So great to have James Corbett back on KLA TV
James thank you so much for agreeing to yet another
interview thank you for having me on I would
like James Corbett's take on America's strange behavior vis-a-vis Iran Greenland
Venezuela, Cuba and Palestine now and I know that's a lot we could do two hours
but I wonder if you want to put all of this in a nice nutshell,
encapsulating the insane, well, let's just say encapsulating the U.S.
Stance? Or do you want to take these one by one?
Let's take them in two groups. I would say that Iran and Palestine and what
is happening there definitely have a relation.
And the common factor in both in the U.S.
Stance in both of those situations is, of course, Israel.
And I think Israel's desire to undermine Iran as a potential regional rival
fully explains why the U.S. has the stance that it does against Iran.
Does anyone, anyone in the entire world believe at this point that the U.S.
Government is involved in trying to destabilize the Iranian regime because they
care about the Iranian people and they want to see democracy flourish and blah, blah, blah?
Of course not. We are old enough to understand that that is absolute nonsense and tosh.
So what is the real answer there? Well, I think it has more to do with the Zionist
faction that is looking to create the greater Israel and recognizing that Iran
would be a bulwark against the creation of such a thing,
and obviously with Hezbollah and other such things operating against Israel,
and of course in Palestine as well.
And to whatever extent that Trump may or may not
actually be the wheeler dealer businessman that we
we understand his public persona to be and
that maybe he really is just trying to get trump grit Gaza
going with this casinos on the beach and whatever else
is supposedly going to happen in those AI monstrosity fantasies that are being
constructed by trump's fans online uh to whatever extent that that might be
a thought in his head it is only there because of course he is in really working
with his friend his partner in crime literally unconvicted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu.
So I think that that explains that side of the geopolitical aisle.
But when we talk about the Don Roe doctrine and its various implications for
Venezuela and Cuba and Greenland and other things in the Western hemisphere,
I think we have to understand this in the context of an interesting map.
That one can find at the Cornell Library. It has it online in very high res
if you want to go download it. It's called the Technate of America.
And it was a map that was produced in 1940 by Howard Scott,
who was a complete charlatan who somehow or other managed to worm his way into
academic and upper crust circles in the 1920s and 30s in order to create something
called Technocracy Inc.,
which was an organization that was dedicated to the social engineering of society by technocrats.
Mostly engineers and scientists, who would know how to precisely balance the
inputs and outputs in the economy in order to stop the big swings in the economy that was,
of course, the defining characteristic of life for people living through the Great Depression,
wondering how are, you know, capitalism has failed, how are we going to solve this?
Well, there was Howard Scott and his friend, King Hubbard, who people will know
as Hubbard's Peak, aka Peak Oil, comes from a Shell Oil researcher along those lines of oil, etc.
Anyway, he came up with the Peak Oil. He also wrote the Technocracy Study Course,
which is this voluminous study course about how the technocrats will rule over their Technate.
And so they said, we don't want governments, we don't
want elected politicians we don't want any of that we are
going to set up a Technate and the Technate of America
will include and there is the map that
you can go and look up online and it includes Greenland and
interestingly it includes part of Venezuela and it includes
Cuba and it includes panama and central America etc
and all of this will be conjoined in
a single unit called the Technate of America that will be stewarded over by
these technocrats now obviously technocracy inc is long well actually it still
exists but it is a rump organization at this point but the idea of technocracy
continues to thrive in the 21st century and.
You know, there are some interesting historical parallels with some of the people
who make their presence known on the international stage, even to this day,
like, say, Elon Musk, who people may or may not know.
His grandfather, his Canadian grandfather, was literally a card-carrying member of Technocracy, Inc.
In Saskatchewan back in the 1930s before he was run out of Canada and ended
up in South Africa, where the Musk family originates from. his grandfather, Joshua Haldeman.
Halderman? Haldeman. Look that up and fact check me.
But it is true. His grandfather was a literal technocrat. And then you get Elon
Musk tweeting such things as, you know, preparing for the Martian technocracy, etc.
So I think technocracy is the lens through which we have to understand this
unfolding Don Roe doctrine.
And what is really going to unfold from this is the consolidation of the Western
Hemisphere into this Technate of America.
Now, this consolidation, I mean, it's just too fantastic to imagine that it's
going to happen in the very near future as an invasion of these countries.
I mean, you can't foresee boots on the ground in Greenland, Venezuela, or Cuba, can you?
No. Well, no, I will qualify that.
But for example, with Greenland, so we saw
this play out obviously over the course of the past month there was all suddenly
the world economic forum the main topic of discussion is will trump invade Greenland
and you have nato talking about stationing troops there and Canada was going
to come to Greenland's defense all of this craziness and then what eventuated
as trump announced well we're not going to take it by force.
And so it seemed like just another art of the deal.
Trump obviously getting people to talk and think along one line and then retreating
so that it seems like we can cut a deal and there'll be.
But all of that, of course, was distraction because, in fact, the U.S.
Already has a military base operating and functioning in Greenland right now.
It has had a longstanding post-World War II relationship with Denmark to situate
American forces on Greenland.
They have been operating there for for over half
a century at this point 80 years or so um so the
idea that there would ever need to be a full-on American
invasion in order to make these things happen does seem
fanciful but that's the perhaps that's the point no the
the military side of this is not the operative part of it it is to some extent
about securing resources um including of course the rare earth deposits and
other such things that obviously um Greenland has in abundance and that are
sitting out there for the taking in this new mad scramble for the Arctic that's
going on geopolitically,
but more specifically, the securing of the resources.
For the tech Native America, as in for this coming political consolidation unit
that is coming into view right now.
And I think we've been being prepared for the consolidation of these.
Grander geopolitical regional units for some time now, because we've been seeing
the NATO versus BRICS sort of idea of some sort of multipolar struggle taking
place on the grand chessboard of geopolitics for some time.
And I think we've been being prepared for the idea that it's going to be some
sort of consolidation of a North American slash Western hemispheric continental
regional security apparatus of some sort.
Will it be literally a government that will consolidate all of these with boots
on the ground? I don't think that is the most likely way of doing it.
But some sort of consolidation politically, economically, and in terms of supply
lines and supply chains, which is probably the operative part of this going
forward into the 21st century.
I want to preface this question with a pre-question, and that is this.
Consider the two wars in Iraq and the interim when President Clinton was in
power in the United States,
and we still had an economic embargo on Iraq. We still had a no-fly zone.
I think we still might have been bombing them.
Certainly, we were blocking off many kinds of supplies, including,
as far as my research, or as far as I know, medicine and food.
So, could you consider that that interim period was also simply a continuation
of the war, and the war actually did not end?
Absolutely yes no of course the uh
the war just took a different form and it
was of course concentrated on at that time the civilian population
and that was actually known and deliberate because of course there's that infamous
clip of madeline albright on 60 minutes in the 1990s talking about the half
million iraqi children who had died as a result of the sanctions and she said
well if they you know the the price is worth it which of course is that That
infamous clip that hopefully people have seen by this point.
So yes, this was just warfare by another means.
Warfare by another means. So if we consider economic strangleholds as warfare,
and then we consider the case of Venezuela and Cuba and the fact that,
well, I can just list the oil tanker that was heading.
I think, from Venezuela to Cuba, a country that's kind of in tough straits anyway.
And and i think for them removing one
oil tanker could be quite significant so in the
sense that we have an economic stronghold on these countries are we
at war with Venezuela and Cuba is the
u.s at war with Venezuela and Cuba now I suppose
uh clearly there was a state of warfare going on with Venezuela over the past
few months perhaps that state of warfare no longer pertains simply because America
has seemingly achieved its objective of being able to steer the current Venezuelan
government in whichever way it wants.
To the extent that the Venezuelan government now complies with American dictates,
then I suppose the state of warfare doesn't exist.
But the threat of warfare, of course, certainly does.
And so, yes, there is still elements of an economic blockade,
but I think that is really just positioning in order to get the American corporate
interests in there to take over, essentially, the oil industry, etc. there.
We've already seen, of course, that was what was explicitly put on the table
as the reason for the Venezuela takeover.
I don't think that's the full story, but at any rate, that is contributory to it.
And so, as long as the current Venezuelan government is compliant with American
demands, then I think America is happy not to be involved in that warfare.
Yes. Do you think these corporate interests will have luck in Cuba as well?
Do you think that the Cuban people will be soon blessed by McDonald's and BlackRock
and everything we enjoy in the United States?
If the current administration gets its way it does
seem that that is where these this is trending and perhaps
if they don't get their way at least not in the way that they want with
some sort of spontaneous people's uprising as people get uh
as the people start to rise up against their government in
um as a result of these strangulation blockades ultimately
having their political effect if that does not eventuate then we've already
seen the precedent the precedent is for the president of the United States to
send in the Navy SEAL Team 6 or whoever needs to go in in order to abduct whoever
claims to be in power today and do whatever else needs to be done.
Can we possibly say that anything would be off the table?
No, of course. I think anything that we have seen already eventuate,
like for example, in Venezuela is very much on the table for Cuba.
Okay. Now, when you say if the current administration gets its way,
do American geopolitical interests align with, let's say, globalist geopolitical interests?
Or is Trump somehow this guy that is, you know, anti-Davos, anti-WEF, et cetera, et cetera?
I think any time that we try to generalize from individuals into groups,
we start to run into the problem of overgeneralization.
So it is not, I think, fair to talk about the administration as a singular unit.
No, it is composed of various people, various powerful nodes in a vast network.
And some of those nodes have more power and influence than others,
but combined, certain less powerful nodes may be able to combine in order to
overpower some of the more powerful nodes.
And if people want an inside look at how such operations really work within
an administration, different factions can fight within the same administration
for different policies.
Peter Dale Scott, a veteran, of course, researcher, Peter Dale Scott,
had a very illustrative example of that in his book On the Road to 9-11.
There was a chapter about the so-called Vulcans fighting with
the other faction within the Carter administration, and I can't remember what
pithy epithet they were given, but at any rate, they were fighting about the
American foreign policy under Carter,
for example, and he goes and outlines the different factions and what they wanted
and who ultimately ended up winning in that fight.
And of course, we know what eventuated with, say, Brzezinski and Operation Cyclone
and the funding of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, etc.
So it doesn't mean that everyone is working on the same page towards the same goal.
And I think there probably are many, perhaps even most people working at that
level within an administration,
within a certain political nation state unit who genuinely believe they are
working in the interests of their nation state and their nation state's allies.
But I think there are other probably much more powerful nodes of interest in
that network who operate above the nation state level and are thinking on that globalist level.
And it is the interaction of those different things. And when their agendas
meet, we are more likely to see some sort of grand deep event happen,
like a 9-11 or what have you.
Okay. Okay. Last two questions are on the Trump administration.
And have you heard the latest news from Marco Rubio in a press conference? I have not.
Let me read you the title. You'll be impressed. Rubio exposes the 50-year plot of,
Marco Rubio blew the doors open on the 1977 CFR report outlining the controlled
disintegration of the U.S. economy.
So should we thank Rubio for this? Because we knew nothing about the CFR before
he enlightened us today.
Well, not if you listen to the mainstream news, I guess. Yes,
I don't know. I'm intrigued.
I want to know more. I am highly skeptical that this is going to be some sort
of definitive takedown of the CFR or its machinations, but I'm all ears.
Okay. I got this from a group on a pretty popular group.
I think they have like close to half million viewers on YouTube called Promethean
Updates. Have you ever heard of them?
The name rings a bell, but I certainly don't follow them consciously, no.
Yeah, I think they are kind of leftovers from the old, oh, who was the guy that
was on all the campuses and they'd
come around and tell you about water projects from Canada and stuff?
He was kind of a Roosevelt-style populist.
Yeah, yeah. These are former LaRouches who have, I think, have taken over the
LaRouche organization.
And and they're very very pro-Trump these days
and they say that pro they say that Trump is uh
extremely in favor of the
revitalization of the American economy and I want to read you just a couple
quotes oh by the way do you still write a regular um economics um report you
used to be international forecaster I used to write the uh the regular um weekly
editorial for them now I write just my own editorial, The Corbett Report subscriber.
Okay, gotcha. Well, listen to these two quotes, and then I'll get your comment, and we'll finish up.
According to this organization, quote, Trumponomics is reviving real economic
sovereignty, end quote.
Second quote, Trump isn't just talking, he is reversing deindustrialization on every front.
So, I mean, that's good news. I'm an American, And I'm looking forward to the
re-industrialization of America. We need our jobs back.
Well, first of all, as the Canadian in Japan, I could give the outside perspective
to say, at the very least, I don't care about America first.
But actually, given that the general economic understanding of the public is
that we live on some fixed pie.
And so you better take as much of that pie as you can for yourself in order to screw everyone else.
If you end up screwing everyone else, who cares? If that is the general economic
understanding, then I should be against America first.
No, it should be Japan first, Canada first, whatever, something like that.
But that isn't my understanding of economics anyway. Having said that,
I think that the LaRouche-ite understanding of economics is sadly hobbled by a number of problems,
and including, I mean, as an example of the symptom of their underlying failure
to understand economics,
you will note that LaRouche-ites think that Alexander Hamilton was some great
defender of America and American interests, and they like the idea of a central
bank and the United States going into debt in order to finance itself.
Because that is a good thing for the American system of economics that the LaRoucheites propound.
So I think that shows a fundamentally flawed epistemology, a fundamentally flawed
understanding of economics that goes right to the heart of it.
Having said that, on the other side of things, I am a believer in human freedom
and that voluntary choices amongst consenting adults is the way forward for
humanity and that that would be the ultimate thriving of all of humanity,
including of course the field of economics but if
you really look into the term economics and what that means and
where it comes from perhaps that's the entirely wrong way
of framing what it is that we're interested in so i will i
will proffer a different word for people out
there who are interested look this one up it's catallactics and
if you look up about catallaxy rather than economy you
will find a very different way of understanding the reconciliation of humans
that come together in the in the agora the marketplace of old and what that
means in terms of fostering human cooperative thriving rather than trying to
reduce things to economic terms so that's that's a little homework project for
people out there who are interested.
Thank you. Now I just have to ask another question.
Of course, you are a big, big fan of voluntarism among individuals.
And I assume you are also in favor of voluntary interaction among nations too.
And something that upsets me and surprises me is so many,
not so many, but a few of my friends who are, let's say, on the freedom dissident
side, still can't, I don't know,
lick their chops a bit when they think about how Gas prices might go down if
we take over Venezuela or something like that with no thought to do the Venezuelan
people want this, you know, and I have visions.
I have visions of that that famous American general who wrote war is war is a racket.
Butler, Smedley Butler saying we shouldn't have our if these countries don't
want us in there, we shouldn't be there, period.
Right. Well, again, yes, I am a believer in human freedom and human voluntary
interaction. But because of that, then I don't talk in terms of nations and
I don't talk about Venezuela as if it's a singular unit.
Again, I think that's overgeneralization. So I think the real answer to this
is understanding and respecting private property amongst individuals.
And that solves a number of these supposed quandary on the geopolitical space
or the economic space or what have you, the socio-political space.
The open border versus closed border debate is a false binary because there,
of course, the real answer is private borders.
I own my property and I can decide what happens on it and who is or not allowed on my property.
I cannot decide what happens on your property because you own that.
And with private borders, suddenly there isn't the question of this gigantic
line on a map that's been drawn in some boardroom thousands of miles away from
us and decided by people based on some contract that we didn't sign.
No, we own the property that we own and we set the rules and boundaries for our property.
And that is all that we have the right to do
and no one else with any shiny badge or hat has
the right to come and restrict or to permit whatever happens on our own individual
private property and nor do we have the right to go in and intrude on other
people so again the question of Venezuela and what it's going to do with its
oil is not about some thing that's being drafted between individual states?
No, it's between individual human
beings and who ultimately owns what property in order to decide that.
Now, that is an incredibly thorny question because, of course.
Unraveling all of that means, well, how do we decide at this point in human
history who gets to decide who owns what natural resources of what parts of the planet?
And I will permit that and admit that that is not going to be a easily solvable
problem. But I do know that we are thinking of these problems in the wrong context,
and thus we will always arrive at the wrong answer.
Okay. Okay. Well, James, Corbett, thank you so much. We're out of time.
And this is a quick one, which I'm sad about, but I wish you all the best.
And please come on again someday. Thank you for having me on.
We're joined today by the groundbreaking investigative journalist
and author who has spent the past two
decades putting mainstream media narratives into the bigger context showing
the bigger picture of the world it's great to have you back James corbett glad
to be here thank you for having me well James I'd love to ask you a few questions
about the latest Epstein file release And maybe to start off this,
how do you evaluate the credibility of this latest file release with the three million files?
I, for one, well, that's an interesting question, actually, because I was inclined
to say that I do not question the credibility of what has been released,
but I mean that in a specific context.
I believe that these really are documents that the DOJ has on file and has been
working with that are related to the Epstein case.
But having said that, there are, of course, some of the most sensational claims
and ideas from these files do not stem directly from, say, Jeffrey Epstein's
personal internal emails.
It's more like this is a anonymous tip that the FBI received from some anonymous
person, and it's presented in a document.
And it's i understand to the average person who's
just digging through and taking a look here and there they'll see an
fbi document with a rather salacious claim on
it and will immediately say oh look here is proof from the
fbi that such and such an event occurred when actually what they are looking
at is just an anonymous tip that may or may not have been investigated and may
or may not have any credibility at all so the evidence itself is credible in
the sense that yes it's really a document that I trust really did come from the DOJ,
but that doesn't mean that it actually represents the truth.
And once you start digging into details like that, you start to see that,
yes, in a way they could be releasing actual documents, but some of those documents
may not only not get us closer to the truth, they may actually distract us from the truth.
So the idea that this could, is in some way, some form of limited hangout is.
I mean, I think by definition and true, since we know we only have about half
of the six million pages or so of documents in the DOJ's.
Epstein files at least what they admit to we know
that we have only received half of that so we know that this is a
limited hangout of some variety but i
have noticed that there are those in the independent media who will poo-poo
the entire thing everything that is contained in here and generally from what
i've seen from people who have not spent a single second looking through any
of these files or weighing the evidence with regards to any of the documents
unfortunately i wish it were that easy to simply dismiss this,
say it's a distraction, and move on to something else where I don't have to
actually sift through documents and do reporting.
But unfortunately, reality is such that generally, we actually do have to dedicate
a serious effort to understanding, reporting, connecting dots,
finding documents, and determining the actual, the worth or lack thereof of
those documents and the evidence they contain.
That's a lot of work. And I understand why a lot of people don't want to engage in it.
But I certainly do think that there is valuable information to be gleaned from
these documents, even though I am sure it is not the bottom of the Epstein rabbit hole.
Right. And you've been starting to do that and publish a lot about it already.
And so maybe to start out with the content of those files, one of the probably
most horrendous and terrifying parts of the files is what you titled as Epstein's Black Market in babies.
Can you tell us briefly what that is about?
So there are unfortunately disturbing pieces of these files, documents, etc.
That do indicate that at the very least, again, it's not like there is definitive
proof here, but there are multiple accusations of Epstein and Maxwell and potentially
others using some of these women, these victims,
as human incubators.
And we even have that, for example, from one particularly disturbing document that I had.
In fact, it was a series of documents of journals of someone who was a victim
who was undergoing therapy after having been victimized by Epstein,
who was leaving detailed journal entries in cryptic code about being used as
a human incubator, talking about flushing the fetus down the toilet and other
such truly reprehensible things.
And so when these things are combined together, it certainly does paint a picture.
And it certainly does paint a picture when combined with some of the other reporting
that we've known for some time now.
Last year, I had an extensive article up on Epstein eugenics,
the plan to seed the human race, talking about that evidence.
That bit of the Epstein story that did come out in 2019, at least a little bit,
but was never really thoroughly reported on.
Talking about the many people who had said that Epstein had talked about seeding
the human race with his genes in some sort of bizarre breeding project that
he was trying to operate out of his Zorro ranch in New Mexico.
And I did some reporting on that last year, talking about the very,
very many connections between Epstein and eugenics and various scientists,
the scientific community and we have more of that
those pieces of that puzzle coming out not only with the
black market babies story and whatever that might indicate about
the actual selling of some of these babies but also in the correspondence between
epstein and some of uh some of the researchers out there who are literally working
on cloning including human cloning and other such things that were talked about
in epstein's personal correspondence so there's definitely a bigger,
bigger story here that I still haven't seen a lot of people reporting on. Wow.
Now, I'm just going to move on to the next thing already because we only have
a short time, which would be, could you briefly explain to us what is Pizzagate
and what do these new Epstein files tell us about Pizzagate?
So back during the 2016 presidential selection race in the United States,
people might remember that Hillary Clinton's chief of staff at the time,
John Podesta was spear phished.
Essentially, he received an email to his Gmail account saying your account is
being hacked from Ukraine, so you better go change your password and providing a link.
Podesta, being the idiot that he is, apparently asked his IT team,
is this legitimate? And they said yes. And so he went and changed his password.
And lo and behold, we have the hack of the Podesta emails, or at least that's
the story that we've gotten about where that hack of emails came from.
Whatever the case may be, in that email trench is where we started,
where certain people started to find evidence of a code of sorts,
where pizza was apparently being used in some sort of cryptic reference scheme
towards some sort of pedophile sex ring.
And this was tied back to a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C.
And there's a lot of strange, strange connections and strange social media posts
and other such things in that story.
But people may or may not remember that story from about a decade ago,
which culminated in an actual shooting taking place at that pizza parlor as
someone came in convinced he was going to uncover the whole incident and ended
up shooting a server with a bullet somehow and getting arrested.
And from that point on, of course, any discussion of Pizzagate was absolutely
derided as total deranged conspiracy theory of theorizing of the worst sort
and probably part of some sort of Russian election interference campaign or
something along those lines.
At least that was the way that it was portrayed in the mainstream media and
lovingly aped by people in certain online fora,
like Reddit and other very establishment internet locales, until this latest
release of Epstein emails,
which shows, again, a strange compulsion of Epstein and his correspondence to
talk about and evaluate pizza in extremely...
Odd and puzzling ways that
don't make sense if you are talking about literal food um I
pointed out some of them in the recent article i wrote 10 things
I learned uh from the Epstein files where I link to some of the message chains
that Epstein was involved in where people were talking about butt pizza and
things like this the pizza monster talking about a pregnant woman and that's
the pizza and things along these lines again people can look into this for themselves and And C,
that there certainly seems to be a strange...
Code of some sort going on here. And whether this was, perhaps,
I suppose, Epstein's defenders, if such people exist, could say that this is
maybe those people taking up this strange internet's crazy conspiracy theory
and making light of it or something along those lines.
But I would invite people to take a look through the emails themselves and come
to their own conclusion about what these many, many, many references to pizza
and grape soda, only you and I will know what that means and other such cryptic references might mean.
Now, which persons within Epstein's network
stand out to you as especially noteworthy? I know that's a hard one.
There are many, but pick the one or two best.
Way too many. Yeah. No, it's an excellent question because we do need to start
looking at individuals and the way that they're connected.
And one that I just randomly stumbled upon was Kathy Rumler,
which was not a name that was in my mental Rolodex.
I had never really thought about Kathy Rumler or who is this person.
But I did point in my episode on this just last week,
I pointed out that there was a correspondence between Epstein and this Kathy
Rumler talking about the possibility of genetically engineering pigs to have
non-cloven hoofs so they would be kosher and thus, I guess,
edible by Jews and Muslims, I guess.
Something along those lines. It was just such a strange email that I pointed it out.
And from that, I started to follow the thread of, well, who is this Kathy Rumler?
Well, as it turns out, she was in the Obama administration back in the early
2010s until she was forced out
or she left to go into private practice and ended up at Goldman Sachs as,
I believe, a legal assistant or lawyer on their team and was apparently at one
point being considered to go back into the Obama administration as the attorney general, but
Apparently, that didn't pan out because, as it turns out, she had been involved in that.
Remember that story about in Colombia, there were some Secret Service agents
and other White House officials who had gone ahead of the Obama administration
and some conference or something that was taking place in Colombia,
and they all got busted for escorts and prostitutes, etc.
Well, apparently, some of the latest correspondence shows that Kathy Rumler
was involved in that and in covering up what had happened there,
etc., and was consulting with Epstein on PR advice about how to handle the PR
fallout from this, etc.,
So, again, there's some weird connections going on there.
Long story short, apparently Goldman Sachs has just sacked Kathy Rumler from their legal team.
We've heard, of course, by now about Peter Mandelson, the ex-British ambassador to the U.S.
From the U.K., who had to give up his seat in the House of Lords over the disgrace
that's happened right now.
And now there are questions about current UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and
what he knew and when and why he overlooked what was already known about the
Mandelson-Epstein relationship.
Um, of course though, I would think that probably of more relevance are Epstein's
ties to Israeli intelligence of various sorts.
For example, um, his hosting the Ehud Barak's, uh,
personal assistant and a former Israeli military intelligence officer in his
Manhattan apartment for weeks at a time, along with Epstein's many,
many, many relations to the Israeli government, to Ehud Barak,
to various deals that were being done.
Um there was the cryptic or the
interesting not even cryptic very out in the open
reference that um Epstein made to Peter Thiel saying that
as you know I am the uh I'm a
representative of the Rothschilds um was that meant in jest or was that meant
seriously well he certainly did have a relationship with the Rothschilds both
Arianne to Rothschild of the Swiss Rothschild family in particular as well as
um the Rothschild group generally I can't remember particularly which banking arm it was,
but one in which he had a $20 million contract with handling some of their funds.
So again, there's that whole thread to unravel. And then there's Epstein's many,
many ties to the big tech broligarchs like Elon Musk, like, um,
Reid Hoffman, uh, people of that ilk.
And now we get to watch Musk and Hoffman tweeting at each other in some tweet
war about who is more guilty in the Epstein files, interestingly. And, um,
There is, as I said before, that interesting connection between Epstein and
a whole host of scientists and people of interesting background.
Of course, the big name scientists like Stephen Hawking, but also some interesting
scientists like George Church,
who probably most people don't know, but is probably one of the most,
the current operating scientists who is most closely associated with modern day eugenics.
So again there's there's a lot to explore and
unfortunately it is too much for any one person to handle or to synthesize which
is why i think this has to be part of a collective open source effort to really
start you know reporting on these different data points and and why do you think
the establishment like the u.s government put out these files uh right now who benefits from that.
Well, again, since we know that half, at least half of the tranche of documents
has not been released, then the real question is what has not been released
and why has that not been released?
I think that's probably the more operative side of the question,
because there's no doubt that putting out literally millions and millions of
pages of documents, even if they are all 100% true, well, here you go. Here's the tidal wave.
And I think that if there is a strategy here, it may be the tidal wave strategy.
Here's a tidal wave of documents. Of course, it's not the half of the documents
that we want to keep to ourselves, but here's half. It's a few million pages.
Have fun. And some people will fall under the bus, but the oligarchy itself will survive.
That might be one of the factors at play. Of course, this is all speculative
because I am not privy to whatever decisions are being made on the inside of
all of this, but it certainly seems that there is a, at the very least,
a sort of flood the zone technique that is being deployed here,
where they are trying to put out so much information that,
in a sense, it will overwhelm people who are trying to put these pieces together.
I think to the extent that this is a coordinated or crafted plan,
I would assume that that is the strategy that's being employed.
Rather than asking, why are they putting it out now? It's more,
why are they putting it out in this way? Right.
And what are we expected to do with that information?
Wonderful. Maybe one last question, because there are the believers in QAnon
and, you know, him, them, that secret military operation handling Trump there.
They're really happy about this because this proves that QAnon is right.
And Trump is our man. And he is, you know, he's draining the swamp.
He's exposing the establishment.
I mean, what do we know about Trump being complicit or implicated in this,
and what is your statement, what would you say to these QAnon followers?
I have certainly seen the online chatter about QAnon was right.
And so I am tempted to say QAnon was wrong, but that's not even correct.
I would say QAnon was right in the exact same way a broken clock is right twice
a day, insofar as it is incidentally right about some of the things that may
have been claimed under the rubric of this QAnon operation, whatever that was.
But QAnon was wrong about many, many, many, many very specific identifiable
things that were said, at least under the name of that QAnon account,
originally on 4chan and then 8chan and wherever else it ended up online.
And I went through that in my documentary on hopium, a brief history of hopium.
So if people want to find out about the details of that, go to corbettreport.com/hopium.
And I go through some, just a few of the very specific things that were completely
wrong, going right back to, of course, the very first Q drop,
so-called, on 4chan that was talking about how Hillary Clinton was under arrest, guys,
and everything's going down and it's all happening on such and such a date.
And guess what happened on that date?
Absolutely nothing. And they were wrong over and over and over about all of
those specific predictions of various people being arrested at various times and it's over.
The deep state is done, et cetera.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, again, wrong on every count. Only right when QAnon broke
the news about Epstein was
For example, just one example, at least three years after I reported about Epstein
in a 2015 podcast I had about political pedophilia, where I was talking about
Epstein and the Prince Andrew story and everything at that time.
But I certainly take no credit for breaking that story because there were people
like Nick Bryant, who's been on this case for decades and was in fact the person
who actually released the Black Book and the flight logs in the first place online.
So people like that were right. Nick Bryant was right.
QAnon just happened to pick up and regurgitate some of those pieces of information
that it took from other people.
And now people are saying QAnon was right. That is wrong.
And QAnon was wrong about everything important that QAnon was claiming about
the white hats on the inside who are coming to save the day.
And don't worry, guys, Trump 1.0 back in 2016, 17, that's the end of the deep state.
And we don't have to worry about this anymore. The good guys have taken over.
Oh, wait, that was all total nonsense, total rubbish meant to keep the people
placated and to stop them from actually demanding justice.
And so I hope that the the the real thing that we learned from this is QAnon
was wrong about everything that mattered and was only right when it was plagiarizing
the work of real researchers. Great.
Where would you send people the two or three best independent resources to understand
the Epstein network and Epstein himself better?
Uh, I would definitely say that people should be familiar with the work of Whitney Webb.
She, of course, wrote the two-volume One Nation Under Blackmail,
which is well over a thousand pages of densely worded and extensively footnoted
information, literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of references and links.
Um, pointing to not, of course, not only to the Epstein story,
but the window into the larger idea of blackmail and espionage and underworld of crime and.
Organized crime and how these things tie into political
machinery etc it's an incredibly documented
voluminous work and from there of course if people are interested they can check
out of course not only Whitney Webb's work at unlimited hangout but my interviews
with her on this subject and uh if I may toot my own horn a little bit I would
again send people to not only my recent podcast episode an article on this subject
about what I learned from the Epstein files,
but also that previous reporting I was talking about with regards to Epstein
eugenics, the plan to seed the human race.
Because again, I think that's an incredibly important part of this that hasn't
been adequately explored.
But one other exploration research that I think deserves highlighting is a recent
post by Sayer G of Green Med Info,
who was doing the deep dive on these
new Epstein documents and what they show about the Epstein/
Gates/Rockefeller nexus
in the pandemic infrastructure that
was being set up in the 2000s and the 2010s and
there are documents in this new release of documents that are that show more
about how that came together and how pandemics were weaponized and financialized
in order to make a lot of money for certain well-placed individuals so that's
an incredibly important research project that CRG has been undertaking there.
Well, thank you very much, James, for this dense information.
We'll definitely link all of that below the video.
So everybody can go do his own deep dive into this, as you've said before.
Thanks so much for coming on and sharing your insights into this. Thank you.