Episode 321 – Why Big Oil Conquered the World

10/06/201799 Comments

The 20th century was the century of oil. From farm to fork, factory to freeway, there is no aspect of our modern life that has not been shaped by the oil industry. But as the “post-carbon” era of the 21st century comes into view, there are those who see this as the end of the oiligarchy. They couldn’t be more wrong. This is the remarkable true story of the world that Big Oil is creating, and how they plan to bring it about.

CLICK HERE for the full video and transcript of both How Big Oil Conquered the World and Why Big Oil Conquered the World

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download)

 

INTRODUCTION

At the dawn of the 20th century, a new international order was emerging. One founded on oil. And by the end of the 20th century, that order was firmly established. Heating. Transportation. Industrial power. Plastic manufacturing. Pharmaceuticals. There is no facet of modern life that is not, one way or another, dependent on oil.

But the rulers of this oiligarchy — the Rockefellers at Standard Oil, the British royals at BP, the Dutch royals and the Rothschilds at Royal Dutch Shell — were not content with mere financial domination. The power that came with their near-total monopoly on the world’s most important commodity was enormous, and they had no qualms about using that power to re-make the world in their image.

As we saw in How Big Oil Conquered the World, the impact of the oiligarchs has been breathtaking. From the education system to the medical profession, from the “Green Revolution” “Gene Revolution,” from World War to the Gulf War, oil money has been used to shape every aspect of the world we live in. With the rise of the petrodollar in the 1970s, even the international monetary system itself rests on oil.

But now, in the 21st century, it seems that the old order, the oil order, is finally coming to an end.

Amy Goodman: We begin looking at a new milestone in the growing campaign for divestment from the gas, oil and coal companies that are fueling climate change. May Boeve, Executive Director of 350.org, made the announcement just before our broadcast today.

May Boeve: Today we’re announcing that as of today total divestment commitments have passed the $3.4 trillion mark. That’s $3.4 trillion of assets under management now fossil free.

SOURCE: Is Oil & Gas the New Tobacco? Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement Reaches New Milestone – Democracy Now!

Robert Dudley: In the oil and gas sector, we recognize the contribution of our activities and products to greenhouse gas emissions. Which is why the OGCI [Oil and Gas Climate Initiative] was setup.

SOURCE: OCGI invests in innovative low emissions technologies

Narrator #1: What began as a movement on US college campuses has reached the skyscrapers of high-finance.

Narrator #2: Globally nearly 200 institutions and thousands of individuals have moved a total of $50 billion in assets away from fossil fuels.

Divestment Activist: If we take our money, put it into renewable like solar panels, the world could be such a better place.

SOURCE: Global Divestment Day 2015

The masses, having identified the oiligarchs and their destructive grip on the planet, see Big Oil waning and have begun to celebrate. To them, the promise of a post-carbon future represents the end of the oiligarchy.

What many do not realize, however, is that the oil order was never about oil. The oiligarchs did not care about oil but control. And, having long outgrown their financial dependence on the commodity that brought them their power and riches, they are at the forefront of this push for the post-carbon era.

Now, the oiligarchs are seeking to bring in a new international order. One in which their control is consolidated, their plan complete, their power unquestionable. One in which every aspect of human life, from energy to money to the very genome itself, is precisely ordered and technologically controlled.

This is the story of what the oiligarchs really desire, and how they plan to achieve it.

PART ONE: THE RISE OF EUGENICS

DHAKA, 1963

It’s a day much like any other in Dhaka. The streets are crowded, dirty, squalid, smelly, and absolutely swarming with people. Lying in the streets. Coiled in the gutters. Into that swarm of people steps a most unlikely figure. Wearing his drip-dry suit and hugging his briefcase, he sticks out from the crowd. Surveying the scene, he shakes his head ever so slightly before remarking, half to himself and half to his traveling companion, “Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it?”

It’s a scene that has played itself out many times: a Western tourist overwhelmed by the bustling crowds of the Indian subcontinent. But this was no mere tourist passing time on his holiday. This was John D. Rockefeller III, grandson of oil baron John D. Rockefeller. And, armed with the unimaginable wealth, power and influence that his family name bestowed on him, he was on a mission to do something about the “problem” of overpopulation.

Rockefeller approached that mission as a representative of the Population Council, a group that he himself had founded to address the “problem” in Dhaka and elsewhere. On its surface, the Population Council was a straightforward organization with a straightforward task: to support medical and scientific research into the question of the growing human population. But the dark history of the Council and its guiding philosophy reveal Rockefeller’s true interest in this “problem” and its ultimate “solution.”

John D. Rockefeller III — or JDR3, as he was known to the constellation of researchers, businessmen, politicians, diplomats and royals in the orbit of the Rockefeller family — had decided early on how to make proper use of the formidable money and power at his disposal: by controlling the population of the planet. In 1934, the then-28-year-old JDR3 had written a letter to his father, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., about the Rockefeller Foundation’s research into “birth control and related questions,” declaring, “I have come pretty definitely to the conclusion that it is the field in which I will be interested, for the present at least, to concentrate my own giving.”

JDR3 was nothing if not a man of his word. After commissioning a Rockefeller Foundation fact-finding mission to Asia to report on the threat of the growing Third World population, he organized a conference of the top medical and demographic researchers of the era to discuss — as the very title of the meeting termed it — “population problems.” From that meeting emerged the idea for an organization, the Population Council, to guide the development of the burgeoning field of population and fertility research. JDR3 personally donated $1.35 million of his own money to found the Council and provide its initial operating expenses.

Like his father and grandfather before him, Rockefeller had learned to use philanthropy and largesse as a mask for his true intention: control. But that mask slipped when he penned a draft of the Council’s charter revealing the organization’s true purpose. The Council, according to JDR3, would “promote research and apply existing knowledge to help develop such changes in the attitudes, habits and environmental pressures affecting the life of human beings so that within every social and economic grouping parents who are above the average in intelligence, quality of personality and affection will tend to have larger than average families.”

Thomas Parran, the former Surgeon General of the United States and Council co-founder, warned against including such a blunt admission in the Council’s mission statement. “Such questions arise as the following,” he warned. “Who is to determine the ‘parents who are above average in…affection?’ […] Also, who would decide the persons having better than average personality? Frankly, the implications of this, while I know they were intended to have a eugenic implication, could readily be misunderstood as a Nazi master race philosophy. I have, therefore, recast this paragraph.”

The line was dropped from the final version of the charter.

In truth, however, that sentence had not been written by JDR3 himself. Instead, it had been copied word for word from the back cover of Eugenical News, the central publication of the American eugenics movement. This was no mere accident. Frederick Osborne, one of the co-founders of the Council and its first president after Rockefeller stepped down in 1957, was also the president of the American Eugenics Society. When the Population Council was founded, both Osborne and the American Eugenics Society he directed formally moved its operations into the Council’s New York office, with the eugenics society now taking its funding directly from Rockefeller’s Population Council grant. The Population Council was the Eugenics Society under another name.

Eugenics. This was the guiding vision of JDR3 and the Rockefeller family’s “philanthropy.” A vision that cast the Rockefellers and their fellow oiligarchs as superior families, fit, by very virtue of their wealth and success, to guide the course of world events. The power to determine who was fit to breed and who was too poor to pass on their genes.

Joe Plummer: Eugenics is basically a movement among the elite to eradicate what they deem the inferior classes, and that’s the inferior social classes, racial classes, ethnic classes. More or less everyone who isn’t up to their standards. And after eradicating those classes, what they aim to do is genetically engineer themselves to such a high level that the remaining population that they permit to exist beneath them will never have the power to overthrow them, essentially. The end of history.

So, the term itself was coined by Galton and it essentially means “well-born.” The idea is kind of a mix of a bunch of ideas that were circulating around the 1850s. So if you go back to, say, Mendel, Mendel was studying hereditary characteristics in pea plants. And he was able to determine that certain characteristics were being passed on and that these things could be determined and essentially predicted.

And almost at the same time, now you have Spencer, who was talking about the “survival of the fittest,” with the same kind of idea, the same thread running through there. That there are genetic characteristics that exist that would make one species, one plant or animal more fit than another, and more capable of surviving.

Also, of course, you had Darwin. Darwin’s work at the time, Origin of Species, kind of maps this process by which genetic material is passed along and, you know, evolution results through this process.

So Galton is essentially taking all of these ideas, and he was kind of known for observing and identifying patterns. And what he essentially did was [he] started to come up with this idea that through studying human characteristics they could, if they chose to, breed superior human beings.

Obsessed with breeding and family heredity, the eugenicists believed that it was not merely physical characteristics like weight or height that were determined by one’s family line, but social characteristics, like intelligence or conscientiousness or even criminality. If you are poor, it’s because you come from poor stock. If you’re criminal, it’s because your family line is criminal. And if you’re a Rockefeller or a Rothschild or a royal, you are rich and successful because your family was destined for fortune and success.

The pseudoscientific trappings of the 19th century eugenic philosophy may have been new, but in fact the idea is as old as human civilization itself. People have always been taught to believe that their rulers are special, a class apart, members of a family specially chosen to rule over the masses. Whether literal descendants of the gods, like the Pharoahs of Egypt or the Emperors of Japan, or members of families specially chosen by god to reign over their kingdoms, like the monarchs of Europe, the right to rule over others was something passed down through family trees. The commoners, meanwhile, knew their place; not being born of royal blood, they entered the world as serfs, worked the land for the benefit of the noble class, and, if they were lucky, had children of their own to repeat the cycle for another generation.

But the breakdown of medieval feudalism gave rise to a newly-wealthy merchant class. The development of the scientific method challenged centuries of religious dogma. The spread of Enlightenment philosophy to the toppling of monarchs and the rise of democracy. And the industrial revolution paved the way for the rise of the robber barons and the creation of vast new family fortunes.

By the late 19th century, as the oiligarchs in America and Europe began to consolidate their wealth, a new justification for elite rule of society was needed. One that discarded outdated appeals to supernatural order and seemed to rest on a bedrock of science. An idea that could explain how nouveau riche upstarts like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds had risen to positions of prominence in society alongside the old royal dynasties of Europe.

Eugenics fit the bill perfectly. The answer was in their genes.

Richard Grove: Well, I think this eugenic idea that comes about from “survival of the fittest” almost gives a scientific excuse for some of the most inhumane and horrific actions that have ever been journeyed by humanity and then manifested. So the idea of controlling people through controlling reproduction, reproductive capability and access to mates and stuff like this is an idea that’s thousands of years old.

So eugenics […] came around in a strong form in the late 1800s, where you’ve got people like the Darwins, the Wedgwoods and the Huxleys — specifically Thomas H. Huxley, known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog.’ So these ideas of eugenics really take on a new life of their own at the end of the 1800s, and coming into the 1900s, these ideas were embraced by the same families that were these robber barons that were being funded by [the] Rothschild banking network, also the Fabian socialist society, which again had a lot of the same movers and shakers as these people who were higher-ups in the British empire.

So […] it reared its head in the 1920s and 1930s in these forced sterilization campaigns, where if they thought you had a low IQ or if you had some congenital disease that would be passed on, then you didn’t have the right to marry and have children.

Eugenics, of course, was pseudoscience. When Galton and his fellow travelers began developing the theory, the identification of the actual mechanism of heredity, including genes and DNA, was nearly 100 years away. Instead, they used catch-all terms with no definition — like “feeble-mindedness” to diagnose poverty or criminality, claiming it was caused by “defective germ plasm.” They used phrenology to try to determine the physical expression of alcoholism or low intelligence. Even the most famous works of the eugenics era, like Henry Goddard’s study of the Kallikak family, were roundly discredited and even repudiated by their authors.

Joe Plummer: So it’s 100% pseudo-scientific. It’s absolutely arbitrary, the characteristics that they’re looking for. Something like feeble-mindedness is something that is not only not scientific, it can essentially be described in any way by the person observing wants it to be described. So feeble-minded could mean that maybe you stutter so then you’re feeble-minded maybe, or you’re shy so you’re feeble-minded. Maybe they just don’t like the way you act so you’re feeble-minded.

But the idea was an infectious one. Like all the most enticing pseudoscience, it explained so much with so little effort. It appealed to the vanity of the researchers, usually hailing from successful and wealthy families themselves. And it gave an excuse for social engineering on a scale never before dreamed of.

When eugenics crossed the Atlantic, spreading from the rarefied British countryside of Galton and his cohorts to the rocky shores of America, it hit ambitious young researchers like Charles Davenport with hurricane force. A Harvard-trained zoologist who had grown up in a strict, puritanical family of New England Congregationalists, Davenport’s authoritarian father was obsessed with genealogy, tracing the family tree all the way back to his Anglo-Saxon forebears in 1086. When the younger Davenport discovered Galton’s writing while working at a biological laboratory on Long Island, he found his purpose in life. As he later told the American Breeders Association, which became an important ally in his eugenicist cause: “Society must protect itself; as it claims the right to deprive the murderer of his life, so also it may annihilate the hideous serpent of hopelessly vicious protoplasm.”

With the proselytizing fervour of a religious convert, Davenport concocted an ambitious idea for furthering the eugenic cause: the creation of a Eugenics Record Office to register the genetic background of every single man, woman and child in America (and, eventually, the world), so that every person could be categorized by their family line and assigned a genetic rating. Once completed, those with the lowest eugenic value could be eliminated from the gene pool.

Joe Plummer: So the idea of eugenics makes it way to America, lands in the lap of Charles Davenport, who approaches the Carnegie Institute for funding and on the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory they set up essentially an institute to study eugenics, and this eventually evolves with some Harriman money into the Eugenics Records Office. So between this initial institute that’s set up at Cold Spring Harbor and then the Eugenics Record Office, which is also added to that, you’re talking about millions and millions and millions of dollars of funding that’s put forward to go out and investigate and find the inferior “germ-plasm” — that’s how it’s often described.

The Rockefeller Foundation’s initial contribution to the Eugenics Record Office, a mere $21,650, was a small sum, but it came with clear benefits: not only the institutional infrastructure and the personnel of the Foundation and the prestige of the Rockefeller name itself, but the promise of increased support as the work advanced. And as always, the Rockefellers were true to their word.

Rockefeller Foundation researchers like William Welch, the founding director of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, sat on the ERO’s board and helped direct its activities. The Rockefellers also provided funds for specific research, like a $10,000 grant to survey New York’s Nassau County for the eugenically unfit. And it created sister organizations like the Bureau of Social Hygiene, which cross-pollinated research and researchers with Davenport’s own laboratory.

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. especially showed an interest in Davenport’s work right from the start. They kept up a regular correspondence on a number of eugenics issues. In January 1912, when a plan to institutionalize “mentally deficient” female convicts to stop them from having children was floated, the young Rockefeller heir wrote to Davenport for his thoughts on the scheme. For his part, Junior declared that “this plan seems to me an immensely important one. It points out a scientific way of escape from the evils which our courts are intended to correct but in reality only increase.” After Davenport responded that the plan would only work if it included a eugenical screening of the convicts, Junior contributed $200,000 to found just such an institute. The Institute of Criminology in New York was administered by Rockefeller’s own Bureau of Social Hygiene and staffed by workers trained at the Eugenics Record Office.

Fueled by the support of America’s rich and powerful, the field of eugenics transformed from the quaint hobbyhorse of a few mad scientists into the social cause of an entire generation. Economists, politicians, authors, activists — by the 1920s, everyone who was anyone was extolling the need to eradicate the germ-plasm of the lower stock.

Marie Stopes, the celebrated family planning pioneer who founded Britain’s first birth control clinic in North London in 1921, railed against “hordes of defectives,” calling for the compulsory sterilization of those she deemed “unfit for parenthood.”

Tommy Douglas, now venerated as a hero in Canada for his role in founding the nation’s health care system, submitted a Master’s thesis to McMaster University advocating that “subnormals,” “defectives” and “morons,” like those with low IQ or physical abnormalities, be isolated “on a state farm, or in a colony where decisions could be made for them by a competent supervisor,” and called on the government to certify “mental and physical fitness” to stop the “unfit” from breeding.

John Maynard Keynes, the economist who gave us the Keynesian economic school that is still popular among central planners today, was himself president of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944.

Alexander Graham Bell is still revered as the inventor of the telephone but was in fact an early supporter of Charles Davenport and a founding member of the Eugenic Records Office Board of Scientific Directors. He openly campaigned for the “eradication of the deaf race” by governments intervening to stop deaf people from marrying.

Nobel Prize-winning playwright and author George Bernard Shaw advocated for the creation of a government panel that would require everyone to justify their existence before it. If they failed to do so, Shaw thought those people should be killed by the state.

George Bernard Shaw: …But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. Not in any unkind or personal spirit, but it must be evident to all of you — you must all know half a dozen people, at least — who are no use in this world. Who are more trouble than they are worth. And I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly-appointed board, just as he might come before the income tax commissioner, and, say, every five years, or every seven years, just put him there, and say: “Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?” If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight because you won’t, if you’re not producing as much as you consume, or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of any much use.

SOURCE: George Bernard Shaw talking about capital punishment

Eventually, with foundation funding and promotion, this eugenicist mindset filtered down into the popular culture. The American Eugenics Society sponsored “fitter family contests” at state fairs, awarding prizes to families scoring the highest on “eugenic health” tests. The Society also sponsored contests to award prizes to clergy who fit the message of eugenics into their sermons. Eugenics even found its way to the silver screen:

We thought it necessary to present your family’s case to the state medical commission and after an examination they decided that there was one important action to take, to have your entire family sterilized.”

“Why, what’s that? I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

“Well, we investigated your family’s history, Alice, and most of the past 3 generations have been feeble-minded, congenital cripples or habitual drunkards. Instead of improving, each generation is more of a problem. Now in this state we have a law which provides for such people to have an operation so there won’t be any more children.”

“I see.”

SOURCE: Tomorrow’s Children

But merely popularizing their ideas was not the goal of the eugenicists. They wanted action. And in this case, that meant concrete steps toward eliminating the defective germ-plasm from the human population.

Government-sanctioned murder of those deemed unfit was always one option on the table. And it wasn’t just playwrights like Bernard Shaw advocating for government death panels; eugenicists of all stripes discussed and debated the idea of “murdering degenerates” as the quickest way of achieving their goals.

“Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community. The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race.” — Madison Grant, director of the American Eugenics Society, 1915

But mainstream eugenicists realized that this approach was not possible in the political and judicial climate of the day. As Henry Goddard noted in his infamous study on The Kallikak Family: “For the low-grade idiot, the loathsome unfortunate that may be seen in our institutions, some have proposed the lethal chamber. But humanity is steadily tending away from the possibility of that method, and there is no probability that it will ever be practiced.”

Instead, they would have to turn to the other option, the more politically acceptable solution for stopping the undesirables from breeding: forced sterilization.

Indiana passed America’s first eugenic sterilization law in 1907, and within only a few years there were a dozen states where those deemed “unfit” were being legally sterilized against their will. But still, this was not enough for the eugenicists. The approach was too scattershot: only a few thousand sterilizations had taken place under these laws, and Indiana’s own forced sterilization act was overturned by the state’s Supreme Court in 1921.

Once again, Harry Laughlin, Davenport’s right-hand man at the Rockefeller-funded Eugenics Records Office, stepped in to solve the problem. He drafted a “Model Eugenic Sterilization” law in 1922 that became the basis for Virginia’s 1924 sterilization act. To confront the issues head on, the eugenicists decided to challenge the law’s constitutionality themselves and take the lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court. All they needed was the right test case to bring to trial. And they found that case in Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old ward of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, who was neither epileptic nor feeble-minded.

Amy Goodman: But start back in the 1920s with Carrie Buck.

Adam Cohen: So she’s a young woman who is growing up in Charlottesville, Virginia, being raised by a single mother. Back then, there was a belief that it was better often to take poor children away from their parents and put them in middle-class homes. So she was put in a foster family that treated her very badly. She wasn’t allowed to call the parents “mother” and “father.” She did a lot of housekeeping for them and was rented out to the neighbors. And then, one summer, she was raped by the nephew of her foster mother. She becomes pregnant out of wedlock. And rather than help her with this pregnancy, they decide to get her declared epileptic and feeble-minded, though she was neither, and she’s shipped off to the Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded outside of Lynchburg, Virginia.

Goodman: And what happened to her there?

Cohen: So she gets there at just the wrong time. Virginia has just passed an eugenics sterilization law, and they want to test it in the courts. So they seize on Carrie Buck as the perfect plaintiff in this lawsuit. So they decide to make her the first person in Virginia who will be eugenically sterilized, and suddenly she’s in the middle of a case that’s headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

SOURCE: Buck v. Bell: Inside the SCOTUS Case That Led to Forced Sterilization of 70,000 & Inspired the Nazis

The case was a sham, concocted merely to get the Supreme Court’s stamp of approval on the issue of forced sterilization. Buck’s “independent counsel” was, in fact, Irving Whitehead, one of the founding directors of the colony that was pushing to sterilize her and the man who appointed the director that was pushing for her sterilization. Buck herself was not feeble-minded, nor was her mother, nor was her daughter, Vivian Buck, who Carrie bore as a result of being raped and who was declared “feeble-minded” as a baby, because, as a social worker testified during the trial, “There is a look about it that is not quite normal, but just what it is, I can’t tell.”

None of these facts mattered to the Supreme Court. Presided over by former President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft, the Court voted 8-to-1 in favor of upholding Buck’s forced sterilization and the constitutionality of the Virginia eugenics sterilization law itself. Writing the decision was one of the most famous and venerated Justices in the history of the court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., himself a eugenicist from the so-called “Boston Brahmin” sect of the hereditary East Coast establishment.

In his decision, Holmes justified the forced sterilization of those like Buck by calling on the government’s right to vaccinate its citizens against their will:

It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes,” he declared before infamously concluding: “ Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

And with that, the floodgates were opened. New laws were enacted and old laws revised to comport with the Supreme Court’s decision. Forcible sterilizations, taking place in a covert and low-key manner before, were now reported with pride. A few thousand individuals sterilized against their will became tens of thousands. The eugenics era, brought into being by the immense fortunes of the Rockefellers and their ilk, had arrived. And, with the aid of a very dramatic push by the Rockefellers, it was about to go international.

Beginning in November 1922 and increasingly throughout the 1920s, the Rockefeller Foundation began a series of grants and fellowships to German scientists. Equivalent to millions of dollars in today’s money, these fellowships transformed the German scientific establishment, devastated in the wake of World War I. The Foundation’s money found its way into the coffers of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes, a series of scientific organizations that included an Institute for Psychiatry and an Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics.

One of the main beneficiaries of this Rockefeller largesse was Ernst Rüdin, a head researcher at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and a key architect of Germany’s eugenics program under the Third Reich. Rüdin co-edited the official rules and commentary on the Law for the Prevention of Defective Progeny, which was passed on July 14, 1933, less than six months after Hitler was appointed interim chancellor by President Paul von Hindenburg. The law, like the Virginia law that the Supreme Court upheld and that led to the sterilization of Carrie Buck and tens of thousands of other Americans, was modeled on Harry Laughlin’s Model Eugenic Sterilization legislation. It formed “Genetic Health Courts” which could mandate sterilization of “defectives” in eight different categories: the feeble-minded, schizophrenics, manic depressives, sufferers of Huntington’s chorea, epileptics, those with hereditary deformities, the blind and the deaf. Alcoholics, a ninth category, were to be optionally added to the list, with a caution against inclusion of ordinary drunkards. By the end of the year, 62,400 Germans were found unfit to breed and sterilized against the will. By 1945, that number had reached 400,000.

In the 1940s, that eugenics program was to expand into euthanasia under the Aktion T4 program, resulting in over 70,000 children, senior citizens, and psychiatric patients being murdered by the Nazi regime.

As the dust settled on World War II, the name of “eugenics” became synonymous with the Nazis in the minds of the general public. The eugenicists, outraged, knew that their work could not continue any longer under the name of eugenics. But that didn’t mean that it couldn’t continue.

Richard Grove: So after World War II you don’t hear about it anymore as eugenics. What you hear is molecular biology, and these sorts of colloquial terms that were developed by the Rockefeller Foundation, which was one of the families primarily in America that was helping to fund it in America, in Britain, in Germany, who also funded Hitler during that time. So there’s a lot of overlaps between the people who were actually out there funding genocide and the people who had ideas about culling the population, population control and sterilizing people, and these ideas go on and permeate society to this day.

As American Eugenics Society co-founder Frederick Osborne wrote: “Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics.” Thus, he moved the American Eugenics Society into the offices of John D. Rockefeller III’s Population Council, becoming president in 1957.

The Rockefellers and their fellow oiligarchs had for generations felt themselves to be stewards of the planet, protecting it from the rising tide of the genetically inferior. They were not about to give up that quest. They would simply have to package it under a different name.

 

PART TWO: OILIGARCHS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

Maurice Strong: With all the evidence that we’ve amassed in our preparations for the Stockholm Conference, including the views of many of world’s leading scientists, I am convinced that the prophets of doom have got to be taken seriously. In other words, doomsday is a possibility. I am equally convinced that doomsday is not inevitable.”

SOURCE: Maurice Strong Interview (BBC 1972)

On paper, it would be almost impossible to find a less likely candidate for “Godfather” of the modern environmental movement than Maurice Strong. A junior high school dropout from a poor family in rural Manitoba struck hard by the great depression, Strong’s meteoric rise to the heights of wealth and political influence is itself remarkable. The sheer number of environmental organizations that he founded, conferences he chaired, campaigns he directed and accolades he received over the course of his career is even more remarkable: Organizer of the Stockholm Environmental Conference, founding director of the United Nations Environment Program, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, founder of the Earth Council and the Earth Charter movement, chair of the World Resources Institute, commissioner of the World Commission on Environment and Development, and board member of a bewildering array of organizations, from the International Institute for Sustainable Development to the Stockholm Environment Institute to the African-American Institute.

But perhaps the most remarkable thing about Strong, this ubiquitous figure of the 20th century environmental movement, was his background: a Rockefeller-connected millionaire from the Alberta oil patch who divided his time between environmental campaigning and running major oil companies.

To understand how this came about, we have to examine the history of the emergence of the environmental movement. In the post-war period, the desire to control the population put on a new mask: protecting the world from resource depletion, pollution and ecological catastrophe. And, as always, the Rockefeller family was there to provide the funding and organizational support to steer this burgeoning movement toward their own ends.

Raymond Burr: President Nixon and the United States Congress established the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. The chairman of this unique commission is John D. Rockefeller III.

John D. Rockefeller III: There’s a very broad-ranging mandate. Nobody’s had one of this character before and just from that this question of quality of life just emerged as the seemingly key issue.

Burr: But the main finding was that stabilization of some kind is clearly desirable for the country.

JDR3: Yes, we said that it is recognized that population cannot continue to grow indefinitely. Nobody question that and we said from our findings (that) we felt that now the nation should welcome and plan for a stabilized population. The whole question of pollution, environment and population came very much to the fore in amazingly rapid time and President Nixon in July of 1969 made a statement to the Congress exclusively on this question, and I’d like to read just two sentences from that statement, as I think it’s indicative of his concern in regard to the subject and his recognition of its importance here and around the world. He said, ‘One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man’s response to this challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today.’

SOURCE: Survival Of Spaceship Earth (1972)

Joining the Rockefellers in shaping the international environmental movement were their fellow oiligarchs across the Atlantic, including the British royals behind BP and the Dutch Royals behind Royal Dutch Shell. And facilitating the transition from eugenics to population control to environmentalism was Julian Huxley, brother of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley and grandson of “Darwin’s bulldog” T.H. Huxley.

Julian Huxley was a committed eugenicist, chairing the British Eugenics Society from 1959 to 1962. But, like the other eugenicists of the post-war era, he understood the need to pursue the now-discredited work of eugenics under a different guise. The founding director of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Huxley wrote in the agency’s founding document about the need to find ways to make the cause of eugenics politically viable once again:

“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Huxley found the perfect front for the re-introduction of those “unthinkable” eugenical ideas in 1948, when he used UNESCO as a springboard for founding the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and then again in 1961, when he used that agency as a springboard to create the World Wildlife Fund. Joining Huxley as co-founders of the fund were not only Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, founder of the Bilderberg Group and former employee of the IG Farben conglomerate, and Prince Philip of England, but Godfrey A. Rockefeller of the Rockefeller dynasty. Together, they pledged to “harness public opinion and educate the world about the necessity for conservation.”

Years of “education” about the strain that the growing human population put on the resources of the earth, paid for by the very oiligarchs who had just spent the past century monopolizing one of the world’s key resources, led, inevitably to a predictable conclusion:

Hugh Downs: Now for the first time in the history of man, an international movement is underway. The people of the nations and the nations of the world have joined together to find the answers. This building and the worlds representatives hold the solution. We’ve seen what we’ve done to bring about the destruction of our Earth. Is it not the time now to cure the disease that we ourselves have created?

SOURCE: Survival Of Spaceship Earth (1972)

Yes, the “cure” for the “disease” of mankind, according to Rockefeller-funded propaganda featuring John D. Rockefeller III as an expert commentator, was to be found at the United Nations, whose headquarters had been so graciously donated by the Rockefeller family itself. And the first step toward discovering that cure was to organize the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972, the world’s first international environmental conference.

Narrator: For 11 days in June 1972, Stockholm was a magnet for everyone concerned with the environment: 1,200 official delegates from 113 nations were in Stockholm for the 1st International Conference on the Human Environment. The meeting, first proposed to the United Nations by Sweden and approved by the General Assembly in 1968, attracted worldwide attention.

In four short years, the topic of the human environment had gone from the back pages of newspapers to make headlines on page 1.

SOURCE: 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Part 1)

And who better to oversee the conference and lay the institutional groundwork for this burgeoning, oiligarch-supported movement, than a consummate oil man?

Maurice Strong: The very fact that the conference began with 113 participating countries, with very high-level delegations from those countries, this in itself represented a very significant step forward. Because this demonstrated more than anything else the real concern of the majority of countries in the world.

SOURCE: 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Part 1)

All his life, Maurice Strong had the uncanny ability to be in the right place at the right time to meet the right person to advance up the ranks. Having been born in Oak Lake, Manitoba, in 1929, and suffering through the Great Depression, the ambitious young Strong dropped out of school at age 14 and headed north to look for work. Finding his way to Chesterfield Inlet, Strong got a job as a fur buyer for the Hudson’s Bay Company and there met “Wild” Bill Richardson, a prospector whose wife, Mary McColl, hailed from the family behind McColl-Frontenac, one of Canada’s largest oil companies.

Elaine Dewar: So, Mr. Strong enters the big world through a guy by the name of ‘Wild’ Bill Richardson, who was a sort of prospector married into an oil family called McColl whose company was called McColl-Frontenac. It was a major importer of oil from the Middle East that had been taken over long since by the Texaco Company through a brokerage house called Nesbitt Thomson. In a way, Mr. Strong was introduced to the world of Big Oil and the world of resources at a very young age. He was picked up as a very smart kid, taken under the wing of a man named Paul Martin Sr., who was a cabinet minister and whose son would go on to become the Prime Minister of Canada and introduced to the oil patch though people at the very top — and that would include David Rockefeller.

Through the Richardsons, Strong made a series of increasingly unlikely connections. First he was introduced to the Treasurer of the then-brand new United Nations, Noah Monod. Unbelievably, Monod didn’t just secure Strong a job as a junior security officer at UN headquarters, he allowed the young Manitoba farm boy to live with him in New York. And while there, Monod introduced Strong to the most important contact of his life, David Rockefeller.

From that moment on, Strong was a made man. And from that moment on, wherever Strong went, Rockefeller and his associates were there somewhere in the background.

It was a Standard Oil veteran, Jack Gallagher, who gave Strong his big break in the Alberta oil patch when he quit his UN security job to return to Canada. And when Maurice Strong suddenly decided to quit that oil patch job, sell his house, and travel to Africa, he supported himself working for Rockefeller’s CalTex in Nairobi.

When he quit that job in 1954 and started his own company back in Canada, he hired Henrie Brunie (a close friend of Rockefeller associate John J. McCloy) to manage it, and appointed two Standard Oil of New Jersey reps to its board. By his late 20s he was running his own company and was already a millionaire.

As he would throughout his life, Maurice Strong capitalized on these connections and opportunities to full effect. After being chosen to organize the UN environmental conference in Stockholm, he was appointed a Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, which then funded his office for the Stockholm summit and supplied Carnegie Fellow Barbara Ward and Rockefeller ecologist Rene Dubos for his team. Strong commissioned them to write “Only One Earth,” a foundational text in the sustainable development arena that is heavily touted by globalists as a key document for promoting the global management of resources.

The 1972 Stockholm summit is still hailed as a landmark moment in the history of the modern environmental movement, leading not only to the first governmentally-administered environmental action plans in Europe but the creation of an entirely new UN bureaucracy: the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Naturally, the UN appointed Maurice Strong as UNEP’s first director.

Shortly thereafter, Strong continued his double life by jumping straight back into the oil patch.

Eastern Canada was hit particularly hard by the OPEC oil embargo, and as a result then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau created PetroCanada, Canada’s national oil company. And who did he tap as the company’s first president? None other than that crusading Rockefeller-backed “environmentalist,” Maurice Strong.

Leaving that post in 1978, Strong continued with a scarcely believable series of governmental, private sector and international appointments, from Chairman of the Canada Development Investment Corporation to Chairman of AZL Resources Incorporated to leading the UN’s famine relief program in Africa.

In 1987, Strong helped to organize another environmental conference, much less known but no less remarkable than the Stockholm summit. Dubbed the 4th World Wilderness Congress, the meeting took place in Denver, Colorado, and brought together Strong, David Rockefeller, Edmond de Rothschild, then-Treasury Secretary James Baker, and a gaggle of other oiligarchs, bankers, Washington power players and globalists, ostensibly to talk about the environment. What they actually discussed was altogether more incredible:

DAVID LANG: I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process. That would take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth. We have to take almost an elitist program, [so] that we can see beyond our swollen bellies, and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood, or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition.

SOURCE: UN UNCED Earth Summit 1992 by George Hunt

Those were the words of David Lang, a banker from Montreal who spoke during the conference. And to Lang, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and the other bankers and oiligarchs assembled at the meeting, the general population are “cannon fodder” that “unfortunately […] populates the earth.” This candid admission, a perfect encapsulation of the eugenical ideas at the heart of the global conservation movement funded into existence by the oiligarchs themselves, was caught on tape by George Hunt, a businessman in Boulder, Colorado, who had volunteered to help the conference as a concerned citizen and came away horrified by what he had witnessed there. He released his own recordings of the proceedings in the early 1990s to warn the public about this group and its ultimate aims.

Hunt’s recording captured the moment when Maurice Strong introduced Baron Edmond de Rothschild — whose father’s cousin had sold the Rothschild’s Azerbaijani oil fields to Royal Dutch Shell in 1911 — as a pioneer of the environmental movement and a founder of the concept of “conservation banking.”

Maurice Strong: One of the most important initiatives that is open here for your consideration is that of the conservation banking program. As we mentioned this morning, we have, as our chairman, fortunately, the person who really is the source of this very significant concept. He was/is one of the trustees of the International Wilderness Foundation, which sponsored this meeting. He was at the first of these conferences. So his conversion to the relationship between conservation and economic development has been a pioneering one. So there is no better person. He epitomizes in his own life that positive synthesis between environment, conservation on the one hand and economics on the other, and I’m just delighted to have this opportunity of introducing to you Edmond de Rothschild.

Edmond de Rothschild: “Maurice, thank you very much indeed for all that you’ve said, and I would ask the audience to take with a slight grain of salt all that he has said about me.”

SOURCE: UN UNCED Earth Summit 1992 by George Hunt

The meeting accomplished some important goals for the oiligarchs. It led to the creation of “Wilderness Areas,” vast expanses of natural terrain from which the public could be largely excluded. These areas were to be designated and overseen by the IUCN, the same body that British Eugenics Society president Julian Huxley used as a springboard to creating the World Wildlife Fund.

Another important goal of the conference was Rothschild’s proposal for the creation of a so-called “World Conservation Bank” that would operate at a supra-national level and coordinate finance for development projects around the world.

Edmond de Rothschild: The meetings now over the concept of an international conservation banking program involve all sectors of the human community: Governmental and inter-governmental agencies, the public and private agencies, large charitable foundations, as well as ordinary individuals worldwide. By thinking forward as to how to reach out to the public at large, to every corporate entity throughout the world to put aside, hopefully tax-free, a part of their profits to fund our ecological and environmental protection.

Ladies and gentlemen, every country has its own problems, its indigenous peoples and its wildlife. This international conservation bank must know no frontiers, no boundaries.”

SOURCE: UN UNCED Earth Summit 1992 by George Hunt

This world conservation bank was forwarded and eventually realized at Maurice Strong’s next major conference, the one which was to serve as the crowning achievement of his unlikely career as environmental crusader, and which still remains one of the touchstones of the environmental movement: the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

Narrator: In June 1992, the world met in Rio to discuss the fate of planet Earth. In this largest summit and very first Earth Summit ever held, representatives from 166 countries, 130 heads of state and 15,000 non-governmental organizations came together with the hopes of deciding specific agreements that would balance environmental preservation with economic needs.

SOURCE: 1992 – UN Earth Summit – Rio de Janeiro – In Our Hands (Part 1)

George H.W. Bush: And my gratitude to Secretary General Maurice Strong for his tireless work in bringing this Earth Summit together. This is truly an historic gathering. There are those who say that economic growth and environmental protection cannot be compatible.

John Major: “The world is our garden and together we must cultivate it. This week at Rio we have made a start. Beyond Rio we must continue to carry it through.”

Maurice Strong: “We cannot be complacent. Unless the agreements reached here are accompanied by commitments to significant change — change, of course, indeed for the human species in my view, your excellencies—we simply are headed for a moment in the 21st century where the condition of our species may become terminal.”

SOURCE: Brazil – Rio Earth Summit (B)

As useful as the 4th World Wilderness Congress had been in advancing the agenda of Maurice Strong and the oiligarchs, that was only setting the stage for the Earth Summit in Rio.

At the Earth Summit, Edmond de Rothschild got his “World Conservation Bank.” Dubbed the “Global Environment Facility” and launched at the summit itself, it serves as the funding mechanism for five different UN conventions and provides billions of dollars worth of financing to environmental and development projects around the world. Its 18 “implementing partners” include the Rockefeller-funded Food and Agricultural Organization, the Huxley-founded International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the Maurice Strong-created United Nations Environment Programme, and the Prince Bernhard/Prince Philip/Godfrey Rockefeller-founded World Wildlife Fund.

One of the Global Environment Facility’s specialties is “debt-for-nature swaps,” where Third World countries are given debt relief in return for opening their land up for environmental development projects. The projects come with transaction costs of up to 5%, paid to the contractors who manage and direct the investments, not to the locals who, like the aborigines of Palawan island, are kicked off their land and effectively wiped off the face of the map.

The Earth Summit also gave rise to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the body to which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivers its reports. Generally thought to be neutral, non-governmental bodies relying only on science and evidence, the UNFCCC and the IPCC are handcuffed by the terms that Strong set out for them to deliver only one conclusion: that humanity is to blame for climate change.

Dr. Tim Ball: When they set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Maurice Strong, who we should talk a lot about, he wrote the terms of reference and the first term of reference was the definition of climate change and he limited it, deliberately, to only human causes of climate change. Of course that effectively eliminated all of the natural causes and natural variability which is why you see them not looking at things like the sun and a whole bunch of other issues. He then limited it even further in another term of reference, he set it up into 3 working groups. There was the technical group, Working Group 1, which wrote the science report, and that was 600 of the 2500 people. The other 1900 people were in working groups 2 & 3. Now they were inconsequential because they had to accept the findings of Working Group 1, which were already limited by their terms of reference. So whatever their finding was, Working Groups 2 & 3 then said ‘OK, you’re telling us it’s going to warm, we accept that as fact. We now look at the implications of that,’ and that’s where you hear all these stories of the ice is going to melt, the sea-levels are going to rise, etc.

So really, the majority of the report by 1,900 scientists is accepting without question the finding of the first group. Now Strong really restricted it even more because they then came and said ‘Now look, this report is not to be used for policy,’ but then they set up the Summary for Policymakers, the absolute contradiction of that. The Summary for Policymakers is written by a completely separate group, and then they write independent of the science report. The science report is finished and set aside. The Summary for Policymakers is written and given out to the media, but the rules — the terms of reference that Strong set out — said that the Summary for Policymakers goes back to the science report people and says make sure your science report agrees with what we’ve put in the summary.

SOURCE: The IPCC Exposed

Another product of the Earth Summit in Rio was the Earth Charter, a quasi-religious document that Mikhail Gorbachev, who helped draft the text along with Maurice Strong, referred to as a replacement for the Ten Commandments, and which sought to usher in an era of Gaia worship and global responsibility. Declaring that “[f]undamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living,” the document then counsels that we must create a world of “shared responsibility” to the “Earth community,” before concluding:

“In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.”

Patrick Wood: “Well the Earth Charter was one of the bi-products ultimately of the first Earth Summit. I published the Earth Charter in the appendix of my book Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, just so people could see this with their own eyes what it says. It was a document that was like a compact with the world. It was a very religious, humanistic document that tried to unify the world into a single concept of globalization. It was a very defined document that was signed off — the history goes back before that, but it was finally signed-off by almost all of the nations at the United Nations, and the primary author of the Earth Charter was Steven Rockefeller. And so the Rockefellers understood early on that no, it’s not just the economic system and it’s not just necessarily the political control system, we also have to factor in a religious belief that we can use to get people to believe that what we’re doing is for their good.”

What the oiligarchs had been working toward for decades, and what they achieved in Rio in 1992, was the completion of the transformation of the eugenics philosophy, from talk of “sterilization” of the “feeble-minded” to a popular understanding of humanity as a cancer that must be removed for the Earth to live. Now the duty was to “reduce carbon footprints” and reduce the population in the name of “saving the planet.” But, wrapped in this new vocabulary and coming with a trendy, pervasive, and well-funded advertising campaign, the end result sounded remarkably similar to the eugenics of old.

Tucker Carlson: A new study from Lund University in Sweden says that the single best way to cut your carbon footprint, assuming you want to, is simply to refuse to reproduce. Deleting some humans from existence, they say, saves far more carbon than, I don’t know, being vegetarian, riding a bike to work, not boarding an airplane.

SOURCE: ‘Stop Having Kids’ – Tucker Carlson Tonight

Jennifer Ludden: There is a new study that says, well, actually if we reduce global fertility by half a child per woman, that you could maybe do that. It would go a long way. It would reduce a fifth to a quarter of all carbon emissions needed to avoid that tipping point.

SOURCE: NPR Asks: Should We Have Less Kids Due To Global Warming?

Bill Nye: So should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?

Guest: So, I do think that we should at least consider it.

Bill Nye: Well, at least consider it is like do it.

SOURCE: Bill Nye׃ Should parents having “extra kids“ in developed countries be penalized?

Fox News Reporter: In the push to reduce global warming, children, according to some, are the new culprits. A think tank in the UK says that too many kids are what is making the planet worse. Saying large families, anything over two children really, should be frowned upon as an environmental no-no.

SOURCE: Endgame (2007)

And, without the public even noticing it, the oiligarchs were able to wrap themselves in this new flag to appear not as the billionaire scions of the oil industry who made their vast fortunes by plundering the earth and monopolizing its wealth, but as crusading environmentalists who are going to save the planet from the “cannon fodder” that “unfortunately populates the earth.”

David Rockefeller: The negative impact of population growth, on all of our planetary ecosystems, is becoming appallingly evident.

SOURCE: David Rockefeller speaks about population control

Rex Tillerson: So we have been members of the IPCC, we have authored many of their papers, we have peer-reviewed all their papers. So we have been engaged in the understanding and the evolution of our understanding of climate change for decades.

SOURCE: Rex Tillerson explains his position on climate change

Narrator: At Saudi Aramco, we strive to continually reduce the environmental impact of our operations, from oil well to consumer, and our support for the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative that strives to be a catalyst for practical action on climate change through collaboration on technology and best practices.

SOURCE: Saudi Aramco – Sustainable Production

Claudio Descalzi: We have a common reason. We care about environment. We think that together we can do better. We have the competencies, we have the strength, we have the tools to do good things in this field.

Amin H. Nasser: Technology that will be developed through this investment fund of $1 billion will help us in the long-term to reduce emissions.

Josu Jon Imaz: We want to build an ecosystem of innovation on this issue, working together.

Patrick Pouyanne: We bring our force together, we can bring pragmatic and concrete solutions.

SOURCE: OGCI Invests in Innovative Low-Emissions Technologies

And even today, the masses, outraged over the carnage that Big Oil has wrought, are content to have that outrage directed by the very oiligarchs they seek to oppose, the same oiligarchs who are quietly funding and supporting their environmental movement from behind the scenes — and even leading it from the front.

The Rockefeller family made headlines by divesting from oil completely in 2016.

Narrator: The Rockefellers, heir to an oil fortune that made the family name a symbol of American wealth, believe they’re doing their namesake proud by getting out of oil. Fund director Stephen Heintz spoke reverently of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller in a statement: “We are quite convinced that if he were alive today, as an astute businessman looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in clean, renewable energy.”

SOURCE: Rockefeller heirs get out of oil | Fortune

David de Rothschild is one of the photogenic leading lights of the environmental movement. Dubbed “Plastic Jesus” for his publicity stunts and photo opportunities masquerading as a concerned environmentalist, David de Rothschild — a scion of the billionaire banking family that added to its fortune with its Azerbaijani oil field holdings and still invests in oil through ventures like Genie Energy — now spends his time lecturing the public about how their lifestyles are killing the polar bears.

David de Rothschild: We have to start spending money fast on the solutions that we have in hand to try and help these countries which are already seeing the effects of climate change today and seeing the effects of our consumption, basically.

SOURCE: Rothschild Says Climate Change `Past Point of Talking’

Prince Charles is outspoken on the subject of global warming, warning his loyal subjects that unless they tighten their belts and live more humble lives, they will bring about the end of the world.

Prince Charles: Ladies and gentlemen, the battle against climate change is surely the most defining and pivotal challenge of our time.

We cannot ignore the symptoms and should act now to restore the health of the planet before it is too late. This of course will require an unprecedented transformation of our communities, science, societies and lifestyles. All predicated on the move to a low-carbon and circular economy.

SOURCE: Prince Charles urges action against climate change ‘before it is too late’

The groundwork has been laid for what these oiligarchs call the post-carbon era. It is no longer about oil. It never was. It is about control.

 

PART THREE: AGENDA: TECHNOCRACY

M. King Hubbert: Now, so this complete cycle for the world, to give you a timescale on that — bear in mind that’s starting in 1857, and so here’s where we were about three or four years ago. This was proved reserves in the era, which would add up to about here, and the estimated peak would occur about 1995, and we go into the decline. That middle 80%, again, is spread from the late ’60s until a little beyond 2020, I computed it out here about 56 years. That assumes an orderly evolution. That says that a child born, say, within the last 10 years will probably see the world consume most of its oil if he lives a normal life.”

SOURCE: Marion King Hubbert on global oil depletion (1976)

Today, Marion King Hubbert is best known as the Shell Oil researcher who gained notoriety in the 1950s for predicting that the US would achieve its peak production of petroleum by 1970, and that almost all of the planet’s oil supplies would be exhausted by 2020.

This “Peak Oil” theory, still sometimes referred to as “Hubbert’s Peak,” was, like everything else generated by Big Oil, a conveniently crafted lie, designed to habituate the market to artificial scarcity and thus keep oil prices high. Hubbert’s “prediction” was not based on any empirical data from any oil field, but instead relied on Hubbert’s incorrect guesses about remaining oil reserves and employed a heuristic tool to model production.

As Hubbert’s protégé and colleague at Shell Oil, Kenneth Deffeyes, conceded years later: “The numerical methods that Hubbert used to make his prediction are not crystal clear. Today, 44 years later, my guess is that Hubbert, like everyone else, reached his conclusion first and then searched for raw data and methods to support his conclusion.”

Shortly before his death in 1989, Hubbert himself admitted that when he showed his Peak Oil paper to Shell’s managing director before presenting it to his colleagues, the director had told him not to “go overboard” with his estimates of oil reserves, pointing specifically to L.G. Weeks, a rival geophysicist who had estimated reserves to be much higher, and thus the impending threat of undersupply and the need for high oil prices to be much weaker.

But although today Hubbert is remembered almost exclusively for his Peak Oil thesis, he was in fact involved in a much larger, lifelong project, helping to codify and incorporate a movement that, much like eugenics, was wildly popular nearly a century ago, fell out of favor in polite society, and yet continues today under other names. That movement was called “Technocracy.”

Arvid Peterson: Hello, I’m Arvid Peterson, and this is the first of a two-part presentation on Technocracy, an alternative social system. These programs are not intended to entertain or amuse you, nor are they meant to scare you. We are making a new approach. It is not political, financial, philosophical, legal, religious or moral. It is a technological approach. Technocracy is the scientific answer to America’s social problems and technocracy is a new design for social operation that based on upon science. It is the vehicle by which we can move into a new era for better living.”

SOURCE: Technocracy Full Presentation

Technocracy billed itself as a social movement, a philosophy, a scientific solution to political and economic problems, and a new way of ordering the world. But, at base, it is an idea for a new international economic order, one to be designed and managed down to the most minute detail by a select few: the “technocrats.”

Patrick Wood: “Technocracy was defined very succinctly in 1938 by their own publication The Technocrat’s Magazine. They call it a system of scientifically engineering society. They saw themselves as a merger between hard science and social science, which really is an oxymoron. Social science is not really a science in my opinion but they believed that. So they believed they could take their scientific method they use in the hard sciences and apply it to society. They also believe that they alone were the only ones that could run society correctly. As a result of technology having come in and change the fabric of society, they hated politicians, they hated the establishment, the organization of society they way it is because it was not efficient, it was not conservation based if you will to conserve resources. So they took it upon themselves to define the economic model that would replace capitalism and free-enterprise and that’s exactly what it was, a replacement of the economic system.”

Drawing on Henri Saint-Simon’s call for a scientifically-organized socialist system, the positivism and secular humanism of Auguste Comte, and the “Principles of Scientific Management” propounded by Frederick Taylor, the technocratic movement emerged from the same environment of progressivism, positivism and social Darwinism that birthed eugenics. Just as the eugenicists believed the human race could be improved through selective breeding controlled and administered by a small group of scientists and their billionaire backers, so, too, did the technocrats believe that they could improve the social and economic conditions of humanity by controlling and administering society. And, happily enough for the oiligarchs, the technocrats would improve the world by replacing money with energy certificates.

Led by the eccentric “revolutionary” economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen, the technocratic movement that formed around Veblen’s “New School for Social Research” and “Technical Alliance” attracted both engineers and serious researchers like King Hubbert and Buckminster Fuller and fellow eccentrics like Howard Scott.

Scott, a “mysterious man” of uncertain background, established himself in New York City at the end of World War I and came to be seen as a “bohemian engineer.” In 1920 he went to work for the Wobblies as a research director, and the following year he founded the Technical Alliance, a group of engineers and scientists centered around Columbia University, and which, as a forerunner to the technocracy movement, advocated for a society run by scientists and engineers.

In 1932, the charismatic and well-spoken Scott managed to attach himself to Walter Rautenstrauch, a professor at Columbia and the founder of the university’s Department of Industrial Engineering. With a common interest in technocracy, the two became friends and allies. It was through Rautenstrauch that Scott was able to approach the president of Columbia, Nicholas Murray Butler, for permission to use the university’s facilities. Butler, always on the lookout for the cutting edge of progressivism, was swayed by the technocratic ideas, and soon Scott’s Committee on Technocracy was operating out of the basement of Hamilton Hall.

When Butler let word slip about the next big idea being cooked up in the basement of his university, technocracy became a sensation. It was lauded in the press, Scott became a sought-after speaker, and there was even a dance named after the movement.

It was at Columbia that Scott met King Hubbert, and the two, an unlikely pair of serious-minded researcher and eccentric revolutionary, immediately hit it off. Their stint together at Columbia was about to come to an abrupt end, but their association would last for decades, and help give birth to ideas that would eventually transform the world.

Patrick Wood: Technocracy really got recognized when it was at Columbia. We’ll talk in a minute, they didn’t last there very long because as it turned out one of the promoters of technocracy, Howard Scott, turned out to be a fraud. He was kind of the main spokesman for the movement and he pumped up his résumé, like so many people do today, unfortunately, he pumped it up and basically he just lied about his past and his educational past and they all assumed he had a degree in some advanced engineering or whatever and he knew all of the buzz words, but some sharp reporter did some investigative research on him and said, ‘I can’t find where this guy graduated anywhere,’ and when Columbia found out that the guy was a fraud they realized that, well, Butler’s ego got involved and he said ‘Man, these people have played me,’ and so he kicked them all out. Just ka-boom! Just drop-kicked them right out. He said, ‘Get out of my building!’ and they all left and scattered. The technocrats that were left at Columbia, which there were several of them that were professors at Columbia at the time, they just zipped their lips, shut up, went back to work, figured out I want to keep my job. I’m just going to not ever mention technocracy again. It didn’t mean they stopped believing, but they didn’t talk about it for a very, very long time at Columbia.

Disgraced, evicted from Columbia, and with the Committee on Technocracy disbanded almost as quickly as it had come together, Scott found himself at a personal low. Penniless and with an old debt having caught up to him, he had only one person he could rely on: M. King Hubbert.

Hubbert let Scott live in his Greenwich Village apartment and paid out of his own pocket to file the articles of incorporation for Technocracy, Inc., a new membership organization that would carry on the principles of technocracy. The first step, of course, was to define precisely what those principles were.

Hubbert got to work penning the Technocracy Study Course, the Bible of the Technocracy movement. In it, Hubbert laid out the vision of “an abundance of physical wealth on a Continental scale for the use of all Continental citizens,” which, he warned, “can only be accomplished by a Continental technological control, a governance of function, a Technate.”

The technocratic system was to be structured around a new monetary paradigm, one based not on dollars and cents but “Energy Certificates” representing the nation’s net energy expenditure. These certificates would be denominated in Joules and issued based on a net energy budget deemed appropriate by the technocratic state’s governing scientists. Citizens would be issued an equal share of the nation’s certificates and make their purchases with them, and the information about these purchases would be relayed back to the central planning body for analysis. By this method, the technocrats could, in the words of one proponent, “create a thermodynamically balanced load of production and consumption, thereby doing away with unemployment, debt and social injustice.”

In the Technocracy Study Course, Hubbert, like a good technocrat, laid out the exact conditions that would need to be met for this vision to come to pass. According to him, technocracy would require:

  • all energy usage and all consumer spending throughout the nation to be calculated and registered on a continuous and instantaneous basis
  • a 24/7 inventory of all production and consumption
  • a complete registry of all products available for sale, where they were produced, how much energy was expended in their production, and where and when they were sold.
  • and, finally, a “specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.”

Hubbert’s vision was not just that of a totalitarian society in which every detail of every interaction was recorded and reported to a central authority, but, for the 1930s, the concept of continuously and instantaneously updated registries of every good in the economy was not just audacious, but borderline insane.

Nevertheless, suffering through the Great Depression, the American people were willing to listen to any ideas to replace the current system that had so obviously failed them, no matter how outlandish. Technocracy, Inc. did attract a following, swelling into the tens of thousands later in the decade. But Scott’s eccentric ways, compelling members to salute him in public and delivering rambling radio addresses, ultimately led to the movement’s long, slow decline in relevance.

Hubbert never repudiated the concept of technocracy, but when he joined Shell as a researcher he resigned his position on the board of Technocracy, Inc. and avoided direct mention of the organization.

The technocrats had sketched the outlines of a completely ordered and controlled society, one in which energy is the fundamental measure of value and all consumption and production is meticulously analyzed by a central authority. Technocracy, Inc. still exists to this day, but the language and thinking of the technocrats has, like eugenics, undergone a metamorphosis. And, also like eugenics, the name may have faded into obscurity, but the idea lives on in the hands of the oiligarchs.

Bill Turnbull: Would you live in a greener lifestyle if you could make money from it?

Kate Silverton: That may be possible if a government proposal for personal carbon emissions allowances is implemented. Under the scheme, everyone in the UK would be allocated an annual carbon allowance.

Turnbull: Stored electronically, like a supermarket loyalty card, points would be deducted every time we buy or use non-renewable energy. For example: Using electricity to power appliances in the home.

Silverton: Or traveling somewhere by plane.

Turnbull: Or even buying petrol for your car on the [unintelligible].

Silverton: So then any points left over could then be sold back to a central bank, are you still with us, and people who need more, like motorists, who would use their allocations could then pay for a top-up.

SOURCE: BBC Breakfast: Carbon Ration Card proposal, 20/07/2006

Carbon rationing. Carbon trading. Carbon taxes. Cap and trade. Just as the technocrats of old envisioned a new economic order based on energy and governed by the dictates of scientists and engineers, so, too, does this modern form of technocracy envision an economic order in which energy is budgeted, priced and traded by intergovernmental panels of scientists and the political caste that grows up around these institutions.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller: “The Environmental Protection Agency is not a frivolous agency. It is created to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, and I have been saying to the West Virginia Coal Association, which, for the most part, doesn’t believe in climate science–they don’t believe there’s a climate problem–and I have been saying to them for a number of years that that’s wrong. In my judgment the science is true, the science is unequivocally true and that that there is a price to carbon in their future. I said this a couple of months ago — there’s a price to carbon in their future.

SOURCE: Sen. Rockefeller Defends EPA, Climate Science

Al Gore: But I believe that the cap-and-trade approach is the essential first step, partly because it is the only basis upon which we can envision a truly global agreement, because it’s very difficult to imagine a harmonized global tax.”

SOURCE: Cap and Trade is a tax Dingell, Gore

Christiana Figueres: A carbon tax or any other way of putting a carbon price is actually, from an economic point of view, the most effective and efficient way to do this, OK? You can regulate and you can do all kinds of things but nothing is as strong a market signal to the private sector as a carbon price, whether that be a carbon tax or whether it be a cap-and-trade — which is what California’s doing — or any of the other measures that ultimately give you a carbon price. That is the simplest, cleanest, most powerful signal. So if that’s possible, I’m with you.

SOURCE: Christiana Figueres: Meeting Our Climate Challenge – A United Nations Perspective

These measures are sold to the public as a way of penalizing the big oil interests that have spent the last century monopolizing the world’s key resources and plundering the earth in the pursuit of profit. What they do not understand, because it has been deliberately obscured, is that it is these very interests that have been instrumental in creating these schemes in the first place.

Rep. Steve Scalise: “It’s my understanding that back in 1997, when you were Vice President, Enron’s CEO Ken Lay was involved in discussions with you at the White House about helping develop this type of policy, this trading scheme. Is that accurate? Is it inaccurate? It’s been reported.”

Al Gore: I don’t know, but I met with Ken Lay, as lots of people did, before anybody knew that he was a crook.

Scalise: Right. And clearly you can see why so many of us are concerned about this type of cap-and-trade energy tax that would be literally turning over this country’s energy economy.

Gore: I didn’t know him well enough to call him “Kenny-boy.”

Scalise: But you knew him well enough to devise this trading scheme.

SOURCE: Al Gore’s Lies Exposed By Congress

In the early 1990s, Enron — the disgraced Texas-based energy trading company that turned out to be a complete fraud — spearheaded the EPA’s $20 billion cap-and-trade program for sulfur dioxide, promptly becoming the largest trader in the market. As a follow-up, the company, led by Ken Lay, began lobbying the Clinton administration, and particularly Vice President Al Gore, to create a similar market for carbon dioxide. Making lavish contributions to environmental groups like the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project argued for restrictions on carbon emissions, Enron then hired Christopher Horner, a former staffer on Senator Joe Lieberman’s Environment Committee, to lobby for an international treaty that would restrict emissions and allow for trading in emission rights.

They were joined in this quest by Goldman Sachs, the infamous Wall Street investment bank known today for the revolving door between the firm and the US Treasury, who helped establish the Chicago Climate Exchange as the first North American emissions trading platform. In 2004, Al Gore, who has spent the last two decades lobbying for the creation of a carbon trading market, founded Generation Investment Management, an investment management partnership that sells carbon offsets, with David Blood, the CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, who stepped down from his position with Goldman to go into business with Gore. By the end of the decade, Gore was already being hailed as a candidate to become the world’s first carbon billionaire.

Gore himself is an oiligarch. His father, Al Gore, Sr., was a close friend of Armand Hammer, the oil tycoon behind Occidental Petroleum. After losing a Senate race in 1970, Gore’s father went to work for Hammer at Occidental for $500,000 a year. Over the course of his career, Gore, Sr. accumulated hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Occidental stock, which fell into the hands of the executor of his estate at the time of his death: none other than his son, Al Gore. The Occidental connection does not end there. Discovering zinc ore on their Tennessee estate, Hammer bought the Gores’ land and sold it back to them with a claim on the mining rights, complete with a $20,000 annual payment, which also went to Gore after his father’s death. In 2013, Gore earned $100 million from the Qatari government on the sale of his “Current TV” venture, and then was surprised when reporters were more interested in discussing his oil money than his new book on the global warming cause.

But Gore’s story is only an example of a larger phenomenon. In 2006, the United States Climate Action Partnership was formed to create “A Call for Action” to cut down on carbon emissions. It drafted the Blueprint for Legislative Action, which became the basis for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, seeking to create an emissions trading regime modeled on the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. And the members of the US Climate Action Partnership? A who’s who of the oiligarchy, including BP, ConocoPhillips, and General Motors.

Carbon taxes and carbon trading have proven to be a hard sell for an increasingly wary public, but with the Paris Agreement of 2015 the world saw the biggest step yet toward this technocratic future of energy control and carbon rationing. No surprise, then, that the summit itself was sponsored by and prominently supported by big oil.

Erik Schatzker: What’s your position and what message would you send to the President?

Bob Dudley: Well we have been clear in our support of the climate agreement in Paris. We’re part of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, which is 10 of the big companies in the world, who are working towards projects and technologies that are needed. I think we all want to know how the formula will work, but I think the concept of Paris needs to stay in everybody’s mind on the issues of — we’ve got to transition the world to lower-carbon forms of energy, I have no doubt it will happen.

SOURCE: BP CEO Dudley on Oil Market and Paris Climate Accord

Gerard Mestrallet: Yes I think that what happened in Paris is very, very important and Mr. Ban Ki-moon on the (spoke) on the line that yesterday, it is important not only for the planet, not only for us citizens, not only for our children, it is important for the business.

SOURCE: ECO:nomics: Businesses’ Role in Paris Agreement

But using energy as the new “metric of value” for the post-carbon economy is just one element of the neo-technocratic vision.

When Hubbert wrote his Technocracy Study Course, he made it clear that technocracy could not come to fruition without 24/7 surveillance of all energy usage and a continuous stream of data about all goods being produced by and consumed by society. But whereas in the 1930s such a system must have seemed like a delusional flight of fancy, today it is already being implemented.

Narrator: “By now you may have heard the term ‘Internet of Things.’ Sounds interesting but what does the Internet of Things actually mean? I.O.T. is an evolution of mobile, home and embedded applications that are being connected to the internet, integrating greater compute capabilities and using data-analytics to extract meaningful information. Billions of devices will be connected to the internet and, soon, hundreds of billions of devices. As related devices connect with each other, they can become an intelligent system of systems, and when these intelligent devices and systems of systems share data over the cloud and analyze it, they can transform our businesses, our lives and our world in countless ways.”

SOURCE: Internet of Things explained simply

Reporter: This department store in Bundang has introduced a new way to shop. With its ‘Smart Shopper’ system, customers pick up a small scanner and tag the item they want to buy. It eliminates the hassle of having to carry heavy items in a shopping basket, not to mention the hassle of having to get them home. After you pay for the items at an automated kiosk the goods are delivered right to your home.

Shopper (Translated): Before I had to wait in long lines at the checkout but now I can use the ‘smart shopper’ system to pay. It’s really quite convenient.

Reporter: “Aside from their convenience to shoppers the system also helps stores gather data about their customers’ shopping habits.”

SOURCE: New smart technologies changing our everyday activities

Alice Bravo: Why create a smart city? Well, smart cities are more responsive to citizens and they help reduce environmental impact.

Michael Liu: They are more cost-effective and they’re safer.

Carlos Gimenez: Smart cities make people happier and more connected to their community.

SOURCE: AT&T Smart Cities

Narrator: Today, more people live in cities than ever before, and for good reason. They are centers of trade, innovation, culture and opportunity. As such, they are complex entities comprising many different inter-connected systems. As more people flock to cities and put pressure on these systems, an important shift is helping cities deal with this challenge: a rise in data. Cities are becoming increasingly instrumented. Sensors that enable the capture of all sorts of data are being integrated across city systems, providing critical information on city activity and operations. Sensors on a bridge transmit data on its physical condition. A camera on a freeway relays traffic flow and digital meters record water and energy usage in real time. Mobile and social channels enable local governments and citizens to communicate with other, creating yet another source of useful data. Advanced analytics can now readily identify trends and patterns within these massive amounts of data. Information can be integrated, gathered and shared via dashboards, visualizations and alerts to facilitate understanding and collaboration across systems, agencies and groups.

SOURCE: How It Works: Smarter Cities

Narrator: The smart home communicates with the grid and enables consumers to manage their electricity usage. By measuring homes’ electricity consumption more frequently through a smart meter, utilities can provide their customer with much better information to manage their electricity bills. Inside the smart home, a Home Area Network or HAN, connects smart appliances, thermostats and other electric devices to an energy management system.

SOURCE: What Is the Smart Grid?

Josh Del Sol: With the smart meters, they’ll be able to tell exactly what’s going on in your home down to the micro-second based upon 24/7 communication with all of your appliances. Which will also in the future, if this goes through fully and if there’s not a public backlash, all of your appliances will need to have a wireless transmitter on them and they’ll need to certified under some ‘smart program.’

So this means not only — just stepping aside for one moment from the health issue — this means that not only is your smart meter emitting on average 13,000 microwave pulses per day but every one of your appliances is going to be doing the same thing because it will be needed to be communicating with the smart meter itself. So that is a serious concern and we’ll get into that a little bit later. But as far as the privacy issue, just diving right in, the current CIA Director, David Petraeus, was quoted as saying, “We’re gonna use smart-appliances to spy on you,” and it’s very much just putting it out there. It’s kind of like, it’s getting to a point now, James — and I’m sure you’re seeing this — it’s, like, they’re just getting more and more in your face. And it’s kind of like this collective force of the controllers and they’re kind of saying, “This is what we’re gonna do and what are you gonna do about it?.” So they’re almost challenging us in a schoolhouse bully sort of way: “What are you going to do about it?”

SOURCE: Corbett Report Radio 230 – Take Back Your Power with Josh Del Sol

Once again, we are being asked to believe that the vested corporate interests that are rolling these technologies out in a coordinated fashion are doing so for the benefit of the public. That this technology is to help save the earth. And once again, we are being duped.

The technocratic agenda is not about saving the earth. It is not about helping the public. It is not even about making money. It is about complete control over every aspect of our daily life.

Patrick Wood: There’s two levels…The way I look at technocracy, there’s two levels operating at the same time. There’s the operational side of it that has to do with things like smart grid. That have to do with things like various technocratic innovations, surveillance and other big hot-button [issues] for technocracy. These are operational issues. From a strategic point of view, which is where the Rockefeller-type people operate, it’s a different view of where it’s headed. On an operational level it’s headed towards a scientific dictatorship and you don’t have to be a visionary to figure that one out really anymore. You don’t. It’s there.

But on a strategic basis, what’s happening is that there’s a massive resource grab going on all over the planet. And when I say resource grab, you have to put yourself in Rockefellers’ shoes — the bankers shoes and the Rothschilds shoes or whatever — and say, “What do you do when money runs out? What do you do?” When you suck all of the value that you can out of the monetary systems you’ve created, what’s left?

Well, you and I don’t think about those sort of things because we don’t have that have much money, but these people at the top, especially the bankers, I’m sure they stay up at night thinking, “What’s after money? What comes after money?” The Rockefeller family especially has always been a resource intensive family. That’s what oil was all about in the first place. It was a resource and they understood that energy would be the most important factor in the world over any other type of resource. They understood that, that’s why they wanted to create a monopoly over energy.

Well, today as money has been sucked dry, the only thing left to do is to make a grab for the resources themselves and that’s what sustainable development is all about. It’s taking the resources of the world away from you and me, away from private companies that aren’t part of the clique, if you will, and putting them into a global common trust that will be managed by them for their benefit. This is really nothing more than neo-fuedalism again where the resources are owned by a few and everybody else gets to operate with those resources at their pleasure and discretion.

The technocrats and functionaries of this agenda, like Hubbert and his colleagues in Technocracy, Inc., pioneered this idea because they believed that they, the technocrats and engineers, would be able to solve the world’s problems. But the oiligarchs and bankers who funded their ideas into existence did so because it would help them to become the rulers of a system so perfectly crafted that no resource, no commodity, no person would be beyond their control.

And now, in the 21st century, that technocratic vision is coming into view. And it is being helped along by a public that believes the post-carbon future represents the end of the oiligarchy. They couldn’t be more wrong.

CONCLUSION

Oil. It was never about oil. It was about control. Control over energy and production and consumption. Control over the world’s resources. Control over the population. Control over humanity itself.

Joe Plummer: “Every other thing that the elite put forward is nothing more than a pretext for what they’ve been after since the beginning. So, as I cover in Tragedy and Hope 101, I discuss this concept of the elite seeking to rule all habitable portions of the world and they don’t want to secure that so that they can then have it taken away from them. So they come up with pretexts that they can sell both to the public but also the administrative class that justifies what it is that they are trying to do — they need to to. So whether it’s global warming hysteria or whether its technocracy whether its Agenda 2030 or whether its eugenics, there’s a common thread that runs through all of this and that common thread is the desire to consolidate and exercise coercive power. In the case of eugenics, it’s the desire to consolidate and exercise the ultimate power, which is the power over who is ultimately going to live or die, who will be permitted to exist in the gene pool from here forward.”

The picture is bleak, and made all that much bleaker by the fact that so many have been duped into believing that the oiligarchs’ ultimate agenda, an agenda of technocratic control, micromanagement of our daily lives, and, ultimately, the elimination of the “cannon fodder” from the gene pool, is in fact in their own best interest.

The oiligarchs, shielded behind their smokescreen of “sustainable development” and “post-carbon” economy, are closer than ever before to achieving their true goal of total control.

But if the people perish from lack of knowledge of this agenda, then understanding is the first step toward the solution.

Patrick Wood: It’s hard to fight an enemy that you don’t recognize or can’t see. That’s the biggest problem in the world today, in my opinion, is that people have no visibility whatsoever of this issue. They’ve covered their tracks so well that nobody can see them. How can you fight an enemy that you don’t know? I think famous Chinese general Sun Xiu brought that up hundreds of years ago. You can’t fight an enemy that you don’t know. First we have to recognize who the enemy is.

Richard A. Grove: Well, Big Oil conquered the world because the monopolization of all resources on the planet is the goal, and to get to that goal you have to monopolize the energy aspects of people around the planet. But you also have to control the food — the actual energy for the human beings whose energy you want to control. If you control those two aspects, the Green Revolution and the Gene Revolution, then you’re able to control the entire planet, every resource on it, and basically extinguish freedom for the rest of history.

So, How Big Oil Conquered The World was already done in a movie. Why Big Oil conquered the world has to do with the complexities of controlling populations — not for money, because these are the people that print money out of nothing and charge us for it. So really, it’s a study of power. So, why did they want to do this to the rest of us? Because they could and because we were tolerant so far and haven’t resisted enough to make it stop. So that’s where we find ourselves today. Becoming informed on the history so that we can actually plot our course in the future to map or chart out a course and actually get to some place that resembles cognitive liberty and physical freedom and justice for all.”

Big oil. Big pharma. The green revolution. Genetic engineering. Eugenics. The environmental movement. Technocracy. Not one person in a thousand can detail the historical development of these ideas, or the people and the agenda that connects them. But if you have watched this documentary, you are now that one person in a thousand. The question is, “What are you going to do with this information?”

As the oiligarchs’ quest for total control comes into view, it’s difficult to remember that it all started a century and a half ago with “Devil Bill” Rockefeller, a two-bit snake oil salesman always on the run from the last group of marks he managed to con. In a way, nothing has changed but the scope of the con and the number of marks who have fallen for the routine. But now that you know the snake oil that is being fed to the public, the only question that matters is: Are you going to drink it?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Podcasts
Tagged with:

Comments (99)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. beadbud5000 says:

    Fantastic! Thank you James Corbett!

  2. alex.l says:

    Outstanding. I see you winning the Oscar for best documentary this year!

    Well done.

    • calibrator says:

      I doubt that James will ever get an Oscar, even if he manages to actually get one of his films into movie theaters…

      • alex.l says:

        🙂 I know, I don’t really see it getting nominated… Just that it would merit it, in my book.

        Really, I should have said that I found the breadth and scope of what he covers here amazing. He touches on all the big trends, at least as I understand them, and provides a powerful overview of how humanity is being steered. With references! Deeply impressed with the summary – an excellent overview, and a platform to dive deeper too.

        • calibrator says:

          Still haven’t seen in the new documentary but if it’s remotedly as good as “How” – which I often recommend to other people – then it will definitely be a treat and certainly bring up things I haven’t read elsewhere.

          That alone is the one big justification for supporting James: He is able to evaluate and communicate certain trends & developments *full time* and sort most of the ridiculous stuff out. You know, the eyerollin’ stuff too many people want to believe in – most of which is either created by TPTB to distract/discredit, frauds to swindle money out of people or trolls to simply enjoy f’ing around with the more gullible folks.

          As a regular working slave I still have to limit my own research and have to depend to some extent on somebody to gauge my own appreciation of an event. “Is it a hoax or false flag?” “What is the motivation behind this or that?”
          It’s somewhat comforting that I often come to at least similar conclusions by my own. Or in other words: I feel “better” when I’m getting confirmed by somebody much more invested in the grand scheme of things.

          Also James researches fields I never was fully interested in and makes them interesting (again) like for example the political developments behind WW1 – by comparing the actual situation with China. Not many people offer such insights, even outside the mass media (which has pretty much become worthless by now).

          As I don’t believe in such prizes like the Oscar or similar stuff my appreciation of somebody doesn’t depend on it. I decide who deserves my “prize” (= my money) and newspapers & magazines don’t get any more of it. This budget went completely to James in 2017. Simple as that. He informed – and entertained! – me more than any other publisher and his method is clear: He stays on the same level as his listeners: By being a scholar open to facts and not an indoctrinator with limited scope.

          • HomeRemedySupply says:

            alex and calibrator,
            Ditto here…You guys well express how I feel.

            …I found the breadth and scope of what he covers here amazing. He touches on all the big trends, at least as I understand them, and provides a powerful overview of how humanity is being steered. With references!….

            That alone is the one big justification for supporting James: He is able to evaluate and communicate certain trends & developments *full time* and sort most of the ridiculous stuff out….

            …As a regular working slave I still have to limit my own research and have to depend to some extent on somebody….

            …newspapers & magazines don’t get any more of it (my money). This budget went completely to James in 2017. Simple as that. He informed – and entertained! – me more than any other publisher and his method is clear: He stays on the same level as his listeners: By being a scholar open to facts and not an indoctrinator with limited scope.

    • Pablo de Boer says:

      Hola aloha alex.l,

      I think that señor James never will accept an Oscar, because these Academy Awards are invented and created by the kakistocracy. You and I know how señor James thinks about the kakistocracy and that’s why señor James is an independent truth seeker and that is the reason señor James doesn’t work for Hollywood.

      Saludos y abrazos con mucho cariño,

      Pablo de boer

    • Pablo de Boer says:

      Estimado alex.l,

      I’m not criticizing you now but your comment:

      “Outstanding. I see you winning the Oscar for best documentary this year!”

      shows how powerful the propaganda of the global kakistocracy is.

      Saludos y abrazos con mucho cariño,

      Pablo de Boer

  3. Mielia says:

    Again outstanding. Watched both parts.
    Documents I’ve never heard of like the 1973 Bilderberg leaks (in how) and the 4th World Wilderness Congress whistleblower-story (in why).
    Also featuring extensively one of my favourite characters (favourite character as in who is your favourite character in the godfather movies): Maurice Strong.
    Just applause. I’m so happy for you, you could finish this second part and happy for us, you are doing such an incredible work.

    As you mentioned at 1:50:45 you will be giving interviews, I will try to contact some alt-media (preferably voluntaryist) outlets, preferably German. Would be a nice deal to spread your audience to the different “nations” or simply different audiences.
    For example I’m thinking of Oliver Janich. Though he is in his videos (IMHO) sometimes a bit paranoid, his two German books are outstanding. Also I know he plans to publish his next book (an altered, complemented version) in English to an international audience. So it could be a nice deal.

    Mielia

  4. calibrator says:

    Haven’t seen it, yet, but thanks for destroying my weekend! 😉

  5. mkey says:

    Oh boy. I need to get a good night of sleep and start early tomorrow on this baby.

  6. Richard Ran says:

    This second part of the Big Oil trilogy is just as great and informative as the first one. And “great” doesn’t even begin to do justice to the wealth of info that’s on offer here.

    So after your third instalment in this series, which is great on analysis and uncovering, perhaps some reviewing of the solutions you’ve come up with so far on the Corbett Report is in order. Prominently among them:

    A) Facilitate the dissolution of nations (support open borders, global peer-to-peer networks and “multiculturalism”).

    B) Push bitcoin (digital fiat currency in a cashless society) through a well organized hipster network of alt-media outlets.

    C) Condemn the centralized power of the modern welfare/warfare state in theory, yet provide only “evasionist” neo-hippie solutions. There’s precious little that would inspire people to roll back the (super)state machinery in any meaningful way.

    Suggestion for a new series: “How We, The Big People Can Reconquer Our World”.

    Kind regs from Amsterdam,
    Richard

  7. manbearpig says:

    “…Big oil. Big pharma. The green revolution. Genetic engineering. Eugenics. The environmental movement. Technocracy…”

    …blockchain?

    “…the exact conditions that would need to be met for this vision to come to pass. According to him, technocracy would require:

    -all energy usage and all consumer spending throughout the nation to be calculated and registered on a continuous and instantaneous basis

    -a 24/7 inventory of all production and consumption

    -a complete registry of all products available for sale, where they were produced, how much energy was expended in their production, and where and when they were sold.

    -and, finally, a “specific registration of the consumption of each individual,

    -plus a record and description of the individual…”

    Wouldn’t a biometric-accessed blockchain/internet of things allow for this??

    blockchain because everybody has everybody else’s transactions on the “open ledger”?

    With only those who have the technology to crack this system at their fingertips in total control of the situation?

    (Of course nobody would fully realize that anyone had access to this information so everyone would consider himself free)

    and that would be the Skinnerian/Huxlian utopia where everyone would learn to “love their servitude”?

    Oh, and what could be faster for crashing systems than a blockchain system that always involves everyone in a particular network for each and every transaction?

    Especially when the Oiligarchs own all the survival resources?

    btw: extraordinary documents and recordings in this documentary.

    Un Grand Cru Corbett: Appellation Corbett Controlée

    Now back to Friday night partying…

  8. cmad says:

    Have stopped watching half way through as I just could not contain myself…I feel physically sick…My guilt-chip is over loading. I am having flashbacks of lessons at Junior School about Chinese population control and the infallible work done by The WWF. I am ashamed by the emotional memory it has left. Thank you James and “the Team” for this great production, so far… 😉
    After all the fraudulent articles posted lately I wouldn’t be surprised if this was your intention, or am I being paranoid? My instincts have truly been enraged by this report. Well done.

    Quick question though. I believe Comedians have been used to spread propaganda to the lower classes. I am the worst person for remembering jokes but I am certain that a large portion of the guilt you have bestowed upon me is tied to crude jokes I have echoed. I know that there is a circle of “High level” comic writers who supply material for popular comics, much like the music industry really.. any thoughts?

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      cmad,
      You are not alone. We all have been duped in some way, often crowing the same tune that the propagandists fed us.

      It is a wonderful asset to be a part of the Corbett Community where we all can learn and grow together. Not only do I learn from Corbett, I learn from other members.

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        Remember the racist cartoons from the 30s and 40s? I remember them still playing in the early 90s. This really was a nice documentary. Even for those who weren’t surprised by any (or not many) of the individual events or players, this put it all in an easy to understand, and appreciate, format. I think this one put most of the players in their proper places and times. That makes a huge difference. That’s a pretty impressive commitment! Well Done! Jim

        Oh yeah, I especially liked the part in the end when you asked the viewer what THEY were going to do with this knowledge. I liked that part. A lot.

  9. jean.s says:

    Without doubting a word of what you have presented here, I am nonetheless convinced that global warming/climate change is all to real and irreversible. This is a compiliation of scientific data leading to this conclusion.
    https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/ The agents cited in your documentary are undoubtedly doing all they can to extract every dime they can before being exterminated in the Sixth Great Extinction, but they will be exterminated along with the rest of us. Oh well.

    • brian.s says:

      Without needing to ‘convince’ you otherwise, you might have your conviction mitigated or quashed by researching some of the Electric Universe science.
      When the model is fundamentally flawed all the succeeding generations stand on the shoulders of the falsely floored – until the bottom falls out.
      You may also be aware that the ego’s trick is to ride the wave of change by being THE one to construct or frame the narrative interpretation.

      Scientific institutions and endeavour is not science unless it operates independently of vested interests. Whether personally conscious or unconscious. There are some independent scientists who are critical of politically engineered consensus. But few care to openly stand against the mob – for such it is.

      Climate change is known to have occurred – including cataclysmic events in the recorded human past – and so the end of an age is indeed in process – but the interpreting framing of human guilt is the persistence of the human intent of manipulation – for they are two sides of one coin.

      There are much more immediate toxic threats to biological diversity and habitability for life on Earth than carbon dioxide – which is a dire necessity for life as we know it Jim.

      The underlying nature of guilt and manipulation goes very deep – and is of such a nature that many see death as saving them from its denial or recycling hell. The projection of this operates as the wish to eradicate invalid humans as a disease or hateful failure or abomination (according to your sliding scale you may of course hate and want to kill them all – along with you having the last ‘judgement’).

      Compilations of data tend to be selected, gathered and interpreted to fit a predetermined outcome – as was indicated in this video. It might make you sick to realize the full extent of the lie – and yet that is a GOOD sickness – because it is a true basis from which to disinvest or relinquish allegiance or thinking in its terms – and thus opening the way for a genuinely open and direct curiosity. The presumption of knowing is the primary block to knowing. That does not mean you cannot know – because knowing is being – and yet the mind-framing of mutually agreed manipulative intent operates an exclusion zone to the true wonder and indeed awe of Existence itself. Which is not merely ‘out there’ but contains the awareness of being within its movement of being.

      Before consigning yourself and your world to death – you might open it to the true movement of life – which is not what you expect under the terms of a segregative and manipulative consciousness.
      contd

      • brian.s says:

        And yes, plunder and private self-gratification are the nature of those who believe their fleeting moment between birth and death is All That There Is (to them or to life) – but that is not so for those who are aware outside the box they set for everyone else to operate within – and yet in the intent to coerce life – they lose the true awareness of its wholeness and become framed in the game they attempt to hack into and control – so as to see their ‘escape’ only in terms of the goals of domination (usurping and substitution/replacement) for Life. And lastly, ‘They’ are operating as the thinking that runs on and through us by our own unwitting consent or agreements – that we might after the fact see as the art of deceit. So in that sense ‘They’ are within ‘us’ by reactive identification – because no one reacts to something that has no belonging, purpose of meaning to their living purpose and being.
        Beware the fascination in horror and the ‘dynamics’ of conflict – or – don’t look into the serpent’s eyes! Use the horror to be rightly sick and evacuate or release what is toxic to your innate capacity to live and share in a joyful or heart-connected sense of worthy existence here and now unfolding.
        Take heart in the fact that human thinking can falsely founded – as if the fear that something is true can operate AS IF it is really true. Such is the nature of unconscious ‘programming’ beliefs and self-definition. Defences operate the reinforcement of the belief in threat – and maintain the conditions of distrust and communication breakdown – in compartmentalized operation of a ‘need NOT to know’.
        All top-down or astro-turfed information offered for public consumption is operating the believed need to maintain a fig-leaf over a terrible and overwhelmingly feared ‘nakedness’. The need to mask or hide CALLS IN the scammer to fulfil assigned function. There is an underlying ‘agreement’ that cannot be accessed within what we are given to believe and accept as our ‘consciousness’. So the breakdown or disintegration of the masking ‘reality-matrix’ – for those who elect to align in willingness for awakening responsibility – is inevitably felt, imagined and symbolized in terms of meeting our end. That goes with the territory. Better I feel to cultivate the self-honesty of not-knowing – into which or through which life moves spontaneously and freely along the lines of its true nature. When you are truly presently connected and at one with your being – you don’t need a scientific study to tell you what is revealing itself. But that quality of unified purpose is a great foundation for engaging scientific – or any other endeavour.

        Many believed and still believe that sin (and its punishment) is all too real and un-reversible and those running the use of such belief as a protection and control racket didn’t ‘die out’ when the scientific usurpation of Religion joined the corporate usurpation of the State.

        The nature of any accepted belief is its reinforcement as (mind filtered) experience. You do not have to believe – but you do have to be at least partly open to the possibility that what you believe may not be true – or the whole truth. For only into this willingness, can any fresh perspective enter and embody through you to your relations and your world.

  10. scpat says:

    Congratulations James and Broc on completing this excellent documentary. The amount of detail, explanation, and production itself is extremely impressive and a valuable resource for everyone. Proud to be supporting this work.

  11. scpat says:

    As I think about how to spread this information, I think about the roadblocks that are well established and accepted in society. I know intelligent people that cannot grasp or will refuse to grasp this information and fully digest it, even when documented evidence is put in front of them. One of, if not the biggest roadblock is the mainstream media and its proven ability to set and control the narrative of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. George Orwell explained it well when he said, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” This is the challenge, and overturning the narrative setters should be the goal.

    I’ve found that there is no single video, article, or idea that is a silver bullet solution to cracking open the door of curiosity and interest in people into information like this documentary. What I believe is that everyone has there own button, if you will, which can be pushed and that can create curiosity or an epiphany. When spreading this type of information, such as the information on the Corbett Report, the first step is understanding the person who you and communicating with and discovering their button, and then pushing that. Seems pretty straightforward but I think people forget this.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      scpat’s QUOTE with emphasis…

      “What I believe is that everyone has their own button, if you will, which can be pushed and that can create curiosity or an epiphany. When spreading this type of information, such as the information on the Corbett Report, the first step is understanding the person who you are communicating with and discovering their button, and then pushing that. Seems pretty straightforward but I think people forget this.”

      • Davey says:

        Thought I’d share a little anecdote from earlier today..

        I was selling from my stall at a local farmers market and overheard a conversation between an older couple, one British and one Canadian, and the stall holder next to me (who sells smoked fish, interestingly). They were talking about the issues with GMOs, farming (we’re in a very rural area of England), and generally the power of big agri-business. The female of the couple was singing the praises of the ‘Health Ranger’ Mike Adams and how he tests for GMOs in his own lab etc etc. The stall holder was patient and happy to engage. As they were leaving I edged in to ask, “have you ever seen the documentary “How Big Oil Conquered The World?” They hadn’t and so I had a nice chat about the general premise, let them know that a new second part had only just been released and how it was a fantastic piece of work. They walked away seemingly very intrigued with CorbettReport.com/bigoil scrawled on a business card, as a bonus they also purchased a bottle of my real ale that I was selling.

        I guess my point is that despite living with the feeling of social isolation in a seemingly brain-drained and dumbed down society, THERE ARE people out there willing to engage and talk about these things, even in the most remote backwards parts of the UK.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          Great anecdote Davey!

          I did the same just this week…wrote down on a piece of paper “How Big Oil Conquered the World” “Corbett Report” and gave it to a home inspector who I was chatting with.

          A few weeks ago, I get a call from someone who is in the oil business. After chatting about the documentary, I emailed the Corbett link.

          Real world “Word of Mouth” goes a long way. Rosa Parks knows.

        • scpat says:

          That’s a cool story Davey, and it inspires me a bit to think about how information can be spread all over the world so quickly. To add on to the anecdotes of you and HomeRemedySupply, your stories reminded me of a conversation I had with an older woman (probably late 70s) I randomly met at a pub last year. My friends and I had a casual conversation with her and it eventually led to the topic of government and I brought up how society is shaped much like a corporatocracy. I told her about Corbett’s Meet the Corporatocracy and she was very intrigued. We also discussed peer to peer ideas. I emailed her the video link and we had a nice back and forth email exchange. She was extremely interested and asking questions about peer to peer society. Hearing your anecdotes reminded me of how only a small conversation can have such a big impact and go such a long way.

  12. gdpetti says:

    Excellent piece…. but to really understand their motives, you have to go esoteric… as that ‘energy’ is consciousness itself…. everything is consciousness….we are thoughts taking form… thus all the analogies in scifi like The Matrix film series… or Joseph Cambell with BillMoyers and The Power of Myth… used by Lucas in his Star Wars series… light and dark…. positive and negative energy flows…. it’s all about the energy… like in the Dune series… how best to control the flow of the spice… the energy of consciousness… which is our reality. Thus all the propaganda through every empire… to control the masses by control of the message thru its messengers…. religions being chief among the tools of statecraft… later science took this position for most ‘educated’ people, who thought themselves better than their ancestors, though in reality, they didn’t understand it at all, if anything, their level of understanding is worse… education worse, media worse, et al.

    Oil and gas are caveman forms of energy… which is why real science is kept under lock and key… from Rife to Tesla et al. It’s easier to control the flow of information/energy/consciousness if you can keep people contained within their own self-censorship pens…. like Plato’s Cave… first they have to seek the exit, or stay and join those manipulating the light on thewall. It’s up to them to choose, when they are able to.

  13. Hotfoot says:

    Wow. Watched most of this last night into the wee small hours and still have some 30 mins left to look forward to tonight. What an mind-blowing film. I shall be recommending this to everyone I know. Well done, James, Broc & Co. -this is my favourite site on the internet (childish though that sounds)

  14. simpson says:

    Dear James
    A fascinating and at times horrifying (especially the eugenics section) documentary.
    I have also been reading Nafeez Ahmed on INSURGE intelligence who writes well researched and written papers on the global crisis but with a slightly different perspective than yours. I would recommend
    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/the-new-economic-science-of-capitalisms-slow-burn-energy-collapse-d07344fab6be?source=collection_home—4——1—————-
    and
    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-trump-regime-was-manufactured-by-a-war-inside-the-deep-state-f9e757071c70?source=user_profile———24—————-
    These are only two of a number of interesting articles.
    I realise you are probably incredibly busy but if you have come across Nafeez or manage to read either of these two papers I would be interested to hear your response.

  15. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Hotfoot says: this is my favorite site on the internet

    Mine too.

  16. rich3 says:

    Fantastic! Very well done.

    One thing that needs to be pointed out somewhere is the role of “artificial selection” as a tool of eugenics. An artificial gradient is created which increases disease and mortality in those populations which don’t have the means, knowledge or income to bypass or surmount it. It used to be that you could avoid toxic produce by looking at the numbers on the package, if it starts with a 9 then it’s organic, 4 is conventional, I think 8 is GMO. But now that this bit of knowledge is spreading to the general population they want to replace this human readable number with a QR code so that you need a smartphone to tell whether the produce is sick or healthy. Similarly, knowledge about vaccine quackery is spreading, thus the rising need for forcible injections but in the meantime the less-educated are the first to be taken out.

    The same principle applies with the financialization of carbon oxidation, except the selection is based on income rather than knowledge or access to gadgetry.

    One thing I didn’t quite “get” was the notion of debt-based money wearing out. Are you referring to the level of debt-saturation in the economy? In more “normal” times they could tweak the interest rates to keep the treadmill from stalling out, but now that negative rates are coming they need to eliminate physical currency.

    Isn’t it funny that they attribute the consequences of their malign economic and social engineering to the genetics of its victims, and some people actually believe them. In a sensible world, this would be grounds for applying darwinism to the top of the pyramid. They have failed their own test of fitness.

    • danmanultra says:

      “Isn’t it funny that they attribute the consequences of their malign economic and social engineering to the genetics of its victims, and some people actually believe them. In a sensible world, this would be grounds for applying darwinism to the top of the pyramid. They have failed their own test of fitness.” -rich3

      Indeed. They are chiefs of hypocrisy. Condemning criminals while they themselves are entirely lawless and evil. Trying to uplift families that have high character while they themselves are without any morals or kindness.

      If they only had mirrors that could show their hearts they would see how they are truly devoid of any humanity. I suspect that is why they are traitors to their very own species. They may have been human at one time, but they threw all of that away for delusions of grandeur and self-importance. By elevating themselves they have made themselves lower than human. Sad.

  17. manbearpig says:

    Speaking of Big Energy…and Blockchain…

    “Blockchain Is Helping to Build a New Kind of Energy Grid

    …Using the technology behind Bitcoin, participants in the Brooklyn Microgrid are buying and selling locally generated renewable energy over a peer-to-peer network…

    …Blockchain makes the Brooklyn Microgrid possible, Orsini said. Participants install smart meters equipped with the technology, which track the energy they generate and consume. Records of the automatic “smart contracts” that enable neighbor-to-neighbor transactions are also tracked using blockchain.

    Could microgrids like this shake up the energy industry? At the moment, Brooklyn Microgrid consists of only 50 physical nodes, but Orsini signed a partnership with German conglomerate Siemens in November and is talking to regulators in the U.S., Australia, and Europe about expansion. He is also willing to collaborate with utilities. “We’re not putting the utilities out of business, but we want their business model to evolve,” he said….”

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604227/blockchain-is-helping-to-build-a-new-kind-of-energy-grid/

    Smart Citites: Blockchain and the Energy System of the Future

    “…The energy system of the future demands the ability to trace, track and record interactions reliably, in real-time. Blockchain technologies allow exchanges to occur immediately, transparently and reliably without centralized authorization, and are immune to alteration by fraud.

    The energy system of the future is emerging now, and the addition of blockchain technologies cannot come soon enough…”

    https://www.memoori.com/blockchain-energy-system-future/

    Why Energy Blockchain Intrigues Big Players Like Siemens

    “My personal view is that in fact they would start to leverage each other — probably not so much the prosumer leveraging the wholesale market, but the wholesale market having an optic into what the prosumer is doing at a very micro level and optimizing around that,” he said.

    https://microgridknowledge.com/energy-blockchain-siemens/

    Blockchain Is The “Missing Link” To A Decentralized, CO2-Free Energy Future

    “…European electricity transmission system operator TenneT, energy storage firm sonnen, renewable energy producer Vandebron and technology giant IBM are joining forces to develop an innovative blockchain solution for managing the electricity grid in the Netherlands and Germany. This innovative technology represents the next step in enabling decentralized flexible generation, which will play a critical role in the management of the electricity grid in the age of renewable energy…”

    https://www.memoori.com/blockchain-missing-link-decentralized-co2-free-energy-future/

  18. manbearpig says:

    Blockchain in IoT and at IoT Solutions World Congress 2017

    By 2019, 20% of All IoT Deployments Will Have Basic Levels of Blockchain Services Enabled

    “…A look at the site of the IoT Solutions World Congress 2017 shows that, among others, in a Blockchain Solutions Forum, 12 conferences take place with topics, ranging from digital identities, blockchain and regulation, blockchain and data security, IoT and blockchain and the usage of blockchain across various areas that are less related with IoT and more with other industries and manufacturing with Industry 4.0 use cases and demos, as well as use cases from sectors such as music & entertainment…

    “…author Ahmed Banafa states that “blockchain technology is the missing link to settle privacy and reliability concerns in the Internet of Things”…”

    https://www.i-scoop.eu/blockchain-iot-solutions-world-congress-iotswc/

    “…Adopting a standardized peer-to-peer communication model to process the hundreds of billions of transactions between devices will significantly reduce the costs associated with installing and maintaining large centralized data centers and will distribute computation and storage needs across the billions of devices that form IoT networks. This will prevent failure in any single node in a network from bringing the entire network to a halting collapse.

    However, establishing peer-to-peer communications will present its own set of challenges, chief among them the issue of security. And as we all know, IoT security is much more than just about protecting sensitive data. The proposed solution will have to maintain privacy and security in huge IoT networks and offer some form of validation and consensus for transactions to prevent spoofing and theft…

    …The database can only be extended and previous records cannot be changed (at least, there’s a very high cost if someone wants to alter previous records)…

    …Blockchain technology is the missing link to settle privacy and reliability concerns in the Internet of Things. Blockchain technology could perhaps be the silver bullet needed by the IoT industry. It can be used in tracking billions of connected devices, enabling the processing of transactions and coordination between devices; this allows for significant savings for IoT industry manufacturers. This decentralized approach would eliminate single points of failure, creating a more resilient ecosystem for devices to run on. The cryptographic algorithms used by blockchains would make consumer data more private…

    …In an IoT network, the blockchain can keep an immutable record of the history of smart devices. This feature enables the autonomous functioning of smart devices without the need for centralized authority. As a result, the blockchain opens the door to a series of IoT scenarios that were remarkably difficult, or even impossible to implement without it….”

    https://iot.ieee.org/newsletter/january-2017/iot-and-blockchain-convergence-benefits-and-challenges.html

  19. Darko says:

    Great documentary. I found out about this website when How the big oil conquered the world came out. Since that day I have almost every day been at this website watching , listening and reading -learning . Thank you .

  20. Mishelle says:

    Fantastic work James! Over the years I’ve had numerous online newsmen and thinkers I’ve followed and then left and only you have remained consistently impressive, appealing and aligned with the biggest picture. Hubby relies on me to find most of our podcasts, which we listen to for many hours a day while working, he often comments you are who he prefers by far. Thanks for all you do! You often inspire us to look toward next steps in continuing to align our life with our values and it’s been so rewarding.

  21. PeaceFroggs says:

    Accolades? Allow me to point out the obvious!

    Most of the eugenics that are mentioned in this documentary are from the late 18th century or early 19th century, and peoples mindset back then was way different than what it is today. More importantly, most of the eugenics views back then, are no longer accepted by any rational society today.

    Today’s society is NOTHING like what the 19th century eugenics, that are mentioned in this documentary, had envisioned it would be. For example every four years, following the Olympic games, the world actually celebrates the Paralympic Games! If the eugenics that are mentioned in this documentary had had their way, no paraplegic person would be alive today, he/she would be terminated.

    — Government death panels? They don’t exist. Most countries in the world have some form of socialistic health care system, yes that is true, however let me point out that peoples life expectancy has INCREASED, not decreased, because of it!

    — Abortions? No one is forcing women to have abortions. Nobody, no eugenicists, is stopping the poor from breeding. In fact, it’s the poor uneducated people that have larger families today, whereas it’s the educated, middle class, that have on average less than 2 children per family. Furthermore, most western countries have open immigration policy, so how does that jive with 19th century eugenics?

    — Laws and bi-laws have been passed by most countries throughout the world, to make sure government and other municipal facilities are Wheel chair accessible. Plus, companies/corporations receive tax credits if they employ mentally or physically disabled people!

    Now, let me quote comedian Bill Hicks, “let’s work out this food-air deal”

    There is a over population dilemma, and people need to realize this. In 1900 there were approx 1.5 billion people, whereas today there are over 7 billion of us. Think about that for a minute, this means in 100 years or so, there may be 14 billion people in the world. Common sense tells me that, there won’t be much left of wild life if this population trend continues.

    • PeaceFroggs says:

      Now for me, call me crazy, but when I read that there are less than 25 000 grizzly bears in Canada, or less than 3000 tigers in the world, or only a few hundred type of whales, all because of over fishing, hunting or urban sprawl, I’m sadden by this.

      “Climate change” is really about decoupling the world from the US petrol dollar, and transitioning from the post WW2 US empire, into a more multipolar World Order, not eugenics.

      What am I going to do with this information? Well, after watching this documentary, I’m left with… the elite want to kill most of us, depopulate the world, therefore to really stick it to the elite, we should breed like rabbits, and kill whatever wildlife that is left, or at least put whatever little of them that is left in a zoo, and keep on driving our gas guzzling SUV’s, keep supporting big oil and the US petrol dollar, even though we now know the Rockefeller control the oil industry?!

      Yeah, way to discombobulate the issue.

      • Richard Ran says:

        “therefore to really stick it to the elite..”

        And then you miss the whole point again:

        – Breed like rabbits? Not really, because it never was about population.
        – Kill wildlife? Nope, ain’t about wildlife either.
        – Go the extra anarcho-mile in your SUV? It’s not really about climate or CO2.
        – Keep supporting big oil? Like James said already: not about oil.

        And before you start making some obvious counterpoints about technology/technocracy.. In the final analysis it probably isn’t about that either 😉

        So what’s it all about then? Do you really want to stick it to the elites, like.. really really?

        • PeaceFroggs says:

          Hey Richard Ran,

          Let me ask you, if you can, please explain to me and summarize what the main argument James is making in this documentary, because apparently, I missed it.

          • Richard Ran says:

            Hi PF,

            I’ll try my best.

            But first and foremost, to really bug the all-powerful psychopathic elites, you gotta load up on Bitcoin. Understand?

            Okay, now make your way to the next anarcho-hipster happening somewhere in a far off resort (Anarchapulco.com, just scroll and meet some of the bitcoin creeps like Mr Ver and Mr Tucker) to celebrate your retreat from the body politic and engage with your fellow neo-hippies in a grand decentralized display of peer-to-peer subversion. Sort of the Amish way with a techno-twist.

            That’ll teach ’em!

            As for the main argument in this documentary: whether it’s about eugenics or dysgenics, about overpopulation or underpopulation, global warming (eugenics2.0), cooling or just about any change in “climate”, the controligarchs will use any pretext to sucker us, the people, into their Brave New World. And therefore, we need to..
            Load up on bitcoin and visit Anarchapulco (or something else to that tune to really threaten the existing power structure).

            Savvy?

            • PeaceFroggs says:

              Savvy? Haha, not really, who are you? Captain Jack Sparrow all of a sudden, haha!

              No, but seriously, I thought you were going to enlighten me about this documentary, but I don’t think James mentioned bit coin even once in this documentary. So I guess you missed the main point as well.

              Secondly, assuming the US empire isn’t pushing bitcoin in order to destabilize other countries currencies (currency wars) as a way to keep their dollar dominance, then how exactly will this new Utopian bitcoin society curb overfishing, poaching and protect wildlife? Just curious.

              • Richard Ran says:

                Hi Pf,

                Well, I tried to be serious (apart from the obvious anarcho-sarcasm and the savvy thing). So here goes once again, I’ll spell it out for you:

                Main point docu James is:

                “As for the main argument in this documentary: whether it’s about eugenics or dysgenics, about overpopulation or underpopulation, global warming (eugenics2.0), cooling or just about any change in “climate”, the controligarchs will use any pretext to sucker us, the people, into their Brave New World.”

                So there it is: “the main argument in this documentary”. Me thinks, I tried my best 😉

                The conclusion that I added in the end is obviously my own sarcastically versed criticism with regard to the solutions that James c.s. has on offer. Not in this documentary, but over here at the Corbett Report. In short, “Good -and sometimes great- on analysis, but terribly/conspicuously poor on solutions.” (see earlier post in this thread: corbettreport.com/episode-321-why-big-oil-conquered-the-world/#comment-44304):

                “And therefore, we need to..
                Load up on bitcoin and visit Anarchapulco (or something else to that tune to really threaten the existing power structure).”

                There, my view on James’ solutions.

                Though it’s exactly what I said in my previous post, I hope this time I’ve left no room for misunderstandings. Anyhew, I can’t put it more clearly than this. So if you care to miss the point hereafter, kindly ask HomeRemedySupply to enlighten you 😉

                All the best from Amsterdam,
                Richard

              • PeaceFroggs says:

                So, you’re saying this documentary is about how the “controligarchs” as you call them, will use any pretext to sucker us, and to disregard the eugenics part of the documentary.

                Ok, I don’t think that was the main goal of the documentary, but for the sake of the argument, lets say it is. However, after reading your posts, you seem to agree with me that the “controligarchs” did succeed at implementing some sort of social engineering policies in the developed world in the past century which helped curb overpopulation and help implement conservation laws and practices to stop overfishing, hunting and poaching…am I correct?

                So my question to you and to other bitcoin activists out there, which is: if we were to replace the current “controligarchs” with a Utopian bitcoin society, how would a individualist bitcoin society curb overfishing, poaching and protect wildlife and keep the world population unsustainability?

              • Richard Ran says:

                Hi PF,

                Please don’t think that I’m not enjoying our occasional exchanges here at the CR, but this is getting really funny, because the one point you now say you’re getting is replaced by another one that obviously eludes you. This:

                “So my question to you and to other bitcoin activists out there, which is: if we were to replace the current “controligarchs” with a Utopian bitcoin society..[..]”

                What part of sarcasm was so hard to get?

                Moi a “bitcoin activist”? Are you kidding? In the comment above, I even refer to these people as “bitcoin creeps”. So PF, with sugar on top, wtf is wrong with your reading skills?
                I’ve railed against bitcoin in so many comments here at the CR, that I feared I might be overdoing it. Apparently, it was not enough.

                So FYI: I reject the whole bitcoin scheme, and I’m very suspicious about its origin and function.

                Here’s an article I posted earlier that captures my strong reservations better than I could in one comment:

                alt-market.com/articles/3239-the-globalist-one-world-currency-will-look-a-lot-like-bitcoin

                Cheers,
                Richard

              • PeaceFroggs says:

                Haha, I must admit I don’t remember reading the part were you referred to them as “bitcoin creeps”, however you do realize that you suggested that James solution to the controligarchs is to buy bitcoins don’t you? Haha, are you saying James is a bitcoin creep? Haha, now that’s funny.

                “What part of sarcasm was so hard to get?”

                To be honest, it’s difficult to know sometimes when people are being sarcastic or not when I can’t see their facial expression or hear their voice. lost in nuance.

                Anyway, I’ll try to remember that you’re not on board with the bitcoin scheme if we happen to cross paths again.

              • Richard Ran says:

                Hi PF,

                Ok, at last we’re on the same page, sort of. Took some effort eh 😉

                “however you do realize that you suggested that James solution to the controligarchs is to buy bitcoins don’t you?”

                Well yes, that’s what I said. I also said that “solutions” like that and other neo-hippie evasions of the power structure are ludicrously poor and stand in stark contrast to the quality of James’ analysis. I wonder if there’s method to the direction of these solutions.

                “Haha, are you saying James is a bitcoin creep? Haha, now that’s funny.

                No it’s not funny. And I’m not overtly saying James is a bitcoin creep, he certainly doesn’t come off as one, I’m merely suggesting crypto-creepness in my own subtle Dutchie way 😉
                Let’s say that he likes the company of these creepos: corbettreport.com/bitcoin-anarchy-and-freedom-with-roger-ver/

                Kind regs from Amsterdam,
                Richard

              • PeaceFroggs says:

                “Took some effort eh”

                — Yeah…that’s my fault, sorry but that, haha, it takes me a while sometimes. 🙂

              • Richard Ran says:

                That’s okay PF,

                And do stick around to offer your views. Even if it takes some back and forths every now and then, I like it better than wading through all of the predictable fanboys’ discourse here at the CR.

    • manbearpig says:

      The Underpopulation Bomb
       

      “We’ve all seen the official graph of expected human population growth. A steady rising curve swells past us now at 7 billion and peaks out about 2050. The tally at the expected peak continues to be downgraded by experts; currently U.N. demographers predict 9.2 billion at the top. The peak may be off by a billion or so, but in broad sweep the chart is correct.
      But curiously, the charts never show what happens on the other side of the peak. The second half is so often missing that no one even asks for it any longer. It may be because it’s pretty scary news. The hidden half of the chart is that it projects a steady downward plunge toward fewer and fewer people on the planet each year—and no agreement on how close to zero it can go…”

      https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23722

      Replacement Migration:
      Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?

      “United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.
      Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). …”

      http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

      • PeaceFroggs says:

        manbearpig,

        Sure, I’m well aware that the world population in “developed countries” will peak, however in the third world, their population will double if not triple in the coming decades, but did you ever ask why it will peak in the developed world?

        You said: “The tally at the expected peak continues to be downgraded by experts; currently U.N. demographers predict 9.2 billion at the top.”

        — It will peak because of “eugenics policies” or social engineering policies that were implemented in the developed world during the 18th and 19th century. Access to legal abortions (even though I’m personally against abortions, I understand it is a personal choice/freedom for women) has help curbed population, but the peak in the developed world, is mainly due because women are actually allowed to work now.

        Women are allowed to go to university, get careers and by the time they graduate and start working, they are in their late 20’s early 30’s. By this time in their lives, age and time simply won’t allow them to have more than one or two children on average, whereas in the third world and developing countries, women’s rights are limited and as a consequence they have large families. (plus they also have access to modern medicine)

        So, you either prefer the third world model, which means world overpopulation eventually, meaning many animals going extinct due to over fishing, hunting and poaching, or you prefer the developed world model, where women’s right and social engineering seek a more balanced approached between man and nature.

        By the way, just because 9/11 was an inside job and the perpetrators deserve to go to jail (at the very least), doesn’t mean we should keep propping up the US petrol dollar and the oiligarchs, because after watching this documentary, the status quo seems to be James’s answer to “climate change”.

      • wingsuitfreak says:

        Hello manbearpig, savior of the warming earth and life-giver of the tower of babel; Ryan Dawson went over one of the reasons why Japan has such a low birth rate as well. The government is apparently encouraging more births, in order to support their Social Security Ponzi Scheme, but the people had lost their faith in the government fulfilling their end of the bargain after some incident (forgotten by me) in which the government dropped the ball. Yep, no matter how dire the circumstances, it is never so bad that government can’t make it worse. It seems to me that no one really has faith in governments anymore. It’s more of a matter of tolerating it instead. While I’ve traditionally been considered extremely intolerant, it no longer seems as if I’m that far from the herd. That’s probably not a very healthy attitude. At least not from the state’s point of view. From my point, the view is fantastic!

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      PeaceFrogs,
      No worries about future population.

      There was a Corbett video a few months back where he discussed projected population growth and its peak.
      I wish I could find it.

      I believe that there is a projected peak of around 9 billion people.
      I wish I had that Corbett video reference.

      Back in the early 1970’s, I well remember all the fear mongering about over-population.
      Japan was given as the big example. Their population was projected to explode and then the Japanese islands would be in a crisis. You could say the word “Japan” and people would think “over-population”.

      Ironically, many years later at a certain peak, Japan’s population started to decline. Then, suddenly people were worried about the decline.

      I kind of feel like quoting Alfred E. Neuman.

      • PeaceFroggs says:

        HomeRemedySupply,

        Japan is the perfect example as how the developed nations of the world have implemented social engineering policies in the 19th and 20th century that helped curb overpopulation.

        You can’t have it both ways!

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          ?

          PeaceFrogs, Re-read my statements on Japan. I am telling you what I observed in the early 1970’s when living in Texas. And then years later, what the statistics were.

          • PeaceFroggs says:

            HomeRemedySupply,

            I guess maybe I did misconstrue what you said, so I’m gonna ask Richard Ran to enlighten me.

            • Richard Ran says:

              Don’t know about the population thing. I think you’re absolutely right that the trend in developed countries is the result of several forms of social engineering, chiefly by government. Could be that crypto-eugenicists applauded these measures or even brought them about, like they did with regard to minimum wage laws (remember?).

              Back to the eugenics thing, you pointed out a weak spot in the documentary. The total failure of the eugenics movement doesn’t exactly project an image of “all-powerful” elites. Or as someone at YT said:

              “So why is there such a concerted push to get rid of all people of European descent in their traditional homelands, if the oiligarchs’ main purpose has been to only remove those of low IQ? Seems the plan has been backfiring since the mid to late 1960s. Is there a faction working against the oiligarch faction? If so, who is in this opposing faction??”

              Perhaps the elite want idiocracy for/of the masses and selective breeding/eugenics2.0 for themselves? The alleged motive behind the eugenics agenda doesn’t exactly square with the obvious “dumbing down” of the masses.

              Here’s the solution to make it all fit within the framework of this documentary. See, if it’s all about control, then that could explain the transformation of the eugenics movement into a de facto dysgenics movement. A dumbed down population would be much easier to control. The eugenicists of yeasteryear were evil, elitist, but in a sense also “idealists” in that they still believed the masses could to some extent be “civilized” and shaped into their image. The same elitist/paternalistic motive could also be found in the mindset of some Western colonizers of the nineteenth/early twentieth century. This venture later morphed into the foreign aid industry.

              Cheers from Rantsterdam,
              Richard

    • Richard Ran says:

      Hi PF,

      Both obvious and valid points about eugenics.

      However, the things you point out won’t take anything away from the main argument James is making in this documentary. Because it was never really about eugenics, you see?

      Cheers from Amsterdam,
      Richard

    • Mielia says:

      An entirely other point apart from your discussion with Richard.
      I’ve often asked me (and not come to a conclusion):
      With the enormous effort the eugenicists and their successors made, like the Bill Gates’ vaccinating in Africa and planned parenthood abortioning and selling fetus tissue, fluoridation of water etc, have they been successful or may it be the most unsuccessful endeavour powerful psychopaths ever undertook?

      Of that question your comment reminded me.

  22. travis.b says:

    Hi James,

    Thank you for this wonderful gift. I am in awe of your ability to see things at 30k’ and, at the same time, present it so effectively to the masses.

    I am struggling with something right now, especially after viewing this video. I am the founder/ED of the Hereditary Colon Cancer Foundation and a cautious advocate of genetic testing for hereditary cancer conditions. I know first hand how knowing if one carries a deleterious gene can affect medical screening and prophylactic procedures, thereby preventing cancer. We have been a strong supporter of the National Society of Genetic Counseling (NSGC) and, in fact, provide CEUs through our webinar series.

    I am exhibiting at a conference in a couple of weeks that falls on the heels of the American Society of Human Genetics’s 2017 conference wherein our friend Bill Gates will be presenting on “the importance of understanding genetic contributors to health disparities and outcomes in global populations.” Seeing his name listed with ASHG compelled me to look at the founding fathers/presidents of ASHG. The first five presidents are all staunch eugenics and population control advocates, including, HJ Muller, Lawrence Snyder, Lee R. Dice, FJ Kallman, and Clarence Oliver. I found it interesting that AHSG founded the NSGC, the very organization we have worked with since our inception.

    My question is simple. Can an organization change or, regardless of the altruism of genetic counselors, are we all complicit with a terrible scheme to control the world’s populations?

    Thank you and I look forward to your response,

    Travis

  23. VoiceOfArabi says:

    Hello James,

    I had to watch it twice to “get it”, and I still don’t get it fully.

    I have noticed from the comments some people took your report “literally” and as result missed the big picture and focused on Eugenics or climate change, which are the symptoms, but they are not the “real disease”.

    What i took from the report is…. an “Entity” is seeking to dominate and CONTROL “human population” (the cannon fodders) with the aim to create two societies… The Elite (to CONTROL) and The Unwashed Masses(the cannon fodders).

    Apart from CONTROL… The other phrase that i took was “who’s the enemy?” and as a reader of SunTzu i know we are destined to fail if we don’t fully understand the ENEMY. (and so far we don’t even know who the enemy is!).

    I think i understand the biggest weapon the “Entity” (the enemy) has in their arsenal is “social engineering” and you will see it working even here on this websites comments… I think this video can help to “un-program” some of the people out there, but it is a needle in a haystack.

    If i had a senator or a member of Parliament in my country.. I would buy this DVD and ask James to send it to my senator or MP. (Social Engineering is only powerful because human population “together” is the most powerful weapon on earth.)

    I will watch this video once more and see what else i can glean from it.

    Excellent work Mr. Colbert 🙂

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      VoiceOfArabi,

      I always like hearing your voice.
      Great to hear from you.

      • VoiceOfArabi says:

        Hello HomeRemedySupply,

        Thanks buddy, and it is always nice to read your comments, and I do follow them and learn from them majority of the times.

        Times are tough were i am, so staying away from reasons to make me disappear, but let us hope it will not come to reading comments on the web!.

        Stay lucky and keep up your lovely spirit that i often read in your comments.

        • pearl says:

          Good to see you, VoA! Given your mentioning in the past your living situation, and then your sudden absence, I honestly wondered if you had been disappeared (and not just by Newsbud 😉 ).

          I literally smiled and felt relief to see your return. Your insights have been missed.

          Take care, and be safe.

          • VoiceOfArabi says:

            Hi Pearl,

            It is good to see you active and i do enjoy your comments. I am still member at Newsbud, and still follow the reports especially by Peter Lee and the Prof., however, the comments are repressed on Newsbud and resembles my country 🙂 .

            I do miss all the interaction, however, i live in (we all do) very scary times at the moment, and it is better to be cautious. (I now know how the average German must have felt during Nazi Germany).

            All the best..

  24. aaaronr says:

    James, thanks for an unexpected birthday present! Great work as always!

  25. Truth seeker says:

    Great work. Unfortunatelly you are the only one telling us about our scary future.
    I dont see how their new economic system will work because many people will die young from all the emf poisoning i.e internet of things causing lots of wifi, smart meters, 5 g towers. Also, gmos, mandatory vax. Perhaps that is the point to get rid of us because we wont be needed with AI can replace us.

    Second, since the petrodollar is dying they are taking us thisbway. Cant we go back on gold standard or it wont work due to limited gold?

  26. Rocco says:

    Fantastic work, James and Broc. Proud to be a subscriber and supporter of the Corbett Report

  27. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Previous to tasting the release of “Why Big Oil Conquered the World”, James Corbett prepped our taste buds with some seasoning…

    Propaganda
    Why Do You Eat Bacon and Eggs? https://www.corbettreport.com/why-do-you-eat-bacon-and-eggs/
    and
    Episode 033 – Meet Edward Bernays https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-033-meet-edward-bernays/
    BOOK “Propaganda” by Edward L Bernays – pdf published 1928
    https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Bernays_Propaganda_in_english_.pdf

    Psychopathic Trait
    At the end of the Corbett video on Bernays, it was noted how Bernays would call everyone stupid or dope or demean them in some way.

    And previous to Propaganda, Corbett ran a series of videos and episodes covering Psychopaths
    https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=psychopaths

    All this information and more help to digest “Why Big Oil Conquered the World”.

  28. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Great Promotional Tool!
    Less than 4 minute video “The Rise of Eugenics”

    https://youtu.be/EwZ8PDyHCr4

    3 1/2 minutes is confrontable for most people. This short video “The Rise of Eugenics” is sure to ignite a spark of interest in many folks.

  29. What do you call it when you self Egenicize yourself?

    You could say:
    All of evolution led up to this great moment all for me.
    or:
    All of evolution led up to this great moment all for me?

    For better or worse, after all the missing links and found links, I am the anchor at the end across seas of time.

    While I don’t kick kittens I find most babies to be extremely ugly.

    I choose not to have kids, their snotty noses, and that responsibility.

  30. GE⊕ says:

    Interesting book that goes into much detail about the history of the Eugenics movement, etc.:

    Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism by Robert Zubrin

    Amazon: http://amzn.to/2wJFTvf

  31. troides says:

    James, you’ve done it again. A homerun, out of the ballpark. You are one of a very few persons/websites that I recommend to my family and friends without reservation. I am always amazed by both the breadth and depth of your research.
    I eagerly await your next production.

  32. HomeRemedySupply says:

    (Thanks to my buddy Joe for finding this link again.)

    Tape made in 1989 about a 1969 talk given by an “Elite”.
    Social Engineering & Depopulation Plan
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCmBAzEyfU8

    Whether or not this is a ‘credible’ source or ‘hearsay’, the audio relays a concept.
    Listen to the concept: a mindset of an ‘Elite’. Whether the audio is fiction or fact doesn’t matter. A concept is communicated which gives us insight.

    Examples of the ‘Elite Agenda’:
    ~~ “Stupid” people would not eat correctly nor exercise so they would die much earlier.
    ~~ They will make health care so expensive that you must have insurance or be financially destroyed. Limiting access to affordable medical care will make eliminating elderly easier.
    ~~ New difficult to treat and diagnose diseases will come about as a means of population control.
    ~~ Entertainment will be used to mainly change and program the young people. Old people are ‘on their way out’ so the Elite won’t worry about programing them.
    ~~ The education system will be restructured as a tool of indoctrination. Kids will spend more time in school but won’t learn anything.

  33. adam.b says:

    James, another informative, brilliantly researched and presented piece. Well done and thank you!

  34. VoiceOfArabi says:

    Formula for enslaving nations….

    The Arab and Islamic world has been enslaved for the last 400 years at least. It is mainly due to ignorance (Arabs and Muslims stopped reading anything but the Qura’an – We are the least read people as per world statistics currently), which resulted in feudalism and infighting.

    So, i feel i have a first person view of this topic.

    So.. to enslave nations… here is what you need to do…

    1) Help an “Idiot” get into power, for example, take any leader in the arab world today (there are few exceptions currently which are Iran, Syria, Lebanon – possibly others?)

    2) Take an issue closer to the nations’ heart, and make it prominent for all the wrong reasons, for example, Islam is a big issue for my world, so they took Islam and created Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS which are false and destructive and twisted version of Islam.

    3) Let the nation implode internally, and suggest to send international help to assist said nation, and in the process, colonize said nation and plunder their resources. Example, Libya, Iraq, etc

    So… this is applicable to the entire planet and no single country is immune… Soooo… Where does USA fit into this formula??

    1) Idiot Leader = Trump.
    2) Issue closer to nations heart = Climate Change & Racism.
    3) Let the nation Implode internally = ??

    What do other readers think??

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      The formula seems workable to me, because it certainly is being implemented.

      VoiceOfArabi,
      I have an important question…
      King Faisal
      36 minute VIDEO – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIV7vLota3E
      from this massive collection (with lots of graphics) on Saudi Arabia…
      http://911blogger.com/news/2016-05-31/game-thrones-recent-saudi-coup

      In the 1950’s and 1960’s he worked hard to implement education (including women) and many cultural reforms such as TV. He was an advocate of more rights for women and minorities, and a balanced budget. These were very radical at the time. He supported the Palestinians.

      In my perception, it seems that this ruler was one of the few national rulers who had some integrity and decency. It is said that he really did not want to be King.

      What is your take on King Faisal?

      • VoiceOfArabi says:

        Hi HomeRemedySupply,

        Interesting question… I will try to answered it as briefly as possible.

        Short Answer: He is a Muslim Brotherhood “Guy”, so not the kind of “good guy” you want to hang around with.

        When Jamal AbdulNasser kicked the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt around late 1950, the late King Faisal invited them to Saudi and started to use them for his power gain.

        Long Answer: He is another King, who was a dictator and did evil things towards innocent citizens, and used the Countries resource to enrich himself and his family. That said, he was better than your average king as far as Saudi Arabia is concerned.

        He was a nationalist, and cared a lot about his country, and stood in the face of all to protect Saudi Arabia. He refused to accept the dominance of foreign powers and tried to change that and deal with foreign powers as equals. (that did not work, and he got executed for trying to be an equal)

        All his other views are a mix of Wahabi Islam and Muslim Brotherhood.. and those two thought processes can only generate a psychopath.

        He did try to improve his follow country men standard of living, like education but only within the confines of Muslim Brotherhood thinking, so we can forget about democracy or women liberation.

        So, in short, he is not a President Trump, but closer to President Bush 🙂 (senior or junior).

        Interestingly… the new Prince Mohammed Bin Naif has similar thinking As late King Faisal, Nationalist and loyal to Saudi Arabia, and that is why he was ousted from the possibility to be a future King.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          Thank you! Thank you!

          Wonderful insight! …and information which I did not know.

          Your data highlights the points which Corbett makes about “Psychopaths” and our systems which are built by Psychopaths.

          More and more, I realize that a lack of awareness about Psychopaths and Sociopaths can be an impediment to further understanding for many “normies”.

  35. jhnbrr says:

    The Scopes Monkey trial was about Social Darwinism. The book in question, A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems, specifically refers to eugenics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_Biology
    Parasitism and its Cost to Society. – Hundreds of families such as those described above exist today, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites

  36. paul.h says:

    Great work James. I love the production choices made, substituting clear and concise information for spooky music and overdone gloom images.

  37. flybyknightusa says:

    I’m sure I’m not the only one who was flabbergasted at the incredible amount of research, writing, organization, that went into “Why Big Oil Conquered The World”. I bought “Century Of Enslavement: The history of the Federal Reserve” for our library last year and see it’s been checked out often. I will now encourage our library to buy your latest offering themselves, hoping it will be the impetus for a commitment to buy some of your other work to put in our non-fiction DVD section (as well as acquaint the staff with one of the primary torch bearers for the alternative media).
    You stated early on that if you could do it (starting the Corbett Report), anyone could. You’ve inspired many others to follow your lead, but as Carly Simon said about another James…”Nobody does it better, makes me feel sad for the rest, Nobody does it half as good as you, baby, baby you’re the best…”*
    *(Interesting that this was the theme song for the Bond film “The Spy Who Loved Me” about a vainglorious villain intent on destroying the world to create an undersea society. To save us all, Bond teams up with a Russian agent, Anya Amasova, played by Barbara Goldbach, who was married to Ringo Starr, who sang “With A Little Help From My Friends” from the Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album, which had portrayed on the cover, #18, Second row, Aldous Huxley, who was…etc.)
    (Is it just me…or does everything seem connected?)
    However, in spite of the high bar you’ve set, James, many of us continue to try, in our own way, to make a difference.
    Also a shout out to Brock West for taking the load off James and for your superb job of video editing. The dynamic duo. The caped crusaders. The GOBLINS (Galton Obsessed Bamboozlers Lacking In Necessary Sanity) don’t stand a chance.

  38. cara says:

    This is fantastic James, thank you very much. Detailed, thorough and insightful. Lots to consider.

    In response to this grand plan, I almost wish for an electromagnetic pulse to “set the cat among these global control pigeons”.

    • cara says:

      And so having “slept” on this, my mind and its explorations led me this morning to this:

      “After the death of faith in Marxism, eastern European thinkers living under a communism no one believed in any longer, very much feared nihilism. They feared what the Czech dissident Václav Havel described to his wife, Olga, as ‘nothingness, that modern face of the devil.’

      Havel wrote that letter to Olga in March 1981, from prison. He had found himself there some time after taking on the role of spokesperson for the human rights petition Charter 77. Among the other two original spokespersons was the revered Jan Patočka, older than Havel by more than a quarter-century. …

      Some year and a half later, an underground courier delivered to Adam Michnik, then the editor of a Polish samizdat journal, Havel’s essay dedicated to Patočka in memoriam. This essay, titled ‘The Power of the Powerless’, would become the iconic text of eastern European dissent. The anti-hero of ‘The Power of the Powerless’ is an ordinary greengrocer, who every morning dutifully hangs the sign saying ‘Workers of the world unite!’ in his shop window. The greengrocer has no special enthusiasm for communist ideals – by the late 1970s, no one does. And everyone who sees the sign understands that no one is any longer anticipating that workers around the world will unite. Yet the greengrocer, like all the others, goes on hanging the sign. After all, does he have a choice? If he were to refuse, he could be questioned, detained, persecuted. His family, too, would likely suffer. His children could be denied entrance to the university. The greengrocer, Havel tells us (although he does not use the French term), is living in mauvaise foi. He is living in ‘bad faith’, precisely in Sartre’s sense of bad faith as self-deception. The greengrocer is lying to himself – not, though, about his belief in communism. He knows perfectly well that he does not believe in communism. No, the greengrocer is lying to himself about his powerlessness.

      In what way is this sense of powerlessness a self-deception? Havel responded with a question: why would all these unpleasant consequences befall the greengrocer if he were to take down the sign? After all, no one believes the sign’s message anyway. Everyone – including the emperor himself – knows that the emperor is naked. Yet these unpleasant consequences suggest that the hanging of this sign is nonetheless extremely important to the communist regime. In fact, if one day all the greengrocers were to take down their signs, this would be the beginning of a revolution. And so the greengrocer is not so powerlessness after all. On the contrary, he is quite powerful: it is the greengrocers who allow the game to go on in the first place.

      Havel accused the greengrocer of ‘living a lie.’ The greengrocer’s failure to live in truth is a moral failure: he is guilty of sustaining the very system that oppresses him. That he lives a lie, that everyone lives a lie, does not make truth go away – Havel insisted – but only demoralizes the person who lives an inauthentic life. Havel’s assertion resists the postmodernist turn: no amount of propaganda or blind ritual or ‘bad faith’ can dissolve the ontologically real distinction between truth and lies.”

      From here: http://www.eurozine.com/a-pre-history-of-post-truth-east-and-west/

  39. Eltervag says:

    This documentary is mindblowing!
    Thank you so much for doing this work Corbett.
    You have convinced me that your work deserves support.

    I wish to quote an Edgar Cayce Reading concerning this. All his readings were archived and numbered.
    This one is from the 3976 series.

    And those that in the inmost recesses of theirselves awaken to the spiritual thruths that are to be given, and those places that have acted in the capacity of teachers among men, the rottenness of those that have ministered in places will be brought to light, and turmoils and strifes shall enter. And, as there is the wavering of those that would enter as emissaries, as teachers, from the throne of life, the throne of light, the throne of immortality, and wage war in the air with those of darkness, then know ye the Armageddon is at hand. For with the great numbers of the gathering of the hosts of those that have hindered and would make stumbling blocks for man and his weaknesses, they shall wage war with the spirits of light that come into the earth for this awakening, that have been and are being called by those of the sons of men into the service of the living God.
    For He, as ye have been told, is not the God of the dead, not the God of those that have forsaken Him, but those that love His comming, that love His associations among men – the God of the LIVING, the God of Life! For, He IS Life.
    3976-15

    Corbett, you are bringing light to the world

  40. kevin2 says:

    What an amazing, outstanding and brilliant documentary James! How fortunate we are for your endeavors! Thank you for such a disquieting banquet! “..said he over the hiss and smoke seeping from his ears”.
    Of course, just as you said, every point and reference in the documentary could easily require an hour long documentary for further fact finding development and of course everything can’t be discussed at once, I was however left wondering about your opinion of Fletcher Prouty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdSjyvIHVLw comments about and F. William Engdahl’s assertions about petroleum being falsely classified as “a fossil fuel” in 1892 to concoct the peak oil / eventual depletion / “scarcity therefore costly” paradigm and being “..the second most prevalent liquid on earth.” by Col. Prouty and F.William Engdahl’s “…I came into personal contact with one of the leading Russian abiotic scientists, Vladimir Kutcherov, then a professor at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden’s ETH or MIT. We met several times and he tutored me in the confirmed deep earth origins of all hydrocarbons. Not from dead dinosaur detritus and biological remains. Rather oil is being constantly generated from deep in the core of the Earth in the giant nuclear oven we call the core. Under enormous temperature and pressure, the primal methane gas is forced to the surface through what they term migration channels in the Earth’s mantle. [2] Indeed, Kutcherov demonstrated that existing “depleted” oil wells, left capped for several years, had been proven to “refill” with new oil from deep under. Depending on the elements the methane migrates through on its upwards journey, it remains gas, becomes crude oil, tar or coal…” from http://peakoil.com/geology/how-i-came-to-realize-i-was-wrong-about-peak-oil-f-william-engdahl. As you said, there isn’t room for every related point in an hour long documentary and I can see how these references wouldn’t necessarily be on-point or essential given the major points of the documentary, is that stuff contextually somewhat off topic? OR, are these points, in your opinion still somewhat half-baked in terms of verifiable truth/knowledge? I haven’t yet read FWE’s book which he says addresses the question more completely. Thanks again for your inspiring, relentless restlessness.

  41. Waterbear says:

    Excellent reporting, excellent visuals, great writing, well edited. James’s work keeps getting better and better.

  42. gray.j says:

    All the tea in china!can you shine a light on the swing in foreign policy in the u. s as to domestic oil production. Surely turning on the domestic flow is deliberately designed to crash the petro dollar. Why is the fed giving interest free loans to domestic oil producers to subsidise excess oil supply. Surely they realise they are hanging the Saudis out to dry both in oil reserves value and by printing fiat currency. Are we seeing a china/silver swindle on the saudis? Those foreign reserves in ksa are be devalued, while oil is being artificially devalued all the while the human hamster kick the iranian hornets nest accross the creek. It looks like a shakedown on the ksa is on for those u. S treasuries… Keep doing what you r doing james. I like your work.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top