In A Time Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Becomes A Revolutionary Act. (Orwell)
ALL TRUTH PASSES THROUGH THREE STAGES; FIRST, IT IS RIDICULED, SECOND, IT IS VIOLENTLY OPPOSED, THIRD, IT IS ACCEPTED AS BEING SELF-EVIDENT.(Arthur Schopenhauer)
I WILL TELL YOU ONE THING FOR SURE. ONCE YOU GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU ARE ACTUALLY DOING THINGS FOR TRUTH'S SAKE, THEN NOBODY CAN EVER TOUCH YOU AGAIN BECAUSE YOU ARE HARMONIZING WITH A GREATER POWER. (George Harrison)
THE WORLD ALWAYS INVISIBLY AND DANGEROUSLY REVOLVES AROUND PHILOSOPHERS.(Nietzsche)
The situation we are now facing is mind-boggling and bizarre, but
nonetheless true. Humanity is locked in a war against evil, or more
accurately, anti-life. In ancient times, a group of humans was captured
by an entity that promised them great wealth and power if they agreed to
betray their fellow living beings. These were the Canaanites. They were
the ancient enemies of the Jews, who served the life force.
This may sound biblical and abstract, but it is clearly reflected in
ongoing news events. The war in the Middle East is a case in point.
After the US suffered the greatest military loss in its history when
it attacked Iran, the US military revolted against the obviously fake
“President Donald Trump.” They took him to the Walter Reid Hospital and
got rid of him. Then, the following agreement with Iran was announced by
the US President’s office and the Iranians:
According to the statement issued by Iran’s top security body
on Wednesday, the United States has agreed to a 10-point proposal that
fundamentally commits Washington to:
No new aggression against Iran
Continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz
Acceptance of uranium enrichment
Removal of all primary sanctions
Removal of all secondary sanctions
Termination of all anti-Iran UN Security Council resolutions
Termination of all anti-Iran IAEA Board of Governors resolutions
Payment of compensation to Iran
Withdrawal of US combat forces from the region
Cessation of war on all fronts, including against the Islamic Resistance of Lebanon (Hezbollah)
Israel reacted to this peace agreement with the mass murder of civilians in Lebanon in “Operation Eternal Darkness.”
After that, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt
described Iran’s 10-point negotiating plan as “fundamentally unserious,
unacceptable and completely discarded,” adding that it had been
“literally thrown in the garbage by President Trump and his negotiating
team.” This was less than 24 hours after President Trump himself called
the same plan “a workable basis on which to negotiate,” according to Fox
News and NBC News.
Then, after disappearing from public view for a few days, a new
“Trump” emerged who sent a delegation to Pakistan to negotiate with
Iran. The delegation was led by Jared Kushner.
Kushner is not an elected US official. He is the guy who bought 666
West 5th Avenue in New York. This is where Lucent (Lucifer) technologies
were developing mark of the beast microchips to implant into human
brains.
Kushner and Vice President JD Vance were not in Pakistan to negotiate
for the US; they were there to negotiate for the satanists.
The talks broke up because Iran refused their demand to give up
nuclear weapons. This was the satanists’ bottom line: “We want to have
the ability to kill you with nuclear weapons which you cannot resist or
retaliate against.”
Instead, the Iranians informed the satanic delegates they now had
1000 nuclear ICBMS capable of unleashing 12,000 nuclear warheads on
Israel and the US. This meant Iran could never be forced into satanic
slavery. The satanists said no and left Pakistan, mouthing empty threats
such as saying they would “blockade the Straits of Hormuz.”
In any case, the events in Pakistan led to an emergency meeting of
all non-US and Israel NATO and Western-aligned states in Japan, as well
as a Bilderberg meeting of European elites.
The meetings concluded that ... ... ...
(The remainder of Monday's newsletter is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net holding a paid subscription)
For 41 years, Darryl Anka has served as the channel for Bashar — a multidimensional, physical extraterrestrial hybrid being from a parallel reality…and what he’s revealing now may change EVERYTHING.
Is humanity heading for a massive reset? Is 2026 the true Year of Disclosure?
And will we experience OPEN CONTACT in 2027 — literally being introduced to extraterrestrials?
In this episode of Mayim Bialik's Breakdown, Darryl explains why he believes the next few decades will redefine humanity forever, and how disclosure, contact, and even artificial intelligence are part of a larger evolutionary leap. Darryl Anka breaks down:
Shocking story of how Darryl first began channeling Bashar after witnessing UAPs
What
it felt like the first time Bashar spoke through him in a meditation
class (and what happens in his body and brain during channeling)
Past-life agreement he says he made to become a channel in this lifetime
Who Bashar really is: a “First Contact Specialist” from a parallel civilization making telepathic contact
Why Bashar’s civilization is trying to help humanity evolve
Why Darryl says everyone is channeling, whether they realize it or not
Real requirements for believing he’s genuinely channeling (& what would disprove it)
Phases of “Open Contact” & what we should be doing right now to prepare
Why some humans experience alien abductions
His take on the “Zoo Hypothesis”
Are we living in a simulation? (Yes, but not how you think!)
How extraterrestrials travel through space & time
Why 2026 leads to disclosure & why 2027 could bring face-to-face contact
Is AI the beginning of human hybridization?
Telepathy, ESP, PSI, astral projection: How YOU can unlock them
Why following your passion literally raises your frequency
Why Earth is one of the most unique soul-learning environments in existence
What reincarnation truly allows your soul to experience
Guardian angels, spirit teams, & interventions from the other side
Spontaneous healing & why energy healing sometimes doesn’t work
How addiction keeps us spiritually stuck
Creativity as a direct spiritual connection
Why abundance isn’t just about money
Bashar’s message for navigating illness, death, & the intense times we’re living in
Explore the science and history behind the distant celestial bodies in the solar system.
National Geographic presents the first accurate non-stop voyage from Earth to the edge of the Universe using a single, unbroken shot through the use of spectacular CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery) technology.
Building on images taken from the Hubble telescope, 'Journey to the Edge of the Universe' explores the science and history behind the distant celestial bodies in the solar system.
This spectacular, epic voyage across the Cosmos, takes us from the Earth, past the Moon and our neighboring planets, out of our Solar System, to the nearest stars, nebulae and galaxies and beyond - right to the edge of the Universe itself...
When you finish this video, you will walk away from it with an awareness that you never had before, of the unseen astronomically massive universe that we float around on like a spec of dust in the ocean.
This video takes you on a journey through the universe as if you are watching a Sci Fi adventure.
Yet you constantly have to remind yourself that what you’re seeing is really out there...!
On January 8, 2014, at New York University in Brooklyn, there occurred a unique event in the annals of global warming: nearly eight hours of structured debate between three climate scientists supporting the consensus on manmade global warming and three climate scientists who dispute it, moderated by a team of six leading physicists from the American Physical Society (APS) led by Dr. Steven Koonin, a theoretical physicist at New York University.
The debate, hosted by the APS, revealed consensus-supporting climate scientists harboring doubts and uncertainties and admitting to holes in climate science - in marked contrast to the emphatic messaging of bodies such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). At one point, Koonin read an extract from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report released the previous year.
Computer model-simulated responses to forcings - the term used by climate scientists for changes of energy flows into and out of the climate system, such as changes in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, "can be scaled up or down."
This scaling included greenhouse gas forcings. Some forcings in some computer models had to be scaled down to match computer simulations to actual climate observations. But when it came to making centennial projections on which governments rely and drive climate policy, the scaling factors were removed, probably resulting in a 25 to 30 percent over-prediction of the 2100 warming. The ensuing dialogue between Koonin and Dr. William Collins of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory - a lead author of the climate model evaluation chapter in the Fifth Assessment Report - revealed something more troubling and deliberate than holes in scientific knowledge:
Dr. Koonin: But if the model tells you that you got the response to the forcing wrong by 30 percent, you should use that same 30 percent factor when you project out a century. Dr. Collins: Yes. And one of the reasons we are not doing that is we are not using the models as [a] statistical projection tool. Dr. Koonin: What are you using them as?
Dr. Collins: Well, we took exactly the same models that got the forcing wrong and which got sort of the projections wrong up to 2100.
Dr. Koonin: So, why do we even show centennial-scale projections?
Dr. Collins: Well, I mean, it is part of the [IPCC] assessment process.
Koonin was uncommonly well-suited to lead the APS climate workshop.
He has a deep understanding of computer models, which have become the workhorses of climate science. As a young man, Koonin wrote a paper on computer modeling of nuclear reaction in stars and taught a course on computational physics at Caltech.
In the early 1990s, he was involved in a program using satellites to measure the Earth's albedo - that is, the reflection of incoming solar radiation back into space.
As a student at Caltech in the late 1960s, he was taught by Nobel physicist Richard Feynman and absorbed what Koonin calls Feynman's "absolute intellectual honesty." On becoming BP's chief scientist in 2004, Koonin became part of the wider climate change milieu.
Assignments included, explaining the physics of man-made global warming to Prince Philip at a dinner in Buckingham Palace.
In 2009, Koonin was appointed an under-secretary at the Department of Energy in the Obama administration. The APS climate debate was the turning point in Koonin's thinking about climate change and consensus climate science ("The Science").
"I came away from the APS workshop not only surprised, but shaken by the realization that climate science was far less mature than I had supposed."
"Unsettled" is an authoritative primer on the science of climate change that lifts the lid on The Science and finds plenty that isn't as it should be.
"As a scientist," writes Koonin, "I felt the scientific community was letting the public down by not telling the whole truth plainly."
Koonin's aim is to right that wrong. Koonin's indictment of The Science starts with its reliance on unreliable computer models.
Usefully describing the earth's climate, writes Koonin, is, "one of the most challenging scientific simulation problems."
Models divide the atmosphere into pancake-shaped boxes of around 100km wide and one kilometer deep.
But the upward flow of energy from tropical thunder clouds, which is more than thirty times larger than that from human influences, occurs over smaller scales than the programmed boxes.
This forces climate modellers to make assumptions about what happens inside those boxes.
As one modeller confesses, "it's a real challenge to model what we don't understand."
Inevitably, this leaves considerable scope for modelers' subjective views and preferences.
A key question climate models are meant to solve is estimating the equilibrium climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide (ECS), which aims to tell us by how much temperatures rise from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Yet in 2020, climate modelers from Germany's Max Planck Institute admitted to tuning their model by targeting an ECS of about 3° Centigrade.
"Talk about cooking the books," Koonin comments.
The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating.
Self-evidently, computer projections can't be tested against a future that's yet to happen, but they can be tested against climates present and past.
Climate models can't even agree on what the current global average temperature is.
"One particularly jarring feature is that the simulated average global surface temperature," Koonin notes, "varies among models by about 3°C, three times greater than the observed value of the twentieth century warming they're purporting to describe and explain."
Another embarrassing feature of climate models concerns the earlier of the two twentieth-century warmings from 1910 to 1940, when human influences were much smaller.
On average, models give a warming rate of about half of what was actually observed.
The failure of the latest models to warm fast enough in those decades suggest that it's possible, even likely, that internal climate variability is a significant contributor to the warming of recent decades, Koonin suggests.
"That the models can't reproduce the past is a big red flag - it erodes confidence in their projections of future climates."
Neither is it reassuring that for the years after 1960, the latest generation of climate models show a larger spread and greater uncertainty than earlier ones - implying that, far from advancing, The Science has been going backwards.
That is not how science is meant to work. The second part of Koonin's indictment concerns the distortion, misrepresentation, and mischaracterization of climate data to support a narrative of climate catastrophism based on increasing frequency of extreme weather events.
As an example, Koonin takes a "shockingly misleading" claim and associated graph in the United States government's 2017 Climate Science Special Report that the number of high-temperature records set in the past two decades far exceeds the number of low-temperature records across the 48 contiguous states.
Koonin demonstrates that the sharp uptick in highs over the last two decades is an artifact of a methodology chosen to mislead.
After re-running the data, record highs show a clear peak in the 1930s, but there is no significant trend over the 120 years of observations starting in 1895, or even since 1980, when human influences on the climate grew strongly.
In contrast, the number of record cold temperatures has declined over more than a century, with the trend accelerating after 1985. Notes Koonin, "temperature extremes in the contiguous U.S. have become less common and somewhat milder since the late nineteenth century."
Similarly, a key message in the 2014 National Climate Assessment of an upward trend in hurricane frequency and intensity, repeated in the 2017 assessment, is contradicted 728 pages later by a statement buried in an appendix stating that there has been no significant trend in the global number of tropical cyclones, "nor has any trend been identified in the number of U.S. land-falling hurricanes."
That might surprise many politicians.
"Over the past thirty years, the incidence of natural disasters has dramatically increased," Treasury secretary Janet Yellen falsely asserted last month in a pitch supporting the Biden administration's infrastructure package.
"We are now in a situation where climate change is an existential risk to our future economy and way of life," she claimed.
The sacrifice of scientific truth in the form of objective empirical data for the sake of a catastrophist climate narrative is plain to see.
As Koonin summarizes the case: "Even as human influences have increased fivefold since 1950 and the globe has warmed modestly, most severe weather phenomena remain within past variability.
Projections of future climate and weather events rely on models demonstrably unfit for the purpose."
Koonin also has sharp words for the policy side of the climate change consensus, which asserts that although climate change is an existential threat, solving it by totally decarbonizing society is straightforward and relatively painless.
"Two decades ago, when I was in the private sector," Koonin writes, "I learned to say that the goal of stabilizing human influences on the climate was 'a challenge,' while in government it was talked about as 'an opportunity.'
Now back in academia, I can forthrightly call it 'a practical impossibility'."
Unlike many scientists and most politicians, Koonin displays a sure grasp of the split between developed and developing nations, for whom decarbonization is a luxury good that they can't afford.
Indeed, it's why developing nations insisted on the U.N. route as opposed to an intergovernmental one that produced the 1987 Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances.
"The economic betterment of most of humanity in the coming decades will drive energy demand even more strongly than population growth," Koonin says.
"Who will pay the developing world not to emit? I have been posing that simple question to many people for more than fifteen years and have yet to hear a convincing answer."
The most unsettling part of "Unsettled" concerns science and the role of scientists.
"Science is one of the very few human activities - perhaps the only one - in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected," Karl Popper wrote nearly six decades ago.
That condition does not pertain in climate science, where errors are embedded in a political narrative and criticism is suppressed.
In a recent essay, the philosopher Matthew B. Crawford observes that the pride of science as a way of generating knowledge - unlike religion - is to be falsifiable.
That changes when science is pressed into duty as authority in order to absolve politicians of responsibility for justifying their policy choices ("the science says," we're repeatedly told).
"Yet what sort of authority would it be that insists its own grasp of reality is merely provisional?" asks Crawford.
"For authority to be really authoritative, it must claim an epistemic monopoly of some kind, whether of priestly or scientific knowledge."
At the outset of "Unsettled," Feynman's axiom of absolute intellectual honesty is contrasted with climate scientist Stephen Schneider's "double ethical bind."
On the one hand, scientists are ethically bound by the scientific method to tell the truth. On the other, they are human beings who want to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
"Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest," Schneider said.
"Being effective" helps explain the pressure on climate scientists to conform to The Science and the emergence of a climate science knowledge monopoly.
Its function is, as Crawford puts it, the manufacture of a product - political legitimacy - which, in turn, requires that competing views be delegitimized and driven out of public discourse through enforcement of a, "moratorium on the asking of questions."
This sees climate scientist gatekeepers deciding who can and cannot opine on climate science.
"Please, save us from retired physicists who think they're smarter and wiser than everyone in climate science," tweeted Gavin Schmidt, NASA acting senior climate advisor, about Koonin and his book.
"I agree with pretty much everything you wrote," a chair of a university earth sciences department tells Koonin, "but I don't dare say that in public."
Another scientist criticizes Koonin for giving ammunition to "the deniers," and a third writes an op-ed urging New York University to reconsider Koonin's position there.
It goes wider than scientists...
Facebook has suppressed a "Wall Street Journal" review of "Unsettled."
Likewise, "Unsettled" remains unreviewed by the "New York Times," the "Washington Post" (though it carried an op-ed by Marc Thiessen based on an interview with Koonin) and other dailies, which would prefer to treat Koonin's reasoned climate dissent as though it doesn't exist.
The moratorium on the asking of questions represents the death of science as understood and described by Popper, a victim of the conflicting requirements of political utility and scientific integrity.
Many scientists take this lying down. Koonin won't...
Nanopolymer Weather Warfare, "RFK Jr, EPA chief 'declare war' on
microplastics amid growing evidence of health risks" (FOX News).
Here's
the real truth, RFK Jr. and EPA chief Lee Zeldin are pretending to
address the microplastic pollution problem while categorically hiding
and denying what is by far the most dangerous factor in this equation,
climate engineering nanopolymer fallout.
Weather warfare is raging
across the US and the world, extreme weather whiplash is now the norm.
"The US just had its warmest March ever, by a historic margin" (ABC
News).
"Heat Wipes Out Western Snowpack, Raising Fears of Drought,
Wildfire (New York Times).
'It's incredibly bad': No end in sight to
Colorado River water crisis" (WyoFile).
There is no place to hide.
The
latest installment of Global Alert News is below.
There are people who refer to others as their "masters", their "guides", their "teachers", or say they need someone to "guide" them.
There's this constant tendency to look up to something external for direction, like they cant trust themselves to figure things out on their own.
Think about what that actually leads to. If someone goes through their entire life like this, always looking for authority and needing guidance what do you think happens when they die?
Because if you've been conditioned your whole life to look for a "higher being", a "guide", a "teacher", something "loving" that tells you what to do, then the moment you cross over you're very likely going to do the exact same thing. We are taught to refer to some people and things as,
"teachers", "guides", "experts", "source",
...all of that already puts you in a lower position.
It frames things in a way where you're beneath something, like you're supposed to listen and follow. And then you have religions, which are probably the strongest example of this programming.
There is nothing more effective at training people into obedience and a slave-like mentality than religion.
It does not matter where you are from or which religion is dominant in your country, there is always something placed above you, and your role is to follow it and obey it.
That kind of submissive mindset makes people much easier to control.
Someone who sees themselves as,
their own authority is far harder to manipulate...
So if you spend your whole life looking for a "master", a "guide", a "teacher", what do you think you'll do when you end up in a completely unfamiliar state after death?
You'll follow the first thing that presents itself as one.
When you are young, you have teachers.
Then you grow up and you have a boss.
And even as an adult, other types of "teachers", "leaders", and authority figures show up in different areas of life.
So from the very beginning, you are conditioned to believe that you need to be guided, that you need someone above you to tell you what to do, like a sheep following a shepherd.
If that mindset is deeply ingrained in you, you are not suddenly going to become independent in the astral afterlife.
You are going to look for the same thing you have always looked for, a shepard to follow.
So if you are then presented with "God", "Jesus", "angels", or "guides", you are far more likely to trust them, submit, and do as you are told.
And if what many NDEs suggest is true, and you are encouraged or told to "go back", then you will likely agree to it without questioning it.
And that is how the cycle (of reincarnations) continues...! Even as little children, we are bombarded with cartoons about,
Superman, Batman, Spiderman, you name it.. not to mention all the movies about Thor, Captain America, Iron man...
The list is endless, there are so many examples.
From a very young age but also during adulthood, we are being conditioned to look for salvation outside of ourselves, to believe that someone else will come and save the day.
It is presented as harmless entertainment, but the pattern it reinforces is always the same which is that the solution is never you, it is always something or someone above you. Once you see it, you cannot unseen it.
Society programs people from every angle, every religion, the New Age, cartoons, movies, all pushing the same underlying message:
be obedient, look outside yourself, wait to be "saved"...
So even if you avoid one trap, it doesn't make much of a difference because there are other traps everywhere, all waiting for you to fall right back into the same pattern.
You know what i mean?
If you do not fall for religion and wait for God to save you, you fall for the New Age and wait for spirit guides, and if not that, there is always something else ready to take its place, same pattern, different label.
"They" want us to be obedient slaves, so if we want to get out of here we need to be the exact opposite...
Next time someone says that Iran is dangerous and they need to be stopped... some history to share:
1901:
A British businessman secures exclusive rights to Iran's oil. Iran gets almost nothing from its own resource.
1908:
Oil is struck. Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is formed.
It later becomes BP. The British Royal Navy converts from coal to oil, making Iranian petroleum a strategic military asset for the British Empire.
For the next 50 years, Iran's oil is extracted by a foreign corporation. Iran receives a fraction of the profits. Saudi Arabia negotiates a 50-50 profit split with ARAMCO.
Iran asks for the same terms. Britain refuses.
1951:
Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, nationalizes Iran's oil through a unanimous vote in parliament.
Completely legal. Completely constitutional.
His argument was simple:
this is our oil.
Britain responds with an international blockade.
No negotiation. No compromise. They want their oil back.
They bribe politicians, clerics, journalists, and military officers. They fund fake protests. They run disinformation campaigns through newspapers they secretly own.
MI6 operatives kidnap and murder Iran's chief of police and dump his body in public as a warning.
They reinstall the Shah - a monarch who serves Western oil interests.
The CIA officially acknowledged its role in 2013.
After the coup, BP retains a 40% stake. American oil companies including Exxon and Mobil get significant shares.
Iran's democratic government is gone. Its oil is back under foreign control.
1953-1979:
The Shah rules for 26 years as a Western-backed authoritarian.
SAVAK tortures and kills political dissidents systematically. Iran becomes one of the largest purchasers of American weapons.
The Shah lives in extraordinary luxury while much of the population remains poor.
During this entire period, Israel and Iran are close allies. SAVAK and Mossad share intelligence. Israel sells weapons to Iran.
Nobody in the West calls Iran a "terrorist state" because the dictator is their dictator...
1979:
The Iranian people overthrow the Shah in a popular revolution.
This is where your list begins - as if the revolution appeared out of nowhere, motivated by nothing but religious fanaticism...
Now let's talk about the US Embassy that was attacked
The US news likes to paint the 1979 hostage crisis as an unprovoked attack on America.
The revolutionaries seized the embassy because the last time there was a democratic movement in Iran, the CIA ran the coup to crush it from that same embassy.
They weren't being paranoid. They were being historically accurate.
Britannica's own assessment:
"It is generally agreed today that the 1953 coup sowed the seeds for the Islamic Revolution of 1979."
That's not a conspiracy theory. That's the encyclopedia...
Now let's ask a couple more Questions
Why are there U.S. military bases in Iraq?
Because the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 on claims of 'weapons of mass destruction' that turned out to be false... Over a million Iraqi civilians died.
No American official was ever prosecuted.
Why is there conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon?
Because Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years.
Because a U.S.-backed Saudi coalition bombed Yemen for years, creating what the UN called "the world's worst humanitarian crisis."
Over 150,000 dead. Famine. Cholera outbreaks.
Why does Iran pursue nuclear capability?
Possibly because Israel has an undeclared nuclear arsenal estimated at 80-400 warheads, has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, faces zero international inspections, and has never been sanctioned for it.
Iran signed the NPT. Iran agreed to inspections. Iran signed the nuclear deal in 2015. The U.S. pulled out of that deal in 2018.
Every single item on your list is framed as Iranian aggression against "the West."
But none of them exist without the West's 70-year campaign of overthrowing Iran's democracy, installing a dictator, extracting its oil, arming its neighbors, invading the countries on its borders, and maintaining military bases throughout the region.
Now trace who Benefits
The 1953 coup was about oil. BP and American oil companies got the oil.
The Shah's 26-year reign was about strategic positioning. The U.S. and Israel got a compliant ally on the Soviet border and in the Middle East.
The post-1979 framing of Iran as a "terrorist state" serves a specific function: it justifies permanent U.S. military presence in the Middle East, billions in annual arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Gulf states, and unconditional U.S. support for Israel's regional dominance.
Every "Iranian attack" on your list occurred in a country where the U.S. had no legal right to be in the first place:
Iraq, Syria, Jordan.
American troops are stationed across the Middle East not because those countries asked for protection from Iran, but because the U.S. positioned itself there to control the region's resources and protect its strategic architecture.
When someone punches you for 70 years - overthrows your government, installs a dictator, trains his secret police to torture your people, extracts your oil, invades the countries on your borders, surrounds you with military bases, and sanctions your economy into the ground - and then you punch back, the question isn't,
"why are you violent?..."
The question is:
who threw the first punch?
And who's been profiting from the fight ever since?
That's not a defense of the Iranian regime.
The theocracy that replaced the Shah has its own record of brutality against its own people, especially women. But that regime exists because the CIA destroyed Iran's democracy in 1953.
The West created the conditions for the very thing it now claims to oppose.
The history continues...
HAMAS (October 7, 2023)
"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," said Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades, to the Wall Street Journal in 2009.
Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, who served as Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s, told the New York Times that he had helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a "counterweight" to the PLO.
"The Israeli government gave me a budget," the retired brigadier general confessed, "and the military government gives to the mosques."
Initially, Hamas was discreetly supported by Israel, as a counter-balance to the secular Palestine Liberation Organization to prevent the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
And it didn't stop in the 1980s.
According to the New York Times, Israeli intelligence agents traveled into Gaza with a Qatari official carrying suitcases filled with cash to disperse money.
In 2015, Bezalel Smotrich, currently the finance minister in Netanyahu's government, summed up the strategy:
"The Palestinian Authority is a burden. Hamas is an asset."
Netanyahu told journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority.
Having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu penned a letter to Qatar in 2018 asking the Qatari leadership to continue funding Hamas...
HEZBOLLAH (1983 Beirut bombings, kidnappings)
Hezbollah was formed in 1982 - the same year Israel invaded Lebanon.
It didn't exist before the invasion. Israel invaded Lebanon to destroy the PLO headquarters there. The invasion killed approximately 20,000 people, mostly civilians.
Hezbollah was born as a direct resistance movement to that invasion.
The 1983 Marine barracks bombing on the commenter's list killed 241 Americans.
But why were U.S. Marines in Lebanon?
Because the U.S. had intervened in the Lebanese Civil War, positioning itself as a participant in the conflict rather than a neutral peacekeeper.
The Marines were shelling Druze and Shia positions from naval vessels before the bombing.
IRAN'S PROXY NETWORK (Houthis, Kataib Hezbollah, militias in Iraq and Syria)
Every proxy on that list operates in a country where the U.S. or its allies intervened first.
Iraq - the U.S. invaded in 2003 on false WMD claims. Iranian-backed militias formed to resist the occupation.
Syria - the CIA ran Operation Timber Sycamore, spending billions arming Syrian rebels, many of whom were jihadists. Iran backed Assad. Both sides were proxies in someone else's war.
Yemen - the Houthis fight against a Saudi-led coalition that the U.S. armed and supported. The Saudi bombing campaign created what the UN called the world's worst humanitarian crisis.
***
The United States propaganda machine goes hard.
The enemy is not a republican or a democrat...
For all of history people knew their governments were evil.
Some time ago, Stan Monteith, a pioneer NWO researcher and broadcaster, found a typewritten copy of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in the papers of Col. Edward M. House at Yale University. This seemed like confirmation of the widely held view that House (1858-1938) was a Rothschild agent.
House was an "adviser" to Woodrow Wilson and FDR. It makes sense that he would have a copy of the Blueprint for the New World Order in his possession. He probably referred to it while writing his political manifesto, "Philip Dru - Administrator." (1912) The 99-page House typescript is a different English translation from the Victor Marsden translation, which is most commonly used. (I suspect "The Protocols" were originally written in French, originating in the Mizraim Lodge.) So far, I have just compared the First Protocol (8 pages.)
The most obvious difference is the title.
Marsden's book is, "The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion."
The translation in House's possession is, "Protocols of the Meeting of the Zionist Men of Wisdom."
In this translation, "meeting" is singular and the "Elders" are clearly identified as "Zionists."
The significance is that "Zionist" used here is a movement for world domination, not one confined to establishing a Jewish homeland. The second point of interest is a footnote in House's typescript that does not appear in the Marsden translation. In relation to "subjugating all governments to our super-government" there is an asterisk reference to "A.C. Shamakov, 'International Secret Government' Moscow, 1912." This book is hard to find. It was sold for $805 by Christie's auction house in 1994, along with a few other Russian examples of Judaica. Interestingly, Shamakov was not a Communist Jewish Mason of the kind that studied the "Protocols." On the contrary, House's version references a notorious "anti Semite" a man whose career was devoted to exposing the Illuminati Jewish conspiracy. His real name was A.S. Shmakov and he was a lawyer, author and member of the Duma. He became famous when he volunteered to help the prosecution in the famous Mendel Beilis case in 1913, where a group of Saint Petersburg Jews was accused of the ritual killing of a youth, Andrey Jushinsky. It is puzzling that House's version of the Protocols would reference an opponent, unless the translation originated with the opposition, and came into House's possession. This interpretation is supported by another footnote on the first page explaining that "The Goys = THE GENTILES."
If this version originated inside the lodge, they would not need this explanation.
MORE ON THE TRANSLATION House's version is of great interest to scholars.
Here are some examples from the first Protocol.
Marsden: "our watchword is force and make-believe." House: "our password is power and hypocrisy." Marsden: "their youth has grown stupid on classicism" House: "their young people are insensible to ought else than classism and early vice." Marsden: "by the law of nature, right lies in force" House: "according to the law of being, right is might." Marsden: "The doctrine of squaring accounts is precisely as strong as the means of which it makes use." House: "A doctrine of self-interest is as potent as are methods employed by it."
CONCLUSION The "Protocols" is the master plan of the New World Order, and the most read book after the Bible. But unlike the Bible, which its seeks to overthrow, there has been little attention paid to the nuances of meaning found in the different translations. These nuances are significant, as the above examples suggest. Stan Monteith is selling photocopies of the House translation for $15 plus postage. His number at Radio Liberty is : 1-800-544-8927
by Henry Makow Ph.D. July 15, 2010 from HenryMakow Website
Yep....they are just over there. Can see them from here.
The first floor view in this metaphor is regular guy thinking. They
live in reactive thinking. They mostly react to what life presents them.
They form goals based on the influences of popular culture. Their
introspection is limited to attempting to fit their appearance and life
into roles defined by the social order. These minds would take the covid
shot. These minds believe their thoughts to be their identity thus if
an idea sticks, they can easily become ideologues.
The second
floor view is an upgrade in complexity. These minds are self monitoring
in real time. They think, and are aware of, and monitoring their
thoughts as they are occurring. These minds can discard conclusions when
warranted without emotional involvement. These minds do not merge their
identity with their thoughts. These minds shun ideology of all kinds,
political, religious, et al. These minds know themselves as separate
from their thinking.
The second floor view is called
meta-cognition. Self monitoring in real time 24x7 leads to a different
form of human insofar as social presence and interaction. Meta-cogs are
remarkably swift thinkers arriving a conclusions easily and early, and
are just as rapid in discarding these conclusions as they are shown to
be lacking. Meta-cogs observe themselves thinking and living their
lives.
Meta-cogs don’t mingle much with first floor thinkers. It’s just very awkward for everyone.
The
metaphor of floors of a building is effectively chosen to provided the
concept of the much expanded view of the local reality that is gained by
altitude.
In range finding and target acquisition schools they
will instruct you that all things terrain being equal, a man on the
first floor has at most a 4.6 mile vision, while the man in the floor
above will have 8 miles of vision or more. And due to the ‘hidden
height’ effect may well be able to perceive tall objects dozens of miles
away.
Meta-cog minds did not take the covid vaxx. Meta-cog minds
are the result of a process of mental change over time, an awakening,
that moves a human from the first to the second floors within a single
life.
That process does not stop with the second floor. The
meta-cog is always progressing. The nature of in real time self analysis
of thoughts leads, sometimes, in some meta-cogs, to the Third Floor
view.
In this advancement, the meta-cog begins to perceive self,
and the ‘unnamed observer’ inhabiting all our minds simultaneously. This
allows a shifting in mental states wherein the meta-cog can occupy the
point of view of the observer. We have labeled this state as “cosmic” or
“universal” cognition.
How Hybrid Warfare Took the Battlefield Inside the Buildings We Trusted Most
“You provide the prose poems, I’ll provide the war.” — Charles Foster Kane
In
the masterwork film Citizen Kane, Kane – based on William Randolph
Hearst’s famous line allegedly told to artist Frederic Remington, “You
supply the pictures, I’ll supply the war,” – frames the power of the
press’s ability to create reality through perception. The fact that a
hundred years later it still circulates as the most concise description
of how media manufactures reality — tells you everything you need to
know about how power and perception have always operated together.
The quote is fiction. The mechanism it describes is not.
This
is Article 19 in the Planned Chaos series. In the previous eighteen
articles, I have documented the manufactured crises — the media capture,
the financial engineering, the racial division tactics, the pandemic
response machinery, the election infrastructure, the Great Reset, AI and
the technocracy agendas. In the post I rereleased on Sunday, Why They Do This,
I show how prescient the knowledge of end times and what it means to
the Iran/Israel war is now, compared to when the article first posted in
2023. What I have not yet examined in full is the meta-strategy
underneath all of it: the strategic doctrine of institutional capture.
Because
Planned Chaos is not just a collection of events. It is a military
strategy. And to understand the strategy, you have to understand how
wars are now fought — and where the battlefield actually is.
I. The New Battlefield
When
the intelligence officers I interviewed during my years at Prepare for
Change used the phrase “captured institution” — men like Robert David
Steele, John DeSouza, and others from the community of former operatives
who had gone public — they were not speaking metaphorically. They were
using the precise language of a military doctrine.
In classical
warfare, to capture something means to take it intact and turn it
against the enemy. You do not destroy the bridge — you cross it. You do
not burn the radio tower — you broadcast from it. The asset becomes your
weapon.
In
the film, “Saving Private Ryan,” the climatic scene is of the troops
willing to sacrifice everything to hold the bridge, which would keep
supply lines open – against allowing passage for the enemy if not there
to defend it.
Hybrid warfare — the
dominant strategic framework of the last fifty years — applies this same
principle to the battlefield of narrative. The territory being
contested is not geography. It is perception. And the fortifications are
not trenches and walls. They are institutions.
The Senate. The
judiciary. The Pentagon. The CIA. The university. The newsroom. The
medical establishment. The technology platform. These are the high
ground of the information war. Whoever controls them controls the
authorized version of reality — which experts are credible, which
science is settled, which history is taught, which questions are
permitted.
The battlefield took shape not on foreign soil but in the places most Americans thought were permanently on their side.
II. The Methodology — How Institutions Get Taken
John
DeSouza — a former FBI special agent who specialized in paranormal
cases and later in counterintelligence — described the methodology with
clinical precision when I spoke with him. You do not need to be an
ideologue yourself to execute institutional capture. You need only to
understand incentive structures.
The playbook has five moves, and they are not secret. They are documented in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, in the academic literature on organizational theory, and — most usefully — in John Perkins’ confessional memoir, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,
which describes the export of this methodology to foreign governments.
What Perkins documented in the developing world, his contemporaries were
doing domestically. And more importantly, recently in America.
Economic
hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around
the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World
Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other
foreign “aid” organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and
the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural
resources. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged
elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old
as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions
during this time of globalization. I should know; I was an EHM.
– John Perkins, 2004
Move 1: Identify the Institution’s Dependencies
Every
institution has pressure points — the funding it cannot do without, the
accreditations it requires to function, the political relationships
that protect it from scrutiny. Map those dependencies and you have the
map of the takeover.
Move 2: Control the Incentive Structure
Fellowships.
Grants. Peer review committees. Publishing boards. Promotion criteria.
Award panels. These are not neutral mechanisms — they are the valves
that determine who rises and who stagnates within an institution.
Control who gives the fellowships and the grants, and you control which
ideas get developed, which researchers get platforms, and which
conclusions get amplified.
Move 3: Staff the Gatekeeping Roles
The
department chair. The editor. The committee chairman. The bureau chief.
The grant officer. These are not the most visible positions, but they
are the most consequential ones. The captured institution is staffed not
by visible ideologues at the top — that would be too obvious — but by
reliable gatekeepers in the middle. The top can say anything it likes,
but the gatekeepers decide what actually moves through the system.
The
below graphic, though years old, shows a glimpse of how incestuous the
relations between administration officials and the media are. Think of
this for a moment, when an administration had come to power, it had made
thousands of promises to thousands of people regarding their
compensation when they would come to power. Either straight up bribes,
or kickbacks, or funneled money, or positions are given out as
incentives. The result are compromised representatives at all levels of
governments and institutions.
Move 4: Elevate the Compliant, Isolate the Independent
Independent
thinkers are not fired in the early stages of institutional capture —
that would create martyrs and attract scrutiny. They are passed over.
Their grant applications are denied. Their papers are rejected for peer
review. Their speaking invitations dry up. Over time, without drama,
without scandal, the institution becomes a monoculture — not because
dissent was suppressed but because it was simply not rewarded. The
compliant rise. The curious plateau. The independent leave.
Move 5: Normalize the Capture
The
final move is generational. Once the institution has been staffed with
products of its own captured environment, the original ideology no
longer needs to be enforced. It is simply the air that everyone
breathes. The new faculty were trained by the captured faculty. The new
editors were mentored by the captured editors. The new grant officers
attended the captured universities. The takeover becomes
self-perpetuating without any further external pressure. At this point —
and this is the chilling part — even the people inside it cannot see
it. They simply call it normal.
III. The Consolidation Evidence — Following the Pattern
It
would be reassuring to believe this is abstract theory. The evidence is
frustratingly concrete. In the US, it was determined that the public
would see and react to a socialist state decades ago, so the calculation
was to create the PPP or public private partnerships.
Public
companies and installed actors play out the roles of what used to be the
State. It’s why there are so many grifters in the highest valued
companies. Of course, this began years ago with the defense industry
contractors, but it’s moved to all parts of the ecosystem – banking,
technology, financial, education, etc. Those top performers are never
short of compensation.
Media
In
the 1980s, approximately 50 corporations controlled the majority of
American media. After the Telecommunications Act of 1996 — which I
documented in the Planned Chaos Media episode — that number collapsed to
six. Six corporations now control what roughly 330 million Americans
read, watch, and hear as news. Each of those corporations has board
members and shareholders with direct ties to the financial and political
structures they are supposed to cover. That is not a free press. That
is a captured institution posing as one.
Banking
The
Federal Reserve is not federal. It has no reserves in the traditional
sense. It is a private consortium of member banks — established by
legislation written by the bankers themselves at the Jekyll Island
meeting of 1910, passed during a congressional session deliberately held
during the Christmas recess of 1913. The central bank captures monetary
sovereignty from elected government and lodges it in a private
institution answerable to its shareholders. That is the oldest and most
consequential institutional capture in American history.
Technology
The
consolidation of the technology sector into a handful of platforms —
Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft — represents the most recent
iteration of the same pattern. These platforms do not merely carry the
conversation; they shape it through algorithmic curation, content
moderation, and the de-platforming of voices that challenge the
consensus. When a single company controls what information 4 billion
people can access and share, it has captured the global nervous system
of public discourse. These are by design.
The
recent announcement of a technology advisory board organized by the
Trump administration — bringing the same consolidated tech players into
direct coordination with executive policy — should be examined
carefully, regardless of one’s political alignment. Centralized
coordination between government and monopolized tech infrastructure is
the capture mechanism, not the solution to it. Again, the so-called
public sphere is doing the bidding of the State, because they ARE the
State. The ideology of the person assembling the board does not change
the architecture.
IV. The Chaos Agents — Who Carries the Strategy Forward
Planned
Chaos does not require a single orchestrating body with a whiteboard
and a master plan — although the evidence for coordinated strategic
intent is stronger than most people are willing to examine. What it
requires is a class of actors I call chaos agents: operatives, true
believers, and unwitting participants who carry the strategy forward
without necessarily knowing its full scope.
The chaos agent is not
always a villain. In many cases they are exactly what they appear to
be: a committed ideologue who genuinely believes in the transformation
they are advancing. The DEI administrator. The activist academic. The
foundation program officer. The corporate diversity consultant. These
individuals are not, for the most part, consciously serving a hidden
agenda. They are products of a pipeline — the indoctrination pipeline
examined in the next article — who have been trained, incentivized, and
promoted to advance a framework they experience as their own.
This
is what makes the strategy so durable. It does not depend on
conspirators who could be exposed and prosecuted. It depends on true
believers who cannot be argued out of their beliefs because those
beliefs constitute their professional identity, their social world, and
their understanding of moral purpose. You do not defeat a captured
institution by arguing with the people inside it. You defeat it by
understanding the architecture that produced them.
The chaos
agent is not always the enemy. Sometimes the chaos agent is the person
who attended the captured university, worked for the captured
institution, and never had access to a different map.
V. The Quickening — Why This Is the Moment
Something
has shifted in the velocity of events. Those of us who have been
tracking these patterns for years have a name for it: the compression
window, also called the quickening. The timelines are collapsing. The
perceptions are moving at global speed. What would have taken years to
percolate through the public consciousness a decade ago now completes
its cycle in weeks.
Consider: AI-generated propaganda videos out
of Iran, targeted at Western audiences around the Trump-Netanyahu
alliance, now circulate within hours of production. They are crude by
professional standards. They are effective by political ones — not
because they convince the informed, but because they seed doubt in the
undecided and harden the committed. The technology of perception
management has been democratized, which means the battle for narrative
has become simultaneous, global, and unceasing.
This
is why understanding institutional capture matters right now, in this
moment, rather than at some more convenient future date. The
institutions that shape perception are under more pressure than they
have been at any point in living memory. The captured media is losing
audience at historic rates. The captured universities are facing
enrollment crises and legislative scrutiny. The captured central bank is
confronting the first serious challenge to dollar hegemony in half a
century. The captured technology platforms are under antitrust pressure
from multiple governments simultaneously.
The pressure does not
guarantee liberation. Institutions under pressure can consolidate
further, restrict harder, and capture more effectively. But the window
of visibility — the moment when the public can actually see the
mechanism — is open. And open windows do not stay open.
VI. What Comes After Capture — The Integration Task
Understanding
institutional capture is not a counsel of despair. It is a map. And
maps are most useful when you are trying to find your way through
unfamiliar territory.
The integration task — the work this
platform exists to support — is not to capture the institutions back.
That is the wrong target and the wrong strategy. The answer to
institutional capture is not counter-capture. It is the construction of
parallel institutions: media organizations that are structurally
independent, educational models that prioritize critical thinking over
ideological formation, financial systems that are not controlled by a
private central authority, technology platforms that are genuinely
decentralized.
Those
parallel structures are being built. They are fragile, underfunded, and
embattled. But they exist — and they are growing exactly because the
captured institutions have overreached far enough that large numbers of
people have lost faith in them simultaneously.
The naradigm shift
is, at its core, a crisis of institutional legitimacy. The old
institutions are failing to perform their stated functions. New
structures are forming to replace them. The question — the only question
that matters in this compression window — is what values and what
architecture those new structures are built on.
That is the conversation this platform is here to advance.
The Indoctrination Pipeline
“Academic Capture – The Indoctrination Pipeline”
examines how the methodology described above was applied to one
specific institution: academia. From billion-dollar university
endowments to picture books for four-year-olds, from the peer review
apparatus to the school board meeting in Montgomery County, Maryland —
the pipeline is documented, sourced, and named.
