JAMES CORBETT: “The ICC Wants to Start Arresting Politicians! I Think That’s A GREAT Idea! Let’s Just Go Ahead and Arrest Them All!”

“As long-time followers of The Corbett Report will know by now, the International Criminal Court is that ridiculous, UN-spawned kangaroo court in The Hague that dispenses victor’s justice at the behest of its Western backers, spending its time exclusively prosecuting Africans and asking the hard questions about Gaddafi and Viagra while studiously ignoring US and UK and Israeli war crimes. So why don’t we just cut to the chase. Perhaps instead of making a list of all the politicians we should arrest, it would be easier to make a list of all the politicians we shouldn’t arrest. OK, let me think about it. . . . Uhhh . . . . . . Give me a minute here . . . Ahhh, this is too difficult. Let’s just go ahead and arrest them all! Of course, I suppose that would mean that we’d have to face the prospect of a world without politicians. I mean, can you imagine a world without politicians? You know what? I’m willing to give it a try if you are.”

~James Corbett

As long-time followers of The Corbett Report will know by now, the International Criminal Court is that ridiculous, UN-spawned kangaroo court in The Hague that dispenses victor’s justice at the behest of its Western backers, spending its time exclusively prosecuting Africans and asking the hard questions about Gaddafi and Viagra while studiously ignoring US and UK and Israeli war crimes.

Well, guess what? Embracing the “diversity, equity and inclusion” mantra that’s all the rage in Western institutions these days, the ICC has finally gone out and issued an arrest warrant for a major European leader!

. . . If you count Russia as a European nation, that is.

That’s right. In case you haven’t heard by now, the illustrious international court of criminals has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of being “allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children)” and of facilitating the “unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.”

Now, while your average news consumer is busy trying to figure out why the ICC can’t stop bracketing the word “children,” I, for one, am too busy applauding to ponder such peculiarities of punctuation.

Yes! Arrest the politicians! What a brilliant idea!

But now that we’re taking the ICC’s idea and running with it, we’re faced with a new dilemma: who should we arrest?

So today, let’s put on our thinking caps, don our Saturnalian robes of justice and slip into our international law pants and come up with a list of politicians who should be rounded up and locked away forever for their crimes against humanity. Are you ready?


Yes, ICC prosecuters, I agree! By all means, let’s arrest Putin!

. . . But not for the trumped-up, phoney-baloney charges that the ICC has listed in its transparently political and obviously fraudulent “won’t someone think of the (children)!?” arrest warrant.

In reality, of course, the ICC’s warrant for Putin was based on a US State Department-funded report that debunked itself, and it was issued by a prosecutor who claimed political neutralitywhile speaking at Ukraine government-organized events and yukking it up with NATO member officials at a donor conference in London.

In fact, it’s so obvious the ICC is in the business of selling “justice” to the highest bidder that even The Guardian admitted the timing of the Putin warrant was calculated to maximize donations to the court. (For the record, the incredibly cynical move worked: the ICC ended up raising nearly $5 million from NATO countries to continue its work “holding Russia to account” for its war crimes in Ukraine.)

So, no, let’s not arrest Putin for those ridiculous charges. Instead, let’s bring some charges of our own.

For starters, we could bring him in to answer some questions about the Russian apartment bombings in September 1999. Then-Prime Minister Putin blamed the wave of bombings—which killed more than 300 people over 10 days in five separate events—on “Chechen terrorists,” using them as a pretext to launch the air bombing of Grozny that began the Second Chechen War.

Unsurprisingly to students of the history of false flag terror, however, it wasn’t long before agents of the Russian security service, the FSB, were caught red-handed planting bombs in an apartment complex in Ryazan. Naturally, the Kremlin claimed that the FSB agents’ foiled bombing attempt was part of a “security exercise” and the event was promptly covered up. Putin, meanwhile, proceeded to milk the trauma this false flag inflicted on the Russian population for all it was worth. His poll numbers skyrocketed from 2% before the bombings to 55% afterwards and by the end of the year he was installed as the new President of Russia.

Or why not arrest Putin for his whole-hearted, full-throated participation in the erection of the Russian biosecurity grid?

He has, after all, actively promoted the Sputnik V clot shot vaccination agenda, claiming time and time again that “we need to do everything we can to overcome this pandemic, and the best tool we have in this fight is vaccination.” He has repeatedly bemoaned the “insufficient” uptake of the clot shots by Russians, and his press secretary has declared that “any measures that can push more people to vaccinate are good” and “only vaccination saves from death.” Putin even went out of his way to remind Russia’s regional governors that they have the authority to coerce citizens into getting jabbed.

He has made biosecurity a key talking point of the Russia/China alliance that—we are constantly assured by certain sectors of the “alternative” media—forms the backbone of the new power bloc intended to “oppose” the NATO bloc tyranny. Putin has vowed that “particular emphasis will be placed on the fight against the novel coronavirus infection pandemic,” because this “ongoing pandemic” poses “a serious challenge to the fulfilment of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” He has even signed agreements with Chinese President Xi Jinping to ensure “the deepening of information exchange on the subject of the COVID-19 pandemic and the strengthening of coordination when interacting at such platforms as WHO.”

And he has not only endorsed the erection of a digital ID system in Russia, but he actually urged the government to fast track the development of such a system (“the faster, the better”), warning that “such services are highly in demand, and you just need to accelerate their implementation.”

Need I go on?

Oh, OK.

Putin signed into law a biometrics bill that was illegally rushed through the State Duma. Under the guise of “banning” forced collection of biometrics, the bill in fact greatly expands the (World Bank-endorsed) “Unified Biometric System” introduced by Rostelcom in 2018 for collecting fingerprint, facial image, voice, iris, and palm vein pattern information on Russian citizens and places control of that biometric data in the hands of a private entity. As even pro-Putin Russian alt media warns, the bill is “deeply unconstitutional and creates the basis for building a ‘digital concentration camp’ in Russia.”

Plus, Putin has collaborated with his old pal (and “former” WEF Board of Trustees member) Herman “Sberbank” Gref in the rollout of the country’s biometric control grid. In 2021, Putin delivered the keynote address at Sber’s artificial intelligence conference—”one of the main global venues for discussing artificial intelligence,” Putin assures us—where he praised Sber’s efforts to use AI technologies to transform “healthcare and education, environmental protection and agriculture, industry and transport” and encouraged his globalist amigo to “accelerate the digital transformation across the board and as soon as possible move from isolated experiments and pilot initiatives to end-to-end projects with AI applications.” And, in case we didn’t get the point, Putin delivered the keynote address again at the 2022 conference, informing us that his “next goal on the horizon of the current decade is to ensure broader introduction of artificial intelligence.”

So, in short: yes, arrest Putin!

But why stop there? Since we’re already pissing off the 5D-chess-playing, MAGA-supporting, hopium addicts in the crowd, why don’t we just go the whole hog and arrest . . .


Now, before the red caps in the crowd start hyperventilating (“I always KNEW you were a shill, James!”): relax! Of course I don’t think The Orange Man should be put into an orange jumpsuit over some Stormy Daniels-related “campaign finance violation” horsetwaddle.

And if you think I’m talking about Russiagate then you haven’t seen my typically entertaining and hilarious (if I do say so myself) debunking of Russiagate.

No, that’s all left/right, Coke/Pepsi partisan political distraction nonsense. Instead, let’s arrest Trump for something of consequence.

Like what? Well, how about his work against American interests in the service of a foreign power?

No, I’m not talking about Russiagate, silly. As I observed back in 2017: “Forget Russiagate, The REAL Scandal Is Israelgate.”

Oh, you don’t remember Israelgate? That’s not surprising, since Russiagate was hyped endlessly by the same truthtelling truthsayers at the bastions of truthiness like CNN and MSNBC, and Israelgate was never mentioned once by those controlled corporate (fake) news networks.

For those not in the know, the ouster of Michael Flynn from his role as Trump’s national security advisor came when he “pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI about his back-channel negotiations with the Russian ambassador.” But what was he “negotiating” with the Russians about?

Hmmm. Let me check my notes. . . .

Oh, that’s right! He was “negotiating” with the Russians about their vote on United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. You know, the resolution that sought to condemn Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians? And what was he on the horn with his Russian counterpart about, exactly? Oh yeah, he was trying to twist the Russians’ arm to vote “no” on the resolution.

And who put him up to that task? Why, none other than the Son-in-Law-in-Chief, Jared Kushner, the wheeling and dealing Wunderkind whose family is so connected to Israel’s zionist likudniks that he once let Benjamin Netanyahu sleep in his bed (yes, literally) and who failed to disclose that he led a foundation that actually funded an illegal Israeli settlement (yes, really).

Oh, wait. Silly me! It seems Israelgate is all about Trump’s son-in-law and has nothing at all to do with Trump himself. I mean, it’s not like Donald J. Trump would ever sell out America in the interests of Israel, would he?

OK, I guess he did move the US embassy to Jerusalem, unilaterally altering longstanding US foreign policy in the region to implicitly endorse Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. And Donald “Make Israel Great Again” Trump didbrag at every opportunity how he was a “true friend of Israel” who may be a “newcomer to politics but not to backing the Jewish state” and did gloat about how Israelis believe him to be “the King of Israel” and love him like “the second coming of God.” And he did make campaign endorsement videos for his best pal Benjamin Netanyahu (another unconvicted criminal who, come to think of it, should definitely be arrested!).

But he’d never sell out American interests in favour of Israel. Heaven forfend! I guess Kushner must’ve put Flynn up to that phone call all by himself.

So, what else can we arrest Trump for?

Well, how about his international war crimes in Syria? You know, the country that—like Obama (who should be arrested) and Bush (who should be arrested) before him—Trump continued to bombard for years in a completely illegal attempt at regime change? Or has the international community already forgotten about the Syria Strikes?

Remember the Syria Strikes? Convinced by the pictures provided to him by the Academy Award-winning White Helmets that Assad had indeed gassed the “beautiful babies” of Douma and apparently unconvinced by every shred of available evidence that this was, in fact, yet another false flag perpetrated by the anti-Assad terrorists, Trump lobbed 59 Tomahawk land attack missiles at the country in 2017 (adding $5 billion to the bottom line of his buddies at Raytheon in the process).

Or remember when Trump bragged about the “highly successful” (and highly illegal) raids he ordered as part of the years-long US-sponsored war crime in Yemen that he likewise inherited from Obama and gleefully expanded during his time in office?

These are undoubtedly offences of the highest order. But if we really want to arrest Trump for his crimes against humanity, why don’t we convict him for the very thing he’s proudest of: his role in the scamdemic?

Trump’s loudest defenders always conveniently forget that their orange hero came to office on the back of his willingness to discuss the vaccine/autism link and his promise to appoint RFK Jr. to chair a commission on vaccine safety but that under his watch vaccines became the greatest thing since sliced bread and an RFK Jr. vaccine safety commission was off the table because Bill Gates told him it was a bad idea.

They forget that it was Trump who ordered Operation Warp Speed and who called the MAGA jabs his “greatest achievement.”

They forget it was Trump who followed Fauci’s every dictate throughout the course of the scamdemic and allowed the shutdown of the country at the behest of the “health” tyrants.

They forget it was Trump who pulled off the ultimate vaccine bait and switch by removing funding from the WHO . . . in order to give it to Gates’ GAVI, the vaccine alliance.

Yes, if any world leader needs to answer for the crimes against humanity committed during the scamdemic, it’s Trump. Can you imagine if Trump actually were the hero that the QAnoners believed him to be? Can you imagine him calling out the scamdemic for the transparent sham that it was, instead of actively helping facilitate the deep state’s crimes? Neither can I.

But before the intellectually challenged dupes of the left/right political farce go and accuse me of being some damn commie-loving pinko for putting Putin and Trump on the arrest list, let me go ahead and call for the arrest of . . .


When it comes to Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., 45th President of the United States of America, there is once again no shortage of charges to place on the arrest warrant.

It would be tempting to arrest him for his incessant lying—from the Big, Consequential Lies (like the safe and effective injection lie and the pandemic of the unvaccinated lie and the economy is doing great lie) to the Small, Bizarre Lies. Remember when he randomly invented the story of playing college football for no particular reason? Or when he made up a story about being recruited by Golda Meir to help in the Six Day War? (Don’t worry, though; it turns out Corn Pop was totally real.)

But, on sober reflection, lying is (generally) not a crime, and we don’t want to set a precedent that would allow for Biden’s ilk to start arresting people for their speech, do we?

Perhaps, then, it would be more productive to arrest Biden for his crimes in Ukraine.

Now, I’m not just talking about his war crimes in Ukraine, or even the Ukrainian war crimes in the Donbas that the Biden administration is now actively supporting. I’m also talking about Biden’s pre-war crimes in Ukraine, from his son’s wheelings and dealings on the board of Burisma Holdings on behalf of “the big guy” to Biden’s own incredible on-camera admissionthat he threatened to withhold a billion-dollar loan guarantee to the Ukrainian government unless they fired the attorney general . . . who, as it turns out, was trying to prosecute Burismafor its corrupt practices.

But that is a long and complicated story that would no doubt tie up the courts for years, generating lots of boring testimony that the TikTok-addicted, fluoride-addled public would surely tire of before Biden’s inevitable conviction.

So why not arrest him for something far more immediately understandable (and immediately revolting), like his long and documented pattern of sexual assault and molestation?

Sadly, in this case I’m not simply referring to Tara Read, a staff member in Biden’s Senate office in the 1990s who accused him of inappropriate touching and of a specific act of sexual assault (and who was then subjected to intense scrutiny by the same types of people who tell us to “believe all women” . . . as long as those women are democrats).

And I’m not just talking about the photographs and videos of Joe Biden caressing grown women and making them visibly uncomfortableat various official functions throughout his career.

No, I’m talking about the multiple underage girls who have been inappropriately gropedfondledcaressed and even kissed in full view of the camera.

It’s important to understand that Biden’s sexual molestation of women and girls is not some fringe conspiracy theory, either. Entire websiteshave been set up to document these abuses. Heck, even his own daughter questioned whether she had been molested by the current resident of the Oval Office in a journal entryreflecting on the inappropriate showers Biden took with her at a young age.

Naturally, the establishment lackey media has (to the surprise of no one) run to Biden’s defense at every opportunity, with the consensus among the trendy, progressive, #MeToo-supporting Democrats being that “Uncle Joe” is just a bit hands-y and doesn’t realize he’s being inappropriate.

And besides, Biden teamed up with Lady Gagato create trauma centres for victims of physical and emotional abuse, so he must be a good guy, right? After all, a credibly accused rapist in need of a PR pick-me-up would never engage in a cynical ploy to pollute the “Biden sexual assault” search results with feelgood stories about Uncle Joe’s trauma recovery centers, would they?

Yet, for the partisan political hacks, sexual assault is AOK when the man doing it is on their political team. Just ask Bill Clinton’s victims. I don’t run in those rarefied, elitist circles, so perhaps I just don’t understand such double standards. All I know is that—as the father of a young girl—if any man were touching my daughter like that he would have his face rearranged in short order.

So, yes: let’s get the ICC to issue one of those arrest warrant thingies for Biden, too, please.

But how can we talk about criminal presidents in need of arrest without talking about . . .


OK, OK, this one is a gimme, but really, are you gonna make a list of politicians to arrest WITHOUT including W? Of course you aren’t, and neither am I.

To be fair, I’m not exactly the first person to ever think of arresting Bush 43 for his crimes against humanity. There were those who lobbied for Bush’s arrest when he came to speak in Calgary in 2009, including Splitting The Sky (R.I.P.). As you’ll recall, Splitting The Sky even attempted a citizen’s arrest of the fiendish Bush fils . .  . but alas, the criminal slipped away.

Then there was the time that Bush was forced to cancel a trip to Switzerland to speak at a fundraiser for the United Israel Appeal after it was revealed that a number of human rights groups were planning to prosecute Bush for his war crimes, including his contravention of the Convention Against Torture to which the United States is a signatory.

The Canadians were back on the case in 2011 when the Canadian Centre for International Justice—citing the evidence in a 2006 UN report, a 2007 Council of Europe report, and a 2008 US Senate Armed Services Committee report, as well as the testimony of UN Special Rapporteurs Nowak and Scheinin and a 2009 admission by Cheney and Bush’s own 2010 memoirs—attempted to prosecute the 9/11-Criminal-in-Chief . . . but apparently “The Mounties always get their man” only applies when said man is not the psychopathic progeny of a famed international crime family. The prosecution was blocked by the B.C. government, and the election thief evaded justice once again.

Bush finally received his judgment in 2012, when the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission found George W. Bush guilty of war crimes in the illegal invasion of Iraq. Strangely enough, though, that hasn’t resulted in any country actually arresting him . . . yet.

But hey, Bush didn’t let Iraq’s complete lack of WMDs stop him from spilling the blood of millions of innocent Iraqis, so are we really going to stop trying to nab one of the prime war criminals of the 21st century just because it didn’t work the first few times? Of course not!

I suppose I should make it clear that this isn’t a partisan thing. Let’s arrest every living US president for their part in committing crimes against humanity and for their expansion of the American empire on the back of countless dead women and children!

And, while we’re at it, let’s nab their friends, too. Friends like . . .


If Bush deserves jail (and he certainly does), then surely Tony Blair deserves to be right there beside him as the war crimes tribunal begins.

After all, when Bush and Cheney and Rice and the gaggle of neocons in Washington were selling totally made-up “mushroom cloud” bullplop to the trusting American rubes, there was Blair, selling his sexed-up dossier and peddling his 45-minute fantasy and murdering David Kelly.

And when Bush was planning to stage a false flag event in order to justify war in Iraq, who was he conspiring with? That’s right: Tony “Aztec Rebirther” Blair.

And when it came time to sell the public on the Osama-did-9/11 myth, who did Bush recruit? You guessed it.

Then there was Blair’s own 7/7 false flag that was used to perpetuate the terror myth and his call to “crack down on future problem children before they are even born” and his repeated calls for digital IDs and vaccine passports.

Yes, there is no shortage of reasons why we might want to add Tony Blair to the list of dangerous political criminals who need to be thrown behind bars.

But hold on a second. Looking at this list, I notice something is missing: namely, estrogen!


Pardon me! I forgot this is <CURRENT YEAR> and that any list that does not include a woman (however that’s defined!) just wouldn’t pass muster with the equity and inclusion crowd, so let’s make sure we get a female politician in shackles, too, shall we?

Now, there is no shortage of lady criminals to choose from. We should definitely have an orange jumpsuit ready for our apprehension of Angela “Minsk Fraudster” Merkel, of course. And we shouldn’t forget about Sanna “I Definitely Wasn’t On Drugs!” Marin just because she’s been replaced as Finland’s chief pathocrat.

But if we’re going to go after recently departed female prime ministers, let’s start with Jacinda Ardern.

As with all of the others on our roster, there is no shortage of reasons to issue a warrant for the former Prime Minister of New Zealand, including her attempts to crack down on the free speech rights of citizens at home and abroad with a global censorship system.

And who could forget the New Zealand government’s participation in the crimes against humanity perpetrated during the scamdemic, like rampant discrimination against the unvaccinated and the institution of medical martial law at military-run quarantine facilities? After all, even New Zealand’s own courts ruled that Ardern’s government had acted “unlawfully, unreasonably and in breach of the Bill of Rights” in its enactment of an absolutely bonkers quarantine lottery system and that its vaccine mandate for Police and Defence Force staff was similarly a breach of fundamental rights and thus illegal.

But of all of the many crimes that Ardern presided over during her time as Prime Minster, one of the most egregious has to be the arrestof activist and Paster Billy Te Kahika and alternative media host Vinny Eastwood for the “crime” of protesting New Zealand’s draconian lockdown legislation. Not only were they arrested and held in custody for “offences against the Covid 19 Response Act,” but, as my readers may have seen by now, Billy and Vinny just received prison sentences of 4 months and 3 months, respectively, for their participation in peaceful protests.

In fact, as the change.org petition calling for their freedom notes, Billy “has been persecuted by the New Zealand Government for almost twenty months and vilified endlessly by Government funded mainstream media in New Zealand,” and his prison sentence “is the harshest sentence of its kind given in the western world to date.”

Keep in mind that this prison-worthy protest took place just months before New Zealand relaxed its lockdown restrictions and Ardern confirmed that orgies of up to 25 people were once again legal! (Unless the orgy participants were discussing their opposition to lockdowns, presumably.)

But at least it all turned out well for Jacinda. After shedding crocodile tears during a speech announcing her retirement as Prime Minister in which she claimed she had no plans for the future other than “spending time with her family,” she promptly went back on her word and took up a new post as a . . .

. . . wait for it . . .

. . . internet authoritarian!

That’s right, apparently “spending time with her family” is globalese for “becoming a special envoy for the Christchurch Call,” the New Zealand-led global censorship body that aims to “eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online” by labeling all of their political opponents as terrorists and scrubbing their material from the internet.

So, sadly, no, Ardern is not retiring from public life as promised. But it’s good to know that she got to squeeze in one last lie to the New Zealand public on her way out the door!


You know, compiling this list is a lot harder than I expected. Not because there aren’t enough politicians to arrest but because there are too many.

I mean, we have Biden and Trump and Bush 43 on the list already, so we might as well throw every other American president on there, too. (Yes, every one of them.)

And I don’t want to be accused of any pro-Canadian bias, so I’m more than happy to throw Trudeau in there for his crimes against the Canadian people.

And I haven’t even gotten to President-for-Life Xi Jinping yet.

. . . Hmmm. Come to think of it, this list is getting too long already and I’m just getting started! I mean, we haven’t even considered what would happen if we took seriously the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalize War and its proposal to make warfare itself a crime. How many more politicians would that add to the arrest warrant list?

So why don’t we just cut to the chase. Perhaps instead of making a list of all the politicians we should arrest, it would be easier to make a list of all the politicians we shouldn’t arrest.

OK, let me think about it.

. . . Uhhh . . .

. . . Give me a minute here . . .

Ahhh, this is too difficult.

Let’s just go ahead and arrest them all!

Of course, I suppose that would mean that we’d have to face the prospect of a world without politicians. I mean, can you imagine a world without politicians?

You know what? I’m willing to give it a try if you are.


JAMES CORBETT ~ Solutions Watch: “Presearch Search Engine”

Now that DuckDuckGo has officially DuckDuckGone in the direction of censorship, what’s a free speech-loving, liberty-minded conspiracy realist to do? Never fear, #SolutionsWatch is here. In the first of a series of explorations of Alt Tech, James talks to Colin Pape of Presearch, a decentralized search engine that is seeking to offer an alternative to the Big Tech monopolization of search.


~via CorbettReport.com

JAMES CORBETT ~ Solutions Watch: “The Highlighter is Mightier Than the Sword!”

As you know by now, #SolutionsWatch doesn’t just highlight the Big Ideas for changing the world; it also showcases the little ideas that can improve your life. As little ideas go, this week’s idea (online highlighting) probably seems like the littlest one of all, but actually it’s revolutionized my online research. Find out more in this week’s edition of #SolutionsWatch.


~via CorbettReport.com

JAMES CORBETT ~ Solutions Watch: “2021 In Review”

Today James reflects on the first year of #SolutionsWatch. What worked? What didn’t? Where do things stand now? Let’s take a look…


~via CorbettReport.com

JAMES CORBETT: “How to Play 3D Chess”

It’s a ridiculous, no good, stupid, rotten meme.

You know, the idea that every horrible move that Precedent Trump ever made (like appointing John Bolton or launching Operation Warp Speed) was actually some super complicated three-dimensional chess move intended to accomplish the exact opposite of what he was actually doing? (“You don’t understand, man! He’s appointing Gina “CIA Torture” Haspel because he wants to expose her role in CIA torture!”)

Yeah, that meme.

Well, as much as “Trump the 3D chess master” represented the apotheosis of Hopium for the Trump Train crowd (cf. The Babylon Bee’s spot-on satirical headline from January 20, 2021: “Republican Starting To Think Trump Might Not Pull Off A Last-Minute 4D Chess Move“), the idea of three-dimensional chess itself is not without merit. After all, I employed it in 2013 to discuss the reality ofChina and the New World Orderand used it again in 2014 to discuss the true nature of the Global Chessboard. (Don’t blame me for launching the meme, though! The earliest reference I could find was a 2010 clip of Cenk Uyghur discussing liberal defenses of Barack Obama.)

So in defense of this much-abused idea, allow me to present to you a beginner’s guide outlining How To Play 3D Chess.

2D Chess vs. 3D Chess

We all know how to play regular old, run-of-the-mill 2D chess, right? Well, if not, here’s your crash course.

Long story short: Each player controls a set of sixteen pieces, one white and one black. Each piece can move in certain, proscribed ways around the chessboard—64 squares laid out in an 8×8 grid—and can capture the other side’s pieces by moving to a square that is occupied by an opponent. The goal is to “checkmate” the king of the opposite side by forcing him into a situation where he is unable to move without being captured.

Sadly for any chess aficionados in the crowd, though, we are not here today to talk about the game of chess. We are here to talk about chess as it is often employed by the globalist jet set: as a metaphor for geopolitical struggle. After all, just as in chess, the Machiavellian strategists of the global order like to imagine themselves moving pawns around the global chessboard in order to gain control of this or that square and, eventually, to checkmate their opponents.

That chess is just a metaphor for geopolitics and that chess strategy bears more than a passing resemblance to geopolitical strategy is, after all, the central conceit of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 work, The Grand Chessboard. In that book, Brzezinski writes at length about the “oddly shaped Eurasian chessboard” and the moves that the American empire should be making on that board to insure their continuing global hegemony. Thus, Russia, for instance “remains a player” in the game for Eurasia “even though it has lost some of its ‘pieces,’ as well as some key spaces on the Eurasian chessboard.”

The chess analogy becomes even more apparent in times of war. Think of the military planners huddled around a battlefield map like a chess master huddled around the board, observing the pieces in play and deciding where to deploy their forces next. Even in the current war against the “invisible enemy” of coronavirus, one gets the sense that Bill Gates believes himself to be a chess master, moving the pawns around his global chessboard to “prevent the next pandemic” as shown in one of his recent creepy videos.

But this is 2D chess.  Now let’s consider 3D chess.

Although many will think of three-dimensional chess as a fictional game concocted by the Star Trek writers, 3D variants of the classic chessboard have existed since Lionel Kieseritzky developed his 8x8x8 cubic chess board in 1851. Different 3D chess variants have been developed in the intervening century and a half, but they generally involve the introduction of playing surfaces “above” the regular, two-dimensional chessboard, and extend the rules of movement for each piece into the third dimension so they can “jump” up and “fall” down to the other boards.

So if 2D chess has obvious utility as a metaphor for geopolitics, how about 3D chess? Can we learn something about how the geopolitical world really functions by looking at it from a 3D perspective?

2D Politics vs. 3D Politics

Geopolitics is like chess. The world (mis)leaders are the players, moving their pieces (people, resources, military forces) around the board (the world) in order to checkmate their opponent (their geopolitical foe).

So far, so straightforward. But here’s where things get tricky.

What if a player thought they were playing two-dimensional chess when in fact they were playing three-dimensional chess? If for some reason they could only see the 2D chessboard, you can imagine how shocked they would be to see pieces dropping onto the board seemingly out of nowhere and taking control of squares. Where did that piece come from? Who’s controlling it? Why did it appear there? What is its mission? . . . And is it just me, or is that a white piece that’s been painted black?

To say that this would be confusing for the 2D player is an understatement. It would, in fact, mean that some moves and events that happen in the game would be completely incomprehensible to those solely focused on the 2D match.

Now what if this were the correct way to envision geopolitics? Not as a regular 2D match between nation-state opponents, but as a 3D game where nation-states compete on the regular board while shadowy forces command extra pieces that appear from some unseen board and work toward goals that are not immediately apparent?

Does that sound far-fetched? Well, until just a few years ago the term “deep state” was itself considered to be an outlandish conspiracy theory, something so ridiculous that it was not to be countenanced at all in polite, mainstream conversation (the occasional Bill Moyers documentary notwithstanding). But since the mainstreaming of the shadow government began in earnest several years ago, the term “deep state” has entered into the popular lexicon. Even the term “deep state” belies an understanding of the extra-dimensionality of this political entity. It is not operating on the regular plane of politics, but somewhere “deeper,” below the surface of what we can see.

With the 3D chess metaphor at our disposal, then, we are better situated to understand some of the moves that the deep state is making on the “grand chessboard.”

Take the Cold War. From the 2D perspective, the narrative is straightforward enough: the USA controlled the white pieces, the Soviets controlled the black pieces, and these two well-matched opponents fought over the grand chessboard for decades—mostly in Afghanistan, Vietnam and other “peripheral” areas of the board—before the game became too expensive and the Soviet team resigned.

But this perspective comes up short in describing the actual events of the 20th century. Why did the west prop up the Soviets with technology transfers, not just in the early stages of the Bolshevik Revolution but right through into the heart of the Cold War? Why did the American government build up the Soviet threat, including aiding them in the development of nuclear weapons, through the lend-lease program? Why did American corporations provide the means for the creation of the Soviet war machine? Weren’t they mortal enemies?

But what seems baffling from a two-dimensional perspective—where “Team USA” is facing off against “Team Soviet” for control of the grand chessboard—becomes almost embarrassingly simple if we simply take account of the third dimension of the game. In the case of the Cold War, that third dimension was occupied by a clique of wealthy oligarchs who wielded their wealth and power to drop chess pieces on the board at will in order to prolong a conflict here, or to end a conflict there. These 3D players could manipulate the 2D game at their will, brandishing the epithet of “conspiracy theorist” to deride anyone who dared to look beyond the second dimension to explain the moves being made on the board.

The parallels to any number of events from recent years should be obvious by now.

Take the phenomenon of false flag terror, including the 9/11 attack, which may seem confusing at first glance. How could Al Qaeda go from a USA ally during the Soviet-Afghan war to a mortal enemy in 2001 and back to an ally in the 2010s? How did a ragtag band of outcasts in Afghanistan coordinate the most sophisticated penetration of the air defenses of the world’s largest superpower not once or twice but four times on a single day? Why did America’s defenses seemingly stand down despite numerous indicators that an attack was being prepared?

Once again, what seems baffling from the 2D point of view makes sense if we think from a three-dimensional perspective, understanding that hidden forces (a “deep state,” if you will) were able to control elements of both the American government and the Al Qaeda threat.

Or take the neo-Cold War that is shaping up between China and the US. If China is a mortal threat to the US and its allies, why have they spent the last three decades consciously building up China’s manufacturing base and technological capabilities? Why have they assisted China in its rise as an economic and geopolitical power? Why have they provided the military technologies that are now being touted as an existential threat and a reason for (yet another) arms buildup?

Here yet again we find that the traditional 2D explanation of the “Team USA” vs. “Team China” chess match falls short, whereas an understanding that there are 3D players manipulating both teams for their own ends solves many of these seemingly insoluble puzzles.

But if the 2D game is a manipulated contest that is being played out to distract the public from the real game, we are confronted with two fundamental questions: who are these hidden players and what is the end goal of their 3D chess match?

The Endgame

The “real” chess game, then, is not the one we see taking place on the 2D board. It is the 3D chess game that encompasses the 2D game and all the other levels where the deep state(s) are operating. But there’s something else that we haven’t considered yet: what is the goal of these 3D chess masters? How does one win a game of 3D chess?

If we consider each of the conflicts that we have examined thus far (the Cold War, 9/11, the neo-Cold War with China) and many more that we could examine (WWI or WWII or the OKC bombing or big oil environmentalism or the corona crisis or . . . ) as separate “chess matches,” we could work out in each case who the 2D players are, what their goals might be, and how that game is manipulated by 3D players. In some sense, this is the task that I have been engaged in for 14 years here at The Corbett Report.

But to cut to the chase, one would be hard-pressed to state the nature of the 3D game that is being played here any more succinctly than Antony Sutton. When asked to explain why, precisely, the Wall Street interests and other 3D chess players would want to build up the Soviet threat during the Cold War, Sutton stated:

“Why? You won’t find this in the text books. Why is to bring about, I suspect, a plan to control world society in which you and I won’t find the freedoms to believe and think and do as we believe.”

This is it in a nutshell. The wealthy interests do not consider themselves a member of “Team USA” or “Team China” or any of the other two-dimensional constructs that the public has been taught to identify with. Instead, they are wielding their considerable wealth and power to bring about a truly global system of control. That system is not predicated on “Team USA” conquering the chess board, or “Team China” conquering the chess board, or any other final position that we would identify as the end of the two-dimensional chess game. The goal of their 3D game is to control the entire board. Every square. Every piece. All of it. To be able to completely dictate what happens on that board at all times.

Note that if this is indeed the goal of the three-dimensional chess game, then it doesn’t matter if the “white team” ever actually beats the “black team” or vice versa. In fact, it might be in the interest of the 3D chess masters to keep the 2D game going forever, as a way to distract everyone from the fact that the entire 2D board itself has been taken over by unseen players. This is the vision of Nineteen Eighty-Four, for example, where the world is seemingly divided into three super-states (Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia) that are constantly shifting between permutations of enemy and ally. In the end, not even Outer Party members like Winston Smith know if these enemies really exist, or if they are all part of a single totalitarian government, or if the bombs raining down on Oceania are in fact being dropped by the Oceanian government as a way of keeping its own people in fear.

In chess, the “endgame” refers to the final stage of a chess match, when only a few pieces remain on the board and one player is closing in on a checkmate of his opponent. If the quest for world government is the real goal of these 3D chess players, then is it possible to deny that we are in the end game of this match?

Seemingly every nation in the world has marched in lock-step with the erection of the biosecurity state, showing that once-neglected bodies like the World Health Organization wield—through the International Health Regulations and other treaties carefully laid out over the course of the past few decades—enormous power over the seemingly sovereign governments that subscribe to them.

The World Economic Forum is busy preparing the public via The Great Reset for the coming Fourth Industrial Revolution and the plunge into the transhuman dystopia.

The drive for a global tax grid has just come one step closer to reality thanks to ex-Fed chair and current US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

Surely the drive for truly global control of the human population has never been more eminent or more imminent.

But if we are indeed in the end game for this quest for total control of the grand chessboard, what comes next? 


If we extend the 3D chess analogy to its logical conclusion, we finally understand that the real game is not a match between “Team USA” vs. “Team China” or “Team Good Guys” vs. “Team Terrorist” or any other such simplistic, two-dimensional conflict. It is instead a game pitting the largely unseen 3D chess players against the rest of humanity. And, given the technology for altering populations at the genomic level that are coming into view, if we lose this match, we stand to lose our humanity altogether.

In chess, one player “checkmates” the other by driving his opponent’s king into a position from which he cannot move without being attacked. But this is not the only way that a chess match can end. A stalemate or other type of draw can result when neither side is able to successfully checkmate the other. Games can also end when one player, realizing that he cannot escape an eventual checkmate, resigns the match.

But none of these outcomes are acceptable in this game of 3D chess.

A checkmate, representing the victory of one 2D side over another, merely leads to the formation of a new order and the beginning of a new 2D game. If we imagined World War II as a match between “Team Axis” and “Team Allies,” for example, then the victory of Team Allies in 1945 only set the board for a new match. That match, the Cold War, was—as we have already seen—just another 2D contest manipulated and controlled by the 3D forces.

Likewise, a draw is no victory for those interested in actually defeating their 3D opponents. A stalemate on the traditional 2D chess board only prolongs the game, or invites yet another reset of the board. And, as noted above, the 3D players do not care if the 2D game ever finishes. They can gain control of the board regardless of whether the 2D game is still in play or not.

A resignation is obviously not acceptable. We can just give up, eke out what existence we can as the bars of the prison planet close around us, and leave humanity to rot. But if you were inclined to resign, you wouldn’t be here reading these words in the first place.

No, the answer to how to win this 2D chess match against the 3D players is clearly not to be found within the confines and the rules of the 2D chess match at all. In fact, at this point it should be apparent that there is no way to win this rigged, manipulated game at all. The 3D players have an unreasonably fair advantage and, although we can garner glimpses of the 3D team and the pieces at their disposal, a wall of classification and secrecy still shrouds their movements to the point where we can only infer or guess at their abilities to influence the 2D board.

Finally, we are ready to ask the most important question of all: why are we playing this rigged game in the first place? Why are we investing our time, our energy, our resources, our very lives on a rigged game where manipulated teams are playing meaningless contests against fictitious enemies, all the while being manipulated by unseen forces? Why does Joe Sixpack or Sayuri Sumomom or Vladimir Vodkadrinker or Frederico Footballer care what “Team USA” or “Team Japan” or “Team Russia” or “Team Italy” or any of these other 2D chess teams are doing on what we are constantly told is “a grand chessboard?”

What if there is no chessboard? What if there are only people, interacting with each other as they see fit? As human beings. Not engaged in some struggle for control of this or that square of some fictitious playing field, but trying to create a better world for themselves and their family?

What if we removed our participation from the game? What if we started to build our own economy separate from the one that has been erected around us, one in which free human beings interact in voluntary exchange with anyone they want, regardless of what “square” on the chessboard they hail from or what “team” they supposedly “belong” to?

What if we refused to be pawns in the game of the would-be chess masters? The problem of playing 2D chess against the unseen 3D chess masters is solved when we stop playing their silly game at all.

As has been observed before: Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

~via Minds.com