JAMES CORBETT: “Interview With A Coma Victim”

by James Corbett


Do you remember how I opened my three-part series on The Year Ahead this past January?

As Lenin rightly observed: “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” Perhaps there are years in which centuries happen.

I imagine that anyone who had trouble understanding that observation eighteen months ago understands it pretty well by now. Two weeks to flatten the curve, but no masks. Two more weeks, but masks. You must mask. Protesters are grandma killers. George Floyd. Non-protesters are racists. Hunter Biden. The (s)election. Hydroxychloriquine to Ivermectin to vaccines, but no vaccine passports. OK, vaccine passports.  And on and on and on . . .

Yes, events are passing through the newswires with such rapidity that it’s difficult to even keep up with them anymore. Don’t believe me yet? Then allow me to demonstrate.

Back six years ago (approximately three lifetimes ago in newtime), I wrote an article that imagined a conversation between someone in 2015 and someone who had time traveled from the 1950s. It played on the idea of how completely the world had transformed in those 60 years, and how the world of 2015 looked nothing like the world of 1955.

Well, today let’s imagine that our interlocutor from that 2015 article fell into a coma immediately after having his conversation with the man from the 1950s. He just woke up yesterday. Now, someone from 2021 is trying to explain the last six years to him.

“OK, explain this to me again. Why are we wearing masks?”

“Because of a worldwide pandemic.”

“A pandemic? Oh my God! This is terrible!”

“Tell me about it.”

“So how many of your friends and family have you lost?”


“What? I thought you said it’s a terrible pandemic.”

“Oh, it is. And it would’ve been so much worse if we didn’t mask up, lockdown and social distance.”

“Social whatstance?”

“Social distance. You know, stay two metres apart.”

“I’m American.”

“Oh, sorry. Two meters.”

“Still not reading you.”

“Uhh . . . six feet?”

“So everyone has to stay six feet apart?”

“And wear your mask and stay home. And, depending where you live, you may or may not need government permission to leave your home.”

“Permission to leave your home?”

“Or your quarantine hotel.”

“Quarantine hotel?”

“Yeah. What, you don’t think you can just go from one country to another, do you?”

“Well, yes, actually. Yes, I do.”

“Well, you can’t, you heartless grandma killer.”

“I don’t understand anything anymore. Just give me my phone. I want to catch up on my newsfeeds. They still have Twitter and Facebook and YouTube in 2021, right?”

“Oh, yeah. Of course.”

“Good. . . . Hey wait, where’d all my subscriptions and follows go? All of my favorite creators’ accounts have been deleted.”

“Probably disinfo. Who were you following?”

“The Last American Vagabond.”


“Press For Truth.”

“Thought criminal.”

“The Corbett Report.”

“Ugh. Russian bot disinfo grandma killer extraordinaire.”

“Oh, it looks like his backup channel is still up on YouTube.”

“Second strike, though. Anyway, I’m glad to see you prefer looking at screens to actually going outside. It’s safer that way.”


“Yeah. The pandemic.”

“Oh, right. So what did I miss? Let me guess, Hillary won in 2016, didn’t she?”

“Guess again.”


“Never mind. You’re not gonna guess. Basically, Vladimir Putin crafted a devilish plan to use hundreds of dollars worth of Facebook Jesus memes to install his puppet Donald Trump in the White House.”


“Why? Why? Do you even have to ask? I mean, why do you think Russia would interfere in your elections? To gain power over the US and advance its position on the world stage, that’s why.”

“Did it work?”

“Well, a bunch of Russians got sanctioned, a bunch of diplomats got kicked out, some ex-spies were poisoned right next to England’s biological warfare lab, Reagan-era arms control treaties were scrapped, Russia is more hated in the US than any time since the Cold War . . .”

“So that’s why Putin put Trump in the White House?”

“Yeah, I guess. Anyway, wait till you hear about what happened in England.”


“They voted for Brexit.”

“Really? So the UK isn’t part of the EU anymore?”

“Uhhhh . . . I’m not sure. It got kind of complicated.”

“OK, so back to this pandemic thing. Are they working on a cure? Is there any hope in sight?”

“Oh yeah, of course. There’s a vaccine.”

“What? A vaccine? For a pandemic that started last year?”

“Yeah. It’s a record for bringing a vaccine to market.”

“Aren’t you concerned about the long-term safety?”

“Oh, no. These are the most thoroughly tested, safe and effective vaccines in history.”

“But I thought you just said—”

“SAFE AND EFFECTIVE. Besides, they’re not like regular vaccines. These are mRNA vaccines!”

“What does that mean?”

“I don’t know. But it’s probably good. You know, technological advancement and all that. These are the most thoroughly tested—”

“You already said that.”

“Oh, right.”

“So if they have these vaccines then why are you doing this social christmasing—”

“Social distancing.”

“Whatever. Why are you doing that and wearing the masks and staying home?”

“Because you can still catch this horrible disease and spread it to others even if you’ve been vaccinated.”

“What? So what exactly does this vaccine do, then?”

“It lessens your symptoms.”

“So, let me get this straight: You are sticking an experimental new mRNA vaccine into your arm that was rushed to market—”

“The most thoroughly tested vaccines in—”

“—and it doesn’t even prevent you from catching the disease?”

“Well it can’t do everything, can it?”

“So how did it even get approved?”

“Well, it’s technically not approved.”


“It’s emergency use authorization only so far. But don’t worry. These vaccines will be approved.”

“Alright. OK. So let’s say I catch this new plague that’s going around. What are my chances of dying?”

“It depends on your age and existing health condition.”

“I’m 35 years old. My doctors have given me the all clear. I’m fit as a fiddle.”

“Well, then, let me see . . . uhhh . . . do you want it rounded to the nearest whole number.”


“Then your chances of dying are 0%.”


“Well that’s just the rounded number. In actuality it’s at least a couple hundredths of a percentage point. I just read the terrible story of a man who was hit by lightning, run over by a tractor and suffered a massive heart attack.”

“So what does that have to do with the pandemic?”

“Well, he tested positive for the disease in the morgue.”

“Tested positive? How do these tests work, anyway? . . . Wait, on second thought, never mind. I don’t care. I think I’ve heard enough. I’ll take my chances without the vaccine, thank you very much.”

“Oh, well if you ever want to access a public space again I suggest you reconsider.”

“What? Why?”

“Two words: vaccine passport.”

“Wait, all those guys who got deleted from social media were talking about this years ago. ‘Medical martial law’ they called it.”

“Well, that’s what you get for filling your head with that horrible conspiracy theorizing and disinformation. Now put on your mask, it’s time for your appointment.”

“What appointment?”

“Your injection, of course. You should consider yourself lucky. There are still millions of people who are clamouring to get the vaccine.”

“Can you do me a favor?”

“What’s that?”

“Hit me on the head as hard as you can. I want to go back into a coma.”

~via Minds.com

DR. CHARLES HOFFE: “62% Of COVID Vax-Jab Survivors Will Have Heart Damage Until The Day They Die — Which Will Likely Be — Soon”

We have previously covered the story of Dr. Charles Hoffe, the brave doctor who has been practicing medicine for 28 years in the small, rural town of Lytton in British Columbia, Canada.

After he had administered about 900 doses of the Moderna experimental mRNA COVID-19 injections, he sounded the alarm over the severe reactions he was observing in his patients who chose to get the shot (he chose NOT to get it himself), which included death.

The result of him sounding the alarm was a gag order issued against him by the medical authorities in his community. He defied this gag order and was interviewed by Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson on her show where he sounded the alarm.

His punishment for going public to warn others on the dangers of these experimental shots was that he was relieved from hospital duty and lost half of his income.

His punishment for going public to warn others on the dangers of these experimental shots was that he was relieved from hospital duty and lost half of his income.

Last week, Dr. Hoffe was interviewed again by Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, and he continues to share his findings with the public regarding the experimental COVID-19 shots.

Dr. Hoffe is truly a hero today, risking not only his reputation, but probably his very life to bring important information regarding the COVID-19 shots that the Globalists who control the corporate media and social media are trying very hard to censor.

In this latest interview, Dr. Hoffe states that the blood clots that are being reported in the corporate media as being “rare” are anything but rare, based on his own testing of his own patients who had recently received one of the shots.

The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc..

The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test.

Using this test with his own patients, Dr. Hoffe claims that he has found evidence of small blood clots in 62% of his patients who have been injected with an mRNA shot.

He states that these people are now permanently disabled, and they will no longer “be able to do what they used to do.”

These people have no idea they are even having these microscopic blood clots. The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the body like the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate. When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently damaged.

His warning is very dire: “These shots are causing huge damage and the worst is yet to come.”

This is an 8 minute clip from the original interview, and we have posted it on our Bitchute channel and Rumble channel.

Is Canada Finally Starting to Pay Attention to these Dissenting Doctors Sounding the Alarm?

Dr. Hoffe is not the only doctor to sound the alarm over serious side effects from the COVID-19 shots.

Last month we covered the press conference given in Ontario at Parliament Hill that was arranged by MP Derek Sloan and featured four other Canadian doctors who were also being censored over what they are seeing and reporting regarding the COVID-19 shots.

Are these public testimonies from doctors who dare to question the official narrative in the face of tremendous censorship, ridicule, and even threats starting to make a difference in Canada?


~via HumansAreFree.com

DR. TESS LAWRIE: “From Blood Clots To Autoimmune Reactions To Neurological Damage — COVID Vaccines Are Unsafe For Humans — The Scope Of Morbidity Is Striking”

“The scope of morbidity is striking, evidencing a lot of incidents and what amounts to a large number of ill from blood clots, autoimmune reactions, to neurological damages, the MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans. There are at least 3 urgent questions that need to be answered by the MHRA: How many people have been disabled by the vaccination? How many people have been hospitalised within 28 days of vaccination? How many people have died within 28 days of vaccination?”

~Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy (EBMC)

~courtesy of TruthComesToLight.com

JOHN W. WHITEHEAD: “What To Do When COVID Strike Force Teams Come Knocking On Your Door To Gab About The Jab”

“These agents are coming to your home with one purpose in mind: to collect information on you. It’s a form of intimidation, of course. The more information you give them, the more it can be used against you. Just ask them politely but firmly to leave. Under the First Amendment, you don’t have to speak (to government officials or anyone else). The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. And under the Fifth Amendment, you have a right to remain silent and not say anything which might be used against you. If you see government officials wandering around your property and peering through windows, in my opinion, you have a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Government officials can ring the doorbell, but once you put them on notice that it’s time for them to leave, they can’t stay on your property. Remember, you have rights.”

~John W. Whitehead

“Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent.”—Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

A federal COVID-19 vaccination strike force may soon be knocking on your door, especially if you live in a community with low vaccination rates. Will you let them in?

More to the point, are you required to open the door?

The Biden Administration has announced that it plans to send federal “surge response teams” on a “targeted community door-to-door outreach“ to communities with low vaccination rates in order to promote the safety and accessibility of the COVID-19 vaccines.

That’s all fine and good as far as government propaganda goes, but nothing is ever as simple or as straightforward as the government claims, especially not when armed, roving bands of militarized agents deployed by the Nanny State show up at your door with an agenda that is at odds with what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to as the constitutional “right to be let alone.”

Any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution. These door-to-door “visits” by COVID-19 surge response teams certainly qualify as a government program whose purpose, while seemingly benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.

First, there is the visit itself.

While government agents can approach, speak to and even question citizens without violating the Fourth Amendment, Americans have a right not to answer questions or even speak with a government agent.

Courts have upheld these “knock and talk” visits as lawful, reasoning that even though the curtilage of the home is protected by the Fourth Amendment, there is an implied license to approach a residence, knock on the door/ring the bell, and seek to contact occupants. However, the encounter is wholly voluntary and a person is under no obligation to speak with a government agent in this situation.

Indeed, you don’t even need to answer or open the door in response to knocking/ringing by a government agent, and if you do answer the knock, you can stop speaking at any time. You also have the right to demand that government agents leave the property once the purpose of the visit is established. Government officials would not be enforcing any law or warrant in this context, and so they don’t have the authority of law to remain on the property after a homeowner or resident specifically revokes the implied license to come onto the property.

When the government’s actions go beyond merely approaching the door and knocking, it risks violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant and probable cause of possible wrongdoing in order to search one’s property. A government agent would violate the Fourth Amendment if he snooped around the premises, peering into window and going to other areas in search of residents.

It should be pointed out that some judges (including Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch) believe that placing “No Trespassing” signs or taking other steps to impede access to the door is sufficient to negate any implied permission for government agents or others to approach your home, but this view does not have general acceptance.

While in theory one can refuse to speak with police or other government officials during a “knock and talk” encounter, as the courts have asserted as a justification for dismissing complaints about this police investigative tactic, the reality is far different. Indeed, it is unreasonable to suggest that individuals caught unaware by these tactics will not feel pressured in the heat of the moment to comply with a request to speak with government agents who display official credentials and are often heavily armed, let alone allow them to search one’s property. Even when such consent is denied, police have been known to simply handcuff the homeowner and conduct a search over his objections.

Second, there is the danger inherent in these knock-and-talk encounters.

Although courts have embraced the fiction that “knock and talks” are “voluntary” encounters that are no different from other door-to-door canvassing, these constitutionally dubious tactics are highly intimidating confrontations meant to pressure individuals into allowing police access to one’s home, which then paves the way for a warrantless search of one’s home and property.

The act of going to homes and taking steps to speak with occupants is akin to the “knock and talk” tactic used by police, which can be fraught with danger for homeowners and government agents alike. Indeed, “knock-and-talk” policing has become a thinly veiled, warrantless exercise by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

“Knock-and-shoot” policing might be more accurate, however.

“Knock and talks” not only constitute severe violations of the privacy and security of homeowners, but the combination of aggression and surprise employed by police is also a recipe for a violent confrontation that rarely ends well for those on the receiving end of these tactics.

For example, although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or threatened police, he was gunned down by police who knocked aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed Scott when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. The police were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.

Carl Dykes was shot in the face by a county deputy who pounded on Dykes’ door in the middle of the night without identifying himself. Because of reports that inmates had escaped from a local jail, Dykes brought a shotgun with him when he answered the door.

As these and other incidents make clear, while Americans have a constitutional right to question the legality of a police action or resist an unlawful police order, doing so can often get one arrested, shot or killed.

Third, there is the question of how the government plans to use the information it obtains during these knock-and-talk visits.

Because the stated purpose of the program is to promote vaccination, homeowners and others who reside at the residence will certainly be asked if they are vaccinated. Again, you have a right not to answer this or any other question. Indeed, an argument could be made that even asking this question is improper if the purpose of the program is merely to ensure that Americans “have the information they need on how both safe and accessible the vaccine is.”

Under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an agency should only collect and maintain information about an individual as is “relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency.” In this situation, the government agent could accomplish the purpose of assuring persons have information about the vaccine simply by providing that information (either in writing or orally) and would not need to know the vaccination status of the residents. To the extent the agents do request, collect and store information about residents’ vaccination status, this could be a Privacy Act violation.

Of course, there is always the danger that this program could be used for other, more nefarious, purposes not related to vaccination encouragement. As with knock-and-talk policing, government agents might misuse their appearance of authority to gain entrance to a residence and obtain other information about it and those who live there. Once the door is opened by a resident, anything the agents can see from their vantage point can be reported to law enforcement authorities.

Moreover, while presumably the targeting will be of areas with demonstrated low vaccination rates, there is no guarantee that this program would not be used as cover for conducting surveillance on areas deemed to be “high crime” areas as a way of obtaining intelligence for law enforcement purposes.

We’ve been down this road before, with the government sending its spies to gather intel on American citizens by questioning them directly, or by asking their neighbors to snitch on them.

Remember the egregiously invasive and intrusive American Community Survey?

Unlike the traditional census, which collects data every ten years, the American Community Survey (ACS) is sent to about 3 million homes per year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, while the traditional census is limited to ascertaining the number of persons living in each dwelling, their ages and ethnicities, the ownership of the dwelling and telephone numbers, the ACS is much more intrusive, asking questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among other highly personal and private matters.

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties. Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance.

At 28 pages (with an additional 16-page instruction packet), the ACS contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire. These concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing, including questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among others. For instance, the ACS asks how many persons live in your home, along with their names and detailed information about them such as their relationship to you, marital status, race and their physical, mental and emotional problems, etc. The survey also asks how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have in your house, along with the fuel used to heat your home, the cost of electricity, what type of mortgage you have and monthly mortgage payments, property taxes and so on.

However, that’s not all.

The survey also demands to know how many days you were sick last year, how many automobiles you own and the number of miles driven, whether you have trouble getting up the stairs, and what time you leave for work every morning, along with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. And the survey demands that you violate the privacy of others by supplying the names and addresses of your friends, relatives and employer. The questionnaire also demands that you give other information on the people in your home, such as their educational levels, how many years of school were completed, what languages they speak and when they last worked at a job, among other things.

While some of the ACS’ questions may seem fairly routine, the real danger is in not knowing why the information is needed, how it will be used by the government or with whom it will be shared.

Finally, you have the right to say “no.”

Whether police are knocking on your door at 2 am or 2:30 pm, as long as you’re being “asked” to talk to a police officer who is armed to the teeth and inclined to kill at the least provocation, you don’t really have much room to resist, not if you value your life.

Mind you, these knock-and-talk searches are little more than police fishing expeditions carried out without a warrant.

The goal is intimidation and coercion.

Unfortunately, with police departments increasingly shifting towards pre-crime policing and relying on dubious threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state, we’re going to see more of these warrantless knock-and-talk police tactics by which police attempt to circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Here’s the bottom line.

These agents are coming to your home with one purpose in mind: to collect information on you.

It’s a form of intimidation, of course. You shouldn’t answer any questions you’re uncomfortable answering about your vaccine history or anything else. The more information you give them, the more it can be used against you. Just ask them politely but firmly to leave.

In this case, as in so many interactions with government agents, the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and your cell phone recording of the encounter) are your best protection.

Under the First Amendment, you don’t have to speak (to government officials or anyone else). The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. And under the Fifth Amendment, you have a right to remain silent and not say anything which might be used against you.

You can also post a “No Trespassing” sign on your property to firmly announce that you are exercising your right to be left alone. If you see government officials wandering around your property and peering through windows, in my opinion, you have a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Government officials can ring the doorbell, but once you put them on notice that it’s time for them to leave, they can’t stay on your property.

It’s important to be as clear as possible and inform them that you will call the police if they don’t leave. You may also wish to record your encounter with the government agent. If they still don’t leave, immediately call the local police and report a trespasser on your property.

Remember, you have rights.

The government didn’t want us to know about—let alone assert—those rights during this whole COVID-19 business.

After all, for years now, the powers-that-be—those politicians and bureaucrats who think like tyrants and act like petty dictators regardless of what party they belong to—have attempted to brainwash us into believing that we have no right to think for ourselves, make decisions about our health, protect our homes and families and businesses, act in our best interests, demand accountability and transparency from government, or generally operate as if we are in control of our own lives.

But we have every right, and you know why?

Because as the Declaration of Independence states, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights—to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness—that no government can take away from us.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped the government from constantly trying to usurp our freedoms at every turn. Indeed, the nature of government is such that it invariably oversteps its limits, abuses its authority, and flexes its totalitarian muscles.

Take this COVID-19 crisis, for example.

What started out as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation (and the world) has become yet another means by which world governments (including our own) can expand their powers, abuse their authority, and further oppress their constituents.

The government has made no secret of its plans.

Just follow the money trail, and you’ll get a sense of what’s in store: more militarized police, more SWAT team raids, more surveillance, more lockdowns, more strong-armed tactics aimed at suppressing dissent and forcing us to comply with the government’s dictates.

It’s chilling to think about, but it’s not surprising.

In many ways, this COVID-19 state of emergency has invested government officials (and those who view their lives as more valuable than ours) with a sanctimonious, self-righteous, arrogant, Big Brother Knows Best approach to top-down governing, and the fall-out can be seen far and wide.

It’s an ugly, self-serving mindset that views the needs, lives and rights of “we the people” as insignificant when compared to those in power.

That’s how someone who should know better such as Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, can suggest that a free people—born in freedom, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and living in a country birthed out of a revolutionary struggle for individual liberty—have no rights to economic freedom, to bodily integrity, or to refuse to comply with a government order with which they disagree.

According to Dershowitz, who has become little more than a legal apologist for the power elite, “You have no right not to be vaccinated, you have no right not to wear a mask, you have no right to open up your business… And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”

Dershowitz is wrong: as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, while the courts may increasingly defer to the government’s brand of Nanny State authoritarianism, we still have rights.

The government may try to abridge those rights, it may refuse to recognize them, it may even attempt to declare martial law and nullify them, but it cannot litigate, legislate or forcefully eradicate them out of existence.

~via ActivistPost.com

JAMES CORBETT: “The Scamdemic Was So Last Year . . . Here’s What’s Coming Next”

by James Corbett

It’s invisible but deadly. It infects the air we breathe. We are all part of the problem.

SARS-COV-2? Oh, please. That’s so 2020. I’m talking about the next invisible bogeyman, the one that will see the transformations started by the scamdemic through to their [completely il]logical conclusion: the complete control of the movements, interactions and economic activity of every individual on the planet.

Yes, in case you missed the memo, the steps are already being taken to sweep the fear porn excesses of the scamdemic era under the rug, with the mockingbird MSM dinosaurs dutifully reporting that “Covid Counting Enters New Era” and that states are “scaling back” their COVID-19 reporting.

Of course this is not the end of the biosecurity paradigm. The “new scariants” of the invisible bogeyman will be around for a while yet and, as Mr. Scamdemic himself, Bill Gates, announced before he was so unceremoniously thrown under the bus by his globalist pals, Pandemic II is just around the corner. No, the biosecurity paradigm will be with us for a good while yet, I’m afraid.

But having said that, there is another hobgoblin that will soon eclipse the deadly COVID monster in the imagination of the populace. One that’s been around for decades, waiting for its chance to terrify the public into a Great Reset as we plunge into the New World Order. And that monster is . . .

. . . carbon dioxide.

BOO! Are you scared yet?

Yes, the good old anthropogenic climate change fairy tale is set to make a comeback with a vengeance in the 2020s. As I warned last September, The Pandemic is a Test Run for the systems of control that will scare the public into complying with all sorts of draconian limitations on their activities in the name of saving the earth from climate change.

The connection was made explicit in one influential article from last year: “Avoiding A Climate Lockdown” by Mariana Mazzucato. In the article, Mazzucato argues that the pandemic was actually a consequence of “environmental degradation”—presumably because the bat soup theory of SARS-COV-2’s origins were still fashionable at the time—and that the same types of controls that were instituted to deal with the one invisible nemesis will be good for dealing with the other. Specifically:

Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling. To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.

If only those were the ravings of some deluded Greta wannabe in an obscure environmental publication with no relation to power. Unfortunately, these ravings were published by Project Syndicate, which just happens to be funded by (prepare yourself) Goerge Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Google News Initiative among others.

If further proof were needed that those who have already demonstrated their ability to help bring the entire global economy to a standstill at the drop of a hat are planning on flexing this muscle to keep us safe from carbon dioxide in the near future, we could note:

• the World Economic Forum’s intensive focus on “the race to net-zero emissions” during the online Davos Agenda earlier this year and its subsequent Climate Dialogues series;

• Gates’ pre-fall from grace attempt to pivot the conversation to the climate threat with his new book and subsequent publicity campaign to scare people into accepting a new economic order based on carbon restrictions;

• the UK Citizen Assembly’s call to “use coronavirus economic stimulus to rebuild economy for net zero carbon“;

and seemingly thousands of similar calls from all the usual gaggle of globalists and their dutiful dupes at think tanks and research institutions and their paid-off presstitutes in the dinosaur media.

So far, the fear porn campaign seems to be having its intended effect. A recent survey suggests that “for the first time European citizens consider climate change as the single most serious problem facing the world – despite the Covid-19 pandemic.” Now, like all polls, this one should be trusted precisely as far as you can throw it, but the fact that this is what the good folks in EUreaucracy want you to believe that everyone believes is telling in and of itself. This is clearly part of the agenda to transition us smoothly from the COVID scare story to the climate scare story.

As usual, though, perhaps the clearest way to gain a handle on where this round of climate scaremongering is heading is to follow the money. And make no mistake, there is no shortage of money to be followed in this story. When you hear “New Green Deal” you should be thinking “green” as in greenbacks.

Old hands at The Corbett Report will already know:

• that Enron and Goldman Sachs pioneered the emissions trading swindles (that–surprise, surprise!–are a complete and total fraud from top to bottom);

• that General Electric, DuPont, Johnson & Johnson, Pepsi, Siemens, AIG and a host of other Fortune 500/CFR companies joined BP, ConocoPhillips, GM and a host of other oiligarch companies as founding members of the US Climate Action Partnership whose “Blueprint for Legislative Action” became the backbone of the Wall Street-backed Waxman-Markey bill of 2009;

• that former Bank of England governor, current United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance and all-round globalist insider Mark Carney delivered a speech in 2019 declaring that an entirely new (digital, of course) financial system was going to be needed to help transition the world to a net zero carbon economy;

• that the Rothschilds and their bankster pals have been quietly laying the financial groundwork for the creation of an entire climate banking system to facilitate their debt-for-nature swaps and other attempts to monopolize the world in the name of “sustainable development“;

and myriad other aspects of the 100 trillion dollar carbon swindle that is taking place in plain sight right now.

But the climate lockdowns are where this has all been trending, and the fundamental alterations to the economy itself are going to be based on the climate change scare story.

Now, let’s add to that story some of the latest financial moves along this path to total technocratic control over the earth, its people and its resources. These moves may have fallen off your radar as they have largely taken place under cover of the scamdemic.

First, there is the growing pressure that is being placed on financial regulators around the world to “address climate as a systemic risk.” These calls have already resulted in:

• the UN’s creation of its aforementioned “Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance” position;

• European Central Bank chief (and convicted criminal) Christine Lagarde’s promise (threat?) to “paint the ECB green” by setting climate mitigation as one of the banks’ priorities;

• Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen’s pledge to assess the risk posed by climate change] and increase reporting requirements for financial disclosures accordingly;

• and similar pronouncements from banking regulators around the world.

But don’t let the “we’re looking into it” type pronouncements lull you into a false sense of security. These are not vague threats to take some unspecified action at some far off time. The attempt to bring the global economy under the control of the climate banking mafia is already well underway.

How so? Well, here’s Mark Carney in his own words describing how net-zero climate solutions are “the greatest commercial opportunity of our time”:

Companies, and those who invest in them and lend to them, and who are part of the solution, will be rewarded. Those who are lagging behind and are still part of the problem will be punished.

But how will they be punished? Why, by being shut off from their access to private finance, of course! (And if “private” finance won’t play along with the globalists’ game, they’ll be shut off, too!)

Private finance is judging which companies are part of the solution, but private finance, too, is increasingly being judged. Banks, pension funds and asset managers have to show where they are in the transition to net zero.

It’s the offer you can’t refuse straight from the don of the globalist banking/climate mafia. Who could say no?

Oh, and here’s the best part. In order to enforce this new global climate fascism, small companies are now going to be saddled with an entirely new, unbelievably burdensome reporting regime that will require them to confess not only their own climate sins, but those of their suppliers and contractors and even the end users of their products:

If I’m running a company committed to net zero, what does that mean? It’s not just disclosing and managing the emissions in producing my product. It’s also the emissions involved in the energy I use, and the emissions all the way through my value chain, in other words, the emissions of my suppliers, many of whom are small businesses, as well as the emissions from people using a product. That company becomes responsible for disclosing all of those, and it has an incentive to manage all of those down. So it has an incentive to work with small businesses or choose those working towards lower emissions.

Once again, these are not idle threats. These things are already happening. I’m not even looking for this story in particular but there has been a steady drumbeat of stories here in Japan showing exactly how this type of pressure is already being applied to attempt to make businesses comply with the diktats of the global climate mafia. Observe these headlines from just the past few weeks:

Japanese insurers struggle to pinpoint climate change cost estimates

MUFJ board beats back climate resolution as activists falter in Japan

BOJ to launch new scheme for fighting climate change

I have little doubt that if you look for such stories in your own place of residence you will find them spilling forth from your newsfeeds as well.

But perhaps the biggest cookie crumb along this trail is “Net zero: a fiduciary approach” from our good friends at Blackrock. You know, Blackrock? The world’s largest asset manager with $9 trillion under its control? The “private” company that the Fed turned to to run its scamdemic bond buying spree (and which it subsequently used to bail out its own corporate ETFs)? The same investment firm that is buying up houses in the US at a blistering pace (because you don’t need to own a house anymore, silly!). Yes, that Blackrock.

Well, it turns out they’re fully on board with the climate change agenda. (Surprise, surprise!)

Yes, their new report informs us “that climate transition creates a historic investment opportunity.” Like Carney’s reflections cited above, the Blackrock report also stresses the importance of “measurement and transparency” for the goal of reaching a net zero carbon economy, promoting a “temperature alignment” metric for the company’s carbon disclosures that would measure “the global temperature change consistent with a portfolio’s holdings.” The standard, they admit, is being developed in conjuction with the shadowy Financial Stability Board‘s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, which, oh by the way, is a thing.

Hmmm . . . lemme think here. A scheme in which every bit of energy that goes into the production of an item is accounted for and registered in real time, and in which these energy expenditure becomes the basis for the economic system? Where have I heard that before?

Ohhhhh, that’s right, that’s the literal definition of technocracy from the Technocratic Study Course, which posits that a technocratic system of distribution requires that the continental technocratic government of the future:

“Register on a continuous 24-hour time period basis the total net conversion of energy, which would determine (a) the availability of energy for Continental plant construction and maintenance, (b) the amount of physical wealth available in the form of consumable goods and services for consumption by the total population during the balanced load period;”

and that it:

“Provide a continuous 24-hour inventory of all production and consumption.”

Yes, they want complete and total insight over all human activity. And why do they want this insight? For control, of course. They aren’t even shy about this fact. The Technocratic Study Course outright tells us in its section on “The Human Animal” that:

Since it is human beings and their habits with which we are now obliged to deal, it is well that before proceeding further we inquire somewhat more deeply than heretofore into the nature of this human animal

before concluding that:

Human social habits and institutions tend to remain stable or else to undergo change extremely slowly, except in the case of a rapid change of the external environment, especially when this latter affects the basic biological necessities. When human beings are fed, clothed, and housed in a manner compatible with good health, are not obliged to do an uncomfortable amount of work, and are permitted normal social intercourse with their fellows, social habits and customs tend to become crystallize about this particular mode of procedure. Let any change of environment develop in such a manner that the biological necessities can no longer be met by activities according to the old habits, and these latter will be rapidly abandoned.

None of this will be surprising to those who have at all studied the Problem-Reaction-Solution formula by which would-be social engineers use false flags and other manipulations to shock the public into change along pre-determined paths. Heck, it should even be familiar to those normies who still trust Naomi “Conspiracy Smoothie” Klein to tell them the hard truths about The Shock Doctrine.

But this is where we start to see what this agenda is about. In case you somehow stumbled onto this editorial from the normiesphere, I’ll lay it out for you. This is not about “saving the planet” and it never was. The people who are constructing this total climate lockdown nightmare future society are laughing at you from their carbon tax-exempted private jets.

They are out to control you. To decide where and when you can leave your house and what transportation you can use when you do so. What you can buy and what you can’t buy. How you spend your time, where you live and who you can breed with (when you are allowed to breed). And the best way they can do this is by creating imaginary manbearpigs with which they can scare the public into submission.

Are you getting the picture yet?

The biosecurity paradigm is still here but it’s just a taste of the control grid that is about to be implemented.

COVID? Hospital occupancy rates? Masks? Ivermectin? Pfff. That’s so 2020. The oligarchy has moved on. Are you prepared for what’s coming next?

~via TheCorbettReport.com