service agents had ridden the infamous Lolita Express on many occasions. Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Alan Dershowitz, and Chris Tucker also flew on the plane with the billionaire sex offender. We all build up recognizable patterns of behavior over time. When you investigate someone, you usually start by identifying these patterns and then looking for any divergences from the anticipated outcomes.
In Epstein's plane's flight manifest, a pattern which was visible from the information available is how he would use his private jet. He would use the plane for two main reasons. Most commonly, he would fly himself and a number of his entourage to a destination, or, alternatively, he would fly people to meet him. The rarest occurrence was when Epstein would fly without any of his usual entourage and just one other passenger. There was only one name that jumped out from the flight manifest as a good example of when Epstein alternated from his routine, his second meeting with Nicole Younkemann.
As of 2019, Nicole Younkemann's current business portfolio is very impressive. She's often described as an x model, entrepreneur and investor, but miss Younkemann is more, is much more than just what you, see at first glance. Born in Dusseldorf, Germany on the 27th April 1975, Nicole Youngerman studied business administration at the International University of Monaco and then went on to study management development at the prestigious Harvard Business School in the United States. Among her many talents, she is a multilingual, she is multilingual and can speak German, English, French, Italian, and Spanish. In 1998, after graduating from the University of Monaco, she cofounded Winamac, which was an early online gaming platform that existed before online gaming regulations became a priority for the authorities.
Winamac was sold in 2001, and Youngerman would go on to invest in a recently created media rights company called Inffront Sports and Media AG, where she would soon serve as vice chairman of the board of directors. There's the then president and chief executive of Infront Sports Media, Filip Blatter. Filip Blatter. In 2002, Youngerman acquired the rights for the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany with her relatively new company, Infant Sports Media. The company was best known at this time for its president and chief executive, Filip Blatter, the nephew of Sepp Blatter, the then president of FIFA.
This overt corruption, this overt corrupt nepotism left Youngerman's Infant Sports and Media as a company to market the TV rights to future major FIFA tournaments. The company went on to acquire the rights of all FIFA World Cups. And even though this deal was watered down in 2006, in 2011, FIFA again gave Infront permission to sell TV rights in the Asian markets for 2018 and 2022 World Cups. During her time at Infront Sports Media, Younkemann would be caught flying on Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita Express on free occasions. The first flight recorded on the 22nd March 2002, she would share with Epstein, Sean Koo, and one other passenger.
But it's her second trip which really stands out. On Saturday, 31st August 2002, Jeffrey Epstein and Nicole Younkerman would fly from Paris Le Bourgue Airport to Birmingham Airport in the UK alone. They would return to Paris via the same route on Monday, 2nd September 2002. For Jeffrey Epstein to fly without any of his normally present entourage is very unusual. So what was happening that weekend?
I've done a lot of research on these dates, but as of yet, I do not have answers. I do. No. I found the answers next month, the next month in actual fact. At the time no.
At that time, Younkerman was 27 years old, so it's very unlikely that they were dating as Edwin knows Jeffrey Epstein isn't interested in fully sexually developed adults. Finding this anomaly on Epstein's plane's manifest encouraged me to look deep into the life of Nicole Younkerman and amongst other things, whether or not she had any links to a state intelligence agency. Were Younkerman and Epstein meeting alone for innocent reasons, Even though Youngkemann had made many investments already, she might have been trying to get more funds from eager investors like Epstein. How Epstein originally accrued his billions is still quite a murky subject in itself. Whatever the reasons for these 2 incredibly rich people being together, this meeting was a very private one.
Jonkerman had also just completed Harvard University's program for management development, and Jeffrey Epstein had a high profile relationship with Harvard, which in 2003 led him to donating money to the Ivy League College while stating that he had given the school 30,000,000 in funding, a claim later revealed to be false. Was Epstein using the famous American College to recruit for his own businesses or other interests? More Epstein later. But firstly, continuing with Unkeman's career, in 2005, she founded a private equity equity fund focused on media and sports investment in Asia and Europe called United in Sports. Sorry about that.
Called United in Sports, and managed to raise 242,200,000 for the venture in 2007. Her other project, Infront Sports and Media, was ultimately sold to a private European equity firm, Bridgepoint, for $600,000,000 in 2011. Now I've actually, just to know, I've actually talked to Dave Whelan. He appeared on the podcast, news newspaper podcast to talk about his book on the assassination of Jeffrey Jefferey. Sorry.
The assassination of, John Lennon. And, if you watch that, he might mention it on there, but he did tell me that he was actually at Infront Sports and Media. He actually worked there, right to start recruited. And he said everybody knew it was a scam straight away. So I'm gonna have him on the Newsbase podcast to learn about that later on.
In that year, Nicole Youngerman had officially become one of the hottest investors in the world. Since the very first acquisition, which I've already referred to, Youngerman has invested in or purchased Shanghai Real Esports, Ziggurat, Thousand Child, Aloha, Jobio, emoticast, LV, Auctionata, Coin Drum, Spoon Guru, Optiope, Grabio, Magnum Global Ventures, Songzur, Towson, Kind, Revolut, Sentient Technologies, Here Be Dragons, Soundtrack Your Brand, Grok, Catapult, Delivery Club, RelateIQ, Dollar Shave Club, Brewhouse Brewery, Cage Warriors, Eagle Alpha, GoxicXX, rebuy. De, Travelbid, Healthtech Digital, Ocwen, and Reporti Homeland Security, which will become tar by 911. The last 4 of these aforementioned companies are of significant interest. Oh, yes.
They are. The intelligence connection. Look at these board of directors. Look at these board of directors. Echoed Barak.
Look, Emia, Elikai, Alex Didengov, Pinchas Buchris. If once you work out with Pinchas Buchris, you're just, like, slapping your head all of these guys and Nicole Yankerman. So this was this was the original team. Look at them. Look at them.
They're coming out of the shadows looking like evil. Yeah. They've all had these pictures taken. The original car behind 911 board, with Youngerman and her Israeli unit 8,200 cofounders replaced by neocons after this article. After this article, they had to change their entire board.
I really I mean, I don't I'm not surprised, Youngerman started paying people masses of money to send to me. That was really causing a lot of, businesses problems. The link between Nicole Yunkemann, the Israeli State Intelligence Services, and the Israeli Defense Force is not a tenuous one. The ominously named Reporti Homeland Security was the first incarnation of what has now been rebranded Carbine 911 and is referred to as simply Carbine. Described as global leader in public safety technology, Carbine is a core handling platform app that allows you to, amongst other things, stream any ongoing emergency directly to the responding emergency services.
It claims in the information section of the promotional video on YouTube entitled Nicky Olde Youngerman Presents Carbine that it will provide
Speaker 1: a plug and play solution that allows 911 callers to connect their smartphone features to emergency operators so they can operate so that the operator can make better assessment of the emergency. Location data, audio, camera, and video access can be shared, providing the operator with a greater detail on the situation. The use of Carbine's solution will allow emergency management teams to better triage their cases and improve the utilization of downstream emergency services.
Speaker 0: They promise to combine the use of personal data, location data, live video, data from surrounding wearable tech, and even information from parked smart cars to deliver more information to the emergency services who should be responding. They can pinpoint your location even indoors to within 3 feet, and they claim that they can even collect data from dropped calls. However, they failed to mention how they'll get the permission to use such masses of available data. Who are these angels behind this revolutionary technology which aims to get between a victim and the emergency services? One of the directors of Carbine is Nicole Jankemann.
The chairman of the board of directors is Ekhud Barak, the 10th prime minister of Israel and the 14th chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Force, former minister of defense and former head of military intelligence for Israel. Ekhud Barak had had a long history with one of the most public faces of Israeli covert operations. Before he was prime minister, Ekud Barak was a big name in the IDF. Through the, 19 seventies, he led many operations, including famously disguise himself as a woman to kill members of the PLO, Palestinian Liberation Organization. Ekhud Barak has already been linked with Epstein, and Benjamin Netanyahu has helped to highlight those links for his own political gain.
Here she is on the website. Nicole Youngman appearing from the shadows in the the shoot. There's Ekob Barak. He's there too. 10th point minister tells you on the 10th point minister of Israel.
Oh, look. Cybersecurity, Homeland Security. Original chairman. So founder and CEO, Emile Elekaj, says there, you know, you can't help it to notice that there's a a few links here and there to, big people. We'll talk about that now, because, of course, he, Alex Disingoff used to work for the Israeli prime minister as well, cofounder and tech lead, Alex Disingolff.
Amazing. Youngerman's infiltration of the UK NHS and its big data. This led on to other articles. Let's just look at this a second. Now there's a couple of people here that sort of know.
She's a Tory government adviser. He's the head of Oak Wind. Popular. This guy's running for mayor of London now, Daniel Korski. I've written an article called Daniel Korski about him.
He's he's a character, obviously, an agent of some sort. Ben Gold, AK is his name. He's, I mean, one of the many fronts they put up in in these medical situations, and there's Matt Hancock. And, of course, some of these people probably don't know that the they they're riddled with spies here, that that some of these guys are spies. I watched Nicole Young coming carefully as she was buying up many start up tech firms.
And at the end of 2018, my worst possible fear was realized. Matt Hancock, member of parliament for West Sussex and secretary of state, for health and social care in the UK, appointed Nicole Youngman to the HealthTech advisory board. For the vast majority of people living in the United Kingdom, the NHS is an institution which we cherish and adore. Many of us will protect the n h, the National Health Service with our lives because of what is done for us in our darkest days. So it's such a shame a year later, and we'd have COVID properly kicking off, and the NHS would be sold on every level in all different types of way, would sell out in all different types of way, ruined now to what it used to be.
The HealthTech Advisory Board is described as a collection of clinical clinicians, academics, and IT experts. The official government website says the board will look at how the NHS can harness the potential of technology and create a culture of innovation with the aim of improving patient outcomes and reducing the workload on NHS staff. It fails to mention why it requires is an Israeli intelligence linked venture capitalist who has been involved with multiple scandals. Their first official meeting took place on the 19th November 2018. See appendix 1 for the other members of the HealthTech advisory board.
The 2 members which are of note related to this article are Nicole Youngerman and Parker Moss. The latter, happening to be the chief business officer at Oaken, which is one of many companies in Youngerman's vast portfolio. Oaken is an AI start up that uses machine learning to augment medical and biological research. On its own, the company would probably be a perfect fit for the future of the NHS. But because of its connections to Nicole Yunkerman in the Israeli intelligence, Okun should, be seen as too much of a risk to the data protection for NHS users.
Yeah. NJF Holdings and Nicole Youngerman, Financial Holdings or finance. London Hospital could offer patient data to Google back AI startup in bid for to develop better drugs. NJF Holding website announces NHS big data win, So they'd just be sifting up all your data, which in Britain is everybody's on the NHS whether they like it or not. On June 16, 2019, Nicole Youngerman's NGF Holdings web site issued an article originally published in The Telegraph under the title London Hospitals Could Offer Patient Data TO Google backed AI Startup in a Bid TO Develop Better Drugs.
It was exactly as I had expected. The convoluted title was celebrating the fact that Oaken had already been promised NHS patient data, and they're already confidently announcing it to their investors and to other associates. We need to call for Matt Hancock to remove Nicole Youngerman from the HealthTech Advisory Board as of immediate effect, and we should have an inquiry into how the NHS data can be protected from hostile foreign intelligence agencies. Younkerman and Epstein conclusions. I believe that the future unsealing of previously hidden evidence will confirm that Jeffrey Epstein had been working for multiple intelligence agencies.
Yes. He had. But he is most likely to have been recruited by the Israeli state. I don't even believe that myself anymore. Youngeman has managed to avoid her connections with Epstein being out in the open until now, but she is skilled at controlling her public profile.
Nicole Youngeman has become more powerful over the past 8 years than I have seen, and I have seen negative information relating to her previous scandals be removed from search results. Go check yourself. Type in Nicole Youngerman on Google search and go through all the articles which appear. They are overwhelmingly positive or simply relate to one of her businesses, and this is very different to what you would have found only a few years ago. When I first started investigating Nicole Youngerman, there were many negative articles which have all vanished.
I'm not even sure that this story will survive, and I was bloody right about that. I mean, 3 different websites have had it now, and I do think that the the the one website he's on before is at risk as well just because I know what's gonna happen to it. Appendix 1. The other HealthTech advisory board members include Rachel Dunscombe, who was the CEO of NHS Digital Academy and director for Salford Royal NHS Group, but since has been appointed to the HealthTech Advisory Board. She has also joined ClassArc Collaborative as their global non US leader and senior tech evangelist.
That's an important role. Tech evangelists work out what technology needs to be created for their technology to be created. So they go to other companies and try and convince them to create an NN, etcetera, etcetera. Manoj Badali, OBE, who is described as a digital venture builder and has business ties with the Murdoch family David Gamm, CBE, Vice President of Innovation at Imperial College London, suspicious Sir Mark Walport, the an English medical scientist and former chief government scientific adviser to UK Conservative governments from 2013 until 2017 Nicola Blackwood, the baroness of North Oxford, a member of House of Lords Roger Taylor, not a member of Queen, who is the chair of the Centre For Data Ethics and Innovation. Oh, how dystopian are some of these names.
Jenny Tennyson, OBE, chief executive officer at Open Data Institute and lead developer for legislation.gov.uk. Dan Sheldon, who is the head of Well Digital. Daniel Korski, CBE, former adviser to David Cameron and Hamid Karzai's government and is someone who deserves their own article. If you see, I've linked it in there now. Michelle Brennan, president of Johnson and Johnson, one of the pharmaceutical heavyweights.
Yeah. Head of Johnson and Johnson's in there. PS, since writing this article in the summer of 2019, Nicole Jonkerman has used various continental European courts to have my content pulled down and censored. She's using regional Berlin court to silence the article and has tried to have me pay her legal fees for her Orwellian actions. Younkerman has used courts to pull down interviews I gave on this subject to Ed Operman, Jason Bermas and Tony Gosselin, amongst many others now.
Her actions regarding this article led me to write 2 more articles that form the Junkemann trilogy. Each of these articles will be transferred, for safety, but over to unlimited hangout servers to stop them from being permanently deleted from the record. I thank you from everyone who initially shared these articles and who continue to do so well. They didn't get transferred over to unlimited hangout servers for various reasons, and, I will I keep them in both PDF form. And, they're up on my sites, and they're archived, of course.
So there you go. And, of course, at the bottom of the article, you can see not only can you share the article, which you should share the article. Of course, you should share it. Then people know. But you'll also see you can become a patron and buy me a coffee, and you'll see some of the things that I put up recently there too.
It's really important to get your support. Now I need to keep doing this work. I got loads more work to do, and, honestly, you'll understand why I need to do it. Click on one of these, get going. Of course, you can also, click on Jeffrey Epstein, for instance, and you can go and see everything on the website on Newspace that relates to Jeffrey Epstein.
And there's a fair few articles and videos and other things relating to Jeffrey Epstein due to the fact I've done a lot of research on him. And some also on news based links to some other people's articles too. So that's a really important article there, the Nicole Yankemann 1. So I didn't really mention that. Let's go down.
But this guy, he actually, worked for the Israeli prime minister's office as well. So all of these guys here were high ranking, Israeli guys, and then there was Nicole Yankerman, which made me think she was Israeli. But my friends, I no longer, believe that Epstein is more sad. I think that's just so simplistic. I I was simple about it.
I was simple about it. For someone who who barely goes to Israel, Epstein was, was not really looking like he was Israeli. The majority, he was born in America, recruited in America, trained in America, ran American programs, all based around the CIA. And in the end, they have put out a load of operations to distance him from the CIA, or you're gonna get cash congressional hearings, calls for congressional hearings, call for senate hearings, and they have no point in do even risking it. So they kept calling him Mossad over and over again and people were, oh, really?
You don't see Mossad. And I just don't believe it. Just don't believe it. I mean, I've looked at all the evidence. People say, but what about all of the Jewish groups that were helping him?
Well, the American Jewish groups that were all linked up with different members of the CIA and stuff. What those Jewish groups? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, because they're Jewish.
They're they're Mozart, don't they? If you're Jewish and you're in America and you're born in America and trained in America by the CIA, you're CIA, you bloody idiots. Yeah. The CIA is indistinguishable from Mossad, and Mossad do things on, American soil. But they can't get permission off the CIA.
So they go to people like Jeffrey Epstein and say, excuse me. I wanna do these operations. And Jeffrey Epstein forms relationships on behalf of the CIA for these people. That's what's going on. So I think that that there's a chance that, Youngerman worked for multiple intelligence agencies, but her time at Harvard is where she got linked up the CIA, which wouldn't be the first time in my research that someone got linked up with the CIA.
So she could work from our side, obviously, but I would think that Epstein would have put her on to Ekud Barak to set up this company or be an investor within this new company, which is about getting the MOS add in intelligence into American infrastructure and other infrastructure around the world so that then when the Americans want to do something domestically, they can go to them, get them to do it, and it doesn't look like the Americans have done things on their soil. It's like Operation Condor. It's like a lot of the other things, that have been done to avoid looking like the CIA are doing operations on domestically, which of course isn't allowed and is something that, Pottinger, who I talk of loads and have written about loads, managed to get from legal permission for at one point. Absolutely, the assassination of Orlando Letelier. So here you go.
That's, Nicole Youngerman, and she came after me hard. She does not like me. Nicole Youngerman is very upset now about all my behavior towards her. She doesn't like it at all, and she wants me to just be quiet because that's what the elites want. Accountess wants you to shut up.
Unfortunately, I haven't shut up. Unfortunately, for her. Fortunately, for other people, maybe. I don't know. People responded well to this article, and lots of people have said, you know, well done and stuff, but I don't see why it wasn't written ages before I got there.
Well, I do. It's obvious, isn't it? Well, the people who write these sort of articles and pay to write these sort of articles are co opted into establishment that pays not to write these articles. So I'm not part of that establishment, so I don't get paid by them. So I need your help and your support to continue writing these articles, and that's why people like me need your help.
I'm not just saying it because I wanna buy extra heroin to stick in my eyes. I I only do that on the weekends. So on that note, I hope you have a lovely time this year, and I hope this year hasn't been too bad. It's coming up to close of this year. Wanna say thank you for your support so far.
Thanks for watching. Keep watching. There will be another 2 parts of this coming out soon, another 2 parts, and some other things coming out soon, and more things coming out soon. I just keep releasing stuff. So keep watching.
And I really thank you for joining me here here on another Jonny Van Horn Reel III. Bye. A younger generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on. So we penetrate the cabinets.
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
For almost a century, Technocracy Inc. has been on the rise. Elon Musk’s maternal grandfather, Joshua Norman Haldeman, was a director of Technocracy Incorporated which, like the Edge Foundation, was originally founded in New York. Technocracy Incorporated was created in the 1930s and, either ironically or presciently, politicians and members of political parties were not permitted to become members. Even though they barred politicians, at the same time the organisation desired a radical restructuring of political, social and economic life in Canada, something which led to them becoming labelled as subversive to the war effort and banned during World War II. Regardless, as technological sophistication has increased, so has its ability to mould society. What we’re currently seeing is an attempt to create a Third Culture of sorts. There may be no better example of an effort to synthesise social science and formal science than technocrats like Elon Musk and J.D. Vance taking control of the levers of political power. The Third Culture has been bubbling away for a long time. In the era of Musk’s grandfather, it had been inconceivable that political science and formal science could work together. Snow had recognised the dilemma and he was the first to properly define the communication issues between the humanities and the natural sciences. Brockman took that a step further and decided, as many others who are engrossed by a purely binary conundrum do, that there could be a potential third way to go about things. The Third Culture is very much like Third Way politics. The practitioners of Third Way politics purge the extremities of their party to gain power. However, once in power, the claim that the solutions reside in the centre of politics is soon discovered to be illusory. In relation, the Third Culture can only be attempted by those who believe they can bridge the gap between a divide that can never be connected. If you design the social sciences based on practical science then you’ll soon discover that humaneness is inextricably lost. That’s what a world designed by rational scientists looks like, it’s authoritarian, it knows best, and, if it can’t control us with physics, then it’ll control us physically. The Third Culture is an attempt to deny humanity, or at least the humanities. Third Way politics pushes perpetual warfare, austerity and poverty upon us, nudging us into the arms of an unforgiving and unethical form of governance. In the future, the technocrats will be in charge whether you like it or not. They will be the chosen few who will program the algorithms that drive every part of our society. In reality, a society where humans relinquish control over to technological science itself is the real Third Culture to come. There are many questions that arise from studying these outrageously subversive technocrats, but one of the most important questions may be: What is Edge? This is an organisation where the technocratic rulers of the here and now designed our future bit by bit. Edge is where the people in charge of almost all major parts of the online world are trained. Sergey Brin, trained in course after course at Edge. Jeff Bezos, trained in course after course at Edge. Nathan Myhrvold, Salar Kamangar, Elon Musk, all attended an elite organisation where everyone involved is now in complete control of our existence. Should we not point at these events and exclaim that Edge could be a function of a grander conspiracy? What is to stop someone from positing that the people involved in Edge are designing not only our systems, our politics, our poverty, but even our very culture? While we look at the people who took part in these Jeffrey Epstein-funded events as individuals, it states quite clearly that they were representing their companies at the highest levels. We shouldn’t lose sight of the implications of this fact. It is not only individuals conspiring together at Edge, it’s Google, YouTube, Amazon, Twitter/X, Thiel’s Founders Fund, Facebook, Tesla, and Space X. It was these giant corporations which were central to figuring out something very fundamental: How to control the population during the digital age. And all of those individuals, as well as the companies they represented, should have to answer for being part of a clear conspiracy. As voters in a democracy, we should also be asking some pertinent questions in particular: Do we want a government which does what we say, or do we want a government which wants us to do what they say? If you can be systematically manipulated by powerful social media platforms, should those who own such platforms be allowed to govern us politically, too? And, most importantly: Are we really free? Elon Musk is a manufactured persona, a hundred years in the making, and you should not view him through a memetic lens. He wields tangible levels of power, he has extremely questionable associations with the deep state apparatus, and he has the capability to sway people’s opinions by using subversive and unseen means. I can understand why people follow him, I can see what they see. The only difference between a supporter of Elon Musk and I, is information and data. I am making my decision because I have extra information and data about Elon Musk, whereas Musk’s supporters are often making their decisions because Elon Musk’s platform has extra information and data about them, and it’s being used to nudge them into becoming true believers. They are using our own information and data against us, as a psychological weapon. Whether you accept it or not, we are in a state of psychological warfare right now. The Technocrats are not our friends, they have an agenda: To perpetually nudge us towards their preferred form of multipolar Globalism without us noticing, leading us to the doors of our prison cells within their carefully curated digital panopticon. http://NEWSPASTE.com 🧵19/20
NEWSPASTE
Johnny Vedmore’s NEWSPASTE helps the curious minded find some of the most heavily censored independent news articles online as well as publishing previously deleted articles of importance. It will also be a platform to study news articles from the past via Johnny Vedmore’s NEWSHOUND.
newspaste.com
@JohnnyVedmore - Johnny Vedmore
I NEED YOUR HELP! You can support my work in various ways. Become a Supporter Now! Patreon https://patreon.com/c/JohnnyVedmore KoFi https://ko-fi.com/johnnyvedmore Buy Me A Coffee https://buymeacoffee.com/johnnyvedmore PayPal https://paypal.me/johnnyvedmoreNEWSPASTE Support Johnny via NEWSPASTE https://newspaste.com/home/support-newspaste/ 🧵20/20
Get more from Johnny Vedmore on Patreon
Founder of NEWSPASTE & Investigative Journalist
patreon.com
Johnny Vedmore
I’m an investigative journalist and content creator focusing on the hidden histories of powerful elites. Among many other various big discoveries, I proved that Klaus Schwab’s father was an important
buymeacoffee.com
Support NEWSPASTE
Support NEWSPASTE to keep us delivering the censored news all in one place.
newspaste.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Bill Clinton asserts in his new book that he never visited Jeffrey Epstein’s island, despite evidence suggesting he went there at least two dozen times. He claims to have only met Epstein privately on two occasions and insists he had no knowledge of Epstein's actions, stating he ceased contact after Epstein's 2005 arrest. However, reports indicate that Clinton and his family frequently visited Epstein's New Mexico home, and Epstein had multiple visits to the White House, even claiming to be a co-founder of the Clinton Global Initiative.
@LizCrokin - LIZ CROKIN
LOL: Bill Clinton Claims He Never Went To Jeffrey Epstein’s Island! Bill Clinton claims in his new book he never went to Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile island. Bill went to the island at least two dozen times; Hillary Clinton also went to the island several times. Virginia Giuffre has said that Bill went to the island when she was there. “He hurt a lot of people, but I knew nothing about it, and by the time he was first arrested in 2005, I had stopped contact with him. I’ve never visited his island,” Bill wrote in Citizen. Bill also claimed in his book to have only met with Epstein privately on two occasions — once at Epstein’s townhouse on the Upper East Side and then at the Clinton Global Initiative offices in Harlem. In reality, Bill and his family took regular trips to Epstein’s New Mexico home, Epstein visited him in the White House multiple times and Epstein claimed to be a co-founder of the Clinton Global Initiative. @BillClinton 🤡🤡🤡
@BillClinton - Bill Clinton
Had a great time catching up with @StephenAtHome about my new book and the future of the country we both love — tune in tonight on @CBS. https://t.co/00ITJJVR3M
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve been exploring the troubling connections between Jeffrey Epstein and the Covid-19 pandemic response. An article revealed how Epstein blackmailed Bill Gates, using a relationship with a young Russian bridge player to gain leverage. This manipulation led to Gates pitching the Global Health Investment Fund to JP Morgan, which has since funneled significant funds to Epstein's victims. The GHIF and its corporate counterpart, GHIC, now support companies like Pfizer and even a CIA shell company, Resilience, playing key roles in Operation Warp Speed.
@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes
1🧵 There should be no reason for pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein to have any hand in the Covid-19 pandemic response, but there is. https://t.co/59gnvCrSZA
@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes
2🧵Breirbart released an article in 2023 exposing the alarming details surrounding Epstein’s blackmailing of Bill Gates. Epstein had hooked up a married Gates w/ a young Mika Anatonova a Russian bridge player. Epstein later used this triste to blackmail Gates into helping him https://t.co/qdTJ9A8OYQ
@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes
3🧵…get his foot in the door on an investment fund for global health. Epstein used Gates as a proxy for pitching the fund to JP Morgan. Gates & JPMorgan did in fact create what Epstein had envisioned, the Global health Investment Fund [GHIF] https://t.co/o2P5cD0vQl
@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes
4🧵Epstein had a long history of using his wealth and connections to influence the science community at the highest echelons. Hosting names like Craig Venter, Martin Novak, & even Stephen Hawkings. https://t.co/rM5WMct0kB
Video Transcript AI Summary
The goal is to achieve a 5% to 7% return by distributing vaccines effectively. Ensuring proper usage and logistics is crucial, along with obtaining necessary licenses. The Gates Foundation will absorb the first 20% of losses and share 50% of any additional losses, aiming for no losses for investors. The fund is designed to last around 10 years, focusing on preventing wasted investments in philanthropy. With the expertise of the Gates Foundation, this initiative could pave the way for future projects beyond just drugs and vaccines, potentially leading to a sustainable model for intelligent investment in impactful health initiatives.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Intended to try to make 5% to 7% return. So it's going to take these vaccines. It's going to distribute them. And making the vaccines are the only thing that matters. You're going to make sure when you take it somewhere, it gets used properly.
It's got roads to get there. It's got the licenses to use in that country. The Gates Foundation, is gonna take the first 20% of loss and then share and I think some other other folks here and then share 50% of the rest of the loss. So an investor could Hopefully, no loss, though. Hopefully, no loss.
An investor could lose 40% of the money. They can make the 5 to 7. And the point of this is to make it it's like, I think, I'm going to say a 10 year fund. And the point of it is to intelligently and the worst thing that happens in philanthropy or capital is the bridge to nowhere. Wasted money.
And so with the investors here, we're going to be looking at the drugs, the Gates Foundation intelligence, knowing all the things they know. If this works, then maybe one day, you don't have to make any guarantees. And you can do this over and over and over, not just with drugs and vaccines. This is just a is a possibly a very impactful way to get more money in an intelligent way invested in the future of these projects.
@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes
5🧵Turns out, JP Morgan dished out hundreds of millions of dollars to the Epstein victims and although he’s long been deceased the legacy of his dream fund, the GHIF & it’s corporate entity the GHIC have only grown. https://t.co/0jFNBbIpSB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Global health initiatives can save lives for under $2,000 each, which is a worthwhile investment. Progress is being made in developing tools for Africa, such as extending the duration of treatments or enabling self-administration at home. These innovations empower women and attract specific investors. It's crucial to create a diverse portfolio rather than focusing on a single drug, as this reduces the risk of failure. The pharmaceutical industry is becoming more adept at minimizing early-stage risks, ensuring that the projects selected for funding have a high probability of success in later phases.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Global Health, you save lives for less than $2,000 per life saved, I think it's a bargain, I'd like to buy more. And we're making really good progress and if somebody has something that's more effective than that, great. You have to be excited about this stuff. And I do think part of this fund is to draw people in to the world of developing tools for Africa. I mean, if you can get something that instead of lasting a shot that lasts 3 months goes to 6 months or instead of something that a doctor has to give a intermuscular injection that it's something they can just keep at home and imply themselves.
These are actually concrete things that may get considered. If you can get to that, then it's so empowering to the woman. And so if we have the notion of investing in these kinds of products on the table, then some of these product profiles will appeal to particular investors. We have to help make sure this is a particularly good portfolio. And so if we just put one drug in this thing and put all the money on that, then it might have a fiftyfifty chance of and did it early stage, it might have a fiftyfifty chance of failure.
Fortunately, the pharmaceutical industry is also getting smarter about trying to move the risk down to the early stages. And so this portfolio will pick things where the Phase 1 type work has got us, so there's a very high probability when this money comes in for the Phase 2 or Phase 3 work, a very high probability of this thing succeeding.
@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes
6🧵 Today, the GHIF & GHIC have been integral in supporting companies like Pfizer and oddly, the CIA shell company, Resilience. They proudly display the partnership on their portfolio page. They also partnered with BARDA & the DRIVe venture which both were vital to the “success” of Operation Warp Speed.
@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes
7🧵I have covered Resilience, the company tasked with making Moderna’s C19 jabs, in past threads as well as the GHIF/GHIC 👇🏽
@dezzie_rezzie - Destiny Rezendes
5🧵BMFG alongside JP Morgan Chase Bank founded the Global Health Investment Fund which works alongside the Global Health Investment Corporation in 2012, a founder of GHIC is also CEO for GHIF, long time corporate lawyer, and IAVI board member, Labeeb Abboud https://t.co/Gr2WqZuKfG
reSee.it AI Summary
In my exploration of the 2016 film "Inferno," I analyze how the movie encodes names that reference historical figures, individuals connected to Harvard, and even Jeffrey Epstein. I decode nine names, starting with Roscoe Pound, a former Harvard Law Dean linked to eugenics, and moving through literary figures like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Aphra Behn, a spy. I also examine connections to Kevin Tyrrell, a Harvard coach with ties to Epstein, and other names that suggest deeper meanings and historical contexts, reflecting the film's themes of secrecy and morality.
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
In this 🧵, I will show how a scene in the 2016 movie “Inferno,” starring Tom Hanks playing the role of a Harvard professor, uses encoded names to allude to historical figures, individuals at Harvard in 2016, and… Jeffrey Epstein. 1/~60 https://archive.org/details/inferno.-2016.1080p.-blu-ray.x-264-yts.-ag
Inferno. 2016.1080p. Blu Ray.x 264 [ YTS. AG] : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
dante
archive.org
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
Inferno’s premise (2016): “Before plunging to his death, [a] billionaire madman warned that overpopulation would spell humanity's demise, and argued that killing untold millions with a high-tech disease would be the only way to preserve the planet for the greater good…”🤔 2/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
“Langdon is the only man who can stop the devastation... by deciphering anagrams.” Since wordplay is a theme, I looked for “Easter Eggs” in the film. At 17:40 there is a view of emails sent to Langdon as he checks messages. Seconds later, many names are shown more clearly. 3/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
The movie continues with Langdon reading the message from “Ignazio Busoni”. But two names below that is: “Amado Harvard” = “I’m going to do Harvard”. Get it? The subject line “Can you take a peak inside?” is obviously innuendo. It is a sign to look at the other names. 4/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
I’ll start by decoding the names of 2 historical figures with ties to Harvard, then another historical figure known for espionage, the Epstein link, a name important to an ongoing court case, and then 4 more. So 9 in total. 5/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
“Roscoe Massman”=“Roscoe Pound” Roscoe Pound was Dean of Harvard Law from 1916-1936. “Eugenics [..] took hold at the highest levels of Harvard. Lawrence Lowell, who served as president from 1909 to 1933, was an active supporter.” Per Inferno’s theme https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2016/02/harvards-eugenics-era 6/
Harvard's eugenics era | Harvard Magazine
When academics embraced scientific racism, immigration restrictions, and the suppression of “the unfit”
harvardmagazine.com
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
Rees: “Nathan Roscoe Pound and the Nazis” “When Roscoe Pound, Dean of Harvard Law School, accepted an honorary degree from a leading German university in 1934, it was interpreted as a gesture of support for the Nazi Party.” 7/ https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/299/files/63a552e24052e.pdf
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
One of Roscoe Pound’s hosts, Hans Frank, was found guilty of crimes against humanity and executed after the Nuremberg Trial. Rees: “The Boston Evening Transcript ran the front-page headline, ‘Hitler Envoy Presents Law Degree to Dean Pound at Harvard Ceremony.’” 8/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
The next coded name is a bit trickier. “Milton Everson”=“Ralph Waldo Emerson” This can be understood with reference to Emerson’s “Divinity School Address” (link) in combination with John Milton’s Paradise Lost. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/02/when-religion-turned-inward/ 9/
When religion turned inward — Harvard Gazette
A groundbreaking speech by Ralph Waldo Emerson at Harvard Divinity School in 1838 helped to transform faith, spur the transcendentalist movement, and change the future of Harvard.
news.harvard.edu
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
“Emerson ‘railed against the emphasis placed on the personhood of Jesus as an authority figure,’ said Buell. Emerson questioned the personhood of God versus man, and he argued for the value of experience.” Akin to Milton’s characterization of Satan, perhaps? 10/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
“Critics have long recognized the influence of John Milton on Ralph Waldo Emerson, and they have particularly noted that Emerson's ‘Uriel’ owes its title character to Milton's Paradise Lost.” Might one consider Emerson as Milton’s “Everson”?🤔 https://www.connotations.de/article/frances-m-malpezzi-emersons-allusive-art-a-transcendental-angel-in-miltonic-myrtle-beds/ 11/
Frances M. Malpezzi – Emerson’s Allusive Art: A Transcendental Angel in Miltonic Myrtle Beds – Connotations
connotations.de
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
Did you notice the subject line for the “Milton Everson” email mentions a “LinkedIn request”? Turns out LinkedIn CEO Reid Hoffman is a fan of Ralph Waldo Emerson. 12/ https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20240528114/linkedin-co-founder-reid-hoffmans-six-maxims-for-the-ai-age
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
A 3rd name decode is: “Derick Behm”=“Aphra Behm” She has no link to Harvard. She was a spy. “Agent 160 received her first assignment in 1666- a simple task: find a soldier named William Scot in the Netherlands-enemy territory— and convince him to turn spy for Charles II.” 13/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
Aphra Behn later became a popular author. “Her stories of love and lust were wildly popular…Behn was scorned by critics who found her writing too smutty and scandalous for a woman.” Thus, the decode: “D (er..) Rick Behn”=“Aphra Behn” or “Derick Behn”=“Aphra Behn” 14/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
Did you note the subject line for “Derick Behn” is “Last minute submission”? More innuendo… The Aphra Behn reference to use of “her techniques for spycraft” tees up the next decode from the list of email messages in the Inferno movie scene... 15/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
The first name listed is “Benedict Delawder”. I am confident this decodes to “Benedict Gross”. By swapping the ‘a’ for ‘e’ in Delawder, you get “Delewder”- a homonym of “deluder” (a synonym of “deceiver”, like Jeffrey Epstein) Also, “lewd” is a synonym for “gross”. 16/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
Math Chair, Benedict Gross figured prominently in Harvard’s report 2020. Gross “approached the development office about the possibility of soliciting Jeffrey Epstein for additional support...” …in 2013, after Epstein’s conviction. https://ogc.harvard.edu/files/ogc/files/report_concerning_jeffrey_e._epsteins_connections_to_harvard_university.pdf 17/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
“(The) Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, which was ‘established in 2003 by Harvard University President Lawrence Summers following an imaginative proposal by Jeffrey Epstein and Benedict Gross." The math underlying “Evolutionary dynamics” can be used for many scenarios.🤔 18/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
Another name on the Inferno email list is only visible at 17:40, just below “Derick Behn”. The name is “Tyrell Devlin” which I suspect refers to “Kevin Tyrrell”. 19/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
Kevin Tyrrell was “a volunteer assistant coach from 2000-04 for Harvard University… The experience led to a phone call from the US Virgin Islands asking him to check out the open coaching position there.” https://news.lafayette.edu/2008/09/26/swimming-on-the-islands/ 20/
Swimming on the Islands
Kevin Tyrrell ’92 coaches U.S. Virgin Islands swim team Kevin Tyrrell ’92 is head coach of the U.S. Virgin Islands swim team, but much of his time isn’t dedicated to helping swimmers improve their times. He spends many hours teaching athletes how to swim, period. “I was hired to train the Olympic swimmers and to […]
news.lafayette.edu
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
Kevin Tyrrell may not know what led to the offer to coach the USVI Olympic swim team. But Jeffrey Epstein was highly influential in USVI, and he was working with Harvard in the same frame Tyrrell was a volunteer at Harvard. Could be a coincidence… 21/ https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-island-politics-stacey-plaskett-2023-6
'Maximum amounts allowed': How Jeffrey Epstein's political donations won him and his 'pedophile island' a powerful ally
Jeffrey Epstein funded US Virgin Islands politicians, like Rep. Stacey Plaskett, who represented the territory he used as a playground for pedophilia.
businessinsider.com
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
By 2015, Kevin Tyrrell was back coaching at Harvard. One athlete made headlines in June 2015, one year before Inferno’s release. “Harvard Coach Kevin Tyrell is looking forward to Bailar’s contribution to Harvard’s team and even beyond the pool.” 22/ https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/schuyler-bailar-to-be-first-openly-transgender-collegiate-swimmer/
Schuyler Bailar To Be First Openly Transgender D1 NCAA Swimmer
Schuyler Bailar is an extremely talented rising freshman on the Harvard men’s team. He is also transgender.
swimmingworldmagazine.com
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
The Swimming World story pointed out that (the athlete) “Bailar then swam year-round for Sea Devil Swimming starting at age nine”. For the next few posts in this 🧵, consider the possibility that “Devlin” in “Tyrell Devlin” might be derived from “Sea Devil”. 23/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
In April 2016, Leslie Stahl of the CBS show 60 Minutes interviewed both Schuyler Bailar and Kevin Tyrrell. The segment was named “Switching Teams” which refers to the Bailar’s shift from Harvard’s women’s swim team to Harvard’s men’s swim tram as a “trans athlete”. 24/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
Lesley Stahl: ‘You will never get pregnant.’ S. Bailar: ‘I don’t know about that. That’s a long story.’ Stahl: ‘Really? [..] So this is in your head, that one day you might give birth?’ Bailar: ‘Might is in bold [..] but yes. I don’t know. I’m 19.’ 25/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-harvard-transgender-swimmer-schuyler-bailar/
Switching Teams
Lesley Stahl profiles Harvard swimmer Schuyler Bailar, who may be the first openly transgender male athlete to compete in a NCAA Division I men's sport
cbsnews.com
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
Moving on: “Desmond Commodore”=“Matthew Desmond” Harvard’s Matthew Desmond won a Pulitzer for “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City”. Matthew Desmond also happens to be the name of a Commodore 64/128 programmer. 26/ https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/matthew-desmond https://csdb.dk/scener/?id=31675
CSDb
CSDb
csdb.dk
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
The subject line for “Desmond Commodore” is “To your Health and Happiness”. I suppose that could be a reference to Matthew Desmond’s book. But I can’t help but wonder if it might be a veiled threat. 27/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
“Bobby Torpey” is likely “John Torpey” John Torpey is a professor elsewhere (CCNY) but was published by Harvard Press for his 2013 text “Legal Integration of Islam” co-authored with Christian Joppke… 28/ https://t.co/rHsSZfaIZV
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
The “Bobby” is a play on the Harvard Kennedy School of Government” with “Bobby” (Kennedy) swapped for “John” (JFK). It’s logical to consider the context of government since Torpey and Joppke consider ways Sharia law might integrate into western culture. 29/
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
“Jay Hoey” almost certainly alludes to “Jay Garfield” who is: “one of the country's most well-known scholars of Buddhism and a professor at Smith, Harvard, and other universities.” 30/ web.archive.org/web/2016051419… https://t.co/dpUXlZLJGH
@franklin_reeder - Mark Reeder
In a May 2016 NYT opinion piece titled “If Philosophy Won't Diversify, Let's Call It What It Really Is”, Jay Garfield related: “Part of the problem is the perception that philosophy departments are nothing but temples to the achievement of males of European descent.” 31/ https://t.co/dsvcQ0jRT2
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared my unsettling experience related to Jeffrey Epstein, revealing that I woke up naked and paralyzed on a lab table, surrounded by scientists who were after my eggs. This coincided with the cloning of Dolly the sheep, and while federal funding for human cloning was banned, alternative funding likely existed. Wealthy individuals were reportedly buying eggs and blood from younger people to extend their lives. I questioned whether these elites were not only blackmailing others but also seeking a fountain of youth and creating genetically perfect beings. Epstein claimed ties to intelligence agencies and had connections with influential figures, all while pursuing his own agenda to seed humanity with his DNA. The truth behind these actions is darker than most can fathom, potentially threatening the corrupt system we live in.
@TheIntelSCIF - The SCIF
WHAT'S GOING ON UNDERGROUND AT EPSTEIN'S PROPERTIES & WHY ARE THEY HIDING IT? ARE THE MILITARY D.U.M.B.s & THE MISSING $21 TRILLION CONNECTED? Juliette Bryant breaks down her horrific experience and offers a huge insight into what Jeffery Epstein was really up to. Juliette said she woke up "naked and paralyzed" on a lab table with scientists around her and stated they were after her eggs along with countless other women. Around this same time, they successfully cloned the first animal, which was a sheep named Dolly. Bill Clinton was president at the time and banned federal funding for human cloning projects. But it doesn't mean other funding wasn't possible to be used. Other wealthy Billionaires were also negotiating deals to buy eggs from specific women all over the world, and other billionaires are on record purchasing blood from younger people and doing transfusions, which they claim helps them live longer and stay young. If you had all the money in the world buying material things after awhile would get boring. Which then usually grows a need for power. But there's one thing you can't buy. And that one thing is time. What if these people are not only blackmailing and compromising elites all over the world to push their agendas and steal our money and control (power) humanity. What if they were also looking for the fountain of youth? What if they were trying to create they're own genetically perfect sex slaves, or human farms to extend their life. What if this is what these power hungry, evil people were really doing? Would you really be suprised? There is also way more that was allegedly going on as well. She also claims Jeffery specifically stated he worked for intelligence agencies and has been to every single one of Epstein's properties including the island, Zorro Ranch, the NY mansion, and Paris location. She also states that she met Bill Clinton, Chris Tucker, and Kevin Spacey and a fake modeling expo with Epstein as they were scouting for new girls, promising a modeling contract. Epstein himself had ties to numerous colleges and other wealthy billionaires and scientists and wanted to seed the human race with his own DNA. The truth is deeper and darker than most people could handle, and yes, it would take down this entire fake corrupt system as we know it. After all though, isn't that the point?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Juliet Bryant, an Epstein survivor, recounts her experience after being kidnapped under the guise of a modeling opportunity involving Bill Clinton and others in Africa. She was taken to Epstein's island and other properties. Bryant expresses frustration over the unreleased Epstein list, believing its suppression affects everyone.
She claims victims have been kept apart, and several have been found dead. Bryant alleges Epstein told her he worked with the CIA. She says the FBI attempted to interview her under suspicious circumstances. She believes Epstein was part of a larger "boys club" involved in human trafficking, citing $1 billion in transactions through JPMorgan accounts.
Bryant describes a disturbing incident where she witnessed Epstein "shape shift" into a reptilian creature. She also recalls a UFO sighting and waking up in a laboratory in New Mexico. She suspects her eggs were harvested. She says Epstein threatened her and revealed he had her family's name on a list. Bryant believes Epstein's ranch may have been used for human cloning and other experiments.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Joining me now is Juliet Bryant, an Epstein survivor. Juliet, I I I just wanna spend, some some brief minutes with you here. We'll go for about, ten or so minutes. So first, let's just do two things. One, just do a brief introduction of yourself and your story as an Epstein survivor.
And then and then once you've kind of introduced yourself on that ground, I'd like to get your response to the latest news, as far as the Epstein files is concerned. So Juliet Bryant, why don't you introduce yourself?
Speaker 1: Hi, Owen. Thank you so much for having me on your show, and thank you to everyone for listening and for caring. It's been very frightening everything that's been going on. I was kidnapped by Jeffrey Epstein twenty two years ago. I met him when he was in Africa with Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker.
They staged a modeling casting, and, I was taken to New York to model, but then quickly kidnapped to the island. It's been very, very frightening. Obviously, I've been in trauma through most of my life after what happened. As we all know, they're covering a lot up. And I've just been terribly upset, obviously, as everyone has, because they promised us the Epstein list.
You know, Trump gained presidency promising the list. And where is the list? Now they say there is no list. How do they lie to people like this? It's not right.
And it doesn't just affect the victims. It affects the public. This has affected all of us. No, sir. I don't know what else I please fire away any other questions.
Speaker 0: Well, we were going over the original plea agreement that Epstein got in 02/2008. And it talked about all of the victims. You were one of those victims. And it talked about the co conspirators basically getting exonerated as well. I don't know how much you've been following the case, you know, dating back to then.
And I'm sure this is something that, you know, maybe it's uncomfortable to even follow, but now it's such a cultural phenomenon. It's just in your face. But like, what is it? What is it like for you or the other victims? I don't know if you talk to other victims, what is it like for you?
And in some of the stories we hear from the other victims, they're heartbroken by it. But what is it like for you when you see it? And I guess I would, I guess I would phrase it like this. Is there any other way that you would characterize this other than a cover up?
Speaker 1: Well, mean, Household won't characterize it as a cover up as a cover up. They're obviously hiding a lot. I used to speak to other victims. Unfortunately, we've all been kept apart. Virginia Gifford and I used to speak often.
Two years ago, I got a message from her saying, Oh, she's not using her phone anymore. I can email her through her husband's email address. So we had a a few communications there, but otherwise, I haven't been able to be in touch with her. They've kept most of the victims apart. Also, everyone's gotta remember that there were over 200 victims, many more actually, but these are the ones with evidence, the ones who were involved in the lawsuit.
I would like to know where the other 200 victims are. You know, it's very, very frightening when girls are going missing as well. Like, I mean, for God's sake, sorry to say, but Virginia Gaffer was found dead. Carolyn Adriano, who testified against Ghislain Maxwell, was found dead. Roslana, there there are many.
There are at least seven Epstein victims that have been found dead so far. I am too frightened to even leave my house, to be honest. And I'm sure that the victims in America are even more frightened. For me, I live in Africa, so it's not as as dangerous for me, you know, as other people speaking out against the FBI and the CIA because they're all involved. Epstein told me he worked with the CIA.
The FBI tried to get me there to interview me. They only wanted to interview me in person. They would not interview me over Zoom. They organized emergency visas for my son and I. They were arranging for us to be put in first class flights, five star hotels, but my child's father wouldn't let us travel.
So thank goodness, in fact, because a lot of weird stuff happened with a lot of the girls who were interviewed by the FBI. And it's just it's very frightening, like I said, not for the victims, but for everyone in the world when we're all being lied to like this.
Speaker 0: Now what we're they're trying to sell to us is that Epstein was just like a lone wolf, a lone actor, and and just his own pervert pedophile pedophile with his own stash. Do you believe that? Do you believe Epstein Barr is doing something bigger?
Speaker 1: Well, it's a boys club. It's it's a group. Boys and, you know, it's a club. That's a club running that that you know? There was a lot more going on there.
Also, you know, there was $1,000,000,000 worth of human trafficking transactions through Epstein and JPMorgan's accounts. $1,000,000,000 worth of human trafficking. Let me just reinforce that. JPMorgan had to pay $290,000,000 to the Epstein victims for human trafficking. Why are the victims' names not on the flight logs?
You know, apparently the lawyers took a lot of the money. I don't know the more finer details. I'll tell everyone right out right now they gave me a million dollars, which I'm very grateful for. But I'd like to know where the other victims are and why victims are being found dead. I've also heard of girls that were given settlements where it was put in a conservatorship because they're also trying to have us all see psychiatrists is what they're doing.
But as you know, they're even offering free yoga and free art now, but a psychiatrist has to oversee it all. They want to get people on pills, and they want them being found dead. I'll tell you that much. And they can sue me as well, they can't actually because we're gonna be suing them apparently. I'm still waiting to sign on on the case.
Sorry. Did
Speaker 0: you spend any time on Epstein Island?
Speaker 1: Yes. When I was taken there to model, they they quickly whisked me away to the island, and then I was trapped there. I was taken to all the properties. You know, I was taken to the island, to Palm Beach, to New Mexico, to Paris, to New York. They they took me to all the properties there.
And, you know, before I was sent home, he told me he worked for the CIA, and he had my family's name on a list. And he said that a girl accused him of rape, so he planted drugs in her apartment and had her sent to prison. And it was it was very, very obvious threats. And as a young girl from Africa, was I was absolutely terrified.
Speaker 0: Is that how they would trick these girls into going? They would say, do you wanna be a model? Come out for a photo shoot?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. They they promised me a modeling career. And he said that his best friend Leslie Wexner and Victoria's Secret, they staged a modeling casting at the Cape Grace Hotel.
Bill Clinton was there. They looked through my modeling book, and it seemed like a very legitimate opportunity, especially when Bill Clinton walked through while they were doing the modeling casting. So because he was with the president of America, I I assumed it was 100% legitimate.
Speaker 0: Did you see anything else going on at Epstein Island other than just bringing these women in, claiming they were doing a model shoot? I don't know how much access you had to the entire facility, but was there any other weirdness that you ever witnessed?
Speaker 1: Yes. Well, firstly, I'd like to say that they say that it was, girls were being trafficked to other men. And there were no other men there apart from I met Michael Bay, the movie producer. I met him in New Mexico. I also met scientists.
Otherwise, we were all being trafficked to Epstein. I didn't witness any girls being trafficked to any other men. And I was around these people for three months. So they're lying about that. Also, we know they opened up the case as sex trafficking because Virginia Gaffer and Sarah Ransom both said they were made to have sex with Alan Dirschwitz.
Virginia Gaffer retracted her statement. Sarah Ransom, you know, also there's been no evidence of that and no lawsuits. So they said that the lawsuit retracted
Speaker 0: and said that the thing was they thought they thought it was someone else, I guess, but it wasn't him.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, it's all fishy. I don't I don't know more details about all of that. But you know, back
Speaker 0: half credit, all you know, he's been very vocal about this. And, you know, he's, as far as I know, he's been honest and transparent. People can choose to trust him or not. But, you know, he's he's he's making a fuss of this as well. But just to be clear, so what do you think if Epstein was just do you think he was trying to get people to sleep with girls?
Or what do you think the angle was?
Speaker 1: Well, well, as I've spoken about recently, I saw him shape shift into something else in front of my eyes. You know, it looked like a sort of reptilian creature. Like, when I was in the bedroom when he took me there, what I'm starting to realize is it was probably like an alien creature. And it's hard talking about this because a lot of people think it's crazy. And I would also think it was crazy, but unfortunately, saw it.
And also in New Mexico, I saw a UFO there, and then I woke up in a laboratory with people working on me, you know, six people in hazmat suits or I don't even know if there were people.
Speaker 0: Did you get drugged?
Speaker 1: I don't actually know. They didn't allow any alcohol or drugs there, but they could have drugged me. Did you see the movie?
Speaker 0: I'm only asking this because I think that sometimes they let secrets out through Hollywood films to either desensitize people to make even them think, oh, this is just Hollywood. It doesn't real. But there's a movie called, blink twice where basically they take these girls to an island. They drug them unknowingly so much so that they don't even know what's going on. They don't even have a memory.
Do you think maybe something like that might have been going on?
Speaker 1: I think it's even worse than that, to be honest. Because I think what they've got there is underground laboratories. You know, Epstein's ranch is in directly in between Dulce Base and Roswell. As we all know, the military have got underground bases. Think, you know, much like the movie, series Westworld, if they could breed, create their own farm of humans, and if they really are drinking adreno comb, it would make sense for them to create their own farm of humans.
So what with everything that happened, I I suddenly realized that I think they were taking our eggs. Because when I was taken to New Mexico, Epstein also gave me sort of a weird pelvic exam before I was sent home. And I've got a very strong feeling with all the human trafficking and everything. They always used to move very quickly like we were never in any area for very long. And we wouldn't be told the day before.
They'd suddenly just say, pack your bags, we're going here, we're going there. Also, nothing was ever checked on the aeroplane, so they could have transported anything and anyone in that plane without anyone knowing. For instance, my name was not on the first flight log. When they took me from New York to The Caribbean, they they left my name off the flight log. So basically, if I hadn't complied, I likely would have died.
And I knew that. I felt it strongly on the airplane. So, you know, that's why I started speaking out. I wanna speak out for the victims who can't speak out, those who are too traumatized and also those who are dead. Because as we know, these criminals have many branches to their organizations, and, you know, they're obviously covering up something very serious here.
And we've also gotta remember that they cloned Dolly the sheep in 1996. They made it public that they cloned a sheep. So then everyone was waiting when are they gonna stop cloning humans. And then guess who? Bill Clinton banned federal funds being used for human cloning.
So but basically was still allowed, but not through the use of federal funds. So if they cloned a sheep that long ago, thirty years ago, you can only imagine what they're capable of now.
Speaker 0: Did he ever talk about that Zoro ranch? Because there were stories, mainstream news, talking about how he wanted to, like, clone and seed the human race and allegedly that was happening at his Zoro ranch.
Speaker 1: Yeah. He was, you know, he was a mastermind criminal. He never told anyone too much about anything, But he did certainly, like, you know, give threats and tell people that he worked with CIA. He just you know, Elsa, when we were there, we weren't allowed to walk around or really go look around at things. We were basically enslaved and and captured there.
So, I mean, if anyone had found out too much information, I'd say they probably likely would be dead now, is terrible. But but it wasn't the kind of place where you wanted to go, like, snooping around. You know?
Speaker 0: Well, I I know you've told your story times before. There's some pretty incredible things that you've said here today. I I can't even imagine what it was like going through all of that and then trying to relive whatever you can recollect. And at this point, I mean, I think people would be open minded to believing anything as crazy as it sounds. And so, God bless you.
I appreciate you. Obviously, you have a direct line to me. If there's anything else that you feel the need to communicate, you let me know. But, I appreciate you joining us in in kind of a a rapid way here today. And maybe in the future, we can get something a little more cemented as well.
reSee.it AI Summary
I recall the disturbing allegations surrounding Epstein, particularly the claim that he received three twelve-year-olds from France as a birthday gift from Jean-Luc Brunel. Brunel allegedly provided visas for underage girls and was involved in Epstein's modeling firm. Virginia Giuffre's civil suit detailed these events, including how Brunel bought the girls from their parents. The connections between Epstein, Clinton, and Trump are troubling, with mentions of flights and donations tied to human trafficking. Concerns about oversight in the Clinton Global Initiative's dealings in Ukraine further complicate the narrative.
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
RECALL when Epstein received 3 twelve year olds from France via Jean Luc Brunel on his birthday? How did Epstein respond when interrogated?
Video Transcript AI Summary
During a deposition, a witness was asked if he had what was described as an egg-shaped penis. Another individual stated he hired psychologists to profile Jeffrey Epstein, finding him to be a narcissist lacking empathy who saw himself as a master of puppets, needing to be in control.
The witness was then asked if it was true that a friend of Epstein sent him three 12-year-old girls from France who spoke no English for him to sexually exploit and abuse on one of his birthdays, after which they were sent back to France the next day. The witness stated that his attorneys advised him to assert his fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment rights. He was then asked if he was invoking his fifth amendment rights because his answers would incriminate him and could result in prosecution for these crimes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Would you read your right hand, Yes. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you guide? Yes, I do.
Speaker 1: Is it true, sir, that you have what's been described as an egg shaped peanut?
Speaker 2: I had hired psychologists to do a psychological profile on Jeffrey Epstein. What type of person he was, and what would actually get under his skin. What made him tick was that he was a narcissist. He had no ability to feel empathy and saw himself as the master of puppets, so to speak.
Speaker 1: Sir, one witness described your penis oval shaped and claim when erect, it was thick towards the bottom, but was thin and small towards the head portion and called it egg shaped. Those are not my words, I apologize. But as mister It is now adjourned. As mister Critton has stated that this is a I'm
Speaker 3: willing to continue.
Speaker 2: I I hate to
Speaker 3: call back.
Speaker 2: Me on the record. He tries at all times to be the master of his domain and in control of his world. As soon as he feels he's out of control, it's unsettling to him.
Speaker 4: Plaintiff filed by Virginia Roberts against you. Isn't it true sir, that a friend of yours sent you three 12 year old females for you to sexually abuse on one of your birthdays? Form argumentative,
Speaker 3: harassing, and irrelevant But to this
Speaker 0: could you you're saying it's part of the lawsuit?
Speaker 4: Yeah. I'll read it directly.
Speaker 0: It was Jeffrey's birthday when
Speaker 4: On one of defendant Epstein's birthdays, a friend of defendant Epstein sent him three 12 year old girls from France who spoke no English for defendant sexually exploit and abuse. After doing so, they were sent back to France the next day. Isn't that true?
Speaker 3: Once again, I'm gonna move to strike. Irrelevant, argumentative, harassing.
Speaker 0: I would like to answer that question. I really would. However, today, my attorneys have told me I have to assert my fifth amendment, sixth amendment,
Speaker 5: and fourteenth amendment rights of The US constitution.
Speaker 4: You're invoking your fifth amendment rights to each of these questions because you know that your answers will incriminate you and you feel that it will result in you being prosecuted for these crimes. Isn't that right?
Speaker 3: Objection, argumentative, harassing, and calls for a legal conclusion.
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
What else did Brunel do for Epstein? Brunel allegedly supplied illegitimate visas for underage girls from foreign countries and Epstein housed them at his brother's apartment in Manhattan. Epstein invested $1million to launch Brunel's Miami-based modeling firm MC2, in return for a 'supply of girls on tap', the suit claims.
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
Who made the allegations of the three twelve years sex slaves given Epstein as a gift on his birthday? Virginia Giuffre made the allegations in a civil suit filed by the Miami US attorney's office in 2015. She said that the French girls who spoke no English, believed to be sisters, were a gift from Epstein's longtime acquaintance and frequent guest Jean-Luc Brunel.
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
What else did Giuffre say about the birthday gift? Brunel bought them in Paris from their parents, offering them the usual sums of money, visas, and modeling career prospects. 'Laughing the whole way through, Jeffrey thought it was absolutely brilliant how easily money seduced all walks of life, nothing or no one that couldn't be bought.'
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
Where any other girls flown in from around the world? In the same civil suit, filed by the Miami US attorney's office, it is alleged young girls from South America and Eastern Europe were recruited for sex for the paedo and his friends.
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
What did Epstein associate Bill Gates say about Ukraine, a major hub for human and organ trafficking, and connected to Epstein through his friends the Clintons and their Clinton global initiative?
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Ukrainian government is described as one of the worst in the world, corrupt and controlled by a few rich people, which is unfortunate for the Ukrainian people. Ukraine is said to have better agricultural land than the United States and is considered the breadbasket of Europe.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, the Ukrainian government is one of the worst in the world. You know, corrupt, controlled by a few rich people. I mean, really, unfortunate for the people in Ukraine. Ukraine has better agricultural land than The United States does. I mean, it is the the breadbasket of Europe.
It's an incredible locate
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
Bill Didn’t Tell the Whole Truth about his long-term relationship with Epstein? Epstein’s flight logs, posted online in 2015 by Gawker, show that Clinton, took at least a dozen separate flights aboard the Lolita Express. Fox News went further and reported that the same flight logs indicated that the former president flew 26 times aboard the famous jet, a fact confirmed by FactCheck dot org. Virginia Giuffre, one of the victims of Epstein’s prostitution ring, claimed to have seen Bill Clinton on the businessman’s private island, known as “Orgy Island”. Steve Scully, who used to work for Epstein, also testified to Clinton’s presence on the same island.
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
How did Clinton respond when asked about his relationship with Epstein? See the clip below of Clinton in Texas back in 2022 campaigning on behalf of Representative Henry Cuellar in Laredo, and House hopeful Michelle Vallejo in the Rio Grande Valley. Looks cheerful.
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
‼️BREAKING: Will Clinton’s sexual and prospective pedophilia escapades finally catch up to him? ‼️Clinton threatened to sue multiple publications to not expose his numerous trips to Epstein island. ‼️It is alleged that Clinton made over 27 trips to Epstein Island. To do what? Get a tan? A massage? Discuss Clinton foundation “initiatives”? ✅When you’re above the law the rest are on a need to know basis. Unless the video footage from the island finally comes out! So what do “they” really want from Clinton? Will this shaming tactic just pass by again and be forgotten? #Blackmail #EpsteinClientList
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
What is the Epstein, Clinton and Trump connection? According to unsealed court documents Epstein accuser Johanna Sjoberg testified that Epstein “said one time that Clinton likes them young, referring to girls.” Epstein told Sjorberg he would take her to Trump’s Atlantic City. Trump on Epstein: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years,” Trump told New York magazine in 2002. “Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” In all, Clinton’s name appears 73 times in the documents unsealed Wednesday; Trump’s name appears four times.
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
How did Trump respond when asked about his then labor secretary Alex Acosta who gave Epstein the sweetheart guilty plea deal in 2008? After the plea agreement was revealed in a bombshell 2018 Miami Herald investigation, Trump defended Acosta, then his labor secretary, but distanced himself from Epstein, saying he “wasn’t a big fan.”
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
How did Trump respond when asked about Ghislaine Maxwell and her pedo case? Trump: “I don’t know. I haven’t really been following it too much. I just wish her well, frankly. I’ve met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “But I wish her well, whatever it is.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks if Ghislaine Maxwell will turn in powerful people, mentioning Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton. Speaker 1 responds that they haven't been following the case too much, but wish her well, having met her numerous times in Palm Beach. They claim to not know the situation with Prince Andrew or be aware of it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Just Elaine Maxwell is in prison, and so a lot of people wanna know if she's going to turn in powerful people. And I know you've talked in the past about prince Andrew, and, you've criticized Bill Clinton's behavior. I'm wondering, do you feel that she's going to turn in powerful men? How do you see that working out?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I haven't really been following it too much. I just wish her well, frankly. I've met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach, and I guess they lived in Palm Beach. But I wish her well, whatever it is.
I don't know the situation with Prince Andrew. Just don't know. Not aware of it.
Speaker 0: Mister president Thank you, sir. I'm
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
What is the Clinton, Ukraine, Epstein connection? In 2003, Doug Band helped kick off now-famous Clinton Foundation international initiatives with the aim of rehabilitating Bill’s post-presidential image, marred by sex scandals, and turning the ex-president into “the world’s philanthropist in chief,” writes Vanity Fair. The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), one of the foundation’s international projects, was supposedly started in league with Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Ukrainian millionaire Victor Pinchuk made a five-year, $29 million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative to fund a program to train future Ukrainian leaders. As it turns out Victor Pinchuk is a major Pizzagate player connected with the Clinton Foundation, pumping and human trafficking.
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
Just how rich is Victor Pinchuk? Yes he is!
Video Transcript AI Summary
Victor Pinchuk operates Enerpipe, which manufactures steel pipes and railway wheels, and Starlight Media, which owns six Ukrainian TV stations. He is the son-in-law of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma and served in Ukraine's parliament from 1998 to 2006. Pinchuk founded East One Group, an international investment, project finance, and financial advisory company based in London. In 2022, he donated over $12 million to support Ukrainian soldiers and civilians needing prosthetics or medical treatment. This donation was funded by the sale of his Jeff Koons balloon monkey sculpture.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Victor operates Enerpipe, which makes steel pipes and railway wheels, and also Starlight Media, which owns six TV stations in Ukraine. He is a son-in-law of Ukraine's former president Leonid Khushma. He was a member of Ukraine's parliament from 1998 to 02/2006. Viktor is the founder of East One Group, an international investment, project finance, and financial advisory company based in London. In 2022, Pienczuk donated over $12,000,000 to support Ukrainian soldiers and civilians needing prosthetics or medical treatment.
He sold his Jeff Koons iconic balloon monkey sculpture for this donation.
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
How was billionaire Pinchuk able to give the Clinton’s $13 million? The FBI investigated the $13 million Pinchuk gave to the Clinton Foundation some of which Russian investigators said came from theft and fraud, such as when Pinchuk looted his own Rossiya insurance company. Shocking! Pinchuk also contributed to Trump!
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
How was Pinchuk able to make political donations given that his company Interpipe Group had been bailed out in 2013 and was in poor financial shape and Pinchuk owed money to the IMF? In fact the IMF illegally deposited funds intended for Ukraine in the personal banks of Victor Pinchuk and Ukrainian Oligarch Igor Kolomoisky. $1.8 billion in total went to Pinchuk's bank Credit Dnepr and Kolomoisky's Privatbank. It is theorized that it was because of blackmail and Pinchuk being involved in human trafficking and pimping. The IMF's man in Ukraine, Jerome Vacher partied on Pinchuk's personal yacht in Venice on the eve of a very important IMF mission in Ukraine. What happened on the yatch?
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
Brief pause, if you support independent journalism then feel free to support my work below! Thanks in advance!
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
If you support my work and independent journalism, thanks in advance! https://coff.ee/truthtellerftm USDT, TRC-20: TFc4jjqVUvV2mYJfxhpVdLFxfKauJow99D BTC: 13CoSW9K5dHq1yQUNTWyDqcU9YRP4wWSBp https://substack.com/@truthtellerftm?r=33um10&utm_medium=ios
Truthtellerftm
I do in-depth research and write articles on geopolitics, finance, and cryptocurrency. My allegiance is to the truth. My work I posted in Substack and X.
buymeacoffee.com
Truth_teller | Substack
Buy me a coffee: https://coff.ee/truthtellerftm Over 80,000 followers on X @Truthtellerftm I host spaces on Geopolitics, finance, economics and health! Paid subs get at least one unique and valuable article per week! My allegiance is to the truth!
substack.com
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
Was there any oversight over Clinton’s CGI and money flowing in and out of Ukraine? There is lack of scrutiny over the Clinton foundation’s charitable projects in Ukraine. Ortel stated there was no oversight of monies flowing towards Ukraine from donors who believe they might be helping Ukraine. Ortel: the Clinton Global Initiative and 'The Clinton Foundation' have not complied with laws concerning 'public charities'," the Wall Street analyst continued. "These laws require that such entities be controlled by truly independent boards of directors, bar creation of 'private gain' through their operation, and forbid partisan political activities."
reSee.it AI Summary
This is wild. Eric Weinstein claims he would "bet money" that Epstein was an intelligence asset, suggesting he had influence over scientists and suppressed groundbreaking discoveries. Weinstein, connected to the Harvard Mathematics Department, questions Epstein's ties there and notes Epstein's surprising knowledge of his work. He highlights Epstein's efforts to gather Nobel laureates in the Virgin Islands to discuss gravity. Weinstein suspects Epstein's girlfriend's father, Robert Maxwell, played a role in controlling scientific publishing to keep revolutionary discoveries within certain boundaries.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
This is wild. Eric Weinstein says he’d “bet money” Epstein was an intelligence asset—and that his reach even extended to controlling scientists and burying discoveries. According to Weinstein, Epstein and his girlfriend's father were part of a “control mechanism” designed to keep revolutionary discoveries “within a framework.” In plain English, that likely means discoveries didn’t see the light of day unless whoever was controlling Epstein approved it. “I was in the Harvard Mathematics Department. Jeffrey Epstein was absolutely connected to the Harvard Math Department. I want to know why. How was he connected to the Math Department?” “Jeffrey Epstein knew a tremendous amount about my work when nobody knew anything about my work.” “It was very important to get Nobel laureates and some of the smartest people on Earth to come to the Virgin Islands and talk about gravity. Stephen Hawking was there, David Gross was there. Lawrence Krauss was there. Lisa Randall was there right before his conviction.” “I think that his girlfriend’s father, Robert Maxwell, was all through scientific publishing. And I think Pergamon Press was in part a control mechanism for making sure that revolutionary discoveries were taking place within a framework.” “I think Jeffrey Epstein was in part trying to fund science, trying to control it. I don’t really know.” This 7-minute clip says a lot.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes Jeffrey Epstein was a construct of the intelligence community, not a legitimate financier. Epstein conducted a conference called Confronting Gravity and was connected to the Harvard math department, knowing details about the speaker's work before others did.
The speaker claims Epstein wasn't who he claimed to be, but a constructed persona running multiple programs, including involvement in science. The speaker suggests Epstein's interest in science may have been separate from his other activities.
The speaker also implicates Robert Maxwell, Epstein's girlfriend's father, suggesting he used Pergamon Press to control scientific publishing and ensure revolutionary discoveries occurred within a controlled framework. The speaker believes Epstein was trying to fund and possibly control science, keeping a "periscope" on interesting developments.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Jeffrey Epstein conducted a conference called Confronting Gravity. I don't know who Jeffrey Epstein was, but I'll I would certainly bet money that he was a product of at least one or more elements of the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: The CIA, the FBI?
Speaker 0: That those are ours. Right? Department of Homeland Security has some of the stuff. Geospatial intelligence has some of this. You know, it's a it's a large network.
I'm talking about people like David Grush. I'm talking about people potentially like David Fravor. I'm talking about people like Jake Barber. I'm talking about scientists like Leo Zilard. Imagine if Leo Zilard didn't know that the Manhattan Project was going on or Jack Raper, a journalist who broke his story.
These people all think that they're doing their jobs. I desperately want to know why Jeffrey Epstein knew so much about my work. And I want to know why he was connected to my graduate program. I was I was in the Harvard mathematics department. Jeffrey Epstein was absolutely connected to the Harvard math department.
I wanna know why.
Speaker 1: How was he connected to that department?
Speaker 0: You're pushing me to say things I'm not gonna say.
Speaker 1: But I I don't I'm I'm not trying to
Speaker 0: push you I understand. Yeah. But I'm just not gonna do it. I'm saying that anybody who wants to
Speaker 1: You say he was connected to the math department.
Speaker 0: To the Harvard Mathematics department.
Speaker 1: How did you know he was connected?
Speaker 0: You can Google it. You could Google it right now. This is not I I can point at all sorts of stuff that's hidden in plain sight.
Speaker 1: So I'll take your word for it. And the assertion that I'm picking up on is that Jeffrey Epstein was planted in your world to keep
Speaker 0: I'm not saying he's planted. I don't know who he was. I don't know who ran him. He certainly was not a financier in any standard sense.
Speaker 1: Really?
Speaker 0: That was a cover story. Yes.
Speaker 1: The way that we know Jeffrey Epstein in The UK especially is just this guy who was this rich guy who had this island who brought people there and then did these despicable things Disgraced
Speaker 0: financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's what we that's story.
Speaker 0: Disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. It's called perseveration. He was a disgraced financier. What kind of a financier? A disgraced one.
What was his name? Oh, he was disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. They perseverate that into your mind so that you auto complete that in your LLM life. Do you believe that that's what Jeffrey Epstein was?
Speaker 1: You met him. You Yeah. I finance financier?
Speaker 0: He wasn't a financier the day I met him.
Speaker 1: What was he?
Speaker 0: He was a weird guy who didn't seem to know a lot about currency trading. Claiming to run a multibillion dollar FX hedge fund.
Speaker 1: When you say a weird guy, what made him weird?
Speaker 0: Same stuff I've said on Chris Williams. I'm not gonna go back through that. Just my my point is you're getting a different interview.
Speaker 1: Right? Mhmm.
Speaker 0: So what I'm trying to get at is Jeffrey Epstein knew a tremendous amount about my work when nobody knew anything about my work. And he had a pipeline into me that I didn't understand, which is that he was connected to my graduate program. And you can check out the conference called Exploring Gravity
Speaker 1: Fund hosted physical workshop called Confronting Gravity. Confronting Gravity. That's right. In March 2006.
Speaker 0: Yeah. What is Jeffrey Epstein Jeffrey Epstein is very focused on gravity.
Speaker 1: Was it a gravity conference? Yeah. It was about gravity. Yeah. What the fuck was he doing talking about bloody gravity?
He's a financier.
Speaker 0: It was very important to get Nobel laureates and some of the smartest people on earth to come to the Virgin Islands and talk about gravity. Stephen Hawking was there, David Gross was there, Lawrence Krauss was there, Lisa Randall was there right before his conviction. And I'm telling you, he was very focused on the Harvard math department, and he knew all about me in ways that he wasn't supposed to.
Speaker 1: I have to I have to be clear. I have to be clear on my understanding of what you're saying. What I understood and you can say, Steve, I'm not gonna answer that, whatever, but I just have to because I'm you've opened up a curiosity hole in my mind. Sure. So let me try and fill it.
Even if it's the conversation I have with Chris, I
Speaker 0: I'll just evade you
Speaker 1: if Fine. Yeah. Not. Fine. You're within the right to evade me, and I hold the right to ask, which is so is what I'm hearing is you believe, I'm just gonna say it how I think it, is what I'm hearing is you believe that Jeffrey Jeffrey Epstein was not a financier.
He was planted in some way to construct is
Speaker 0: what I said.
Speaker 1: He was a construct in some way to mess with the progression of physics. Jeffrey Epstein,
Speaker 0: apparently, I think some I'll I'll tell you what I said. When I met him, when the meeting was over, I immediately called my wife and I said, I have just met a construct. She said, what do you mean? I said, this person is not who they claim to be. Somebody has constructed this human being to be something that they are not, which is a hedge fund genius.
Somebody who could understand the euro and the yen like nobody else. Bullshit. Not true. I believe that whoever constructed Jeffrey Epstein was running multiple different programs through the same thing, having put in a large initial investment. It wasn't about one thing.
If you build a mall, you don't just have clothing stores in the mall, you have a food court in the mall. Right? You have jewelry in the mall. You you you have all sorts of different things in the mall. Jeffrey Epstein was a construct of something that was running multiple things.
One of those things was science, and I don't think the science and the pedophilia were necessarily in the same bucket. He was funding all sorts of people. I don't think everybody at that you know, part of the problem with calling his plane the Lolita Express and calling his island pedophile island is is that you just can't see all the different things that were going through this guy. I don't think almost any of those scientists are exposed, you know, maybe a few of them, but very few of them to anything really horrible. I think he was trying to keep a periscope on everything that was interesting.
And I think that his girlfriend's father, Robert Maxwell, was all through scientific pub publishing. And I think Pergamon Press was in part a control mechanism for making sure that revolutionary discoveries were taking place within a framework. Anybody can look. You can write a Substack article and you can hit post and suddenly the world has access to your Substack article. That is a nightmare.
What if somebody posts, you know, weaponized anthrax? What if they do the equivalent of saying, what if there's a neutral proton?
Speaker 1: So you think he was controlling science?
Speaker 0: I think that Robert Maxwell was in part trying to control science. I think Jeffrey Epstein was in part trying to fund science, trying to control it. I don't really know.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
If you want to know why the Epstein story is being covered up look no further than The Jeffrey Epstein Foundation. This is the oldest way back screengrab I could find. Look at what groups/organizations he was a member of… 👉🏻 web.archive.org/web/2012040100… https://t.co/M43ch9DI1s
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a series of posts highlighting significant stories that the media overlooked. Eric Weinstein discussed Jeffrey Epstein's connections to the Harvard Mathematics Department and suggested he may have been an intelligence asset controlling scientific discoveries. Tucker Carlson commented on Dan Bongino's career impact due to Epstein. Stephen Miller provided insights into the Democratic Party's immigration strategy. Other posts covered topics like FDA approvals, Trump’s military support for Ukraine, and calls for accountability regarding Anthony Fauci and COVID vaccine concerns.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
10 Shocking Stories the Media Buried Today Eric Weinstein says he’d “bet money” that Epstein was an intelligence asset, with influence that went as far as CONTROLLING scientists and BURYING important discoveries. According to Weinstein, Epstein and his girlfriend’s father were part of a “control mechanism” designed to keep revolutionary discoveries “within a framework.” In plain English, that likely means discoveries didn’t see the light of day unless whoever was controlling Epstein approved it. “I was in the Harvard Mathematics Department. Jeffrey Epstein was absolutely connected to the Harvard Math Department. I want to know why. How was he connected to the Math Department?” “Jeffrey Epstein knew a tremendous amount about my work when nobody knew anything about my work.” “It was very important to get Nobel laureates and some of the smartest people on Earth to come to the Virgin Islands and talk about gravity. Stephen Hawking was there, David Gross was there. Lawrence Krauss was there. Lisa Randall was there right before his conviction.” “I think that his girlfriend’s father, Robert Maxwell, was all through scientific publishing. And I think Pergamon Press was in part a control mechanism for making sure that revolutionary discoveries were taking place within a framework.” “I think Jeffrey Epstein was in part trying to fund science, trying to control it. I don’t really know.” This 7-minute clip says a lot. SEE THE NEXT 9 STORIES BELOW 🧵 THREAD
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes Jeffrey Epstein was a "construct" of the intelligence community, not a legitimate financier. Epstein conducted a conference called Confronting Gravity. The speaker wants to know why Epstein knew so much about his work and was connected to his Harvard mathematics program.
The speaker claims Epstein was not who he claimed to be, and that his hedge fund genius persona was false. The speaker believes Epstein was running multiple programs, including science, and that the pedophilia and science aspects were not necessarily linked. He suggests Epstein, like Robert Maxwell, may have been trying to control science to ensure revolutionary discoveries occurred within a framework. The speaker thinks Epstein was trying to keep a periscope on everything that was interesting.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Jeffrey Epstein conducted a conference called Confronting Gravity. I don't know who Jeffrey Epstein was, but I'll I would certainly bet money that he was a product of at least one or more elements of the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: The CIA, the FBI?
Speaker 0: That those are ours. Right? Department of Homeland Security has some of the stuff. Geospatial intelligence has some of this. You know, it's a it's a large network.
I'm talking about people like David Grush. I'm talking about people potentially like David Fravor. I'm talking about people like Jake Barber. I'm talking about scientists like Leo Zilard. Imagine if Leo Zilard didn't know that the Manhattan Project was going on or Jack Raper, a journalist who broke his story.
These people all think that they're doing their jobs. I desperately want to know why Jeffrey Epstein knew so much about my work. And I want to know why he was connected to my graduate program. I was I was in the Harvard mathematics department. Jeffrey Epstein was absolutely connected to the Harvard math department.
I wanna know why.
Speaker 1: How was he connected to that department?
Speaker 0: You're pushing me to say things I'm not gonna say.
Speaker 1: But I I don't I'm I'm not trying to
Speaker 0: push you I understand. Yeah. But I'm just not gonna do it. I'm saying that anybody who wants to
Speaker 1: You say he was connected to the math department.
Speaker 0: To the Harvard Mathematics department.
Speaker 1: How did you know he was connected?
Speaker 0: You can Google it. You could Google it right now. This is not I I can point at all sorts of stuff that's hidden in plain sight.
Speaker 1: So I'll take your word for it. And the assertion that I'm picking up on is that Jeffrey Epstein was planted in your world to keep
Speaker 0: I'm not saying he's planted. I don't know who he was. I don't know who ran him. He certainly was not a financier in any standard sense.
Speaker 1: Really?
Speaker 0: That was a cover story. Yes.
Speaker 1: The way that we know Jeffrey Epstein in The UK especially is just this guy who was this rich guy who had this island who brought people there and then did these despicable things Disgraced
Speaker 0: financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's what we that's story.
Speaker 0: Disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. It's called perseveration. He was a disgraced financier. What kind of a financier? A disgraced one.
What was his name? Oh, he was disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. They perseverate that into your mind so that you auto complete that in your LLM life. Do you believe that that's what Jeffrey Epstein was?
Speaker 1: You met him. You Yeah. I finance financier?
Speaker 0: He wasn't a financier the day I met him.
Speaker 1: What was he?
Speaker 0: He was a weird guy who didn't seem to know a lot about currency trading. Claiming to run a multibillion dollar FX hedge fund.
Speaker 1: When you say a weird guy, what made him weird?
Speaker 0: Same stuff I've said on Chris Williams. I'm not gonna go back through that. Just my my point is you're getting a different interview.
Speaker 1: Right? Mhmm.
Speaker 0: So what I'm trying to get at is Jeffrey Epstein knew a tremendous amount about my work when nobody knew anything about my work. And he had a pipeline into me that I didn't understand, which is that he was connected to my graduate program. And you can check out the conference called Exploring Gravity
Speaker 1: Fund hosted physical workshop called Confronting Gravity. Confronting Gravity. That's right. In March 2006.
Speaker 0: Yeah. What is Jeffrey Epstein Jeffrey Epstein is very focused on gravity.
Speaker 1: Was it a gravity conference? Yeah. It was about gravity. Yeah. What the fuck was he doing talking about bloody gravity?
He's a financier.
Speaker 0: It was very important to get Nobel laureates and some of the smartest people on earth to come to the Virgin Islands and talk about gravity. Stephen Hawking was there, David Gross was there, Lawrence Krauss was there, Lisa Randall was there right before his conviction. And I'm telling you, he was very focused on the Harvard math department, and he knew all about me in ways that he wasn't supposed to.
Speaker 1: I have to I have to be clear. I have to be clear on my understanding of what you're saying. What I understood and you can say, Steve, I'm not gonna answer that, whatever, but I just have to because I'm you've opened up a curiosity hole in my mind. Sure. So let me try and fill it.
Even if it's the conversation I have with Chris, I
Speaker 0: I'll just evade you
Speaker 1: if Fine. Yeah. Not. Fine. You're within the right to evade me, and I hold the right to ask, which is so is what I'm hearing is you believe, I'm just gonna say it how I think it, is what I'm hearing is you believe that Jeffrey Jeffrey Epstein was not a financier.
He was planted in some way to construct is
Speaker 0: what I said.
Speaker 1: He was a construct in some way to mess with the progression of physics. Jeffrey Epstein,
Speaker 0: apparently, I think some I'll I'll tell you what I said. When I met him, when the meeting was over, I immediately called my wife and I said, I have just met a construct. She said, what do you mean? I said, this person is not who they claim to be. Somebody has constructed this human being to be something that they are not, which is a hedge fund genius.
Somebody who could understand the euro and the yen like nobody else. Bullshit. Not true. I believe that whoever constructed Jeffrey Epstein was running multiple different programs through the same thing, having put in a large initial investment. It wasn't about one thing.
If you build a mall, you don't just have clothing stores in the mall, you have a food court in the mall. Right? You have jewelry in the mall. You you you have all sorts of different things in the mall. Jeffrey Epstein was a construct of something that was running multiple things.
One of those things was science, and I don't think the science and the pedophilia were necessarily in the same bucket. He was funding all sorts of people. I don't think everybody at that you know, part of the problem with calling his plane the Lolita Express and calling his island pedophile island is is that you just can't see all the different things that were going through this guy. I don't think almost any of those scientists are exposed, you know, maybe a few of them, but very few of them to anything really horrible. I think he was trying to keep a periscope on everything that was interesting.
And I think that his girlfriend's father, Robert Maxwell, was all through scientific pub publishing. And I think Pergamon Press was in part a control mechanism for making sure that revolutionary discoveries were taking place within a framework. Anybody can look. You can write a Substack article and you can hit post and suddenly the world has access to your Substack article. That is a nightmare.
What if somebody posts, you know, weaponized anthrax? What if they do the equivalent of saying, what if there's a neutral proton?
Speaker 1: So you think he was controlling science?
Speaker 0: I think that Robert Maxwell was in part trying to control science. I think Jeffrey Epstein was in part trying to fund science, trying to control it. I don't really know.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#9 - Tucker Carlson Says Dan Bongino Got ‘Completely Shafted’ in the Epstein Mess “It kind of wrecks Dan’s career … It’s pretty hard for Dan to go back to his podcast audience and be like, ‘I'm telling you the truth’ when they all think he’s covering up for Epstein.” Credit: @TheChiefNerd
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dan Bongino is reportedly threatening to resign if Pam Bondi doesn't resign as AG, which suggests Bongino was "shafted." Bondi claimed on Fox News to have the client list and thousands of videos of Epstein having sex with kids, which was untrue, with most material being commercial porn. This damaged Bongino's career, as people now think he's covering up Epstein's crimes.
Bondi's statements and a subsequent memo stating they wouldn't prosecute anyone for the crimes implied a cover-up. Bongino left his successful media career to work as deputy FBI director out of love for Trump and the country, only to be implicated in the Epstein scandal. The speaker feels for Bongino and believes something must be done. They also assert the right to know if Epstein was involved in a foreign intelligence operation on American soil, as it's being covered up.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, as we're recording this, Dan Bongino is threatening to resign if Pam Bondi does not resign as AG. What does that tell us in your opinion?
Speaker 1: Well, it tells us that Dan Bongino got shafted, completely shafted. And I'm saying this as a friend of his and someone who respects and likes him, but also just as an observer, an informed observer of it. So Pam Bondi, who's by the way, I don't hate Pam Bondi. She's a totally nice person. If she was here, you would enjoy if you I don't know if you know her, but she's a very nice person.
Not against Pam Bondi in the slightest. But the fact is she got on television on Fox News and started saying stuff like, I've got the client list on my desk. And, actually, no. You don't. And I've got thousands of videos of Epstein having sex with kids.
Well, actually, no. You don't. Most of the material was commercial porn taken off his computer. Like, that's just not true. Why did she say that?
Probably because she's insecure and she's trying to please the audience, I would expect.
Speaker 0: Do you think Dan is upset because his integrity is being questioned now over her mistakes?
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh. So you're Dan, and you're a media figure. And you've got one of the biggest podcasts in the country, and you're making tons of money, and you're having a great time, which he was. You just built this brand new studio in Florida. You work with your wife who you really like, which she does.
And you get the call saying you'd be deputy FBI director, and you're like, I love Donald Trump. I love this country. I will, you know, cut my pay by you know, into a tenth of what it was, and I will leave my house and move to DC, which is a kind of prison sentence itself. And I will do this because I love the president. I love the country.
And you've you're there a few months, and all of a sudden, everybody thinks you're covering up Epstein's crimes. And it kind of wrecks Dan's career. Like, he can't go it's gonna be very hard at this point. I mean, things may change. But as of today, pretty hard for Dan to go back to his podcast audience and be like, I'm telling you the truth when they all think he's covering up for Epstein.
Who did that? Pam Bondi did that. And I don't know that she did it on purpose. I'm assuming not. I don't think she's a mean person.
I've never gotten that sense. But for whatever reason, she went out there and said things that were not true that she could not back up, and then they issued this memo thinking that it would clear everything up.
Speaker 0: That was embarrassing.
Speaker 1: And I guess they're just so dumb. They didn't realize that if you tell everybody you have the tapes of these crimes and then you issue a memo saying you're not gonna prosecute anybody for the crimes, what are you saying? I'm covering up for the perpetrators of these crimes. Duh. The the what they they have no one with an IQ over 80 over there to read the memos?
Are you kidding? You know, I'm not exactly sure how that happened, but I do know that it leaves a guy like Dan in a horrible position. Yeah. And he loves Trump, and I don't think Trump had any knowledge of any of this in at the detail level. And so he doesn't I mean, what do you do if you're Dan Bongino?
I just really I feel for feel for him. What is Trump gonna do? I don't know. I do think that they're going to I think they know that they have to do something. I think it's absolutely fair to ask to what extent was Epstein involved in a foreign intelligence operation on our soul.
This is our country. This country doesn't belong to any foreign country. Okay. This is our country. I was born here.
I pay taxes here. So if some foreign country, I don't care if you claim it's our ally or not, is running an intel operation on my soil, I have a right to know what that was. And don't make me feel like I'm some kind of Nazi for asking. I'm an American. I have an absolute right to know that.
And they're clearly that is what is being covered up because it makes everyone so uncomfortable.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#8 - Stephen Miller delivers the single greatest explanation of the Democrat Party’s immigration agenda in two minutes flat. This was a wake-up call. Miller lays out a strategy decades in the making....a history lesson unfolding in real time. “The left has been trying to shove marxism, socialism and communism down the throat of the American people for generations now.” “They ultimately were not able to do this during the Cold War because the middle-class revolted against communism and marxism and social engineering.” “The Democratic Party shifted their tactics to use migration as a weapon to break down the middle class and to gain political control in this country.” “They use migration to destroy our public education system, to destroy the healthcare system, to destroy wages and working conditions for the middle class of this country, and in effect to destroy social and community cohesion.” “In that rubble, in that chaos, in that conflict to then try to articulate the need for ever more government, ever more government redistribution, ever more government power.” “And then to ultimately import voters to then support that agenda, to import voters who do not believe in limited government, who do not believe in the U.S. Constitution.” “And that is why you are seeing now this VIOLENT, yes, VIOLENT, insurrectionist revolt by the Democrat Party against immigration and customs enforcement.” “So we really are at a hinge point here for the West. A fulcrum point.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims the left has been trying to impose Marxism, socialism, and communism on Americans for generations. Unable to do so during the Cold War, the Democratic Party allegedly shifted tactics, using migration as a weapon to break down the middle class and gain political power.
Migration is purportedly used to destroy public education, healthcare, wages, working conditions, and social cohesion, creating chaos that allows the left to advocate for more government control and import voters who do not believe in limited government or the Constitution.
The speaker asserts that the Democratic Party is engaging in a violent insurrectionist revolt against ICE, with Democrat shock troops attacking ICE officers and border patrol, including assassination attempts. They claim the Democrat rhetoric, which calls ICE officers Nazis and demands ICE leave communities, inspires domestic terror attacks against law enforcement. The speaker believes the West is at a hinge point.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The left has been trying to shove Marxism, socialism, and communism down the throats of the American people for generations now. They ultimately were not able to do this during the Cold War because the middle class revolted against communism and Marxism and social engineering. The left shifted their tactics. The Democratic Party shifted their tactics to use migration as a weapon to break down the middle class and to gain political power and control in this country. They use migration to destroy our public education system, to destroy our health care system, to destroy wages and working conditions for the middle class of this country, and in effect, to destroy social and community cohesion.
And then in that rubble, in in in that chaos, in that conflict, to then try to articulate the need for ever more government control, ever more government redistribution, ever more government power, and then to ultimately import voters to then support that agenda, to import voters who do not believe in limited government, who do not believe in The US constitution. And that is why you are seeing now this violent, yes, violent insurrectionist revolt by the Democrat party against immigration and customs enforcement. You see video after video after video of Democrat shock troops in the streets hurling rocks at ICE officers and border patrol in their vehicles, firing projectiles at them, violently assaulting them, and, yes, opening fire on them. Multiple assassination attempts against our brave and heroic ICE and border patrol agents and barely a word of condemnation from the Democrat party. In fact, the Democrat rhetoric calling our ICE officers, calling our border patrol Nazis and Gestapos and fascists, demanding as they do that ICE leave their communities, this nullificationist rhetoric, all of which inspires and incites these domestic terror attacks against law enforcement.
So we really are at a hinge point here for the West, a fulcrum point.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#7 - “Only 21% of Americans think that Jeffrey Epstein k*lled himself.” “That’s less than [the number of people who] believe in space aliens,” according to Rasmussen Reports pollster Mark Mitchell.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The administration rejected a narrative that Republicans have believed for years, and that literally everybody believes. Only 21% of Americans think that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. This is less than the percentage of Americans who believe in space aliens. The problem is that their messaging has been all over the place. They don't understand why voters are so concerned about this issue.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That took a real hit this week when we saw Yeah. The administration roundly reject pretty much a narrative that Republicans have been believing in for years. Not just Republicans, literally everybody. Only 21% of Americans think that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. That's less than believe in space aliens.
And so that's part of the context. The problem is is that their messaging has been all over the place. Like, they don't understand why voters are so concerned about this issue.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#6 – FDA approves new natural blue food dye from gardenia fruit. Artificial dyes are being phased out en masse while clean, natural ingredients are taking over. Big win for MAHA. Video: @EricLDaugh
Video Transcript AI Summary
The FDA is approving Gardenia Blue as a natural food dye with natural ingredients.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Today, I'm announcing that the FDA is approving Gardenia Blue as a natural food dye with natural ingredients.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@EricLDaugh Before we get to the next story: if you’re not following me, you may be missing out on critical updates. Hit the bell 🔔 to stay sharp and informed. → @VigilantFox
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@EricLDaugh #5 - Trump confirms he’s sending ‘EVERYTHING’ to NATO....including Patriot missile systems arriving in Ukraine within days.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Patriot missiles and batteries are being planned for Ukraine. A full complement with the batteries will be provided. Some are expected to arrive very soon, within days. Countries that have Patriots will swap over and be replaced with the ones they have. Matt will coordinate with NATO.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Will these be Patriot missiles specifically or Patriot batteries that you're planning? When do you when you're Everything. It's Patriots. It's all of them. It's a full complement with the batteries.
And when do you expect them to arrive in Ukraine, sir? Well, we're gonna have some come very soon, within days, actually. It's a couple of the countries that have patriots are gonna swap over and will replace the patriots with the ones they have, and, Matt will coordinate with NATO. But it's gonna be they're gonna start arriving very
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@EricLDaugh #4 - 'The View' Host Declares Violence Against ICE Agents is Part of a Justified "Reckoning" https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/the-view-host-declares-violence-against
'The View' Host Declares Violence Against ICE Agents is Part of a Justified "Reckoning"
“These women are vile...”
vigilantfox.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@EricLDaugh #3 - Ghislaine Maxwell Ready to Testify Before Congress — Could Blow Lid Off Epstein Files and Elite Pedophile Network: Report https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/ghislaine-maxwell-ready-to-testify
Ghislaine Maxwell Ready to Testify Before Congress — Could Blow Lid Off Epstein Files and Elite Pedophile Network: Report
“No one from the government has ever asked her."
vigilantfox.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#2 - Rand Paul will be re-issuing his CRIMINAL REFERRAL to the DOJ for Anthony Fauci, after his “pardon” was confirmed to be issued by a late-night autopen. @NickSortor writes, “Fauci lied REPEATEDLY in front of Congress and shaking while doing so. He’s guilty of perjury. LOCK HIM UP.”
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@EricLDaugh @nicksortor #1 – Japanese Bombshell: Professor Says COVID Vaccines Could Be Linked to 600,000 Japanese Deaths Read the full article by @_aussie17: https://www.aussie17.com/p/japans-shocking-mrna-vaccine-revelations
Video Transcript AI Summary
**Original Language (Japanese):**
市町村が持っているワクチン接種データを解析した結果、接種後120日前後に死亡者の大きなピークがあることが判明。ワクチンが死亡を誘導しないなら、このようなピークはありえない。接種後数ヶ月経ってから死亡する人が多いため、ワクチン接種による死亡が実際より少なく計上されている可能性がある。接種回数が増えるごとに、死亡までの時間が短くなる傾向が見られる。mRNAワクチンには免疫抑制作用があり、スパイクタンパク質の産生量に比例する。スパイクタンパク質を発現する細胞が免疫によって破壊されることも毒性の可能性がある。ワクチン接種の死亡者数は想像以上に多く、毎年の超過死亡の原因の一つかもしれない。約7万人の仲間とともにmRNAワクチン接種を止めさせるよう政府に働きかけているが、まだ成功していない。先週、ワクチン接種を止めるべきだという署名約10万人以上を厚生労働省に提出。国際的に協力し、危険なワクチン接種を止めさせるよう頑張りたい。
**English Translation:**
Analysis of municipal vaccination data revealed a significant peak in deaths around 120 days post-vaccination. Such a peak would be impossible if the vaccine did not induce mortality. Because many deaths occur months after vaccination, vaccine-related deaths may be underreported. The time to death tends to decrease with each subsequent dose. mRNA vaccines have an immunosuppressive effect proportional to spike protein production. The destruction of spike protein-expressing cells by the immune system is another potential toxicity. The number of vaccine-related deaths may be higher than imagined, potentially contributing to annual excess mortality. Along with approximately 70,000 colleagues, efforts are underway to stop mRNA vaccinations, but have not yet succeeded. Last week, a petition with over 100,000 signatures to halt vaccinations was submitted to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. There is a desire to collaborate internationally to stop dangerous vaccinations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello every 1 This is M asa ko が 那 覇 Thankyou very much for tu ne ing in to ear life str ing in to ear go ing to start on line place dis co rd on ly 1 c ol v it in action s
Speaker 1: そう 今日 お 話 を する の は 我 々 が 市 町 村 が 持っ て いる ワシントン 接種 データ を 公開 し て いただき ま し て それ を 解析 し た 結 果 に つい て お 話 し し ます そこ で どう いう データ が ある か と 言 い ます と 一 人 ひ と り に 関 し て い つ ど の ロット の ワクチン を 接種 し て い つ なくなっ たかっ て いう データ が 網 羅 的 に 収 集 さ れ て い ます それ で です ね 非常 に 驚く べき データ が 驚 き べ き 現 象 を 我 々 は 見 つける こと が で き ま し た NXY これ どう いう データ か と 言 い ます と ワクチン 接種 後 に です ね 何 日 ぐらい 経っ て 接種 後 に 何 日 ぐらい 経っ て から 亡 く な っ て いる か ということ を 接種 し た 回 数 ご と に 解析 を し た も の です MI MA MA S NS R IS の ス ライド 今 し 形 の データ は 非常 に 多 く の ファ クター を 含 み ます の で より 整 理 し た 形 で データ を ま と め た の が こ の ス ライド です オレンジ の スポット 非 接種 者 の 死 亡 者 の データ です。
Speaker 2: the O range do ts or do or the an v as not peak e que
Speaker 1: 青 い ドット 接種 者 ということ です が 打っ て から 間 も なく と いう より も 接種 も 1 20 日 前 後 に 非常 に 大 き な ピーク が ある こと が わかり ます もし ワクチン が 死 亡 を 誘導 し な い の で ある な ら ば こ の よう な 山 は 見 える は ず が ありません やっ た ぞ ということ で それ で です ね 多 分 こ の こと が 本 当 は 非常 に 多 く の 人 が ワクチン 接種 で 亡 く な っ て いる に も 関 わら ず 報 告 数 が 極 め て 少 な い こと の 大 き な 原 因 で は な い か と 我 々 考え て い ます 皆 さ ん が ワクチン 接種 を し た ド クター だ と 考え て ください 打っ た そ の 日 そ の 翌 日 1 週 間 以 内 に そ の 日 費 用 接種 者 が なくなっ た の で ある な ら ば それ は ワクチン 接種 が 原 因 だ ろう と いう ふう に 普通 は 考え る と 思い ます ところ が 接種 さ れ た お 医 者 さ ん だっ た と し て も です ね 打っ て から 3 ヶ 月 と か 4 ヶ 月 経っ て 患 者 さ ん が 亡 く な っ た と し て も それ は 多 分 別 の 原 因 だ ろう と いう ふう に 思い が ち だ と 思い ます それ で 問 題 な の は 死 亡 者 の マジョ リティ へ の 多 く が 接種 を 相 当 に 指 数 が 経っ て から 発生 し て いる と いう 点 が 大きな 問 題 で こ の こと に より 惑 星 接種 に よ る 死 亡 者 が 実 際 より 非常 に 少なく 警 察 さ れ て し ま う ということ です の で 先ほど 私 が 計 算 し た 6 1 万 人 と いう 数 字 と 厚生 労 働 省 に 届け が 出さ れ て いる 死 亡 者 の 人 数 の 間 に 非常 に 大 き な 役 と なる ということ の 理 由 は こ の こと に よっ て ある 程 度 説明 できる と 思い ます じゃあ 名 誉 物 で リスト ス ライダー これ は です ね 接種 で 1 回 目 から 5 回 目 の 接種 ま で の 接種 し た 人 に 関 し て 打っ て から 最 終 的 に 接種 し て から 何 日 後 に なくなっ た か と いう ふう な こと を 示 し た グラフ で 縦軸 が 死 亡 者 の 頻 度 です それ で こ の グラフ を 見 る と 明らか な こと は 接種 の 回 数 が 増 える ご と に 亡 く なる 人 た ち が 亡 く なる ま で の 時 間 の ラン ダム 時 間 に な っ て い っ た の が あります
Speaker 0: 。
Speaker 1: が ま と め です それ で 我 々 も です ね デン マーク 何 種 の サリー と 同 じ よう な 非常 に 大 き な ドット 座 を 見 出す こと が で き ま し
Speaker 2: た
Speaker 1: それ で です ね 我 々 は そ の ドット ツ アー の データ に 関 し て の データ ベース 化 し て お り ま し て 今 現 在 公 開 できる よう な 方 向 に 持っ て い く 努 力 を し て い ます もう 一 つ の 非常 に 大 き な 発 見 は 接種 し て から 数 ヶ 月 の 3 ヶ 月 か 4 ヶ 月 目 に 希 望 者 の ピーク が 現 れる ということ この こと が ワクチン 接種 の 被 害 を 実 際 より も 小 さ く 見 せ て いる 原 因 だ と 思い ます
Speaker 0: 。
Speaker 1: それ で いろいろ 論 文 を あたっ て み ます と R 年 齢 型 ワクチン に は 非常 に 明確 の 名 極性 発生 が ある こと が 分かっ て い ます それ で な お か つ そ の 免 疫 抑 制 の 働 き は スパイ タンパク 質 の 産 生 量 に 比例 し て いる と いう ふう な データ も 示さ れ て い ます m RNA ワクチン の もう 一 つ の 毒性 の 可能 性 は スパイク 質 を 発現 する 細 胞 が 自 ら の 免 疫 に よっ て 破 壊 さ れる こと です 摂取 し て 早 い 時 期 の 間 は 摂取 し て 間 も なく スパイ ク タンパク 質 が 大量 に 産 生 さ れ ます の で そ の 間 は 免 疫 抑 制 が 働い て 死 亡 者 が 減 る と し か し な が ら スパイ ク タンパク 質 の 量 が 減っ て くる と 免 疫 に よ る 攻 撃 が 顕著 に な っ て それ で 数 ヶ 月 後 に 死 亡 者 が 減 る と いう ふう な 仮 説 を 私 は 考え て い ます
Speaker 2: そう
Speaker 1: と いう ふう に ということ です が こ の こと から ワクチン 接種 の 死 亡 者 数 は 我 々 が 初め に 想像 し た より も は る か に 多 く の 人 が 亡 く な っ て いる ということ で これ が 日 本 で 毎 年 毎 年 何 万 人 どころ か 10 万 人 を 超 える よう な 数 の 人 数 の 季 節 が 見 ら れる 原 因 の 一 つ で は な い か と 考え て い
Speaker 2: ます そう
Speaker 1: そこ で 我 々 は 約 7 万 人 の 仲 間 と と も に 今 の M RNA ワクチン 接種 を 辞 め さ せる よう に 政 府 に 働 き かけ て お り ます が 残 念 な が ら 今 の ところ ま だ 成 功 し て お り ま せ ん
Speaker 2: そう い や バ タバタ セブン ティーン プー メーカー P eter P ap ate I ch ine al f ate I man ent ti I ed it is top a im I ed it ' s top a im ed it ' s top here
Speaker 1: 先週 私 た ち が 集 め た ワクチン 接種 を すぐ や める べ き だ と いう ふう な 署 名 を 約 10 万 人 以上 を 厚生 労 働 省 に 提 出 を い た し ま し
Speaker 2: た
Speaker 1: ということ です の で インターナショナル の に 国 際 的 に 協 力 し な が ら 危 険 な ワクチン を 接種 を や め さ せ ず つ 頑 張っ て い き た い と 思い ます の で 今 後 の 方 も よろしく お 願 い
Japan’s Shocking mRNA Vaccine Revelations: 21 Million Vaccination Records Expose Alarming Death Trends
Peak in deaths occurs 3 to 4 months after vaccination
aussie17.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@EricLDaugh @nicksortor @_aussie17 BONUS #1 - EPA Releases ‘Everything We Know’ on Contrails and Geoengineering https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/epa-releases-everything-we-know-on
EPA Releases ‘Everything We Know’ on Contrails and Geoengineering
Meanwhile, Nicole Shanahan drops "The Dark MAHA Report on Geoengineering"—and it's a bombshell.
vigilantfox.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@EricLDaugh @nicksortor @_aussie17 BONUS #2 - Hilarious: This Guy Must Really Regret Heckling Tom Homan… https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/hilarious-this-guy-must-really-regret
Hilarious: This Guy Must Really Regret Heckling Tom Homan…
This is how you put down hecklers.
vigilantfox.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@EricLDaugh @nicksortor @_aussie17 BONUS #3 - The Drug from Nature the FDA Tried to Erase for Treating the “Incurable” https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/the-drug-from-nature-the-fda-tried
The Drug from Nature the FDA Tried to Erase for Treating the “Incurable”
Get ready to learn what this powerful treatment can do—and why it worked so well the FDA had to bury it.
vigilantfox.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@EricLDaugh @nicksortor @_aussie17 BONUS #4 - CIA Whistleblower Reveals How Intelligence Agencies Gather Blackmail on Politicians Without Them Suspecting It https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/cia-whistleblower-reveals-how-intelligence
CIA Whistleblower Reveals How Intelligence Agencies Gather Blackmail on Politicians Without Them Suspecting It
10 shocking stories the media buried today.
vigilantfox.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@EricLDaugh @nicksortor @_aussie17 BONUS #5 - The FDA’s 50-Year War on the Safest Painkiller Ever Discovered https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/the-fdas-50-year-war-on-the-safest
The FDA’s 50-Year War on the Safest Painkiller Ever Discovered
If you thought what they did to ivermectin was bad, wait till you hear what they did to this drug.
vigilantfox.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Thanks for making it to the end. If you’re new, here’s a bit about me. I was banned 3 times from Twitter 1.0 for reporting the other side of the COVID story. And if you Google my name, my accounts are buried so deep you’d think I never existed. And yet, my work has been seen by billions. You’ve probably come across it without even realizing it was me. If that piques your curiosity, follow me. I think you’ll find a lot here that’s worth your time. —> @VigilantFox
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@EricLDaugh @nicksortor @_aussie17 In case censorship strikes again, you can always find me at http://VigilantFox.com. Sign up for my newsletter to get these Top 10 lists delivered straight to your email. Live your life while I sift through the news for you. Stay Informed Here: https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/how-to-stay-informed-with-vigilant.
The Vigilant Fox | Substack
Writer, video clipper, and pro-freedom citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience. Tyranny is not possible without compliance. Click to read The Vigilant Fox, a Substack publication with hundreds of thousands of subscribers.
vigilantfox.com
How to Stay Informed with The Vigilant Fox
WELCOME NEW READERS!
vigilantfox.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Victor Davis Hanson critiques former CIA Director John Brennan, highlighting his history of deception and political maneuvering. He argues that Brennan's actions, particularly during the Obama administration and the 2020 election, have had significant repercussions on American politics. Hanson details Brennan's lies regarding drone strikes, his role in the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, and the Russian collusion narrative. He suggests that Brennan's legacy is marred by his involvement in major scandals, and warns that he may face serious legal consequences for his actions.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
It was a TOTAL indictment. Victor Davis Hanson just obliterated former CIA Director John Brennan, as fresh investigations into his actions take a dark turn. Hanson laid out THREE DAMNING examples of lies and hoaxes that expose the real Brennan. And he finished with a gut-punch: “He should be worried. Not about losing his security clearance. But about the very real possibility of being indicted and sent to jail.” 🧵 THREAD
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Victor Davis Hanson laid out the case bluntly: John Brennan wasn’t just a bureaucrat who played politics, but someone who built a career on reinvention, spin, and outright lies....and left a trail of wreckage in American politics that’s still being reckoned with. As Hanson put it, there’s a reason Brennan is back in the spotlight. “Recently, Pam Bondi and the Trump Department of Justice has said they are running an investigation into James Comey and John Brennan's career as the respective FBI Director and the CIA head during the Obama administration. And in the case of Comey, the first year of the Trump administration,” he said. “They are very angry about this, but let's just review why there might be some culpability.” Hanson started with Brennan’s talent for switching sides when it suited him. Under George W. Bush, Brennan was a champion of harsh interrogation and Guantanamo. “Take John Brennan. He was a big proponent of waterboarding and enhanced interrogation under George W Bush's administration. And the things that went on in Guantanamo,” Hanson said. But when power changed hands, so did Brennan’s story. “But he flipped to condition himself to go into the Obama administration. And then he attacked the very president that he had served, George Bush.” Hanson described how Brennan went further, rebranding his entire approach to counterterrorism to fit Obama’s worldview. “Then he began sounding, sounding off about Islam, religion of peace, Jihadism is not a violent act, to condition himself further, to be appointed by Obama, which he was eventually as CIA director.” For Hanson, that wasn’t just another political calculation...it set the stage for Brennan’s most brazen deceptions.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Pam Bondi and the Trump DOJ are investigating James Comey and John Brennan's conduct as FBI and CIA heads. Brennan, a proponent of waterboarding under George W. Bush, allegedly shifted his views to align with the Obama administration, including commenting on Islam, to secure his appointment as CIA director. He then attacked Bush, the president he had served.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Recently, Pam Bondi and the Trump Department of Justice has said they are running an investigation into James Comey and John Brennan's career as the respective FBI director and the CIA head during the Obama administration and in the case of Comey, the first year of the Trump administration. They are very angry about this, but let's just review why there might be some culpability. Take John Brennan. He was a big ad a proponent of waterboarding and enhanced interrogation under George w Bush's administration and the things that went on in Guantanamo. I'm not gonna comment on the right whether they're right or wrong, but he flipped to condition himself to go into the Obama administration and then he attacked the very president that he had served, George Bush.
Then he began sounding off about Islam, religion of peace, jihadism is not a violent act to condition himself further to be appointed by Obama, which he was, eventually a CIA director.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
“But then he started lying,” he said. “I mean, he always probably lied, but I mean flagrantly.” One of those lies, Hanson argued, was meant to cover for Obama’s drone war. “So he said before Congress in the media, there wasn't one civilian killed by Obama's targeted assassination program via predators on the Afghan or Pakistan border.” Hanson didn’t attempt sugarcoat the reality of what happened. “Actually, there were 50 or 75 innocent people we killed. He was caught in that lie.” Then came the clash with Congress over spying on Senate investigators. “Three years later, he went before the Congress and there was information that he had been tapping his CIA, the staffers for the Senate to get into their computer. He not only lied about it, he did so emphatically, ‘oh, we would never do that. That’s horrible.’” He eventually admitted it. But Hanson pointed out the consequences were non-existent. “Then he was forced to say yes, I lied. In both cases, there were no perjury charges, nothing.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims that an individual lied before Congress and the media, stating that Obama's targeted assassination program killed no civilians on the Afghan or Pakistan border, when the speaker believes 50-75 innocent people were killed. The speaker says the individual was caught in that lie.
Three years later, the speaker says the same individual lied emphatically to Congress about tapping CIA staffers' computers, initially denying it, then admitting to the lie. The speaker notes that in both instances, there were no perjury charges.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But then he started lying. I mean, he always probably lied, but I mean, flagrantly so. He said before congress and the media, there wasn't one civilian killed by Obama's targeted assassination program via predators on the Afghan or Pakistan border. Actually, there were 50 or 75 innocent people we killed. He was caught in that lie.
He three years later, he went before the congress, and there was information that he had been tapping his CIA, the staffers for the senate to get into their computer. He not only lied about it, he did so emphatic. Oh, we would never do that. That's horrible. Then he was forced to say, yes.
I lied. In both cases, there were no perjury charges. Nothing.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Before we roll the next clip: if you’re not following me, you’re missing out on critical updates. Hit the bell 🔔 to stay sharp and informed. → @VigilantFox Now, back to the story you came for.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Hanson argued Brennan’s pattern didn’t stop there, either. It reached its most destructive point during the 2020 election. He described the moment the Hunter Biden laptop story threatened to derail Biden’s campaign. “The pièce de résistance for John Brennan was in October 2020, on the eve of the second and critical presidential debate, Joe Biden was in trouble. People were furious about this laptop. There was pornography on it. There was drug use,” Hanson recounted. “There was references to Joe Biden as Mr. Big Guy, 10% that he'd been given money. He was crooked.” Hanson walked through how Biden’s team moved to kill the story by calling in favors. “So what happened? Antony Blinken, his future Secretary of State, campaign aid called Michael Morell, interim CIA Director at one point, said ‘round them up’. So 51, quote unquote, intelligence authorities swore that the laptop had all the hallmarks of Russian information.” Brennan’s name was on that letter. “So what happened in the debate? Trump went right after Biden and said that laptop is real. It shows that you're a crook. It shows your son is a miscreant. And Joe Biden [said] ‘How dare you? 51 intelligence authorities swear that it's a product of Russian espionage.’” And it worked. “It was effective,” Hanson said. But Hanson made clear the real scandal came after the election. “Later, a poll showed—that if people had known that it had been authenticated, and, by the way, that laptop was sitting in the hands of the FBI and adjudicated to be authentic and not released to the public at a time when James Comey's if excuse me, Christopher Wray’s FBI was partnering with Twitter and Facebook to suppress any news story that was accurately reporting that the laptop was authentic.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
In October 2020, with Joe Biden "in trouble" regarding his laptop, Anthony Blinken, Biden's campaign aide, allegedly told Michael Morrell to "round them up." Subsequently, 51 intelligence authorities swore the laptop had "all the hallmarks of Russian information."
During the debate, when Trump attacked Biden about the laptop, Biden responded that 51 intelligence authorities swore it was a product of Russian espionage. A poll later indicated that if people had known the laptop was authenticated, it would have changed their vote. The laptop was in the FBI's possession and deemed authentic, but Christopher Wray's FBI was partnering with Twitter and Facebook to suppress the story.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The piece of resistance for John Brennan was in October 2020 on the eve of the second and critical presidential debate. Joe Biden was in trouble. People were furious about this laptop. There was pornography on it. There was drug use.
There was references to Joe Biden as mister big guy. 10% that he'd been giving money. He was crooked. People were wanted to hear. He had no excuse.
So what happened? Anthony Blinken, his future secretary of state campaign aide called Michael Morrell, interim FBI direct CIA director at one point, said round them up. So 51, quote unquote, intelligence authorities swore that the laptop had all the hallmarks of Russian information. Notice the words all the hallmarks, escape clause of Russian information, not disinformation, but that's what they meant. So what happened in the debate?
Trump went right after Biden and said that laptop is real. It shows that you're a crook. It shows that your son is a miscreant. And Joe Biden's, how dare you? 51 intelligence authorities swear that it's a product of Russian espionage.
Only you and Rudy Giuliani believed that and it was effective. Later, a poll showed the technometrica poll showed that if people had known that it had been authenticated, and by the way, that laptop was sitting in the hands of the FBI and adjudicated to be authentic and not released to the public at a time when James Comey's f excuse me. Christopher Wray's FBI was partnering with Twitter and Facebook to suppress any news story that was accurately reporting that the laptop was authentic.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Remember “Russia! Russia! Russia!”? From the collusion hoax to Russian disinformation, Hanson argued Brennan helped fuel the narrative that Donald Trump was a Kremlin asset....another lie that consumed years of the country’s politics and President Trump's first term. “John Brennan finally, accused Donald Trump of being a Russian traitor. He said that after the, Donald Trump spoke in Helsinki about Russian American relationships, he said that he is treasonous.” And he did so without proof. Hanson pointed to the facts on the ground that contradicted that charge. “When he said that, I think we all thought, well, wait a minute. Donald Trump killed the Wagner group in Syria. He up the sanctions on the oligarchs.” “He approved offensive weapons to Ukraine that Obama had canceled. Russia didn't go into Ukraine under the Trump administration. It had invaded Ossetia under Bush. It went under Ukraine, under both Biden and Obama, but not under Trump.” “He told the Germans, don't cut a deal with Putin on the Nord Stream Two pipeline. He got out of an asymmetrical missile deal.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
John Brennan accused Donald Trump of treason after Trump's Helsinki statements on Russian-American relations. However, Trump killed the Wagner group in Syria, increased sanctions on oligarchs, and approved offensive weapons for Ukraine, which Obama had not done. Russia did not invade Ukraine during Trump's presidency, unlike during the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations. Trump told Germany not to make a deal with Putin on the Nordstrum Two pipeline and exited an asymmetrical missile deal. It is claimed that Trump was the "hardest president" against Russia.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: John Brennan finally, accused Donald Trump of being a Russian traitor. He said that after the, Donald Trump spoke in Helsinki about Russian American relationships. He said that he is treasonous. When he said that, I think we all thought, well, wait a minute. Donald Trump killed the Wagner group in Syria.
He upped the sanctions on the oligarchs. He approved offensive weapons to Ukraine that Obama had counseled. Russia didn't go into Ukraine under the Trump administration. It had invaded Ossetia under Bush. It went under Ukraine under both Biden and Obama, but not under Trump.
He told the Germans, don't cut a deal with Putin on the Nordstrum two pipeline. He got off an asymmetrical missile deal. He was the hardest president that we've had against Russia.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Hanson’s final argument was merciless for the former CIA Director. He made the case that Brennan’s pattern of deception wasn’t just personal...it was historically damaging. “So what was John Brennan doing?” he asked. “Here's what he was doing, and 2 or 3 of the most significant scandals of the last 50 years, he was at the center. You could make the argument that the Russian collusion hoax almost swung the election to Hillary Clinton.” “You could argue that the Mueller investigation, based on that stupid dossier, cost Donald Trump 22 months of his first two years in office, $40 million to find nothing.” “You could make the argument that if the FBI had just released its investigation of the laptop, told the people it was authentic, John Brennan would not—have been able to lie to the American people that it was cooked up in Russia, and that Donald Trump was complicit in that.” “That disclosure, that failure to disclose the true nature of that laptop, thanks to John Brennan and 51 intelligence authorities, and the debate by Joe Biden and the false charges may have affected the election.” He didn’t leave any doubt about the stakes. “And finally, we wouldn't be in this big trouble about the Ukraine war and Russia, had John Brennan and people like him not floated the spurious narrative that Donald Trump was working hand in glove with Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Putin, Russia, Russia, Russia that colored and poisoned the whole relationship we had with Russia.” Hanson ended with a warning, suggesting Brennan’s biggest worry shouldn’t be his media gigs or security clearance. It was a gut punch to him and his establishment cronies. “It affected the Russian Ukrainian war, and it was all a lie. And so here we are with John Brennan, mad that he lost his, security clearance for being a well-paid MSNBC analyst. He should be better worried. Not that he lost his security clearance. That that he might be indicted and go to jail.” “He's got a lot of culpability, both in not telling the truth and spinning lies and being at the heart of a number of scandals that affected the history of the United States.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
John Brennan was allegedly at the center of several significant scandals. It's argued the Russian collusion hoax almost swung the election to Hillary Clinton, and the Mueller investigation cost Donald Trump $40,000,000 to find nothing.
It's claimed that if the FBI had released its investigation of the laptop, John Brennan and others wouldn't have been able to lie about it being cooked up in Russia and that Donald Trump was complicit. This failure to disclose the laptop's true nature may have affected the election.
It's also asserted that the narrative that Donald Trump was working with Vladimir Putin colored the relationship with Russia and affected the Russian Ukrainian war.
John Brennan lost his security clearance and should be worried about indictment and jail due to culpability in not telling the truth, spinning lies, and being at the heart of scandals that affected the history of The United States.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So what was John Brennan doing? Here's what he was doing. In two or three of the most significant scandals of the last fifty years, he was at the center. You could make the argument that the Russian collusion hoax almost swung the relation the election to Hillary Clinton. You could argue that.
You could argue that the Mueller investigation based on that stupid dossier cost Donald Trump twenty two months of his first two years in office $40,000,000 to find nothing. You could make the argument that if the FBI had just released its investigation of the laptop, told the people it was authentic, John Brennan would not and his cohorts been able to lie to the American people that it was cooked up in Russia and that Donald Trump was complicit in that. That disclosure, that failure to disclose, the true nature of that laptop, thanks to John Brennan and 51 intelligence authorities, and the debate by Joe Biden, and the false charges may have affected the election. As I said, one polling company found that it did. And finally, we wouldn't be in this big trouble about the Ukraine war and Russia had John Brennan and people like him not floated the spurious narrative that Donald Trump was working hand in glove with Vladimir Putin.
Vladimir Putin, Russia, Russia, Russia. That colored and poisoned the whole relationship we had with Russia. It affected the Russian Ukrainian war, and it was all a lie. And so here we are with John Brennan mad that he lost his, security clearance for being a well paid MSNBC analyst. He should be better worried, not that he lost his security clearance, that that he might be indicted and go to jail.
He's got a lot of culpability both in not telling the truth and spinning lies and being at the heart of a number of scandals that affected the history of The United States.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Watch the full episode of the @DailySignal here:
@DailySignal - The Daily Signal
Victor Davis Hanson: John Brennan Has Himself to Blame for FBI Investigation The FBI announced they are launching a criminal investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan for “potential wrongdoing related to the Trump-Russia probe," according to Fox News Digital. John Brennan, one of the main architects behind the 2016 Russian Collusion Hoax, and a contributor to the 2020 Hunter Biden “Laptop From Hell” Cover-up, has a storied history of being at the heart of the most significant scandals in American history of the last 50 years. And now it's rightfully starting to catch up with him, argues @VDHanson on today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words:” (00:00) Introduction: Investigating Comey and Brennan (01:25) John Brennan's Controversial Career (02:46) The Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal (03:40) Trump vs. Biden: The Debate and Aftermath (04:34) Brennan's Accusations Against Trump (05:03) Impact on U.S.-Russia Relations (07:07) Conclusion: Brennan's Legacy and Accountability 👉Don’t miss out on Victor’s latest videos by subscribing to The Daily Signal today. You’ll be notified every time a new piece of content drops: https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal?sub_confirmation=1 👉If you can’t get enough of Victor Davis Hanson from The Daily Signal, subscribe to his official YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@victordavishanson7273 👉He’s also the host of “The Victor Davis Hanson Show,” available wherever you prefer to watch or listen. Links to the show and exclusive content are available on his website: https://victorhanson.com The Daily Signal cannot continue to tell stories, like this one, without the support of our viewers: https://secured.dailysignal.com/
Video Transcript AI Summary
Pam Bondi and the Trump DOJ are investigating James Comey and John Brennan's careers as FBI and CIA directors. Brennan, a proponent of waterboarding under Bush, shifted his stance to join the Obama administration. He allegedly lied to Congress about civilian deaths from Obama's targeted assassination program and about the CIA hacking Senate staffers' computers.
In October 2020, 51 intelligence authorities claimed the Hunter Biden laptop had "hallmarks of Russian information," influencing a presidential debate exchange between Trump and Biden. A poll suggested this may have swayed the election. The FBI, under Christopher Wray, allegedly suppressed the authentic laptop story.
Brennan accused Trump of treason after Trump's Helsinki remarks. It's argued that Brennan was central to scandals like the Russian collusion hoax and the Mueller investigation. The failure to disclose the laptop's authenticity, along with Brennan's claims, may have affected the election. It's claimed that Brennan's narrative of Trump colluding with Putin has contributed to the Ukraine war. Brennan should be worried about indictment, not just losing his security clearance.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Recently, Pam Bondi and the Trump Department of Justice has said they are running an investigation into James Comey and John Brennan's career as the respective FBI director in the CIA had. Take John Brennan. Two or three of the most significant scandals of the last fifty years, he was at the center. You could make the argument that the Russian collusion hoax almost swung the election to Hillary Clinton. We wouldn't be in this big trouble about the Ukraine war in Russia had John Brennan and people like him not floated the spurious narrative that Donald Trump was working hand in glove with Vladimir Putin.
Vladimir Putin, Russia, Russia, Russia. Hello. This is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Recently, Pam Bondi and the Trump Department of Justice has said they are running an investigation into James Comey and John Brennan's career as the respective FBI director in the CIA head during the Obama administration and in the case of Comey, the first year of the Trump administration. They are very angry about this, but let's just review why there might be some culpability.
Take John Brennan. He was a big ad a proponent of waterboarding and enhanced interrogation under George w Bush's administration and the things that went on in Guantanamo. I'm not gonna comment on the right whether they're right or wrong, but he flipped to condition himself to go into the Obama administration and then he attacked the very president that he had served, George Bush. Then he began sounding sounding off about Islam, religion of peace, jihadism is not a violent act to condition himself further to be appointed by Obama, which he was, eventually a CIA director. But then he started lying.
I mean, he always probably lied, but I mean, flagrantly so. He said before congress and the media, there wasn't one civilian killed by Obama's targeted assassination program via predators on the Afghan or Pakistan border. Actually, there were 50 or 75 innocent people we killed. He was caught in that lie. He three years later, he went before the congress, and there was information that he had been tapping his CIA, the staffers for the senate to get into their computer.
He not only lied about it, he did so emphatic. Oh, we would never do that. That's horrible. Then he was forced to say, yes. I lied.
In both cases, there were no perjury charges. Nothing. The piece that resistance for John Brennan was in October 2020 on the eve of the second and critical presidential debate. Joe Biden was in trouble. People were furious about this laptop.
There was pornography on it. There was drug use. There was references to Joe Biden as mister big guy. 10% that he'd been giving money. He was crooked.
People were wanted to hear. He had no excuse. So what happened? Anthony Blinken, his future secretary of state campaign aide called Michael Morrell, interim FBI direct CIA director at one point, said round them up. So 51, quote unquote, intelligence authorities swore that the laptop had all the hallmarks of Russian information.
Notice the words all the hallmarks, escape clause of Russian information, not disinformation. But that's what they meant. So what happened in the debate? Trump went right after Biden and said that laptop is real. It shows that you're a crook.
It shows that your son is a miscreant. And Joe Biden's, how dare you? 51 intelligence authorities swear that it's a product of Russian espionage. Only you and Rudy Giuliani believed that and it was effective. Later a poll showed the technometrica poll showed that if people had known that it had been authenticated and by the way, that laptop was sitting in the hands of the FBI and adjudicated to be authentic and not released to the public at a time when James Comey's f excuse me.
Christopher Wray's FBI was partnering with Twitter and Facebook to suppress any news story that was accurately reporting that the laptop was authentic. John Brennan finally accused Donald Trump of being a Russian traitor. He said that after the Donald Trump spoke in Helsinki about Russian American relationships. He said that he is treasonous. When he said that, I think we all thought, well, wait a minute.
Donald Trump killed the Wagner group in Syria. He upped the sanctions on the oligarchs. He approved offensive weapons to Ukraine that Obama had counseled. Russia didn't go into Ukraine under the Trump administration. It had invaded Ossetia under Bush.
It went under Ukraine under both Biden and Obama, but not under Trump. He told the Germans don't cut a deal with Putin on the Nordstrum two pipeline. He got off an asymmetrical missile deal. He was the hardest president that we've had against Russia. So what was John Brennan doing?
Here's what he was doing in two or three of the most significant scandals of the last fifty years. He was at the center. You could make the argument that the Russian collusion hoax almost swung the relation the election to Hillary Clinton. You could argue that. You could argue that the Mueller investigation based on that stupid dossier cost Donald Trump twenty two months of his first two years in office $40,000,000 to find nothing.
You could make the argument that if the FBI had just released its investigation of the laptop, told the people it was authentic, John Brennan would not and his cohorts been able to lie to the American people that it was cooked up in Russia and that Donald Trump was complicit in that. That disclosure, that failure to disclose the true nature of that laptop, thanks to John Brennan and 51 intelligence authorities and the debate by Joe Biden and the false charges may have affected the election. As I said, one polling company found that it did. And finally, we wouldn't be in this big trouble about the Ukraine war and Russia had John Brennan and people like him not floated the spurious narrative that Donald Trump was working hand in glove with Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin, Russia, Russia, Russia.
That colored and poisoned the whole relationship we had with Russia. It affected the Russian Ukrainian war, and it was all a lie. And so here we are with John Brennan mad that he lost his, security clearance for being a well paid MSNBC analyst. He should be better worried, not that he lost his security clearance, that that he might be indicted and go to jail. He's got a lot of culpability, both in not telling the truth and spinning lies and being at the heart of a number of scandals that affected the history of The United States.
Thank you very much. This is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Thank you for tuning in to The Daily Signal. Please like, share, and subscribe to be notified for more content like this. You can also check out my own website at victorhansen.com and subscribe for exclusive features in addition.
The Daily Signal
We believe that high-quality, credible news reporting on political and policy issues is of paramount importance to an informed and free society. The Daily Si...
youtube.com
Victor Davis Hanson
This is the official YouTube channel for Dr. Victor Davis Hanson.Dr. Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and his...
youtube.com
Home
Has the Military Lost Middle America VDH’s Blade of Perseus // Private Papers Traditionalist and conservative America once was the U.S. military’s greatest defender. Bipartisan conservatives in Congress ensured generous Pentagon budgets. Statistics of those killed in action, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, reveal that white males, especially those of the rural and middle classes, […]
victorhanson.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@DailySignal I was banned 3 times from Twitter 1.0 for defying mainstream narratives. If censorship strikes again, you’ll always find my latest threads at http://VigilantFox.com. I sift through the news so you can live your life. Stay Informed Here: https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/how-to-stay-informed-with-vigilant.
The Vigilant Fox | Substack
Writer, video clipper, and pro-freedom citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience. Tyranny is not possible without compliance. Click to read The Vigilant Fox, a Substack publication with hundreds of thousands of subscribers.
vigilantfox.com
How to Stay Informed with The Vigilant Fox
WELCOME NEW READERS!
vigilantfox.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
@DailySignal Thanks for reading. For more in-depth stories the mainstream won’t touch, follow me on 𝕏. —> @VigilantFox Looking for something else to read? The Jeffrey Epstein Story Just Got Even Weirder https://t.co/SAtgYnBHdX
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve come across unsealed files implicating the Clintons in connections to Jeffrey Epstein, revealing that Bill Clinton traveled to Epstein's island over 25 times, often with underage girls. Hillary Clinton is also mentioned multiple times, raising concerns about her involvement in covering up crimes against children. The Clinton Foundation has a troubling history of alleged money laundering and child trafficking, particularly in Haiti. There’s a call for a special prosecutor to investigate these matters further, as many believe that evidence still exists and that intelligence agencies may be involved. It's crucial to remain logical and observant, as the truth may unfold in time.
@TheIntelSCIF - The SCIF
THE CLINTONS NAMED IN UNSEALED FILES & TRAVELED TO MULTIPLE EPSTEIN LOCATIONS WHILE IN OFFICE. A former U.S. President, while in office was best friends with the most horrific child predator that there ever was. And there are hundreds of elite just like him. This will never go away until answers are given and justice is served. Bill Clinton is confirmed to have traveled to Epstein's island more than 25+ times on the Lolita Express, even sometimes with underage girls, and is mention over 50 times, and by victims in the unsealed documents. Hillary Clinton is also named in the Epstein documents numerous times and is alleged to have traveled to the island 5+ or more times, and is not the first time of being accused of sexual abuse or covering up crimes with underage children. The Clinton Foundation itself has a dark history of money laundering and child trafficking, especially out of Haiti. Hillary's email scandal exposed discussions about how much it would cost to move trafficked children out of the country and even paid for a lawyer when a woman by the name of Laura Silsby was caught attempting to traffick children out of Haiti. The lawyer that was appointed to Laura Silsby in Haiti was also caught and arrested for child trafficking and abuse along with his wife. Are you noticing a pattern? Many of these trips occurred while Bill Clinton was in office and Bill and Hillary are known to have traveled to Epstein's Zorro Ranch in New Mexico numerous times directly from The White House to the Ranch. Epstein's Zorro Ranch is one of the most secretive locations along with the island considering the rumors and testimonies of victims about the enormous underground locations and scientific like experiments being performed on unexpecting victims of Epstein. Let's face it. A special prosecutor needs to be appointed and a new investigation is what the people really want. Nothing will change until these people face justice. Now with the recent news of some of the files being tampered with, what is true and what is false? One thing is for sure, There is no way all the evidence is gone, especially when everyone understands, beyond the shadow of a doubt that this entire operation was ran by intelligence agencies, both foreign and domestic, which most likely still hold documents and blackmail on government officials to this day, both foreign and domestic parties. The question you should be asking yourself is: How much evidence does the Trump administration really have, what's on the thousands of videos that they claimed to possess and is there still blackmail being used on either side for control? What if it's being used in a positive way? Don't take everything the media throws at you as gospel or from the people you trust the most. Remember, this is the art of war and a game. Sometimes you need to force your opponent's hand. You have to always revert back and remind yourself that you will be confused at times, you will not have all the missing pieces because this is a military intelligence operation and patriots are in control. Remove your emotions and think logically. Power moves only. Step back, observe and look at the big picture. Have faith because in the very near future, things will begin to make a lot more sense.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion revolves around newly released names connected to Jeffrey Epstein, with Bill Clinton's name being mentioned. It's claimed that Epstein's wealth allowed him access to powerful figures and the ability to conceal misdeeds, potentially even within the Justice Department.
Questions are raised about why it was difficult to obtain these names, with concerns that political biases may have played a role. While cautioning against painting everyone associated with Epstein with the same brush, there is a call for transparency and answers regarding the involvement of top leaders in Epstein's alleged crimes.
Epstein's potential ties to intelligence agencies are discussed, suggesting the case may involve more than just sex trafficking and could implicate elements within the US and international governments. It's claimed that Epstein fits the profile of a CIA liaison, and that the Justice Department may have buried the intelligence angle. Attention is drawn to a plea deal in the 2008 prosecution, and a report that cited Epstein as belonging to intelligence. The suggestion is made to investigate Bill Barr's involvement and to release all related files, including those concerning Alex Acosta's emails.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Eric's mentioned a 170 people, Bill Clinton, a lot of you know, Clinton likes him young as a quote from in there. I'm also seeing a quote that says he didn't take the bait at one dinner that was there. Just your reaction as this unfolds in real time. It took us a long time to get these names.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It sure has, Pete. I guess, right off the top, sadly, it's not a it's probably not news to anyone that Bill Clinton liked him young. This has been sort of, an an open secret for a long time, which is kind of disturbing in and of itself. But, you know, it's kind of amazing to stop and think about this, how a guy like this who had so much money, and it's always been sort of unclear exactly where, Epstein's money came from, but it doesn't really matter in the realm of politics and celebrity in America.
You and and in terms of, you you know, if you have the money, you can get access to anybody you want, and you can basically do whatever you want. And then the really shocking part of it is that for decades after that, you can it appears, this is what it looks like, you can conceal your misdeeds even in the justice department, even through, you know, protect your misdeeds from justice if you've got that kind of money. And the fact that, you know, within minutes of these of this information going live, the website crashed is a testament to just how many people wanted to to know what happened and wanted to know what's in these documents.
Speaker 0: Monica, kinda same question. Why was it so hard? I mean I mean, Charlie mentions it, and he's right. But, I mean, if if there's certain political persuasions, it always seems so difficult, and there's a lot of trappings and a lot procedures, and we never we get portions of it. But if it's the other way, it has to be exposed all the time.
In this case, we're finally getting something. But, again, it seems like the way it always plays out.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No. I think that that's true, and I think the Epstein case is a very complicated one, and we should all be very careful, when we're talking about this. You know, people are treating this document trove, Pete and Charlie, as if it's Epstein's black book, which it's clearly not. I mean, these are documents that are important, but they're related to one specific case with regard to Jeffrey Epstein.
Look. I think a lot of people take a look at major, major figures who were in Jeffrey Epstein's orbit. It includes Bill Clinton, obviously, again, not news here, but also people like Bill Gates, a lot of globalists, bankers or heads of banks, the names that have been circulating around this man now for years. And then we saw the conviction on a whole series of very horrendous outrageous crimes with regard to Jeffrey Epstein. The American people have a lot of questions here.
They have a lot of questions about what these top leaders, were they or were they not engaged in what Jeffrey Epstein was doing here in terms of trafficking and soliciting prostitutes and underage girls. It it may not be the case at all. I mean, he did Jeffrey Epstein did have some legitimate business. He had at least three planes, two of which were used for legit business purposes. One was tricked out with a bed and come to be known as the lowly Lolita Express.
So I think we have to be very careful about painting everybody whose names we see associated with Jeffrey Epstein with the same brush. But by the same token, the American people deserve answers on this, and they deserve transparency.
Speaker 3: But one of the big questions overhanging this is Epstein's role in with potential intelligence ties because that converts this from being kind of a pedophilia or child sex trafficking story into something much darker and that looks not like, it's just protecting millionaires and billionaires, but that it's actually, some apparatus within the US government and potentially international governments, wanted the Epstein case dead, for for their own reasons. And it it's my belief that when you look at the profile of Jeffrey Epstein and his entire history coming up through Bear Stearns and then being this sort of financial bounty hunter who specialized in sheltering assets and then being a financial fixer to arrange for multimillion dollar financings of kind of boutique custom deals that Epstein fits the profile of a CIA liaison or a cooperative contact or a CIA facilitator rather than a CIA asset, and that you will not be able to find, necessarily a kind of, human two zero one file on him, rather that it was an informal contact that that the intelligence services reached to as a back channel to broker deals and to set up financing for various, either covert action or, or economic deals that were deemed to be in US interest.
And I believe that there's also an international side to the intelligence story as well given how many countries are involved in the sorts of affairs that Epstein, Epstein's life led through, but you can't subpoena foreign governments. The way you cannot we have control over our own executive branch. What I'm trying to communicate is that it's not like the justice department can't do anything on this. In 02/2008, there was a a very scandalous prosecute plea deal given in the 2008 prosecution that was helmed by Alex Acosta. Three days after Epstein was indicted the second time, the Vic Ward article came out that cited him as saying that that Epstein belonged to intelligence, and he was told to leave it alone.
The very next day, 07/10/2019 at a press conference, he's asked directly, did you say that, Epstein was an intelligence? He belonged to intelligence, and that's why he gave him the sweetheart deal. And he, you know, kinda shuffles nervously and says, I can't answer that. I can neither confirm nor deny. And then the very last piece we have on this was a formal investigation done by the justice department office of professional responsibility, which was supposed to put this to bed.
It's a 348 page report. The only disclosure that they have on, on asking Alice Acosta about the intelligence question was a random footnote, one footnote. It's foot footnote two forty four on page a 169, and they asked him if he had knowledge that Acosta was, quote, an intelligence asset. And Acosta and this is all summary description, by the way. They don't give the transcript.
And they said, Acosta told us the answer to that question is no, but we don't know what exactly they asked about this, and Epstein wouldn't have a, two zero one file on it. You can belong to intelligence without being a formal asset. I did a a study recently of of 10 financial fixers that the CIA had used to fix financing for various deals. Eight out of the 10 folks never had never had a a two zero one file, never were formally classified as assets. But there will still be traffic in the intelligence records, and we need to know if the justice department even asked because they tried to put this story to bed by saying, oh, we did this OPR report, and Alex Acosta walked back what he what he said, to the Trump transition team, or what he contradicted Vicki Ward's reporting.
Well, we don't know that because we never got the transcript. We got a one line summary description buried in the two hundred and forty fourth footnote. Now that that OPR investigation is totally sweeping. All of the audio files, all of the transcripts, all of the interviews can be made public. Now OPR reported directly to Bill Barr.
Bill Barr was the CIA's mop up man for Iran Contra. He started his career in the CIA. The Washington Post called him the CIA's fall guy because he blocked disclosures of CIA files. It's very possible that the intelligence angle could have been buried by Bill Barr himself. So get all so in that OPR investigation, get all of Bill Barr's email traffic because they deleted Alex Acosta's emails on this.
What that report showed was an eleven month data gap, mysterious technological glitch that deleted dog ate all of the justice department, doj.gov emails of Alex Acosta starting May 2007, the very month that the FBI wanted to to arrest Jeffrey Epstein, and then Alex Acosta stepped stepped in to stop it. We need the full details of that November 2020 report. Pam Bondi, you can walk down the hallway tonight and get those files and make them public.
reSee.it AI Summary
On July 6, 2007, I received a 23-page letter from Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers, Alan Dershowitz and Gerald Lefcourt. It claimed Epstein co-founded the Clinton Global Initiative, linking Hillary and Bill Clinton to Epstein’s network, and was connected to a plea deal prior to charges.
@dom_lucre - Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives
🔥🚨DEVELOPING: On July 6, 2007, a 23-page letter from Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers Alan Dershowitz and Gerald Lefcourt stated that Epstein was Co-founder of the Clinton Global Initiative which became the Clinton Foundation. The letter was tied to a successful plea deal before Epstein was charged, this directly ties Hillary and Bill Clinton to Epstein’s network.
reSee.it AI Summary
I wonder why the Clintons traveled from the White House to Epstein's Zorro Ranch, ditching Secret Service, to do what at a remote site? Epstein publicly spoke of seeding the human race and claimed an 8,000 sq ft underground lab, with victims alleging experiments. I’m asking what bizarre rituals and practices these Satanic billionaires were pursuing beyond blackmail. I suspect underground bases and a massive, hidden budget fueled covert operations.
@TheIntelSCIF - The SCIF
Why were the CLINTONS traveling to Epstein's ZORRO RANCH directly from The White House? The president of the United States and his wife were ditching Secret Service and going to a known pedoph*le's ranch that's in the middle of nowhere, to do what exactly? Epstein publicly stated that he wanted to "seed the human race" and is alleged to have an enormous 8,000 square foot underground lab under the ranch that Epstein victims have claimed to have been to and had experiments run on them. What kind of bizarre experiments and ritualistic practices were these Satanic billionaires really up to? There are many layers as to what was really going on at Epstein's properties well beyond blackmailing government officials. One thing you can not buy as a billionaire, no matter how much money you have, is time. This is one thing they were ultimately working on, along with literally creating the "perfect" sex slave as to the buyer's specific likings through stem cell research and many other avenues. You can use your imagination as to what else they were doing and to accomplish these goals. Epstein was also into and believed in Jewish mysticism which stems from the teachings from the Jewish Kabbalah. You can go down that rabbit hole on your own. Let's just say they do not believe in God to give you a hint. It's time to start looking underground for the truth. Remember, over $21 TRILLION went missing from our national budget and is said that a large portion of that money was used to create underground locations and many D.U.M.B.s around the world. The perfect place to hide and conduct whatever operations you want with nothing to worry about. The truth is far stranger than any fiction.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript centers on explosive allegations and questions surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, and possible intelligence connections. It begins with a report that the Wall Street Journal obtained Epstein’s private calendar, which allegedly shows meetings with powerful figures who would seem unlikely to associate with a convicted sex offender. Epstein allegedly met Catherine Rumler, one of Barack Obama’s top lawyers, and Rumler reportedly met Epstein dozens of times. Epstein supposedly tried to set up Rumler to work for Bill Gates. The narrative raises the question: how could Epstein be a fixer between Obama’s lawyer and Gates?
The account continues with Epstein meeting Joe Biden’s CIA director, though it notes that Burns was not CIA director at the time but Obama’s deputy secretary of state, working under John Kerry at the State Department, and later becoming CIA director. It is claimed that Burns went to Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, where Epstein’s activities included sex with underage girls and video of others doing the same. The speaker speculates about whether Burns saw a portrait of Bill Clinton in a blue dress in Epstein’s parlor. The timeline suggests that Epstein was arrested and later hanged in jail with security camera failures and guards asleep, and that two years afterward Biden appointed Burns as CIA director. The implication drawn is that Epstein was an intelligence asset, potentially connected to the CIA, Israeli intelligence, and possibly Russian intelligence, and that he was allowed to traffic and molest girls for blackmail material.
The speakers say they asked CIA director William Burns why he met with a convicted sex offender; Burns replies that Epstein was introduced as an expert in the financial services sector and offered general advice on a private-sector transition, and that there was no formal relationship. The narrative asserts that this interaction could explain a 2002–2006 sweetheart deal, a prison-cell cover-up, and why Epstein’s tapes went missing, with Fed seizure of tapes and only madam Ghislaine Maxwell arrested since then.
There are testimonies about Epstein’s access to sex tapes and the belief that the CIA possesses them and has used them for blackmail, including “hours of video” from Epstein Island, the Manhattan townhouse, the Palm Beach estate, and a New Mexico ranch. Bill Clinton is said to have flown on Epstein’s plane multiple times and to have been close friends with him.
Separately, Epstein is described as obsessed with transhumanism and life-extension technologies. The New Mexico ranch is claimed to be a base for impregnating women to seed humanity, with allegations of 20 women pregnant at once, and an 8,000-square-foot underground level at Zoro Ranch. A submarine license allegedly held by Ghislaine Maxwell and transport to Epstein Island via underwater submarine port is mentioned, as is proximity to a US military submarine base near St. Thomas and Water Island, owned by Joe Biden’s brother.
The transcript also references various other strange claims: Epstein’s dinners with tech elites such as Bill Gates and attempted contacts with Elon Musk; a controversial SCNT discussion about using the DNA of “curvy, sexy black women from Africa”; questions about missing or underground locations for children; and a closing note that people may be acting under orders or threats related to tapes.
Overall, the piece presents a tapestry of alleged high-level connections, missing evidence, blackmail material, and conspiratorial episodes surrounding Epstein and his network.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein was arrested. So why do we still know nothing about him? Well, we're finding out tonight some answers. The Wall Street Journal just got its hands on Jeffrey Epstein's private calendar, And it was a lot more suspicious than Brett Kavanaugh's. Epstein was meeting with the kind of people you'd think would steer clear of a convicted pedophile.
Jeffrey Epstein was meeting with one of Barack Obama's top lawyers, Catherine Rumler. She met with Epstein dozens of times. Epstein even tried to set up Obama's lawyer to work for Bill Gates. How is Jeffrey Epstein a fixer between Obama's lawyer and Bill Gates? Epstein was also meeting with Joe Biden's CIA director.
He wasn't CIA director at the time. He was Barack Obama's deputy secretary of state. William Burns was working for John Kerry at the State Department and meeting with Jeffrey Epstein, a known pedophile. And then Burns becomes CIA director. Today's director of the CIA went to Epstein's Manhattan townhouse where Epstein had sex with underage girls and you know, where he filmed other men having sex with underage girls.
And William Burns went there and was then promoted to the director of the CIA. Now I wonder if the future CIA director saw the portrait of Bill Clinton in a blue dress hanging in Epstein's parlor room. A few years later, Epstein was arrested and then hung himself in a jail cell while security cameras just happened to not be working and the replacement guards just happened to fall asleep. And two years later, Biden just happens to pick William Burns to run the CIA. So what are we supposed to think?
It's never been more clear. Epstein was an intelligence asset. Not only was he working for the CIA, Israeli intelligence, maybe even Russia intelligence. So is the American government allowing an asset to traffic and molest teenage girls all over the world for intelligence? Are we allowing Epstein to commit crimes against children for blackmail material?
Well, we asked the CIA director William Burns, you know, why were you meeting with a convicted pedophile at his disgusting townhouse? And the CIA director said this, the director did not know anything about him other than that he was introduced as an expert in the financial services sector and offered general advice on transition to the private sector. They had no relationship. So Obama's State Department official couldn't have asked anybody else in the entire country for help with a job in finance. He could have called any CEO, any hedge fund manager, any banking director.
But he meets with Jeffrey Epstein, a guy that doesn't even really have a real business, a guy that doesn't even have a website, a guy that is, far as we know, only had one client, The CEO of Victoria's Secret. That doesn't add up, Burnsy. And this explains the sweetheart deal back in 02/2006. This explains the prison cell cover up. And this explains why all the Epstein tapes went missing.
Everything Epstein recorded, everything missing, every property he owned. But when he died, the Fed seized all the tapes and the only person who's ever been arrested since then was the madam Maxwell.
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein found me almost immediately. He knew exactly where I was, the location, and I knew then that I was being phoned. I was being watched twenty four seven. There were cameras all over the island.
Speaker 0: So the CIA has all the sex tapes and they've been blackmailing like crazy. This is the blackmail jackpot. Hours of video starring the world's most important people in Epstein Island, in the Manhattan townhouse, in the Palm Beach Estate, in the New Mexico ranch. Bill Clinton was good pals with Jeffrey. Flew on the Lolita Express 26 times, went to his private island.
Speaker 2: Epstein was transfixed with transhumanism and life extension technologies. Epstein's sprawling ranch in New Mexico, which was pedantically maintained by staff, appeared to have one main bizarre function, to serve as a baby making facility where Epstein would attempt to help foster his dream of, quote, seeding the human race with his DNA by impregnating women. According to the New York Times, mister Epstein told scientists and businessmen about his ambitions to use his New Mexico ranch as a base where women would be inseminated with his sperm and would give birth to his babies. Epstein's goal was to have 20 women impregnated at a time at the 33 square foot ranch.
Speaker 3: Dulce, New Mexico is 170 kilometers from the four corners. Dulce is two sixty kilometers from Scientology's heavily guarded underground Trementina base. And Dulce is 200 kilometers from Jeffrey Epstein's Zoro Ranch, which is known to have an 8,000 square foot underground level and is rumored to lead even deeper underground. According to several prominent scientists who Jeffrey Epstein had as guests, Epstein hoped to seed the human race after a cataclysm by impregnating 20 women at a time at the Zoro Ranch. Ghislain Maxwell had a submarine license and was known to transport people to Epstein Island through an underwater submarine port.
The US military built a submarine base on Saint Thomas Island, which is just 13 kilometers from Epstein Island. And right next to this submarine base is Water Island, owned by Joe Biden's brother and their business associate. In a recent interview on Iconic, Juliet Bryant, who was kidnapped by Jeffrey Epstein for two years, but she did wake up once paralyzed on a lab table and witnessed Epstein shape shift into something else.
Speaker 4: You know, and I still want to know why because I was taken there's a lot more weird stuff going on because there's something else that they were doing.
Speaker 2: This is why since the early two thousands, Epstein became obsessed with ingratiating himself with the technological and scientific elite. The sex magic rituals performed by Epstein and his coconspirators weren't just about fulfilling their perverted sexual fantasies. They were also part of the occult belief that absorbing psychosexual energy from victims would actually make them live longer. Bizarre beyond belief. I know how crazy it sounds.
But the life extension angle with Epstein was literally reported by the New York Times. No one's talking about any of that, though. No one's talking about the missing blackmail material from Epstein's mansion. Questions also continue to swirl over the weirder proclivities of what Epstein and his elite cohorts were really up to. We know that Epstein was obsessed with trying to groom the tech elite.
His infamous dinners with Bill Gates.
Speaker 4: What did you know about him when you were meeting with him?
Speaker 0: You know, I had dinners with him. I regret doing that.
Speaker 2: He also tried to cozy up to Elon Musk, inviting him to his mansion. But Musk immediately got the heebie jeebies and decided to steer well clear.
Speaker 5: The stem cell technology that Peter and I are investing in is called SCNT, which takes the egg of a young, perfect, woman specimen, takes the egg and takes out the nucleus and puts our DNA in the nucleus because we're take it out. It's egg white? The thing is the Yeah. And this is part of this genetic greatness that we don't see in any other race on the planet. These curvy, sexy black women from Africa.
You girls have a kind of a monopoly on this genetic perfection and we want some of that. Where
Speaker 6: are the 500,000 to a million unaccompanied children? Where in the hell are these kids? In one place, I have been told that we need to start looking, and it made perfect sense when and I didn't even think of it. A lot of people are saying, you need to start looking underground. I'm like, what do you mean underground?
Well, JJ, there's whole tunnels, underground tunnels. There's underground spaces, living places. Where do you hide children? You have to hide them out of sight.
Speaker 0: So when someone does something that doesn't make any sense, maybe it's because they don't want to be doing what they're doing. Maybe it's because someone's telling them what to do and threatening to release the tapes if they don't.
reSee.it AI Summary
I question why the Clintons flew straight from the White House to Epstein’s Zorro Ranch with no Secret Service, and what business a sitting president and first lady had there. Epstein boasted about seeding the human race; survivors allege an 8,000 sq ft underground facility for disturbing experiments. This goes beyond blackmail or politics—human experimentation, cloning, and occult ties to the Kabbalah are claimed. Some say $21 trillion funds DUMBs and underground bases. Follow my Telegram.
@17QStorm - QThestorm
Why were the CLINTONS flying straight from the White House to Epstein’s ZORRO RANCH — a secluded compound in the middle of the desert — with no Secret Service escort? What business did a sitting president and first lady have at a known pedoph*le’s ranch, cut off from civilization? Epstein openly bragged about wanting to “seed the human race,” and survivors have testified about a massive underground facility beneath the ranch — roughly 8,000 square feet — where disturbing “experiments” and ritualistic acts allegedly took place. This was never just about blackmail or politics. It went far deeper — into human experimentation, genetic manipulation, and the dark obsession of elite circles with defying time itself. You can’t buy time. But they were certainly trying. Epstein’s network was obsessed with “perfecting” human life through stem cell research, cloning, and other methods that most can’t even imagine. And for those wondering what guided these beliefs — Epstein himself studied and practiced occult mysticism tied to the Kabbalah. Draw your own conclusions from that. Meanwhile, over $21 trillion has “vanished” from the U.S. budget — with insiders claiming large portions funded D.U.M.B.s (Deep Underground Military Bases) and subterranean facilities worldwide. Out of sight. Out of mind. Perfect cover for anything too dark for daylight. It’s time to start asking why so much is hidden underground. Because the truth isn’t just dark — it’s buried. Follow my Telegram for more drops! https://t.me/+RXtopMt9TUozZTJk Follow @17QStorm
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript centers on a cascade of allegations and connections surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, his alleged role as an intelligence asset, and the supposed cover-ups and blackmail implications tied to his network.
- The Wall Street Journal obtained Epstein’s private calendar, which allegedly shows meetings with high-profile figures who might be expected to steer clear of a convicted pedophile. Notably, Epstein met with Catherine Rumler, one of Barack Obama’s top lawyers, who met with Epstein dozens of times and Epstein even tried to arrange for Rumler to work for Bill Gates. The question raised is how Epstein could be a “fixer” between Obama’s lawyer and Gates.
- Epstein also met with William Burns, who was Barack Obama’s deputy secretary of state at the time and later became CIA director. Burns, at the time, was working for John Kerry at the State Department. The transcript notes that Burns then became CIA director, and that the CIA director attended Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse where Epstein allegedly had sex with underage girls and where other men were filmed having sex with underage girls.
- The piece suggests Epstein was connected to multiple intelligence circles (the CIA, Israeli intelligence, perhaps Russian intelligence) and questions whether the American government allowed Epstein to traffic and molest teenage girls for blackmail material. It quotes the CIA director, William Burns, saying he met with Epstein only as someone “introduced as an expert in the financial services sector,” offering general advice on private-sector transitions, and asserts there was no relationship.
- The discussion implies a sweetheart deal in 2002-2006, a prison-cell cover-up, and missing Epstein tapes, with the claim that everything Epstein recorded and all his properties went missing, while the Federal Reserve seized the tapes after Epstein’s death. It notes the only person arrested since then was the madam Maxwell.
- A respondent, identified as Speaker 1, describes Epstein finding her almost immediately and knowing exactly where she was, suggesting she was being watched by cameras on Epstein’s island, townhouse, and other properties.
- The narrative asserts that the CIA has the sex tapes and has used them for blackmail, labeling it a “blackmail jackpot” that includes hours of video from Epstein Island, the Manhattan townhouse, the Palm Beach estate, and the New Mexico ranch. It mentions Bill Clinton as a longtime associate who flew on the Lolita Express 26 times and visited Epstein’s private island.
- Epstein’s preoccupations with transhumanism and life-extension technologies are discussed. At Epstein’s New Mexico ranch, it’s alleged he intended to seed the human race by impregnating women, with claims reported by the New York Times that he wanted to use the ranch as a base where women would be inseminated with his sperm, aiming for 20 impregnations at a time.
- The Dulce, New Mexico reference places Epstein near a rumored underground complex and connects Ghislain Maxwell to a submarine license, allegedly transporting people to Epstein Island via an underwater port. The proximity of a U.S. military submarine base on Saint Thomas Island and Water Island (owned by Joe Biden’s brother) is noted.
- The piece mentions Epstein’s efforts to ingratiate himself with tech elites, including Bill Gates and attempts to court Elon Musk, who reportedly declined after feeling uneasy.
- It also raises questions about the whereabouts of 500,000 to a million unaccompanied children, suggesting underground tunnels and hidden spaces as potential refuges.
- The closing line suggests that if someone does something that doesn’t make sense, it may be because they are being told what to do and threatened with the release of tapes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein was arrested. So why do we still know nothing about him? Well, we're finding out tonight some answers. The Wall Street Journal just got its hands on Jeffrey Epstein's private calendar, and it was a lot more suspicious than Brett Kavanaugh's. Epstein was meeting with the kind of people you'd think would steer clear of a convicted pedophile.
Jeffrey Epstein was meeting with one of Barack Obama's top lawyers, Catherine Rumler. She met with Epstein dozens of times. Epstein even tried to set up Obama's lawyer to work for Bill Gates. How is Jeffrey Epstein a fixer between Obama's lawyer and Bill Gates? Epstein was also meeting with Joe Biden's CIA director.
He wasn't CIA director at the time. He was Barack Obama's deputy secretary of state. William Burns was working for John Kerry at the state department and meeting with Jeffrey Epstein, a known pedophile. And then Burns becomes CIA director. Today's director of the CIA went to Epstein's Manhattan townhouse where Epstein had sex with underage girls and you know, where he filmed other men having sex with underage girls.
And William Burns went there and was then promoted to the director of the CIA. Now I wonder if the future CIA director saw the portrait of Bill Clinton in a blue dress hanging in Epstein's parlor room. A few years later, Epstein was arrested and then hung himself in a jail cell while security cameras just happened to not be working and the replacement guards just happened to fall asleep. And two years later, Biden just happens to pick William Burns to run the CIA. So what are we supposed to think?
It's never been more clear. Epstein was an intelligence asset. Not only was he working for the CIA, Israeli intelligence, maybe even Russia intelligence. So was the American government allowing an asset to traffic and molest teenage girls all over the world for intelligence? Are we allowing Epstein to commit crimes against children for blackmail material?
Well, we asked the CIA director William Burns, you know, why were you meeting with a convicted pedophile at his disgusting townhouse? And the CIA director said this, the director did not know anything about him other than that he was introduced as an expert in the financial services sector and offered general advice on transition to the private sector. They had no relationship. So Obama's State Department official couldn't have asked anybody else in the entire country for help with a job in finance. He could have called any CEO, any hedge fund manager, any banking director.
But he meets with Jeffrey Epstein, a guy that doesn't even really have a real business, a guy that doesn't even have a website, a guy that is, far as we know, only had one client, the CEO of Victoria's Secret. That doesn't add up, Burnsy. And this explains the sweetheart deal back in 02/2006. This explains the prison cell cover up. And this explains why all the Epstein tapes went missing.
Everything Epstein recorded, everything missing, every property he owned. But when he died the Fed seized all the tapes and the only person who's ever been arrested since then was the madam Maxwell.
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein found me almost immediately. He knew exactly where I was, the location, and I knew then that I was being phoned. I was being watched twenty four seven. There were cameras all over the island.
Speaker 0: So the CIA has all the sex tapes and they've been blackmailing like crazy. This is the blackmail jackpot. Hours of video starring the world's most important people in Epstein Island, in the Manhattan townhouse, in the Palm Beach Estate, in the New Mexico ranch. Bill Clinton was good pals with Jeffrey. Flew on the Lolita Express 26 times, went to his private island.
Speaker 2: Epstein was transfixed with transhumanism and life extension technologies. Epstein's sprawling ranch in New Mexico, which was pedantically maintained by staff, appeared to have one main bizarre function, to serve as a baby making facility where Epstein would attempt to help foster his dream of, quote, seeding the human race with his DNA by impregnating women. According to the New York Times, mister Epstein told scientists and businessmen about his ambitions to use his New Mexico ranch as a base where women would be inseminated with his sperm and would give birth to his babies. Epstein's goal was to have 20 women impregnated at a time at the 33,000 square foot ranch.
Speaker 3: Dulce, New Mexico is a 170 kilometers from the four corners. Dulce is 260 kilometers from Scientology's heavily guarded underground Trementina base. And Dulce is 200 kilometers from Jeffrey Epstein's Zoro Ranch, which is known to have an 8,000 square foot underground level and is rumored to lead even deeper underground. According to several prominent scientists who Jeffrey Epstein had as guests, Epstein hoped to seed the human race after a cataclysm by impregnating 20 women at a time at the Zoro Ranch. Ghislain Maxwell had a submarine license and was known to transport people to Epstein Island through an underwater submarine port.
The US military built a submarine base on Saint Thomas Island, which is just 13 kilometers from Epstein Island. And right next to this submarine base is Water Island, owned by Joe Biden's brother and their business associate. In a recent interview on Iconic, Juliet Bryant, who was kidnapped by Jeffrey Epstein for two years, but she did wake up once paralyzed on a lab table and witnessed Epstein shape shift into something else.
Speaker 4: You know, and I still want to know why exactly I was taken there because there's a lot more weird stuff going on because so there's something else that they were doing.
Speaker 2: This is why since the early two thousands, Epstein became obsessed with ingratiating himself with the technological and scientific elite. The sex magic rituals performed by Epstein and his coconspirators weren't just about fulfilling their perverted sexual fantasies. They were also part of the occult belief that absorbing psychosexual energy from victims would actually make them live longer. Bizarre beyond belief. I know how crazy it sounds.
But the life extension angle with Epstein was literally reported by the New York Times. No one's talking about any of that, though. No one's talking about the missing blackmail material from Epstein's mansion. Questions also continue to swirl over the weirder proclivities of what Epstein and his elite cohorts were really up to. We know that Epstein was obsessed with trying to groom the tech elite.
His infamous dinners with Bill Gates.
Speaker 0: What did you know about him when you were meeting with him? You You know, I had dinners with him. I regret doing that.
Speaker 2: He also tried to cozy up to Elon Musk, inviting him to his mansion. But Musk immediately got the heebie jeebies and decided to steer well clear.
Speaker 5: Stem cell technology that Peter and I are investing in is called SCNT, which takes the egg of a young, perfect, woman specimen. Takes the egg and takes out the nucleus and puts our DNA in the nucleus it is going to take it out.
Speaker 4: It's painful, right? It it leaves
Speaker 5: us Yeah. And this is part of this genetic greatness that we don't see in any other race on the planet. These curvy, sexy, black woman from Africa. You girls have a kind of a monopoly on this genetic perfection, and we want some of that.
Speaker 6: Where are the 500,000 to a million unaccompanied children? Where in the hell are these kids? In one place, I have been told that we need to start looking, and it made perfect sense when and I didn't even think of it. A lot of people are saying, you need to start looking underground. I'm like, what do you mean underground?
Well, JJ, there's whole tunnels. Underground tunnels. There's underground spaces, living places. Where do you hide children? You have to hide them out of sight.
Speaker 0: So when someone does something that doesn't make any sense, maybe it's because they don't wanna be doing what they're doing. Maybe it's because someone's telling them what to do and threatening to release the tapes if they don't.
Join group chat on Telegram
t.me
@tomselliott - Tom Elliott
Despite @HillaryClinton insisting she never met Epstein, Alan Dershowitz says Epstein is the one who conceived & structured the Clinton Global Initiative. https://t.co/YgmkzSw8FF
@merlinscapital - Merlin Capital 🧙♂️
EPSTEIN KILLED THE SCIENTIST WHO FIGURED OUT UNLIMITED FREE ENERGY VIA EPSTEIN FILES https://t.co/NaCpNFlFbk
