WHO HQ in Geneva
WHO HQ in Geneva

TRANSCRIPT Reiner Fuelmich: Grand Jury of Public Opinion: Day 2. Historical Background

Posted by

I’ve used the machine generated script on the nearly 6 hours long youtube “mirror” version posted by Xaanfast to make this highly edited and polished transcript. My editor spent around 20 hours adding punctuation and paragraphs and I’ve personally spent another 20 hours doing a final proof read and adding the names of the expert witnesses in front of their contributions. We are currently working on Day 1 and Day 3. I can’t provide transcripts for the other 3 sessions because youtube is taking them down.

We may do some more work on the transcripts like adding live timings for paragraphs to their places in the video.

You are welcome to use a portion of the transcript on your site together with a link.  email:  frenchintoenglish5@gmail.com

Reiner: Good evening, good day, good morning wherever you are.

This is the second day of the Grand Jury Investigation. This is a model proceeding that will take a very close look into the entire corona pandemic; how it started, the details of the PCR tests – but we will start today with a closer look at the historical, and the geopolitical background. So, let us start with our first expert, and that is Matthew. It’s not you, it’s, it’s Alex, Alex Thompson. Alex, please introduce yourself, and then we will go right into the medias res, as the Latin speakers say.

Alex Thompson: Thank you very much, Reiner. I am Alex Thompson and for eight years I was an officer of Britain’s signal intelligence agency, GCHQ, the partner agency to NSA. And there I was a desk officer for the former Soviet Union and a transcriber of languages including Russian and German of intercepted material. And in the latter half of that period, I was also a member of GCHQ’s cross-disciplinary team for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats (CBRN) in which capacity I came to know something about how the Anglo-American intelligence and military establishment regards its state of dominance in knowledge in all matters that can affect health on a mass scale and the potential for the weaponization of such agents.

But you’ve asked me to gie something like a 20-minute summary of the geopolitical situation as it was in the world in the crucial period leading up to the post-second world war period because most of the testament this evening and I understand in subsequent sessions of the grand jury will concentrate much more on the post-1945 world as that was the time when a lot of plans for the unification of world government began in anger, including the health issues that you are concerned with.

And my contenti is that the dominant power in the world, namely the City of London, the financial heart of the British Empire readied itself for that situation from roughly 1870 and in the modern world, the monopolization, the cartelization of the world begins in anger at that time, everything that we do and by that, I mean UK column news. (I am also joined this evening by Brian Gerrish, the joint editor who will testify later.) Everything that we do in investigating the corruption emanating from British crown monopolies and City of London money does seem to point back to this period from around 1870 in which, in a nutshell, there were several revolutions by the British Elite, and they all revolved around containing productivity and preventing the growth of intelligence and, intellectual property among the native peoples of the British Empire and in competitor nations.

So, there was a revolution in what you might call mind space, which since 2010 has been an explicit term used by the British government’s central department, the Cabinet Office, a revolution in the quality of education offered to British, and later other western school children. A revolution in the theft of intellectual property by the elite. A revolution in the model of healthcare and free access to it and at home, a constitutional revolution from the classic British liberal democracy model which I know that the continent of Europe and its law schools have explicitly copied from Britain to a model in which there is close control of what happens in parliaments and agencies under the control of governments using the whipped party system.

This all happened, as I say, around 1870, and at home, in Britain, it was largely complete by the crucial year 1947-1948 when Britain had a unique – other than Canada – a unique situation of a National Health Service and was pushing the way towards the military unification of the European continent and the whole of NATO, and in many other ways, including planning law and citizenship, was leading the world in reinventing how it managed its population.

The center node here is the City of London, which is the square mile at the very heart of what is now called Greater London. Why this is important, is because the City of London and the Church of England are the only institutions that have endured every constitutional revolution in the British Isles with their privileges and their vast wealth intact. The City of London is distinct from other world metropolitan areas and megalopolises, in that it chose to keep itself geographically small. As the urban area around it grew, the City of London still has a legal status apart from the 32 other London boroughs and does not form part of Greater London. As such, its privileges were entrenched as early as the Magna Carta in 1215. Its self-government has never been challenged. It has at many times in its history had power over the British Crown and hence over a large slice of the earth during the British Empire, notably during the civil wars of the mid-17th Century, when the City of London continued as the financial power rivaling the crown and even in some ways abolished the crown for a decade.

After the restoration of the crowns, and ultimately the English Revolution just six years after that with the Dutch King William III coming to the crown of Great Britain, the Bank of England was set up in 1694 with a 12-and-a-half-million-pound injection of cash into the Crown by these private shareholders, which we are reliably told, forms the basis of all the debt which has been leveraged since to this day and the current descendants of those shareholders and others entitled to shares of the Bank of England are kept secret.

The City of London also has control over the so-called mother of parliaments, the Westminster Parliament, notably in the form of an official of the City of London known as ‘The Remembrancer’ who sits in the House of Commons, where not even mnemonic is allowed to enter and records what is being said against financial interests. It’s too complicated to define the Crown in the British model, but what is important is that the Cabinet Office, a department which was set up in the early 20th Century, is the repository effectively of Crown prerogatives.https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/crown-prerogative/ And so, when people outside the United Kingdom think of the Crown, they often think excessively of the old situation with the monarchs standing on the Coronation Oath and being responsible to the people. In practice in this period, from around 1870, the Constitutional Revolution has ensured that financiers controlling political parties actually pull the levers of Crown prerogatives behind the scenes.

The model of government that Britain still has, which it has exported to The Commonwealth and the whole world is that of an inner sanctum. The Privy Council, which actually governs in the name of the Crown is only for show. As the main constitutional writers have admitted since the 1870s, parliament and government departments are consulted as if there were a separation between executive legislature and judiciary at the Privy Council level. This is not the case. In this crucial period about which we are speaking, the preeminent English constitutional writer, Walter Bagehot, admitted this in the second edition of his book The English Constitution written in 1873, when the modern whipped party and behind them, the think tanks were coming into their own to establish the will of monopolists in the City of London.

Walter Bagehot wrote in one paragraph there about a distinction between the “dignified parts of the government that is the past” that therefore show The Crown in its personal sense and the “efficient past in the sense of the working parts of the machine”. And he admits that the attractive parts do have a purpose but that is only to attract the force of national support to the real working parts behind the scenes.

Now to simplify this as much as possible, what I think is important to point out is that the history academic at Georgetown University – that’s Carroll Quigley who was the tutor of Bill Clinton among others, wrote quite frankly in his book Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time that there have been four industrial revolutions.

Yes, that familiar language coming from the World Economic Forum was being written about in the 1960s already by Quigley and we will not understand this unless we see that the perspective which is being assumed here is that of who owns the population first in Britain and then in the British Empire.

In the First Revolution, the ownership of land of agricultural means provides wealth. Then there is a mechanical Industrial Revolution, a second revolution. Then one in which financial capital dominates the world and it’s from this period, around 1870 onwards, that the smart money in the City of London realizes that the bubble is going to burst and a really important way to own the world in future would be to own the minds, productivity and thoughts of those in the model to stop them running away and becoming and outproducing their bosses. So, the modern era of cartelization in both industry and geopolitics began around the year 1870. In the space of just a few years, the world underwent a fundamental shift from a situation in which the City of London and the British Empire lacked any serious competition to a world in which several industrialized economies could out-compete Britain.

The British Empire and its financial hub in the City of London had massively overextended themselves across Asia in the previous generation, especially with the Afghan Wars and the Opium Wars in the 1840s and the Crimean War and the Indian mutiny of the 1850s. One of the City of London’s most powerful banks, HSBC, dates in fact from the time of the Chinese opium trade. There is quite a lot of criminality involved in the City of London’s banks at the outset in Europe.

The post-Napoleonic order imposed by Britain at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 had crumbled with both the successful and the failed Socialist Revolutions of 1848. Russia and Austria-Hungary were the Eastern European countries with the most powerful land armies at that time. It was they who safeguarded Europe by restoring the crowned heads, therefore, the obsession of British foreign policy from the midpoint of the 19th Century. This is something I saw when I attended Chatham House meetings. The supreme world geopolitical think tank, which tells the Foreign Office what to do.

The obsession of British foreign policy from the midpoint of the 19th Century was a new strategy to ally with the arch-rivals of the past – France, and even the Ottoman Empire – against Britain’s historic allies in northern and central Europe in order to prevent any future Russo-German alliance from becoming the world’s dominant bloc. A secondary strategy was to prevent the meteoric rise of American intellectual productivity, the democratization of invention and to capture that as early as 1812. British troops invading Washington DC notably spared the patent office because they knew that if they burnt that they would shoot themselves in the foot, unable to continue dominating American invention after the American Revolution.

In the years around 1860, under Bismarck, Garibaldi and Tsar Nikolai, the first three major European nations, which previously had been great only in cultural terms, were suddenly politically unified and economically modern states. And with the gross Deutschland debate, there were serious indications that Germany might ally with Austria into a single German-speaking state. It was obvious to the British elite that within a generation or two all three countries, Germany, Italy, and Russia, would become great powers at roughly the same level as Britain and France.

The United States emerged from its civil war in 1865 and began a staggeringly rapid rise to industrial supremacy. Britain’s elite correctly foresaw that by around 1900 all four new powers would begin to have navies as strong as France’s or even as strong as Britain’s. It foresaw that the land armies of these European powers would be far stronger than Britain’s so that only a previously unthinkable Franco-British alliance in the name of human rights and the spread of liberal democracy could hold these powers in check by 1880.

The so-called scramble for Africa was in full swing, which allowed even territorially minor nations in Europe, such as Belgium and Portugal, to acquire substantial resources from colonization of the African interior and to become serious rivals to British industry and commerce. This was a severe embarrassment to the City of London because Portugal was Britain’s oldest ally and Belgium was a state that owed its very existence to British negotiation in 1815. Serious arguments have been made by historians that the wave of assassinations in the Edwardian era, including that of the Portuguese royal family in 1908 and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, were engineered with secret City of London connivance.

An Asian country also became a great power in both industrial and military terms at the end of the 19th Century, namely Japan, which to the world’s frank astonishment beat Russia in 1905, thereby giving many colonial populations in Africa and Asia the inspiration that there was no reason they too could not assert themselves against European rule as the Latin American republics already had against Spain. The following year, 1906, was the year of the naval race, the dreadnought crisis, which perhaps inevitably started the countdown to the great war, the first world war, because both the British and the German elite were now determined to achieve “Weltverschaft”: world domination. Both were rightly suspicious of each other’s motives, technically capable of achieving world domination industrially and in the mind space, and had powerful blocks of allies for the first time.

In a nutshell, the change brought about by the existential crisis of the mid to late 19th Century was the City of London’s trading model, as described by Quigley. The successive waves of monopolies in this model came to emphasize the importance of controlling not just military force or physical assets anymore, but the minds of people now known as human resources in the British Empire and further afield. And so, science fiction speaks about ownership of man’s genetic makeup from this time so the City of London could sell goods, and increasingly, services, to the rest of the world which would never catch up in the mind space.

It is the consistent finding of UK column, allied researchers, and commentators that the City of London and Britain’s very wealthy soft power institutions, the ones that Tony Blair even this month has once again told us we must keep and become well by using such institutions as the British Council, the BBC, British academia and the Church of England, to continue that battle for the mind as their top priority for world domination. They regard health as a sub-sector of that battle.

We are also fully convinced from repeated findings that the British elite regards themselves with some justification as still the world’s leading power in mind space. In other words, the City of London gets other nations to do its donkey work and its dirty work. It does this by pulling off the trick of making this its own population. Britain, the Commonwealth, and the elites of other nations assume this perspective and its narrative rather than their own perspectives and narratives. This is the concentration that I had in my British elite education, and this is the concentration that the British intelligence agencies have had through both world wars and the Cold War. It is not a formal strategy that is taught in boarding schools, universities, officer training, or intelligence agencies, but it is very much the credo of the leading so-called bloodlines of elite families that run the City of London. It is the modus operandi of the Anglo-American tax-exempt foundations and think tanks such as Chatham House, above all, which pushed the agendas of those bloodlines upon the western governments.

A key figure from the year 1870 is that of John Ruskin. Seemingly an innocuous figure because he was the first Professor of Art at Oxford, he brought the doctrine that the British elite really had a duty to export its own world view to the rest of the world in very broad-brush terms. A key student he inspired was Cecil Rhodes, who of course became fabulously wealthy in southern Africa. Cecil Rhodes – and this is all documented by many historians – wrote secret diaries and formed secret societies in 1891. After 16 years’ planning, his main secret society was formed. The Rhodes scholarships are part of that society of Oxford members, the likes of Lord Toynbee and Lord Milner, well-known geostrategists in Cambridge, the future Foreign Secretary, Lord Grey, Lord Issa in London, and the leading journalist of the time, WT Stead. Members of the executive committee of Cecil Rhodes also included Lord Rothschild.

After Rhodes’ death in 1902, other leading English bloodlines that repeatedly plague City of London history such as the Astors, came into the same circle, the outer circle, to achieve the will of Cecil Rhodes – this seemingly benign vision of Britain forcing the world to accept its liberal democracy and accept its way of viewing the world. The outer circle became known as the Round Table groups, functioning in the United States and seven other countries from 1909 onwards. This group regarded the success of the Canadian Federation 1867 as its leading case study. You’ll be hearing more about that from Matt Ehret later. Canada was effectively politically unified and later the other white colonies, the white dominions, in order to prevent a spread of different views in English-speaking democracies in the world. They must instead all be traced back to the City of London’s control. This is very contemporary because among the many Rhodes scholars that dominate world politics and push the world towards globalism are the aforementioned and Bill Clinton from the World Economic Forum.

The New Zealand Lady Professor Nyree Woods, who this year became very well known for saying at the WEF that “the elite can do beautiful things if they come together and if the people of the world simply accept that they are in the lead”. Rhodes wrote in one of his secret diaries “why should we not form a secret society with but one object”, meaning with only one object, the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule for the recovery – that means recovery for Britain, the United States and the making of the Anglo-Saxon race – but one empire. He also wrote, “Let us form the same kind of society, a church, for the extension of the British Empire.” This is “mind space”, my comment.

Rhodes continues “a society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea, we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands” – just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object. This is what Rhodes’ scholarships are for; “he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life and, if found to be such, a psychological test. Then he should be elected and bound by oath, sworn to secrecy to serve for the rest of his life in his country. He should then be supported, if without means by the society, and sent to that part of the empire where it is felt he was needed.” In this vision, of course, the United States is part of the empire.

In another of his wills, Rhodes described his intent in more detail “to and for the establishment, promotion, and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the colonization by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor and enterprise and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, modern Iraq, the islands of Cyprus and Kandia, (that is Crete), the whole of South America, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malayan Archipelago, those aboard of China and Japan meaning offshore of China and Japan and the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire”.

This vision did not remain the ravings of a particularly wealthy Englishman, but they nativised themselves in the United States in the so-called eastern establishment, the eastern seaboard, as the United States became the world’s dominant power. The key testimony to this is that of Norman Dodd. Given shortly before his death in 1982 to G. Edward Griffin and easily found online as Norman Dodd on the tax-exempt foundations. Dodd was the key staffer for Reese, the Congressman from East Tennessee, who in the 1950s carried out on behalf of Congress, an investigation into the effect of these tax-exempt foundations in the United States which implemented the City of London’s and Cecil Rhodes’ vision for world domination.

Now I’m going to read what Dodd said in this interview. He speaks about having hired a skeptical, level-headed practicing attorney in Washington. This is in the 1950s. He sent her up to the library of the Carnegie Foundation, one of the key tax-exempt foundations where she was given access with a dictaphone belt technology of the time, to record efficiently what she was reading, to scan the library, and see what was being said. In the year 1906 that I was mentioning earlier, in 1908, this initially skeptical woman “unsympathetic to the aims of the Reese committee” found this to her lifelong horror. She dictated into her belt according to Dodd, “we are now at the year 1908”, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And in that year, as she reads in the Carnegie Foundation’s library, the trustees’ meeting for the first time raised a specific question which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is , is there any means known more effective than war, assuming that you wish to alter the life of an entire people? They conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity, so continues the lawyer with her dictaphone belt on.

In 1909, the Carnegie Foundation raised the second question and discussed it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war? I could go on, but I don’t have the time on that strand. But I think that is enough in itself to establish the key insight in people’s minds that it is not enough to be by far the world’s greatest military and economic powers – the United States has been arguably since before the first world war – certainly after it if your mind space is still controlled by this argument. That the Anglo-Saxon liberal democratic model is the only game in town if it’s still controlled by the unexamined assumption that everyone at the top of that model is paid up to liberty, then you are still going to find that a club with self-interest is going to run the world, even in areas such as healthcare, which Britain was the first country in the world to socialize in 1948. You’re going to find that people wrongly and obligingly assume that their best interests are kept at heart.

In perhaps two minutes, I will make the other point I wish to make regarding the City of London and its offshoot in Manhattan, in Wall Street, funding both sides of both world wars. Now, this is not again an original claim to me. Serious academics such as Anthony Sutton, who was at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University in California have written whole books about this entitled Wall Street & The Bolshevik Revolution and Wall Street & The Rise of Hitler. This is well known to those who bother to find out about these things. There was a whole trail of documents recovered by Anthony Sutton. It cost him his tenure at Stanford. He put this all in his books and what he found was that, in a nutshell, both the Soviet Union and the Third Reich were brought into being for the interests of the City of London and more particularly its Wall Street end. So, if you could bring up briefly the first slide which I asked you to put on screen, you will see just one outworking of that, IBM, had a monopoly subsidiary in Germany called the Hollerith Company, the name of the German owner.

Herman Hollerith, the nominal German owner of this IBM subsidiary, is offering the Third Reich Ubersicht or oversight using punch cards, an American technology licensed to the Third Reich. At the bottom, you can read Ubersichtt with Hollywood. The Total Information Awareness using Hollywood punch cards and company name at the bottom is Deutsche Hollerith’s maschineschaft or dejo mark in Berlin Lichterfelder. The second slide is one example of the total reach of British intelligence in areas which it’s not constitutionally able or permitted to have. You can see a christmas tree symbol here indicating that MI5, even before the second world war was vetting who got onto the airwaves of the BBC, who got promoted, and who got transferred. This was all done checking with MI5. In very brief terms, British intelligence. Okay, it’s nominally there for the nation, but was set up by the bloodlines of which I speak to further their private aims. That’s certainly how they regard the running of British intelligence.

The third of my four slides shows how this breaks the surface in 2010 when the British Cabinet Office together with a think tank, the institute of government, is openly speaking about its control of the world’s thinking and the thinking of the British people. They are labeling parts of the brain under the label of mind space and on the right-hand side, you can see the key text from pages 66 and 67 of this 2010 document. It says even if people agree with the behavior goal; it is about nudging to get people to behave as was wished by bloodlines rather than to mandate their governments to act on their behalf. Even if people agree with the behavior goal, they may object to the means of accomplishing it. The different mind space effects will attract different levels of controversy. There are several factors that determine controversy. They foresee that they will be told this is a reversal of the aims of government, including health care, of course. They go on as noted; mind space effects depend at least partly on the automatic system. This means that citizens may not fully realize their behavior is being changed, or at least how it is being changed. Clearly, this opens government up to charges of manipulation.

People tend to think that attempts to change their behavior will be effective if they are simply provided information in an above-board way. People have a strong dislike of being tricked; this dislike has a psychological grounding but fundamentally, it is an issue of trust in government. A lack of conscious control also has implications for consent and freedom of choice. First, it creates a greater need for citizens to approve the use of the behavior change perhaps using new forms of democratic engagement. You see in this model that democracy is the highest good that’s sold, but the levers of manipulating democracy are in the hands of the cartel. Second, if the effect operates automatically, it may offer little opportunity for citizens to opt-out or choose otherwise. The concept of choice architecture is used less here. Any action that may reduce the right to be wrong, the right to refuse treatment, for example, will be very controversial.

Of course, some traditional attempts to change behavior are not explicit and these have attracted controversy, but they rarely attract the charge of manipulation because they are based on conscious actions to supply and register information rather than relying on unconscious reactions. I think that establishes the points well enough in principle, that we are trained in the modern world, dominated by the City of London and its soft power institutions to think we are in control of our destiny because liberal democracy is held up as the paragon on the correct argument, often, that all other systems are more tyrannical and less desirable. But the whole strength of the City of London’s model is that it can operate at arm’s length through other countries, as the United States and Germany have demonstrated here, to persuade people that what they wanted before is not really what they want now. It’s filling the mind space which, I think is the most powerful weapon available there.

Now I can see that I’ve gone over the time allotted, so I will leave the rest of these details. I could never have hoped to be comprehensive, but I trust I have given people a small taster of the long track record of solid historical research by people well familiar with the British establishment. In establishing the British establishment hasn’t been fighting fair since about 1870, that most of the revolutions it wished were about control of democracy through party whipping, control of healthcare through compulsory states, provided healthcare in the British and Canadian model, were all in place by the post-war period. This is the time at which I understand Matt Ehret is going to pick up the testimony and take us into the post-1945 era.

Reiner: Thank you very much, Alex. This is a perfect overview of how we got into this. If I may, I would like to ask a few questions.

Alex: Of course.

Reiner: My learned colleagues will do the same. Is it correct that the City of London is the real powerhouse in the UK?

Alex: It is unquestionably the powerhouse. This is something that if you’ve had my background, you learn at boarding school let alone at university, so Rugby and Cambridge in my case. And by the time you get into the civil service, there is a lot of eye-rolling if you ever suggest that the people of Britain, or any other country in the Commonwealth, have self-determination. No, the City of London is understood to own the population’s body, mind, and soul ultimately, and this seems to have started fairly early.

Reiner: I forget if it was in 1870 or in the early 1900s, but ultimately, it’s through the control of the people’s mind that the City of London furthers their goal of world domination that they really wanted. Is that correct?

Alex: Yes, and it is not specifically an Anglo-Saxon problem anymore. There are countries on the European continent, certainly since 1949. Germany is one of them. The federal republic, of course, Belgium, is another, which, as I said in my testimony, was set up by British insistence in 1815.

I translate at quite a high level in government communications from the national health agencies of these countries to their citizens. I translate into English for expatriates in those countries. The Belgian and German governments, to name two examples, are explicitly following a City of London view. They write to the population in terms of health management, telling them the way they exist is not good enough. Their bodies, their minds, their genetics, their intelligence, have not been optimized. Therefore, this livestock, this population, is not competing as it should in the world. It extends the City of London model to the European continent where it turns out to fit in as well to codified civil law jurisdictions with high respect for the rule of law as it does in a common-law jurisdiction. Ultimately, what we’re seeing is a very powerful, financially powerful, and therefore powerful institution, City of London and it bridges the Atlantic because of its fifth column, as some people claim, they have Wall Street. Those two powers united used to be, or still are, the center of power in this world. You can take many twists and turns especially in the mid-20th Century period. What you have said is a useful diagnostic summary of the whole of the 20th Century where there were struggles for a long time. There was the completely non-trivial Cold War with branches of the aristocracy in the City of London being both pro-and anti-Soviet Union.

I could talk for hours about that, but it’s secondary to the determination that there must be only a German block and a Russian bloc in Eurasia. That both must ultimately be controlled and hemmed in by British Anglo-American sea-power, and Anglo-American soft power setting the paradigms for them.

Reiner: Another thing that I wanted to clarify. You mentioned it is a few families who really run the City of London. You mentioned the names of Rothschild and Rhodes. Is it true that just a few families are trying to dominate the world through the City of London?

Alex: Yes, I have never found better material than that by a Dutch-German-American writing duo. The Dutchman is Robin de Ruiter, his American-German co-author is Fritz Springmeier from South Carolina. Their rather shocking book is entitled Bloodlines of the Illuminati, but their work is solid. They consistently show that the City of London, Manhattan, the European continent, are very much dominated by a small number of families. Often, 13 is given as the top level of these families. Obviously, there are levels below that. The French often spoke about les douzaine familles, the 200 bloodlines that run the deep state. But the senior ones terrorize the junior ones in this model and the highest you can get before you disappear into nebulous claims of Satan running the world, which ultimately, I believe he does. The highest level is at which central European Germanic bloodlines have an uneasy truce with British Isles’ bloodlines. Most are now based in the United States.

That is the largest model, and all the geopolitical frustrations of the 20th Century ultimately are to do with one or other willingly trying to gain ascendancy.

Reiner: Should we go with the city or overturn the city and have to do with the frustration of emerging superpowers, notably the Russians trying to play on level terms with that bloodline cartel and failing? One of the major means through which these very few families are trying to dominate the rest of the world seems through mind space, which sounds a little bit like mind control. Does that mean through psychological operations?

Alex: Very much so. No nation got into the game of psychological operations earlier than Britain. As soon as there were formal intelligence agencies in Britain in the Edwardian era just before the first world war, it was a major concentration. They borrowed a lot of their insights from Vienna and Germany, which were leading in the psychological space. This was a transnational interest in both the Anglo and Germanic areas of world domination at the time using the tricks of mind space. These were largely perfected when America had unchallenged hegemony after 1945, using many other areas such as Operation Paperclip for technical areas and a lot of the Third Reich and Soviet minds actually brought over to the United States surreptitiously.

It’s been regarded since the days of Edward Bernays and Freud as the most powerful way of controlling action in the real world because if you cannot perceive of there being a valid way of doing things other than what you’re told is the right way, then that’s obviously the supreme power that you can have. If you have that power, you control more people, more intelligence, stronger than yourself.

Reiner: Did I hear correctly that you use the term livestock? Is that really the view these people have of the rest of the world?

Alex: It is explicitly the view. Certainly, in the 1990s when I was at a senior British boarding school, this term was used explicitly by the grandsons of City of London seniors, to describe the British population who went, who walked under their own windows. As we went to lessons, they were going about their business in town. The terms that we used for them revolved around the idea that they were cattle and did not deserve a place in the world other than under the direction of the British Elite.

Reiner: Wow, thank you very much, Alex. I don’t want to keep my learned colleagues from asking questions, so please go ahead.

Dexter L-J Ryneveldt (Adv):

Good day, Mr. Thompson. Thank you so much for your evidence. Mr. Thompson, you touched on the African continent and mentioned sizzle John Ross. I would like to know from you what role does the City of London play currently on the African continent? Can you please elaborate on that?

Alex: The role it plays is a very dark and complex one. It is largely seen when coup d’états and revolutions occur in former British colonies. Of course, there is a whole band of countries formerly colored pink on the map, famous from Cairo to the Cape where Britain nearly installed a railway and a single colony. In these countries, you see it most clearly. Mrs. Thatcher’s son was involved in a failed coup attempt in the non-anglophone African country Equatorial Guinea. This is one example where the attempt was bungled, and the City of London sponsors left Mark Thatcher to dry on his own. When this failed, I think most particularly what we see in former Rhodesia, now the nations of Zambia and Zimbabwe, is that there’s been a node where the City of London has retained financially corrupt and powerful people and the local SAS contingents from the era of white rule who have done a lot of the dirty work, even in London itself in the post-war period, on the basis of having on paper ownership of rich mineral assets in Southern Africa. That’s the most general way in which I could talk about it. There are even suspicious deaths as late as the 1979 Lancaster House of Courts paving the way for ZANU-PF to take over from the Smith government in Rhodesia as it became Zimbabwe, with lawyers falling supposedly to their deaths out of windows. It’s an extremely dark picture and the more you look at some companies involved, Kroll Security is one that comes to mind, the more you see there is a nexus between MI6, SAS, and the City of London. It regards Southern Africa in particular as its prime asset.

Dexter: Thank you very much. Do agree with me, Mr Thompson, that when it comes to financial dominance and Covid19, that is at the core? Do you agree that financial dominance is at the core of the government pending?

Alex: Yes, I would, and I would qualify it very slightly by reminding you of Carroll Quigley’s summary of the Anglo-American elite establishments’ world view. He points out that the ownership of financial assets is already outdated by the 1960s and he knows that the great brains, not necessarily the good brains a century prior to him already saw this coming. They regarded the real wealth as human minds and human health, and the ability to alter and to copyright in time the human being into a new model that would behave as expected. That is the great wealth in the world. But with that caveat, if we call that wealth and an extension, we can call it financial, then yes that is the greatest price. There is the whole point about the City of London.

If you are somewhat intellectually gifted and come up from a privileged British background into Oxford and Cambridge, you really only have the choice between money-making in the City of London or some branch of its national service such as intelligence or officership. The difference time and again I saw between myself and those who went the other way in my cohort was principle. Neither group doubted that the real power in the world was ownership of capital, it’s a question of whether you wish to serve that by being an intelligence officer who reports to the City of London, or you wish to be part of the action making the money. There is no higher ideal than that in the Anglo-American model.

Dexter: Okay, thank you very much. No further questions for me. Thank you. Any questions from Anna?

Anna: No, I think this was quite excellent. The only question I would ask is, how do you turn this? You mentioned various things like copywriting the human mind, maybe genetics even. Do you feel there is a link between the current vaccines, so-called vaccines, the shots from Pfizer, Moderna, Janssen AstraZeneca? Do you think there is a relationship between those and this goal of copyrighting the humans? I very strongly believe that. I’m not medically or biotechnologically qualified to explain how much truth there may be in this, but I’ve seen time and again where there is hype and a pseudo-theological belief among the elite in Britain and America, you can achieve a certain aim by pulling a certain trick by editing a gene and stamping a copyright on the human body. That is enough motivation to fuel a serious attempt to go that way, and I know when Debbie Evans takes part in Brian Gerrish’s testimony slot later this evening, she will talk about that. I think the very heart of it is the idea that genetic editing will allow de facto sneaky copywriting of the number of souls and bodies in humanity that are affected so that they’re no longer under the creator.

Reiner: Thank you. Okay, that concludes Alex Thompson’s testimony.

Now we will listen to Matthew Ehret’s testimony.

Matthew Ehret: Yes, thank you. I have to say that presentation was more than I expected and that sets the tone very well for the torch that I’m being handed right now. I would maybe push back on one point, which is that no matter what the old oligarchy might wish legally or formally be the claim of who owns the soul or the body and freedom of people, it has no bearing in reality. There is a natural law that is higher than the law they wish to impose on the universe. That’s part of the problem with ivory tower thinkers. They always want the universe to conform to their mathematical models and go into conniption fits of rage when they discover that the universe is much more creative and non-linear than they want it to be. It’s the sort of God complex which is ultimately the downfall of empires. Historically, every time you see the oligarchy self-cannibalize and melt down under its own self-contradictions, it’s a natural thing that should happen the way it does. The question is, are we willing to tolerate that level of folly and immorality to the point we go down with it? That’s always the challenge for every generation. This isn’t a new thing and obviously, we are at the end of a system.

I’m going to do something a little bit different. Originally, I was going to talk a lot more about eugenics. I understand on February 26th we’re going to focus on eugenics, so I won’t do that now. I will carry on the theme that Alex raised, but I will do this by first dealing with the present situation in about eight minutes, to get across what the British hand in global affairs is today in a little bit more detail. Using a little one-minute video from Justin Trudeau here in Canada where we have this shadow of a shadow who’s been imposed on the people to carry out a policy that really doesn’t come from him. I think everybody recognizes there’s nothing really there. He’s like a young version of Biden. His whole life has been handled, but the question is if this guy’s too much of a Kendall without a brain or a soul to carry out or make decisions, what is the power behind the so-called throne? I will start with a video and will go back after dealing with the presence a little bit more into the 18th -19th Century with a Canadian focus. This is something from people’s perspective right now with what is currently happening in Ottawa. And then we’ll carry up to the battles in the post-World War II age to see how this thing transmogrified and recalibrated after World War II. We’ll do this in a summary way. I’ll try not to oversimplify too much, but obviously, this is a complex issue. I will try to do justice and rigor for what needs to be understood. The first thing is the video that I promised which I’m going to play here. It’s about a minute and a half. I hope people can hear this. This is not the video. I’m so sorry, let’s try that again.

I, Justin PJ Trudeau, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors, so help me God.

I, Justin PJ Trudeau, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council for Canada. I will, in all things to be treated, debated, and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully honestly, and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity or that shall be secretly treated of in counsel generally in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty, so help me God.

I, Justin PJ Trudeau, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that I will truly and faithfully and to the best of my skill and knowledge execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as Prime Minister so help me God.

So, that was a bit confusing for some people who saw this in 2017. Not your typical thing you would expect a so-called Democratic head of state to be doing when he’s declaring his oath of office after an election. But then again, Trudeau is not really the head of state, as we’ve come to see. He’s both a member of the Privy Council Office, which you have to be if you’re going to be in a cabinet position in government or the opposition. The actual head of state is the governor-general, that older gentleman standing next to him, who is the appointee carrying out the emanation, the powers, and authority of the crown to give royal assent to any law that becomes law in Canada. Lieutenant governors are positions in every province. You have a Privy Council Office. You have this whole weird byzantine structure above the apparent public aspect of our so-called democracy and this monarchy of the north, which is again very confusing for many people.

We’re going to go into a little bit more of what this is. This anomalous thing, what is it a part of internationally? How did it come into being? Here I’ve prepared a series of slides to get across that Canada is a part of the Commonwealth, the British Commonwealth. This was set up in the late 1930s in preparation for essentially the transformation of the British Empire’s outward image.

Today, there are about 54 countries in the British Commonwealth, with the United Kingdom at the centre.. The head of it is the Queen of England. This thing occupies about 12.2 million square miles of territory, 2.4 billion people are represented within territories here, 21 of the world’s land area. People celebrate this thing as if it’s a democratic institution and it’s weird.

What is this thing? If you look at these territories, a lot is the Caribbean. The Latin American areas aren’t so touched, but a lot of the Caribbean and Africa are. There are 19 African nations in sub-Saharan Africa. There are eight Asian nations, India being the biggest, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, obviously the five eyes minus the United States. But let’s compare this to the old British Empire. There’s a screenshot from a 1920 map. It looks pretty similar, doesn’t it? People say “oh the British Empire just disappeared after World War II. It let its territories go free and now the empire is the big bad American empire.” That’s the mythology passed down to us, and it is mythology. As Alex went through very concisely, the real power that controls the fifth column inside the United States, since 1776, has always been centred in London. We will flesh this out a little bit more. It never disappeared. No empire of this sort will ever wilfully give liberty. Liberty is something you fight for.

Just quickly, the issue of current mining interests today, is not something that occurred in the 1880s, 1890s with the land grab for Africa and Cecil Rhodes’ creation of De Beers and Lonrho and other mining interests. This is a 2016 report, a fantastic report by a non-profit that conducted audits on British interests controlling mining in Africa with headquarters in either the UK or within commonwealth territories measured on the London stock exchange. A small quote here written, “It’s a new colonialism… scramble for African energy and mining resources”. It says: “101 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange – most of them British – have mining operations in 37 sub-Saharan African countries. They collectively control over $1 trillion worth of Africa’s most valuable resources. The UK government has used its power and influence to ensure that British mining companies have access to Africa’s raw materials. This was the case during the colonial period, and it is still the case today.”

This report is available for free online as a pdf. I will not go into details. It is upwards of 70 mining interests, which also include refining materials by companies in British-controlled territories. What is the infrastructure carrying this out? There’s something a lot of people don’t even know about. This is an organization affiliated with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as the World Bank called crown agents. It was set up in 1833 as its own official, self-description, as an emanation of the crown. It’s not part of the government but its authority comes from the font of all honors, the crown itself. That’s the way this sort of byzantine structure is emanated in the shadow government. There’s a hierarchy of authority. It doesn’t come from the consent of the governed. It comes from the singular sovereign the crown, whoever that may be as a hereditary institution.

So, this was set up in 1833 as a branch of the British Colonial Office to manage the infrastructure hard, and a lot soft, of the colonies internationally of the Empire. It did a few name changes over the years, and in 1996, it went through another name change called the Crown Agents for Overseas Government Administration, where it also has been managing the health infrastructure, including Covid protocols of Eastern Europe, especially Ukraine.

It manages many African countries, including South Sudan, Myanmar. And it deals with governance. It helps these countries adapt their governing mechanisms according to World Bank and IMF standards. It’s been there and doing this for a very long time, and it’s a very strange thing. And again, they call themselves Crown Agents. It’s not me slandering them or calling them. And this has been around, as I said, for a very, very long time. So that’s one aspect of this thing in terms of the maintenance of the shadow Empire. It’s not me slandering them or calling them. This has been around for a very long time. That’s one aspect of this thing in terms of the maintenance of the shadow empire.

Now, one thing about this Commonwealth / City of London managed system is that the Cayman Islands and offshore banking is the centre of this. There was a wonderful documentary that people can watch called “The Spider’s Web” on Britain’s Invisible Empire that is available on YouTube, even. It goes through this in a nice way, but it gets across that, internationally, you have 24% of the financial services moving through a lot of British-controlled Cayman Islands, Caribbean, and other offshore tax havens.

But also, within these is the centre of global drug money laundering and terrorist financing. People think: “oh, drugs. It’s a natural plague of our society. Terrorism. It’s just a natural thing just that happens.” And it’s like, no, this is very artificial. This is not the way human society just comes up with these plagues of sociology. These were created diseases that are geopolitical in nature, not even religious in nature, that are cultivated from the top.

This is a 2012 Senate report conducted over a long period by, the recently deceased, Senator Carl Levin on US vulnerabilities to money laundering, drugs and terrorist financing – the HSBC case, whereby in the course of this, it was discovered that HSBC was the primary number one offshore account money laundering bank in the world. As Alex pointed out, they were set up in 1865 in order to enforce or manage the opium trade, to destroy China – that never stopped. They were found guilty. They were slapped on the wrist with a certain fine of $1.9 billion. They were allowed to appoint their own auditor to sit there for five years. And as far as I could see, they’re still doing what they do. They have a huge stake in Air Canada as well. Anybody who takes a plane to Canada will see HSBC signs everywhere. That is a huge piece of infrastructure as part of the silver triangle that’s been underway for the whole of the 20th century.

You have their picture of the queen with Coutts, that’s the Queen’s personal bank, which was also, in 2012, found guilty of drug money laundering. It paid its own little, I think maybe $10 million fine, and the bad publicity resulted in the bankruptcy of offshore accounts that were conducting the laundering to be sold off to the Royal Bank of Canada, which currently conducts the same operations. Africa also has a $177 billion debt holding it hostage. Meanwhile, about $944 billion of revenue from the extraction of wealth sits in British offshore accounts, so it is not a debtor but a predator nation en masse. This is the whole story and to itself the City of London. As Alex pointed out, it’s a separate entity. Even the UK government can’t really do much legally to stop it. They have their own courts, their own police. It’s a weird structure.

I wanted to throw that out and I didn’t even talk about Iraq. The Iraq War dodgy dossiers being justified and created by British intelligence that justified the bombing of Iraq, Libya as well. That was more MI6 intelligence. I didn’t talk about that. I didn’t talk about the Syrian dodgy dossiers of chemical weapons that were never actually proven to be used by Assad, but that have been justified for sanctions and justifying the regime change that has been attempted now for seven years. I didn’t talk about that, but it’s everywhere. The British hand is everywhere. You scratch a little bit even in the course of the dodgy dossiers to put Putin as the big bad guy controlling Trump. Those dodgy dossiers were brought to us by people like Sir Richard Dearlove, the guy who brought us the original Iraq war yellow cake dodgy dossier. That was always fraud and the Chill Commission Report proved that to be the case. The question of Rhode scholars, people like Strobe Talbott, who was a Rhodes scholar, came in with Clinton and has been running Brookings for a very long time. He was behind Russiagate with many other Rhodes scholars currently managing the Biden administration like Jake Sullivan, Susan Rice, Eric Lander. The Sciences are Rhodes Scholars. They’re everywhere. And I won’t go into that.

Some historical context. I’m Canadian, so the question of Justin Trudeau, I hope that’s still an imprint in people’s minds is, what the hell is that? So, the Privy Council Office, unlike the United States Constitution or Declaration, Canada was founded in 1867. The original conference with our Founding Fathers was not something that was a part of a fight for freedom, unlike the US, this was something where these were all British loyalists, anti-republicans, they were all like our Founding Father, who was standing up there in the painting. Johnny McDonald was an Aryan complete race Patriot, wanting an Aryan Canada who said: British I was born and British I will die. He was a filthy, immoral scumbag. And these are the people celebrated as our sacred cows that we’re supposed to honor in Canada.

Now, unlike the US – which enshrines the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the idea of the principle of the general welfare both now and into posterity in the Constitution – the Canadian founding document says literally:

“Whereas the provinces of Canada” (at the time, there were four of them) , “have expressed their desire to be federally united in one dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom and of Great Britain and Ireland with the constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom” (which is itself a bit of a fraud since the UK doesn’t really have a constitution. It’s mirroring of a shadow) “ and whereas such a union would conduce to the welfare of the provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire” So that’s our so-called preamble: “is to promote the interest of the British Empire”. That’s why we created the conference that drafted it and occurred three years earlier in 1864, while the Civil War was winding down. It was still being fought; the British had put a lot of resources into breaking up the union.”

As I’ve gone through in previous presentations, a lot of this is in my books Clash of the Two Americas https://www.amazon.co.uk/Clash-Two-Americas-Unfinished-Symphony/dp/B099TQL46D/ref=sr_1_1?crid=143HHASRG5QM4&keywords=Clash+of+the+2+americas&qid=1645735305&s=books&sprefix=clash+of+the+2+americas%2Cstripbooks%2C243&sr=1-1

and Untold History of Canada.


The point that the British were afraid of, as I demonstrate, was that Canada had pro-Lincoln statesmen in positions of leadership who were fighting to create an independent country at that time. There were also people who were working to create an American Zollverein with Canada and the United States together, in one customs union based upon industrial development with the type of policy not like America today. But it was a different policy of the Lincoln / McKinley orientation of a real long-term thinking where human beings were seen as a good, a creature that money had to serve by virtue of investing into large-scale infrastructure science and technology. But also working abroad with Germany doing the same thing under Otto von Bismarck with Russia who had sold the Alaska territory to the United States intending to build rail through the continent into Eurasia.

This was seen as being a vital territory that had to be kept under the control of the British Foreign Office. This Constitution was drafted, Lincoln’s allies were ousted from power, and it was kept as a wedge between the danger of a US-Russia collaboration. Except one Lincoln admirer became Prime Minister at a certain point, Wilford Laurier. By 1911, he organized to create a customs union. Finally, all the bills had been passed and it was about to go into law finally. Unfortunately, he was ousted in a coup d’état that was orchestrated by the Round Table and some Orangemen Freemasons that have the Queen, the Crown, the head of these different Freemasonic outfits. A paper was written that I’ve published on the Canadian Patriots’ site going through those details. But two years later, Wilford Laurier writes to his close ally, OD Skelton, that “Canada is now governed by a junta sitting in London, known as “The Round Table”, with ramifications in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Victoria with Tories [that’s Conservatives] and Grits [that’s Liberals] receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties.”

So, that was an admission directly from the man himself. He had a vision for turning Canada into a Lincoln modelled nation with a population of 60 million, within a generation, based upon large scale electrification and industrialisation – that was all ousted, ended, and again The Round Table took control. Robert Borden, the replacement and a Round Tabler, ended up controlling the Chatham House of Canada at its inception as its first president. By 1918, the Round Table had already initiated a takeover of the British government. They had ousted Herbert Asquith in the Labour government in 1916, not that he was such a great guy, but they really wanted to have full control on the terms of the Versailles Treaty at the end of World War I. One of the problems was they needed the United States. They really needed the power of the United States behind them, and that’s always been the objective of the Cecil Rhodes’ design.

Lord Lockheed was a leading Round Tabler at the time. He was the ambassador to the United States. The other name was Philip Kerr. They always have names that sound like Star Wars villains. He wrote about the problem of the American psyche that had to be dealt with. There is a fundamentally different concept in regard to the question between Great Britain and the United States as to the necessity of civilized control over politically backward people. The inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves. America not only has no conception of this aspect of the problem but has been led to believe that an assumption of this kind of responsibility is iniquitous imperialism. So, it’s a problem, right? The Americans don’t get that there’s a white man’s burden they have to impose because they’re scientifically better than the darker-skinned people. They have to morally and scientifically impose an Anglo-American control over the backward people; that was a problem, not that there were Americans that got it. This was part of the American deep state problem that I mentioned, and Alex went through a bit – but what had happened?

There were several attempts at new world orders. What we’re seeing today is not a new thing. I alluded to this in the previous presentation. In 1919, you had the creation of Chatham House, the creation of the Versailles Treaty, the League of Nations, all orchestrated by Lord Milner who was a leading figure controlling British foreign policy along with many other Round Tablers. The idea of the League of Nations was to declare it a collective security pact. Article 10 got rid of national sovereignty over economics and military affairs and created effectively a one-world government. Part of this was also the Imperial Federation, like what the European Union and the world that failed. Why did it fail? Because people in Canada, the lorry liberals, had made it come back through the 1920s and resisted it. Irish Free State movements resisted it. People like Warren Harding, who was assassinated. I say assassinated. I’ve never seen evidence to the contrary. The American President died from eating poisoned oysters, but the point being is you had nationalists that resisted and didn’t succumb to this pressure at the time. It petered out and they tried again.

In 1933, there was the International Bankers Conference in London, centered on the bank of international settlements. The Bank of England and 66 nations had been a part of it all with the design that the great depression would be solved by moving sovereignty economically from nation-states into officially essential bankers’ codery under the Bank of England as the only reason. After six months, that failed as Franklin Roosevelt pulled the US delegations out of all participation and it fell apart. I wrote about that in chapter seven of my Clash of the Two Americas in detail. Then there was another attempt in 1944. Roosevelt had not yet died. John Maynard Keynes was assigned this time to represent the British Empire at the Bretton Woods Conference with the idea of a one-world currency run by the Bank of England called “the Bancors”, an international exchange rate that would be a one-world currency. The Americans had come out of World War II as the only unbroken country and were to be the battering ram or enforcers of an Anglo-American reconquering of the nations of the world, many of whom had fought during the war. Many had ideas of independence and freedom alive in their hearts that was not acceptable. I have a little quote by Franklin Roosevelt which I really like, where he made the point that they “who seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers… call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order.” That was a sharp quote.

So, to pick up here a little bit now, where Alex has left off, there’s a book called As He Saw It, written in 1946 by Roosevelt’s son and his assistant, his personal assistant, Elliot Roosevelt. And he documents a lot of the battles between Roosevelt versus the Churchill gang that were trying to always pull the US into a Brotherhood of control – à la Cecil Rhodes, right, à la five eyes – which is already what was creeping up and happening from the Black Chamber being transformed into the NSA in 1930, which became integrated more and more into the British five eyes thing, which was again always the Cecil Rhodes will orientation.

But in this book, it’s a great book. People can find this online; they could buy it; they should buy it. It’s on archive.org. I use it extensively. But he talks in 1944 after a battle with Churchill, I think at the Tehran Conference, I’m not too sure which conference, but he speaks to Elliot saying: “You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know, I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ‘em, any number of ‘em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then to copy that! I was told … six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s the British Foreign Office.”

So, the OSS had not been cleaned out and the OSS had a lot of problems, but there were still a lot of Patriots and nationalists embedded in American intelligence within the OSS that were problematic for those trying to take control, who had pretty much occupied most of the State Department by this time. Within Elliott’s book, there’s another wonderful battle between him and Churchill that was documented over what would be the post-war era, what type of operating principles would govern it, where FDR’s vision for the Greening of African deserts, the extension of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the rural electrification projects that pull people out of poverty and backwardness inside the USA, that would be extended through large scale loans internationally to help other countries have their own industrial programs, their own Tennessee Valley authorities, and really to extend the principle of the four freedoms to the world that were not supposed to be nice, flaky words, but real active. This is why Bretton Woods, the Keynesian team, lost out. And Harry Dexter White – who became the first director of the IMF, also dying under mysterious circumstances – the American delegation under him had won out and made sure that even China, India, Africa, South America, Russia would all be participants in receiving Tennessee Valley Authority projects that were all approved by the US delegation. They were all resisted by the British delegation. And even at that time, when Roosevelt had a Russia-China-US Alliance as his bedrock, Russia was a subscriber for a billion dollars into the IMF originally, before the Iron Curtain caused them to be forced out.

All that to say, I ramble, but in this small extract I selected, he’s describing now the evening, talking with Elliot after fighting with Churchill, saying, “I’m talking about another war. [He’s warning of a World War III.] “I’m talking about what will happen to our world if, after this war, we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery!

“Don’t think for a moment, Elliott, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight, if it hadn’t been for the short-sighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch. [That’s the colonialists.] Shall we allow them to do it, all over again? Your son will be about the right age, fifteen or twenty years from now. One sentence, Elliot. Then I’m going to kick you out of here. I’m tired. It’s this sentence: When we’ve won the war, I will work with all my might and main to see to it that the United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan that will further France’s imperialist ambitions, or that will aid or abet the British Empire in its Imperial ambitions.”

So, tragedy strikes, right? Wallace, I don’t know, I mean, it’s a long story, but Wallace is replaced by Harry Truman, who is a George Bush sort of prototype bankers’ boy Anglophile. , He’s brought in now as the new vice president. So, Wallace was the vice president who was completely online with FDR’s vision. F Roosevelt dies April 12th. No autopsy is ever done. Immediately within the proceeding months’ nuclear bombs are dropped on a defeated Japan by Truman. September 20th the OSS, the American intelligence agency, is disbanded and a purge a massive purge begins. If anybody who hadn’t had an understanding of the Wall Street London financiers behind fascism’s eugenics rise – there was a lot – there were reports on this – these were all purged in the ensuing year and at this point, the iron curtain speech is launched and people think “oh yeah, that was the Americans who did the iron curtain which turned Russia and China into their enemies.” No, it was Winston Churchill who came to the United States, stayed at the White House for a sustained period, and delivered his speech where he said:

“Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the Fraternal Association of the English-speaking-peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States.”

Henry Wallace, before he gets fired, he’s now the Commerce Secretary fighting against this insanity that was brainwashing the American people into these paranoid mobs, afraid of infiltration and conspiracy. The whole McCarthyism thing was a real atrocity run by the FBI as a dictatorship, which it was, the US became a dictatorship under the FBI, he says:

“Fascism [he warns] in the post-war inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds, and classes.”

Obviously, there’s a complete racist backlash, again, sponsored by J. Edgar Hoover – another 33rd-degree freemason running the FBI for seven American presidencies – that’s supporting the rise of racism, the dismantling of civil liberties for African Americans and others but also coordinating with the CIA that is soon reconstituted to create a new management system much more in alignment with British foreign policy. Things like MK Ultra that was originally using science crafted by Tavistock, the British intelligence branch of psychological warfare. COINTELPRO infiltration also mirrored Operation Gladio in Europe. These are all things deployed – justified by the terms and conditions of the age of ‘mutual assured destruction’.

So it continues. Wallace is now fired after giving the speech. The Truman Doctrine is announced, again. Who is the main organizer of the Truman Doctrine? One of the key guys is George McGee, a Rhodes Scholar. You have the central CIA is created on September 18. Now, completely a sort of new reconstituted cleansed intelligence agency. Harry Dexter White dies. IMF is hijacked, that was the guy who was on Roosevelt’s team who is now, at that point in 1948, he was fighting to get Wallace elected under the Progressive Party leadership in the ‘48 elections. You’ll find many great Patriots of the United States who either died or had their careers annihilated were part of this network. And then you have this famous July 50th NSC National Security Council 75 Memorandum to ‘Save the British Empire’. I kid you not. This is literally a protocol issued under the logic that if the British weaken their imperial economic interests, the Soviets will take and fill that space. So, the US foreign policy interest has to be to preserve British interests abroad. And this is where the IMF, the World Bank increasingly became rewired to use economic colonialism wherever needed. If you can’t stop the political independence of a nation, at the very least sabotage their economic independence.

One guy who’s an interesting figure is Clement Atlee at this time, who’s the post-World War II Prime Minister, and he makes a strong point that:

“Over and over again we have seen that there is another power than that which has its seat at Westminster. The City of London, a convenient term for a collection of financial interests, is able to assert itself against the government of the country. Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which is being decided by the people.”

Again, you have even British – so it’s not the British government, right? The British people are also as much victimized by, as well as many figures within the British government are victimized by, this power above the official visible branches of government. Throughout the Cold War, if you can’t understand the architecture of the Cold War, of mutual assured destruction, the asymmetrical warfare game theory doctrines, the application of systems analysis to manage the geopolitical overthrows of governments – things like the Vietnam War. If you don’t look at people like Dean Rusk, Rhodes Scholar, Walt Whitman Rostow, who ran the NSA for three years was a Balliol Rhodes Scholar, Escott Reid, who was the architect of NATO to break Russia out of any influence in the Security Council over military affairs. NATO, that was Escott Reid, Rhodes Scholar. William Fulbright, Rhode scholar. I mean, there’s so many that overlap. So again, you can’t really understand what is this thing that JFK was pushing back against and trying to fight against? What was the thing that Eisenhower was warning about in his military, industrial, complex speech? You can’t understand that if you don’t look at these ideologues who have been penetrated over decades. There’s been 3,000 so far in the 20th century who have been processed through the halls of Oxford. Not that they’re all bad. I think Kris Kristopherson is an okay actor and maybe his movie choices are not so great sometimes, but I don’t think he’s a bad guy. Although he’s a Rhodes Scholar.

You’ll find that you can’t be guilty by association. But you can’t understand anything unless you understand this very controlled, centralized hive that also coordinates with the American Round Table movement, which is the council on foreign relations, the thing that Hillary Clinton referred to as the mothership in a 2011 speech, that has always been since 1921, the British Round Table in America. And even people who you think of as being American geopolitical grand designers like Kissinger’s Abigail Brzezinski, Samuel P. Huntington, (“ clash of civilizations”), a Canadian Pierre Eliot Trudeau who did his own martial law in 1970 and really reorganized the entire government as a technocratic cybernetic system. They were all processed under William Yandell Elliott and Harvard who ran something that some have referred to as the Chatham House of Harvard.

William Yandell Elliott was one of these guys who liked having talented young sociopathic boys brought around him and he trained generations of these geopoliticians who are processed talent, a talent searching thing as Rhodes describes. It’s exactly what they carried out and then brought back into positions of ideological authority to carry out a policy that they, themselves, were not the originators of, per se, but they were put into positions to make it happen.

We did have pushback and I want to have some counter-voice because it’s not like they’re godlike creatures, right, there were real human beings, real statesmen, especially throughout the 1960s. You have Enrico Mattei, the Italian industrialist. You have Dag Hammarskjöld, the secretary-general of the UN, who had a grand program to end imperialism and promote industrial development in a variety of countries, especially in South Africa. Charles de Gaulle had avoided 30 assassination attempts. John F Kennedy obviously… you have Patrice Lumumba. I didn’t put everybody on here who was either assassinated or overthrown in CIA-MI6 directed coups but all that to say it was a major period of potential where the common theme was cooperation and breaking out of the mathematical ways of governance right? Introduce new technologies, new discoveries that were not monopolized and do it through a way of looking for win-win cooperation points of common interest that’s why JFK offered the Russians the ability to work with the United States on a joint space program together so that would be something to break away to liberate us from this mathematical you know balance of terror way of governance. I’m ending up now. I think maybe three, four more minutes.

So, after the age of assassinations again in the 60s very parallel to the thing that was happening after the 1890s to World War I again. Age of total assassinations and color revolutionary coups, you have the stage set now for a full economic recolonization of the United States. Especially the focus has always been to take back control of the United States. You have this with several things happen and Kissinger is a key figure in much of this. You have the creation in January 1971 of the Inter-Alpha Group created under the blueprint of Lord Jacob Rothschild, who was running N M Rothschild & Sons, but also has been a major banking financier interest as a part of a mercenary dynasty since the 1700s.

So, the Intra-Alpha Group of banks was a coterie of, there’s a picture of it, of the key major banks, set up in each of the focused European countries to advance a new doctrine of deregulation central taking centralizing power away from nation-states, especially in Europe, and moving it into the private supranational coterie of corporate and financial interests above national authorities. So, I don’t have time to go into detail there. That was 1971 that group was founded. It has since grown in numbers since its original founding six. Many of these banks were all tied to financial activities supporting fascism’s rise, whether Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler earlier on, a lot of that whitewashed.

The same month the World Economic Forum is founded by one of Kissinger’s prodigies who we all know and despise Klaus Schwab. Also, one of the co-founders was Maurice Strong – a Canadian oligarch who was picked up by the Rockefellers and was a co-founder of the Canadian Club of Rome, a major player with Prince Philip, who is the guy calling for being reincarnated as a deadly virus, who ran the world economic forum. In my February 26th presentation, we’re going to go into detail. Maurice Strong is another figure who is a co-founder and inspirer of Klaus Schwab. Then you have the big deal here which is August 15, 1971; the US dollar is floated. Kissinger and Schultz running the Nixon administration orchestrated the removal of the dollar from the gold reserve, the gold exchange system, or the fixed exchange rate system, which was preventing speculation.

As long as you didn’t have speculation on currencies and commodities, it was difficult to conduct the sorts of economic warfare against nations trying to develop their infrastructure and their industrial base which has always been, even going back to the 19th Century, a tool used by Empire to keep nations destabilized, this economic warfare. So, the fixed exchange rate had to go. It guaranteed too much stability. You were able to think long-term. 5, 20-year projects could be conceptualized when you had relative stability of currencies. And that was floated onto the floating markets. All of a sudden this created a degree of chaos. You could no longer really build or maintain or improve your infrastructure, your capital-intensive part of your economy that you need to always have as the basis of your economic value in this system that became atrophied. Increasingly, the age of deregulation speculation was upon us.

I mentioned here for good measure the Trilateral Commission founded in 1973 under Brzezinski, Kissinger, and David Rockefeller. Again, the hand of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is again the Round Table movement is always there as well as the Bilderberger Group, which is always there. Many of these figures are overlapping with this other thing that I’m going to talk about on February 26th in more detail. So, this is what takes over Carter, under the Trilateral Commission. Nearly every member of Carter’s cabinet is a member of the Trilateral Commission. People like Paul Volcker who becomes the FED chair calls for controlled disintegration of the US economy in 1979 when the interest rates are raised to 20 or more for two years destroying small and medium businesses and only leaving these multi behemoth multinational companies able to survive and thrive and gobble up under mergers and acquisitions.

Henry Kissinger delivers at this time a 1981 speech at Chatham House in the UK, describing the difference between Churchill and Roosevelt’s views of the post-war age. People can read this. It’s an appendix in my volume to the full speech but he describes how he preferred the Churchill way of thinking about geopolitics over the Roosevelt idea which he saw as obsolete and incompatible with reality but in it, he also describes his time as Secretary of State under Nixon where he says:

“The British were so matter of factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations … In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department … It was symptomatic.”

Total admission. They don’t even hide this by saying “oh, they didn’t really say that.” No, they admit it, they assume that we’re too dumb to put words and actions together.

Lord Jacob Rothschild, in 1983, delivered a speech , saying that:

“Two broad types of giant institutions, the worldwide financial services company and the international commercial bank with a global trading competence, may converge to form the ultimate, all-powerful, many headed financial conglomerate.”

What he’s referring to is the breakdown of the division of bank activities from commercial, investment, trust, insurance. All these had formerly, under Roosevelt, originally been designed in separate compartments so you couldn’t speculate with people’s savings. You couldn’t legally do that. He was talking about taking that away so that you can create a new type of universal banking that does everything – what today we might call too big to fail.

This was done originally in Britain under Margaret Thatcher’s big bang where the first wave of universal banking was created and London again sort of restored even more of its control than it had formally enjoyed. You have a near total collapse of a speculative bubble that results in a 25% collapse of the stock exchange in New York. As a response to avoiding the collapse, Alan Greenspan is brought in and immediately normalizes creative financial instruments, otherwise known as derivatives, that had formerly been illegal for the most part. These were known as junk bonds, securitized debts, that were worthless but were still securitized, and then gambled upon with insurance that also became securitized so that people could– it’s complex, but it’s insane. It’s not a way that you make any value. And it became kind of like a cancerous tumor that grew up in the economy to the point that by 1992 when the Maastricht Treaty was affected – creating the European Union as a new consolidation to get rid of Nation States and get rid of the right of nations to admit their own and control their own credit in Europe – there was about $2 trillion of derivatives. That same year you have the Soviet Union dissolving. The end of history is being celebrated. George Bush says in 1990 at the opening of the Kuwait War that:

“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order – when we are successful – and we will be – we have a real chance at this new world order.”

So, this is a point when Margaret Thatcher is bragging that she put the steel into the spine of Bush who was wavering on the issue of Desert Storm. But again, the idea was always it’s the end of the nation-state system. Now finally at the end of the Cold War, it’s a unipolar era of what today might be called the neoliberal world order. Soviet Union is totally privatized, destroyed, targeted for destruction overseen by Strobe Talbott, who is the point man on the ground, Rhodes scholar, working closely with the IMF. NAFTA is asigned to again get rid of more powers of nation-states in North America and move powers into the hands of private corporations above nations, World Trade Organization and then big time Glass-Steagall. The separation of US banking commercial from speculation is broken down by Clinton, Rhodes scholar, last act in office.

And then from that point forward, you have the ushering in of the biggest cancer of derivatives, going from 2 trillion in 1992 to 70 trillion in 1999, by that point overlapping the US global GDP. Only 10 years later you have the deregulation completely of over-the-counter derivatives because Glass-Steagall has now gone too big to fail become bigger than Gods they want us to believe, so we have to bail them out. It’s like a gun to the head. If they go bankrupt and by 2007, when the next collapse hits, their 708 trillion dollars of derivatives weighing down the system, far outweigh the 15 trillion of the US GDP.

Strobe Talbott in 1992 made his manifesto, saying:

“All countries are basically social arrangements … No matter how permanent or even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact, they are all artificial and temporary … Perhaps national sovereignty was not such a great idea after all … But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government.”

That’s from his Birth of a Global Nation. Just two last slides here, I’m done. Just to be clear, the takeover of financial services and the collapse of the real economy, the real part that has value, that sustains life. That has been the trend. You have the crossover, what you have there is the real estate rental, the leasing finance speculation overlapping in 1987 with the physical manufacturing base. That’s one of many graphs put forward. This is a real economy. It only works if you have the financial side always servicing and improving upon the real side – manufacturing, infrastructure, science. If the financial side is not servicing, it’s a fake, it’s the bubble and the bubble will pop. That’s why the bubble that was created today, which is popping, was a planned disintegration. It was designed in 1971 to disintegrate. The question is when would be the pinprick? The pinprick has happened. Point is, why is there an encirclement of China of Russia by the US military, by the British? Why are there all these PSYOPs? Why are there so many different types of CIA-connected operations to destroy and destabilize Eurasia right now? I talked about this in my last presentation, and this is well documented. What’s going on? What are they afraid of?

I will end with this last quote by Putin. People might feel feelings of rage when they see Putin’s face because they’ve been fed a lot of propaganda in the media. I don’t care. But in a recent speech, Putin said:

“Only sovereign States can effectively respond to the challenges of the times and the demands of the citizens. Accordingly, any effective international order should take into account the interests and the capabilities of the state and proceed on that basis, and not try to prove that they should not exist. Furthermore, it is impossible to impose anything on anyone, be it the principles underlying the socio-political structure or values that someone, for their own reasons, has called “universal.” After all, it is clear that when a real crisis strikes, there is only one universal value left and that is human life, which each state decides for itself how to best protect based on its abilities, culture and traditions.”

I went over my time. I’m really sorry I did that, but I really wanted to drive home a few key lessons of world history and if there are any questions, if there’s time for that, I’ll happily answer them.

Reiner: Thank you, Matthew. Let me verify that I understand you correctly. The main point is that the British Empire has never ceased to exist. It is still there. Colonialism is still existing, except it is existing under a different name. It has never stopped to try and pull the United States back in, but for some reason, it hasn’t been successful. That is the outcome of this is. Is that what we’re seeing with the deep state idea? Is the deep state that part in the country that tries to reintroduce the United States into the Anglo-American system and the City of London? I have no problem with what you said. As far as I can tell from what you’re telling us, it hasn’t failed in Canada. Their attempt to keep Canada under control has been very successful. Just from listening to how Justin Trudeau took his oath of office. He swore allegiance to the British Crown, to the Queen of England. Doesn’t that bother the Canadians, though?

Matthew: For those who know, it’s a paradigm shifter but there’s a big cognitive dissonance that’s been put there by years and generations of conditioning. In one of the chapters, I go through the creation of a synthetic nationalism in Canada arranged by none other than Lord Milner himself. He ran the Rhodes Trust in 1909 and came to Canada with McIntyre who was the founder of geopolitics in its modern form. But at the time, he was the head of the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics. He quit his job as the Head of the London school based upon an offer made by Lord Milner, who is from the Round Table, who runs through Oxford. So, you have the LSC and then Oxford. He quit his job to come to Canada with Milner to formulate a grand strategy, to figure out how the hell do we keep Canada as a wedge between Russia and the US, and also with Germany because at the time Germany wasn’t a fascist state at all. There are still a lot of anti-colonial, anti-fascist impulses and very high positions of power around the Friedrich List Society and others. So, Milner, actually there’s a quote where he says of the three greatest dangers to the British Empire; the preferred thing is greater cohesion.

So, the top three scenarios for the future regarding Canada are number one, greater cohesion and integration into the British Federation. That’s probably not going to happen, you still have Wilford Laurier, Lincoln admirers, other things so it was not going to happen. He said the greatest danger is greater cooperation with the United States of 1909. That’s the greatest threat to the British Empire, the middle ground is the growth of Canadian nationalism. And he actually says the Canadians are so wonderfully ignorant to the longer forces of history, they feel that they’re superior to the Americans in almost every way. It’s bumptuous and it’s fantastic. Those are his words. It’s fantastic how ignorant they are, and we should go with that angle and craft a new nationalism for them. And that is exactly what became the entire trend of the 20th Century leading up to the creation of the artificial Canadian flag with the maple leaf. That doesn’t mean anything. Unlike other countries, which have flags that mean something, it’s literally just a maple leaf. That’s what it means. And people like Vincent Massey, who was his prodigy, became our first Canadian Governor-General who ran and managed much of this. These were all eugenicists. They created the Canadian Fabian Society as well, which is a whole story run by five Rhodes scholars in 1931.

I mean, Canada, there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance and myths that have been created, that are sacred cows, that our minds are afraid to walk to. But now that we actually see the system demonstrating its true tyrannical hand, which it always had, we didn’t push on it. So, we didn’t get to feel it. But now, as soon as you demand something human, like liberty, you actually see the mask coming off. Now, people, I think they’re much more receptive to figuring out, what the hell is really going on? What is this thing called Canada? And I think that overall, the lessons of great patriots who were ousted in Canadian history. We had our last national government in 1963 that was ousted in a Rhode scholar run coup – 1963, that was our last national government. So, you definitely have a hunger and I think the more people see and think about what Justin Trudeau said in 2017, and look at what has happened, it does piece a lot of things together. The very important thing is a sense of what should a true sovereign nation be. We know what it isn’t now, but what should it actually do? We have some serious objective crises. A breakdown of food production, supply chains, infrastructure. How do we actually manage coherently to make sure our children not only don’t become slaves under this dystopic system but actually have a life that can thrive, where we can invest in a national bank that serves the interest of the people with other nations organizing themselves in a common way. That’s a whole discussion that has to take hold and I think the current protests in Ottawa are a good spark plug. There’s a hunger now like I’ve never seen for these bigger ideas. That is Canadian nationalism asserting itself against the British Crown, in essence. Right? In essence, it’s based on something principled. It’s not quite official. It’s based on the right for the families to work, to have a life, the basic fundamental things.

Reiner: One final question… the power of the City of London combined with its fifth column Wall Street. Is it really true? Did I understand correctly? That all that money, all that power, was capable of starting two world wars – World War I and World War II – with these financial behemoths financing both sides?

Matthew: Absolutely. I feel I’ve taken up too much time.

Reiner: I wanted to make sure that I didn’t misunderstand you. And finally, the two world wars, anyone who can start two world wars probably has no problem, because I wrote this down when you said it, to create diseases like terrorism and drug trade.

Matthew: That in essence is also started or was started by this financial behemoth City of London plus Wall Street. I would add one quick thing on that, which is that the British man – I conducted an interview with Alex Krainer based on a wonderful trilogy he wrote on the original British design for a new world order under people like Lord Halifax. The appeasers of Britain were people like Neville Chamberlain who were part of an operation, which up until 1939-1940 still wanted to have an Anglo-American fascist alliance with Hitler, Mussolini, and others, to manage the world – as a new world order and be forces of the eugenics policy of population control under a scientifically managed society from the top.

That was a design all the way up until the ouster of Neville Chamberlain, when Hitler became a Frankenstein monster that was no longer behaving according to its commands and had bigger ambitions to be at the head of the helm, instead of a secondary enforcer, for the will of a banking class. They had to change strategy and abort that plan. There’s a whole story there. But the oligarchy, the lesson I carry out and I want everyone to carry out of this, is that the oligarchy isn’t. They screw up a lot. They’re not as powerful as they want us to believe they are. It’s intimidation of the mind every time you look at what they’re trying. What they’re trying to do today is not new. They’ve tried many times and usually, it blows up in their face and undermines them too. So, then they have to reorganize and try something new. I do understand now however that Vera Sherav, a Holocaust survivor, says that she can’t believe that she’s fighting the same people, the same structures again, that she fought 75 years ago because it looks as though what happened then is happening again.

Reiner: Matthew, I don’t want to keep my esteemed colleagues from asking any questions, so please go ahead with your questions. Thank you. Thank you so much for your evidence. At the onset of the statement of evidence given, you talk about natural law. As we all know the substantive law that we are using in this grand jury is natural law, I would like to find out from you, based on all the research you’ve done, how important is a natural law for humanity’s survival? And most importantly, how is it related to constitutional law?

Matthew: Thank you, that’s an amazing question. That’s a very good question. In my understanding, all of world history has been shaped by a battle between artificial law. I mean, mankind is the only species that we know of that creates and improves upon the laws of the systems that we self-organize around. Other animals are ordained by their genetics, by their environment, and their wiring to be what they are and that’s great. But human beings are uniquely able to craft conceptions and apply those conceptions to manage wilfully our own existence and then again, identify problems with the so-called invisible metaphysical machine of statecraft and improve upon them. But upon what standard do we improve upon? Upon what centre do we judge our man-made laws to say which one squares with something that is designed by God and which ones are out of whack, out of harmony, that we have to correct? Those are illegitimate or, as Thomas Cleas would say, forms of violence. So, if a law can actually destroy, deprive you of your innate ability to express your life, liberty, happiness, creative powers. If that’s what law is doing, it’s not a law – it’s a form of violence. It does not have to be respected. That’s what the founding fathers from, if you read the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, they were very sensitive to the fact that there is a higher law. It’s not even separate from scientific law, that’s why Benjamin Franklin was both a scientist who discovered principles of electricity that he shared, but in his mind, his discoveries of the laws of electricity were not separated from the metaphysical moral laws that became the foundation of his life’s effort to create a Republic of self-governance premised on the inalienable rights of the individual and not the hereditary institutions that had governed society for thousands of years. That was the first time it was done and again in his world, it was two sides of the same thing.

Real science is not a mathematical description or trying to impose a formula onto the universe and expect the universe to abide by it. It’s about tuning our own creative reason in harmony with that universe that is always going to be more discoverable, and every time we transmit those new eurekas in any domain to our fellow mankind, and then apply it to the productive process, the universe responds by giving us greater standards of living, right? We can sustain more people at a higher standard of life than we could have if we didn’t have electricity if we didn’t have knowledge of fire where we were living like, you know, whatever cattle and calves. But this reciprocal nature that the universe has this quality that mankind has made in the image of that universe under certain conditions, if we abide by those certain principles, as Benjamin Franklin and others understood, we will have greater emancipation. The Empire, the oligarchical system of a hereditary elite, will lose its places to put its claws, like a parasite that it is into the host. It won’t have much to grab onto and it will lose its power and it will self-implode, as I think we’re seeing right now.

Alex Thompson: May I add something very briefly? What we are now seeing in the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom; there’s the jurisdiction of England and Wales, the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, the jurisdiction of Scotland. The court systems in all of these realms, which are basically common law, are starting to arrogate to themselves, at the judicial level, the power to decide mens rea (criminal intent – Chris) . They are further ahead than any common law or civil law jurisdiction in our repeated findings. In asserting that even if there is a jury there for show – and they are seen to be trying to get rid of them now under the spurious claim that international treaty requirements require them to dwindle, the use of juries – even if a jury is there for show, they reserve the right to determine what was in the mind of the perpetrator. And very often now, it’s a drafting which comes from the tax-exempt foundations such as the Carnegie Foundation that I spoke about earlier, via the House of Commons library tells the legislators in Britain, which then will lead other countries in the same way the legislators are told there is an ersatz version of the public good or the public welfare. It’s called collective welfare now. That’s what the foundations were doing all through the 20th Century, creating enemies for that very purpose. And now the courts are saying “if you have offended against society then there is no redress, you are guilty” and that is the furthest towards getting rid of natural law that I’ve seen anywhere.

It’s gone further than any European totalitarian state, any international court. It’s now coming through that the British national level, through legislation ultimately from the think tanks, the abolition of the concepts that natural law decides, whether you’re guilty or not. Can I ask your opinion? If, because we’re seeing this, not a 100% Lockstep in constellation right now, we have these very strict regulations in Australia and Canada and these places. But then you’re saying that in England, they’re basically preparing it from a different angle, so it’s seemingly more relaxed at the moment. But I mean, they’re preparing to finalize the totalitarian grab from through a different angle. Basically, I am absolutely convinced that the United Kingdom is in the lead, the Anglo-Commonwealth is second. And the resistance to this will actually be largely in Central European countries because they give more weight to the rule of law and to the institutions than they do to juries. For example, they will show more resistance, welcome resistance, to this idea.

It is definitely Britain or British-based think tanks that are pushing on our legislators, more than anywhere else in the world. This idea, that if someone meets the requirements in a code, they are convicted with no defene possible. There’s this spurious idea behind it that you have offended against the interests of the common good, I’m afraid. From what Matt said, you understand I think now, who is saying that why, what, they are afraid of. They don’t want any threat to their narrative.

Reiner: Any further questions from Anna or Dipali or Dexter or Virginie?

Viviane: I have one question. Is it possible that not only in Europe but also in the United States, there is a movement that having understood what is going on, is trying to distance themselves? I’m talking about the United States trying to distance themselves from the Europeans, and in particular from the City of London, because we are simply buried under debt, and we carry too much dead weight with us. I’m saying this in layman’s terms.

What do you think, Alex and Matthew?

Alex: For my part, absolutely. In the recent testimony I gave to you I spoke about that. There is a large belt of heartland America that has woken up to this and now sees what they regard as an Anglo or an Anglo-European problem steering them. I think that they are getting heartedly sick of it all because of the amount of treason involved. Just as a codicil to Matt’s testimony about 1971, when the financial coup was pulled off one of the indications that the Americans were being used as hapless pawns in this is that very year Kissinger is said to have said that the military, by which he largely meant the US military, were brute dumb beasts sent to do others’ biddings. And in that same year being the new Secretary of State under the incoming Nixon administration, he got a Massachusetts based manufacturer, the only manufacturer in the world that could produce precision ball bearings – Bryant Chucking Grinder – to supply the ball bearings to the Soviet Union to allow them to develop multiple independent re-entry vehicle warheads, which I know that one of our extra testimonials this evening from Jim Bush, he personally was involved in the American side of that. The amount of treason involved is such that where the United States had even a military or an economic lead, the cabal we’re talking about deliberately abolished that. I get a very strong sense from my extensive US contacts that a large swathe of the Americas does not wish to abolish their Anglo heritage, their common law heritage. But they have completely had it now with British and European intellectual leadership. Makes perfect sense.

Matthew: I don’t want to say I don’t speak too much because we’re going far beyond schedule here, but to say quickly there are fifth columns in Russia. Every country has their own columns. They’ve got their own battles between legitimate forces who represent these cultures versus these other parasitical penetrations. I would say in Eurasia, you have had more serious pushback in a serious way to the point that there is a genuine, I don’t think this is a game I think there’s an actual genuine alternative strategy that has been deployed outside of the framework of the cage of NATO that is imploding and design, it was always designed to implode. I think you’ve got forces within the United States, I see it more currently on the state level, that doesn’t want to go down with the sinking ship. There are forces all over Europe. Unfortunately, the federal executive branches of most of the transatlantic governments have been in large measure captured not entirely always, but at a depressing level. I’m not an expert in geopolitical planning and I do hope that the creative forces can utilize the self-contradictions and insanity of the empire to their benefit since again, this Empire, once it succeeds, can only destroy itself as well.

I see that there are people that want to have a future, that want to survive, and that are organically organizing. I think they need to sharpen up their game plan of what they understand the world to be because a lot of people still think, especially in America, and a lot of people still think, especially in America, and a lot of the Patriots who don’t like The Great Reset, they tend to have fallen for certain traps that have given them a narrative, that – it’s the Cold War narrative, that the real enemy behind everything is not the British Empire. It’s not the oligarchy, it’s not that. It’s the Chinese communists that want to destroy your freedoms, that’s who’s behind everything. And a lot of people fall into that, and I think that to the degree that they hold onto those Cold War narratives, they’re going to self-sabotage their overarching desires to have a successful battle against this oligarchical thing. That’s what I threw out there.

Reiner: Thank you, Matthew. Any further questions from Anna or Dexter or Virginie or Dipali? No further questions for me. None from me either, thank you. What a wonderful presentation. Yes, thank you, Matthew. If there are no further questions, then this concludes your testimony, Matthew. Thank you very much.

Now we will turn to Brian Gerrish and Debbie Evans for their presentation to us.

Brian Gerrish: Reiner, thank you very much for inviting me to do this. You asked for a little bit of an introduction, so I’m going to say that my first career was as a British Royal Navy officer. I was specialized in anti-submarine warfare, I spent a lot of my time finding, tracking Russian nuclear submarines. That was at the height of the Cold War and as time has moved on and as I got older and wiser, I realized that much of what I believed at that time is incorrect. But to give part of my experience was very much within the military system during the Cold War time and when I left the navy in 1993. I was to discover that all was not as it seemed within society and UK and as a result of tracking mainly fraud and corruption in my own city and getting in contact with people who were seeing fraud and corruption in other major UK cities.

I then started to look at organizations which I could see were controlling events. Those organizations were not well known to the public, and where did that take me? It took me ultimately meeting up with a great group of people, and now we are running the UK column producing news three times a week. Previously we produced a written newspaper, but we are constantly analyzing what’s happening, so it’s on the basis of my previous military experience, my experience in the civilian world including analysis through the UK column, that I can give my testimony to you this evening. And I’ll also add, I’m delighted to be joined by a lady called Debbie Evans who’s been doing some very deep research with us, and I felt it was only appropriate that she should be able to give first-hand some indication of what she’s found.

I’ve only got 30 minutes, so I’m going to try and move very quickly. And the first thing I’d like to do is try to bridge the scope of what our initial speakers had to say in their evidence. I believe an analogy would be that they have described the founding, the start-up, and the growth of an organization of gangsters. And we’ve heard about the history. We’ve learned something about the people, their networks, their mode of operation. We’ve had some evidence of world events that show us that these groups are operating. But then I’m going to say that if we look back on how gangsters were dealt with and successfully brought down in the past. If we look at Al Capone or other gangsters, probably America is a good place to go for that sort of image. They were brought down by looking at the crimes they carried out and ultimately collecting the real evidence of the crimes. Whether those were murders, or it was drug running or prostitution, there had to be real evidence of the crime. There had to be the attempt. There had to be the named persons who were involved in those crimes, and it was only when the evidence was brought forward, they could be brought into court and subsequently found guilty, or at least brought before the law and then ultimately served their time.

]I’m going to say that for our jury, which is a world audience, the first two speakers have done a great job of saying that there is a there’s a conspiracy, there’s a group of gangsters that are operating. They’ve got huge power and wealth. What are those gangsters trying to do? I think the aim for those gangsters is world dominance. They want to control everything; society, raw materials, methods of production, people, politics, everything must come under their control. And ultimately, we then say what are their crimes? Well, the crying guy was jotting them down while I was listening to the speakers. We’re looking at oppression. We’re looking at slavery. We’re looking at poverty, hunger. We’re looking at human trafficking and ultimately, we’re looking at death.

And at that point, I believe that we now have a very important, major world event happening and that is the so-called Covid19 pandemic, followed by a vaccination program. Because in my mind the overwhelming evidence is showing that these gangsters are killing people, so we are here as a call to law to talk about the crime. What is the crime? In my view, the crime is death. In previous years, we’ve seen people dying as a result of their created wars but in modern times we’re seeing people dying as a result of the introduction of a pandemic, how that pandemic was handled, and how it is being treated, inverted commerce with a vaccination program.

Now both speakers mention something which I think is very important. Alex talked about how they want to control our minds said they want “civilized control over politically backward people” and that latter quote absolutely shows the arrogance of these individuals, these gangsters, because they believe that any opinion, they hold is the correct opinion, the correct value, and anybody who challenges them is a being who I would ultimately want to remove from their field of operations. And what does that mean ultimately, they would like these people to go away and die. So, let’s remind ourselves and bridge across to the fact that Alex said that this is a battle for our minds, and this is very true at the moment right now.

When I gave you my initial thoughts on what was happening, I said we need to be aware that alongside the Covid19 pandemic and the subsequent vaccination program, we need to be aware that there is a battle for our minds by an applied political psychological attack. So, if I bridge the gap, I happen to have a couple of papers with me. The first one is entitled Mental Health the subtitle is Strategic Planning for Mental Health. It was by a certain jail wreath and interestingly enough, the date on this paper that I hold is October 1940, so in the middle of the second world… at the start of the second world war, I should say. We had a group of people who were later to become very powerful within the World Health Organization system discussing how they were going to implement what they called mental hygiene in the new society. They didn’t mess around because they said that in doing it, they were going to infiltrate social organizations, they were going to attack the professions, they were going to infiltrate social activities and professional societies, and that they were going to unleash a long-term pro plan of propaganda.

I’m going to reinforce that 1940 paper by saying I have another one in my hands which I’m of course happy to share as evidence. It’s entitled Psychiatry. It’s part of the Journal of the Biology & Pathology of Interpersonal Relations. It’s dated February 1946 and it’s talking about the re-establishment of the peacetime society and the author is a certain GB Chisholm. If people research that name, they’ll find another figure who’s deeply connected with the sort of societies that Matt has very concisely put in front of us. Why should we pay attention to this? Because it’s talking about the use of the psychiatric system in order to implement. Yes, this program of mental hygiene, and if our jury wishes to know, what mental hygiene means, it essentially means that you’re not fit to be a human being unless you adopt the views and values, and opinions of the gangsters that we’ve already determined have a plan for domination.

I’m going to say that when I began to research what was happening in the UK from the point of view of crime, fraud, threats, and bullying at a local level, I quickly established to my astonishment that there was a charity. It was called Common Purpose, which was acting in a very political way in creating future leaders. And I was fascinated that these people were installing themselves in UK cities and effectively manipulating, taking control, you could say, of politics within those cities. Here was a group recruiting people they considered to be future leaders, starting to take over the control of cities within the UK.

If I broaden that out within a few years, that organization was operating overseas in countries like Germany, Holland, India, Australia, where they were recruiting people in those countries in order to bring them within an agenda of change agents, to change the way we think and conduct our business in society. And where did this organization come from? It started in about 1985 as a result of one particular lady, the Chief Executive at the time, Julia Middleton, coming back from I believe, Chicago, but certainly America, saying she’d learned some amazing things about how to change society. And the interesting point was that a large sum of money was collected from a number of banks and remember the monetary power has been central to the first two speakers’ dialogue, but Common Purpose was able to get going with funding from major banks that were never disclosed, However, I can say with great confidence that Deutsche Bank was one of the key banks working with that organization.

Why have I brought in Common Purpose? Well, Common Purpose was a key example of an organization you could track. You could see the documents. You couldn’t see the people and you could see that it was unleashing a plan to change our society without the average member of the public understanding this. So, where do we need to go now? I think really, we need to do a little recap on what Alex mentioned because I’d like to bring you back to the mind space document which is my slide number one. If we can bring this up on screen. This document, produced by the British Cabinet Office, was a document where they had been working with psychologists for a long time to learn how to change the way that people thought and behaved without people understanding this was happening. That’s not an opinion by me, because if we go to the second slide and read the text on screen, it says that the government, the British government, would be able to change the way people thought, the way they believed their behaviour, and people would not necessarily recognize that this had happened. It would be subconscious. Their behavior, their thoughts, would have changed but they would not know.

The document further qualifies it by saying that if people did realize how their behavior had changed, they would not necessarily know how it had been done. Now, let me connect that more or less right up to date with the Covid19 pandemic. If we bring slide 3 onto your screen. These are the minutes of the Spy B, as it’s called. It’s part of the British government’s wise scientists group Sage who was commenting on how we should be “fighting Covid” but Spy B was a team of specialists, including behavioural specialists, who were going to use applied psychology to get people to adhere to the British government’s policy on Covid19 and why.

What I draw people’s attention to are two paragraphs. One is at the bottom of the left-hand page, where it says the perceived level of personal threats needs to be increased amongst the complacent using the hard-hitting emotional messaging. Here was a government team advocating the use of applied psychology in order to make people fearful. I would say it’s no wonder that we now have trained psychologists and psychiatrists pointing out the danger of making people fearful, particularly if you use techniques that mean they have no way of grounding where that fear has come from. This is not my opinion. I’m quoting directly from the British government and what is equally concerning is a later paragraph. Seven talks about coercion in which it says consideration should be given to the use of social disapproval but with a strong caveat around unwanted negative consequences. What they’re talking about is using people to police each other people, to say “I’m wearing a mask, you’re not wearing a mask, you’re a bad person, get out of my way”. But the caveats that they introduced to this was because they recognized that this psychological technology could unleash violence in communities.

I have taken in one quick step discussion about how you can dominate people into an area where we are seeing the British Government in 2019 – 2010 which is the original document, but also through to the present day, boasting that it could use applied psychology to change the way people thought and the way people behave. What did they do with that psychology? That psychology was actually sold, initially to America and Australia. Look at what is happening in Australia in relation to Covid lockdown at the moment. But ultimately, the technologies as Debbie will indicate in a few moments were actually sold off worldwide. So now we have world governments able to use this applied behavioral psychology to change people’s views values and behavior and they simply do not know this has been unleashed on them. To reinforce this point, this is a document which I’ve only found very recently. It’s entitled “Behavioral Insights Applied to Policy – Germany Country Overview”. This is an EU document that is effectively boasting of exactly the same thing; how applied behavioral psychology can be used to change community, public, political opinion. And it’s giving a whole list of German organizations which I’m sure will be sorry. I’m sure it will be much more significant to the panel than to me but a lot of them are universities and research organizations. This document is effectively simple proof that these political psychology techniques have certainly been spread throughout Europe.

I’m going to suggest it’s very clear that we have a team of gangsters in power, whether we’re talking the UK or the European Union, or the US. In the hands of these gangsters, we have got a very dangerous way of applying behavioral psychology. Let me now jump to the subject of Covid19 and in particular vaccine effects in the United Kingdom. We have the medicine and health products regulatory organization, the MHRA. That organization supposedly is tasked with keeping the public safe with regard to pharmaceutical products and vaccines. And as part of the vaccination program in the UK, they’ve been collecting data on vaccine adverse reactions which they call the yellow card system. And to date, if I can just find the figures because I noted them down. To date, their own statistics say that there have been nearly one and a half million adverse effects from vaccines and there have been close to 2,000 deaths, with a caveat they have made themselves saying that they believe it likely that only 10% of the vaccine adverse effects that have actually occurred – have indeed been logged. So, of course, that takes the number of deaths from 2,000 to 20,000 and what is interesting, when you do this, is we’re now starting to see vaccine deaths outstrip the dangers of Covid19. But we have to remember that the MHRA, as a government department, is perfectly prepared to use the same skills in applied psychology that the British government has boasted they can use to mislead the public and change their behaviour.

So, when we approach the MHRA , we ask them a simple question: Where is your quantitative risk assessment to show that the vaccine adverse reactions are not resolved to the vaccinations themselves? The MHRA stalls, fails to answer, produces very confusing replies. But the number of it is that this key organization, the MHRA, has not conducted a quantitative risk assessment into the adverse effects of vaccines. I’m going to put it to the panel that we’re effectively in a court that the MHRA, which holds the duty of protecting the public from dangerous pharmaceutical products, knows that people are dying as a result of the vaccination campaign. And I’m going to add, that the British government certainly knows that, but it’s prepared to use psychology in every single verbal written and media font around the dangers of the covid in the vaccine policy.

Just before I hand over to Debbie to get into some of the ways that the system works, I wanted to point out that the whole of the control of Covid19 policy and the so-called health care policy around Covid19, and vaccinations, has been carried out by the British Cabinet Office who have an embedded applied behavioral psychology team with them. So, we know what they’re capable of. They’re boasting of it in their own document and ultimately, we’re seeing the real evidence of people suffering and dying. But I’d like to handover to Debbie because if we follow this trail on, we come to how the system works in the UK at least, where we’re seeing a form of medical fascism between government and the global pharmaceutical industry working alongside universities and charities within what has been named this: the golden triangle. in the UK. So, if I could hand over to Debbie to take the last 15 minutes. Thank you, Brian.

Debbie Evans: Good evening, everyone. My name is Debbie Evans. I’m a retired state registered nurse. I trained at the Royal Free Hospital in London, where coincidentally they’re now nursing Lassa Fever as of today in the UK. And I did postgraduate training at St Bartholomew’s Hospital in the City of London, and I was a government advisor at the Department of Health for the UK government for five years and I’m a medical researcher. Brian led us very, very nicely there into what we call in the UK “loxbridge triangle” or the golden university. The golden university triangle and there is a screenshot of a map of the UK if you can put it up, to show the locations of Oxford, Cambridge, and London in the triangle. I don’t know if you’re able to see it or not. You can see it, fabulous. Cambridge is the highest digital tech center in the UK. It’s ranked 12th in the European digital index, and it’s actually known as Silicon Fenn. It’s got a huge biomedical campus on site. There is a screenshot of the biomedical campus which will tell you what is on the biomedical campus. What’s on it, amongst other things, is Papworth Hospital, which has been moved to the biomedical campus which specializes in heart and lungs. We’ve also got Adam Brooks Hospital, which specializes in donated organs and transplants.

We’ve also been told by Boris Johnson, our Prime Minister, that there will be a cancer research hospital being erected there as well, at a huge cost, despite the fact that cancer rates in the UK have been falling – we’re to have a cancer research hospital. Also on that campus is the medical research council Cancer Research UK which I’ll come back to in a minute the Ann McLaren regenerative laboratory and the NHS blood transfusion center so amongst other things that’s at Cambridge and AstraZeneca’s headquarters with GlaxoSmithKline.

What’s interesting about Cambridge is that Cancer Research UK, which is meant to be a charity, would appear not to be a charity at all. Professor Robert West is a consultant for Cancer Research UK and he’s also on the Spy B team, the behavior team that Brian was just talking about. With regards to Professor Robert West’s wife, Professor Susan Mickey is the Head of the Behavioral Insights team at the Cabinet Office. She’s a lifelong communist, has designed the behavior change wheel, and has rolled that out into many countries. The Behavioral Insights team appears to be global now. With regards to going back to the golden triangle in Oxford, we’ve got one of the most dynamic digital tech economies in the UK, with a big campus there, with Oxford Nanopore, very high tech for a medical campus. Milton Keynes is mentioned in this golden triangle because it’s the UK’s first smart city using sensors, which I’ll come on to, and big tech innovation.

So, going down into London, there is another slide, Med City, if you can see that, which is a knowledge economy. It’s meant to be the digital capital of Europe and it’s been named by Tech Nation, attracting 2.1 billion worth of investments. So, the golden triangle within the UK is where all the attention seems to be focused on and the UK government has just announced it is investing 5.5 billion into infrastructure around the golden triangle, which is sometimes known as the Loxbridge triangle and the “brain curve”, I think it’s known as, as well. So, when we look at the golden triangle and the universities that are involved, we can see that the golden universities, Oxford and Cambridge. I’ve also got attached to them the Russell Group which are 24 universities. Within the Russell Group, which works very closely alongside the golden triangle universities and receives a lot of funding. What I’m seeing is two things coming up ahead. One is that the MHRA in the UK would like to become the global regulator. On their board sits Raj Long, who’s the Deputy Director for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. She specializes in safety and pharmacovigilance and is also the Chief Scientist for Microsoft, so we see huge conflicts of interest there.

We also see some conflicts of interest with regards to the British government to ministers and some of the ministers’ interests are into the big four audit companies: KPMG and Microsoft, also Deloitte, AstraZeneca, Goldman Sachs, and the European Investment Bank. So, a lot of our ministers have conflicts of interest within those areas. What we can see coming up is that Deloitte in particular, I will focus on Deloitte for a minute, because Deloitte, Ernst Young, KPMG, and PriceWaterhouseCoopers take up 67 of global accounting. All four are based in London and Deloittes have been central to the test and trace. Lord Bethel, who has now resigned, had a company that was purely for lobbying on behalf of Deloittes for bids and it’s very concerning to see that. When you see all of these people intertwined with one another, what could be coming up in the future, and I want to go back very quickly to how charities seem to be involved in this as well as government organizations, and what I would call in fact a quango Cancer UK.

I’ve got a book of notes to try and be very quick. Cancer Research UK is funded by many pharmaceutical companies. I would say it’s the research and development center for pharmaceutical companies; AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Bill and Melinda Gates. But also advising Cancer Research UK is Professor Robert West, who’s Professor Susan Mickey’s husband, a Behavioral Insights team funded by Pfizer and funded by Cancer Research UK who are also right in the middle of the Cambridge biomedical campus. As well as that, with regards to the UK government, they published a vaccine hesitancy guidance with interventions on 27th September 2019, way before Wuhan was even mentioned. They are also looking at, and I’m very concerned with regards to, antimicrobial resistance. The UK government has its own UK envoy named Sally Davis, who used to be our Chief Medical Officer, who is the Chief Envoy, the UK Envoy for antimicrobial resistance. And what I’m seeing coming down the line is – we appear to see people being tested for HIV, but according to Forbes, the next pandemic would be expected to be tuberculosis.

I know that Professor Montagnier – I’d like to send my condolence, my sincere condolences to his family and all those that know him by the way, extremely, extremely sad and that he passed recently. Professor Montagnier was mentioning to one of his colleagues with regards to the BCG vaccine (Chris – Tuberculosis vaccine) , and it would appear that Professor Chris Whitty, our Chief Medical Officer, was giving a presentation at Gresham House three nights ago, and was linking also tuberculosis and HIV, and the World Health Organization is very keen on eradicating antimicrobial resistance and TB. We’ve had BCG for TB for a long, long time and it’s thought that the TB levels are rising exponentially including here in the UK. We’re now seeing new vaccines being developed for TB and new testing facilities for TB, so I’m looking down the pipeline and seeing references to tuberculosis. I’m also looking at cancer and dementia because that would appear to be on the rise as well, in particular with regards to cancer.

We don’t know the long-term side effects of the vaccine and, or whether it could be carcinogenic but certainly one of the antivirals that they’re using here in the UK and the UK alone, Molnupyravir, would appear to be carcinogenic, teratogenic (Chris – congenital deformations), and mutagenic (DNA mutation). We’re using it here on a clinical trial with panoramic so patients that are receiving it are immediately hooked up to the trial.

I don’t know if you’re aware of the SPARS pandemic 2025 to 2028 which was a futuristic scenario and I think Brian could probably show up a copy of it. I think he’s got one handy there. It is the SPARS pandemic 2025-2028 which was a futuristic scenario from the John Hopkins Center on what would happen if a coronavirus infected the world basically, and it takes you on a month-to-month basis. So, what you could expect from the media, what you can expect from pharmaceutical companies, what you can expect from governments with regards to lockdowns, with regards to testing, with regards to antibiotics, and also antibiotic resistance.

So, antimicrobial resistance is a really big subject, one that pretty much everybody’s looking at. The World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the UK government, pretty much every government in the world is looking at antimicrobial resistance. So, I’m looking at, thinking, well maybe possibly we could be looking at superbugs in the future with regards to going back – sorry to go back to the big four again – but it would seem that we also have conflicts of interests with regards to those.

The CEO of Deloitte has now retired but is on the board of Pfizer. We also had the UK government, Hansard, I think. I’ve actually got the Hansard numbers in May 2014. There was to be a merger between Pfizer and AstraZeneca but the UK government was very undecided about it so there is a reference in Hansard in volume 753. It was debated on 6th May 2014 and again in column 161 on 7th May 2014 with the past Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, talking so our British government is in it up to their necks, I believe, with regards to pharmaceuticals.

We seem to be heading for a global life science superpower. Since we’ve left Brexit, most of the agenda is with regards to life sciences and how we can be the global life science partner. Cancer Research UK and the Frances Crick organization work together, and they purely are funded pretty much by public donations but also by big pharma. There are also mainstream media adverts going out for a company called Omaze and it’s a competition line, where you can win a £3m house but donations and proceeds go to Cancer Research UK. Some of the funders of Cancer Research UK, which are based on the Cambridge biomedical campus, are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Google the World Economic Forum, Imperial College Cambridge, UKRI, Bank of England, AstraZeneca, Crick Institute, CQC, and the BBC. So, they are very, very heavily funded and I don’t think the public knows this when they’re jumping out of airplanes trying to raise money for cancer research.

Professor Whitty and all of our experts tell us that cancer rates are falling. However, we appear to be testing healthy people in the UK for cancer using Bill Gates, his company: Grail, which was a joint venture with Jeff Bezos. It’s now been contracted to work within the National Health Service in order to use genome sequencing for cancer. We’re testing healthy people and I would ask why we’re testing healthy people? The reason that the government is giving is that the cost, the burden, and the cost of cancer and aging and dementia is so high that we need rapid acceleration of diagnosis, rapid acceleration of treatment. So, basically, safety goes pretty much through the window as in the vaccine development, which is now going to be under Bill and Melinda Gates and Patrick Valance’s 100-day mission. So, any other pandemic that could be called, you can guarantee that you’ll have a vaccine within 100 days according to the 100-day mission, but I don’t know if anybody wants to ask any questions.

I’m very aware of time and that you’re running over, so I don’t want to take up too much of the floor. I would like to ask questions of each of you please, pertaining to the psychological manipulation that’s been going on.

Anna: I’m Anna Garner from New Mexico, the United States. Ms. Evans, you mentioned that you had been a government advisor to the Department of Health, and this is very pertinent here because I feel that this has been going on in the United States extensively. As an advisor to the public health department, have you been aware that they use the behavioral psychology psychological techniques that Mr. Gerrish discussed, as a way of enforcing their agenda of coercion and social isolation coercion of people undergoing experimental medical interventions? Have you noticed that is part of their operating modus operandi shall we say?

Debbie: When I was an advisor at the Department of Health, what was becoming blatantly obvious, was that any advisor was really there as a tokenistic approach and that we weren’t actually being listened to. Many of us were ignored. I wouldn’t say that we were coerced. I certainly don’t feel as though I was coerced into saying or doing anything. I’m pretty strong, so I did challenge. In fact, probably my challenging people was causing more of an upset because I wasn’t compliant, but it was purely tokenistic. But as coercion, yes, I could see huge problems within the civil service. Many personal problems, many bullying. I was got very close to one of the senior civil servants on our particular board that was run by the then Norman Lam, who was the Secretary of State, and there was a huge amount of bullying. There was a huge amount of competition within the civil service. We did notice that but as an advisor, I wasn’t part of the civil service, so it was my observations.

Anna: not to interrupt you or anything, but what I was referring to, was the psychological techniques of basically coercing the people, as opposed to people who are involved in the advising but rather the public.

Brian: Could I help here? Yes. Can I respond as part of the research that the UK column did – we did through the UK column? One of the areas that we were very interested in was training within our National Health Service by this charity selecting future leaders. So, this was Common Purpose, so we saw manipulation of people and their values by this particular organization. And it morphed into a specific sector of the NHS called NHS Leaders and these supposedly were fast-tracked people who were going to lead the NHS into even better health care. But what we see is that as these leaders with their newly acquired values were unleashed, the management style in the NHS became increasingly domineering and bullying and the ideas became less and less about the care and treatment of people who were ill or injured, and it became much more about the importance of profits and money within the NHS. And I’m going to say it was apparent that the psychology of people was being manipulated.

We have on the UK column website an article which is entitled Towards a Million Range Agents and that was not our title. That was the title of a paper written by an NHS Common Purpose trained individual who said that the NHS in order to reach, my words, a future utopia, was going to need a million change agents and what do they mean by that? People who were going to disrupt the performance of the NHS in order to get it to transition, to transform into what was supposed to be a world-class health provision. I can give that to you as one specific example where we were looking at how the management and leadership inside the NHS had changed, but I’ll give you a very simple one about applied psychology in the NHS during the Covid crisis because mantras were introduced instead of medical decisions nurses and doctors started to follow mantras.

One of the ones that we were told about by a fully qualified, a highly qualified doctor, in the last few days is and relatives of somebody who had suffered was that the mantra was Covid unvaccinated death pathway, and that is simply if the person was deemed or labeled as having Covid. If it was determined they were unvaccinated, the only result of their healthcare treatment was the death pathway. There is no question that these particularly three-word mantras that we’ve seen used by the government, in particular, have been driven through the NHS, to the extent that qualified doctors have said to us they’ve been amazed when they cannot discuss genuine government figures on, for example, vaccine adverse reactions because the person simply turns away or refuses to talk to them or becomes very aggressive. The psychologists’ support that we’re able to call on at the moment is self-witnessing, is a cognitive dissonance in individuals, the result of their mental values being rebranded.

So, I could talk for a long time on this but I’m going to say, yes, we are certainly seeing that there is the application of avoid psychology in many areas in the NHS and its overall effect is a degradation of healthcare treatment to the extent people are being killed when they could have survived quite happily had they been given the right treatment.

Anna: Yes, thank you for that clarification and I had a follow-up question for you as well Mr. Gerrish and that was: this psychological operation by definition seems to be very subtle and below most people’s level of awareness, that they are being manipulated. If that’s the case, do you have any opinion about how those people can be reached in a way that can wake them up? I hear about the psychological dissonance and that sort of thing, the cognitive business, is there a way in which these people can be encouraged to see what’s really happening? That they are being manipulated this way.

Brian: Right, that of course, is the very important question and the response, and I qualify myself here because I’m not professionally trained in Psychology. But as a result of my work and investigation over the mayor and advice I’ve received from fully qualified people I’m going to give this as personal comment, but I believe it to be very accurate.

If you apply a form of hypnosis to people, the effect on a target audience generally forms a bell curve. You will find some people can be completely hypnotized. I have stages demonstrate this when people will go and do things they won’t normally do in front of an audience because they’re in a trance-like state. But if we use morse forms of manipulation, the effect on the target audience is a bell curve so some people are very consumed with the message that’s been put across, but it drops off either side to some people who are untotally and indications to us to date, and this is also supported by qualified psychologists, is that in the first instant, we need to concentrate on the people who clearly not affected in order to spread the warning message to what’s happening. We clearly need to be targeting the professions of psychology and psychiatry to say this is the abuse of those particular professions, particularly clinical psychology and psychiatry which we can say has got a health beneficiary result. And also, to realize that people who have been subjected to this form of reframing or mind manipulation are victims and therefore they need to be treated in a very gentle and reassuring way. Because if we come at them in a very blunt way, black and white way, to try and make them see the truth, the result is that either they’re going to become very hostile with cognitive dissonance, or possibly they’re going to become unwell mentally as a result of the immense assault on their value system.

Can I say to you, it is very significant that in all the documentation about the British government’s use of applied psychology to get its political agenda enacted, there is absolutely no assessment as to what the adverse effects of such psychology may be on people who perhaps have underlying mental health issues, anxiety or depression, and indeed where people have got undiagnosed mental health conditions? So, they’re not even aware that they’ve got a problem, somebody is using this psychology on them. You can do immense damage and I believe it is no coincidence that the official statistics in the UK now show that the lockdown policy has caused a huge surge in suicides and mental illness, particularly among people, tragically amongst young people, but again we can demonstrate that the UK government is hiding or manipulating the data sets that show this, or they’re using applied psychology in the way they present those data state sets to the public in order to further mislead the public. This is the nature of the beast.

Once you understand that you have, what I’m going to call a criminal political system, that has the ability to use applied psychology to change the way the public thinks, we’ve got a very, very dangerous weapon in the hands of these elitists and this is easily evidenced. I’ve put up a key document where the spy being was boasting that we need to make people more fearful, more anxious, and there are many other documents that are also demonstrated for the benefit of the Germans amongst the audience on the team, that applied behavioral psychology has now been let loose within Germany. Certainly, within France, because one of Sarkozy’s personal teams, a gentleman called Oliver Willier had meetings in the UK facilitated by the Franco British council in 2010 to discuss how French neurological and psychological experts were going to work with the British in order to develop these political, these applied psychological attack techniques.

The evidence trail is there. It’s when you know what you’re looking for, it’s obvious. But my goodness, this is the most dangerous thing I believe we’ve ever seen. If you have propaganda and political manipulation within Nazi Germany, in many ways it could be seen, the parades, the banners, the lights, the rhetoric, the posters. But what we’ve got unleashed on us now, is a subliminal attack on our minds and until we bring the full light to this, it’s going to be very, very difficult for us to take the lid off. What these people are doing through their Covid and vaccination attack on people, each of the pharmaceutical companies has access to this psychological weapon, each of the legal companies they consult. I’ve forgotten PriceWaterhouseCooper what do we call these companies? We see charities, industry, public bodies working with the British government everywhere. We know that the use of psychology is spread between them, so we’ve got to start talking about this in a very big way and we’ve got to be first of all dealing with the people who are unaffected. They realize something’s wrong, but they don’t know what it is.

Then there’s the public. Equally, they could be very intelligent and highly qualified professionals and I’ll leave you to think about a well-qualified psychologist who said to me that’s hearsay but I’m going to repeat it. He said to me “Brian, the thing to remember is that people who are intelligent and have highly questioning minds can be more susceptible to the use of hypnosis reframing applied psychology than somebody who’s less intelligent and has less of an inquiring mind.” So, it is very wrong if anybody is thinking, well I’m a bright person, I’m intelligent, I’m highly qualified this wouldn’t affect me. On the contrary, you may be more vulnerable. The cascade of information the NHS professionals that I’m speaking to and all of them that I’m speaking to are completely confused. They’re having a cascade of information every single day. Things are changing. They don’t know.

Debbie: I see NHS professionals doing things that would be completely alien to them like giving respiratory depressants to respiratory patients. It’s alien to what we have been taught so people are frightened, and I would echo what Brian said, you know people when they are starting to wake up they’re scared, they don’t know what’s happening, they need us to reassure them because at the moment the agenda is confusion, chaos, and crisis. And you know, going back to what Brian said about Deloittes and the big four, I mean for anybody that doesn’t know who Deloittes are, they’ve written papers on the future of the City of London, the clinical trials. Their past CEO is now a board member of Pfizer. They’re involved in the NHS. They’re involved in corporate intelligence, as are the other three. And clearly, when Brian was mentioning SPARS pandemic, that goes hand in hand with operation clay decks and crimson contagion now Playdex was held by the John Hopkins University in 2018 I think simulating 900 million deaths and crimson contagion another exercise as well that went on during the Trump reign for a response to a pandemic, an ongoing pandemic of flu. All of this has been well documented.

In the patent for the Covid testing by the Rothschilds, which again everything that we can see within that patent in the main paper, we’re seeing being rolled out now, including bio sensors. Many people have spoken about RFID chips but not many people are speaking about the advent of biosensors and how biosensors don’t need the internet. You can have them in your clothes, on the sole of your shoes. They can be in your food. And biosensors seem to be the way things are going to the point that there is a Biosensor Institute here in the UK, in Bristol, and the MHRA has actually approved one of the sensors because you’ll have bio people who have bio sensors in their cars, on their laptops, and their biometric data will be fed back. All all of your biometrics – are you fit to drive the train, are you fit to drive a coach, are you fit to do anything, your biometric data will be stored, and it will be – it’s happening now.

If I put a little summary on that, what we are seeing is a political system integrated with global commercial companies, pharmaceutical companies, unleashing an agenda that has been to test vaccines on a population without any care for the damage and the dying. Where are they going? They’re going for manipulation of our genes, there’s no question of this, and Britain, all the data we’re seeing at the moment is that the UK says it is going to take the world lead in putting this agenda together. The UK, and I’ll qualify that, and say I believe this would ultimately be driven by the City of London, but all of the UK documents say we will take the world lead, and this is the same UK that’s unleashed this malicious applied psychology to change the way our cognitive processes work. It’s a very, very dangerous combination and my final point.

Reiner: Alex, is the unique selling point for the United Kingdom, the National Health Service?

Alex: There is no way to opt out of it so from the moment you’re conceived, and you’ve had a pregnant mom’s scan, there’s data on that particular human being until the day we die. There’s no way of opting out of the NHS, so NHS data is very, very precious and it’s completely unique to the rest of the world. If we could succinctly illustrate that with the one slide I didn’t show, I think it actually summarizes what Brian and Debbie have said. It’s a slide that UK column has used quite a lot of, an organogram of the British government’s ruling agency, the Cabinet Office with a new group in the decade since I left.

British intelligence called the National Security Council like the American example from the FDR era. It’s not original and not constitutional and all of the bodies that fall off away from the Cabinet Office under its control on that organogram are to do with controlling the agenda and to answer the question that was asked here to stop us from being able to show more people what the paradigm is to stop them from being afraid by the applied psychology that is being got to them, the military is involved, there’s a 77 signals, a 77th regiment, a 13 signals brigade. There are entirely new British government security agencies, the so-called health security agency, the joint bios security center – all these new since my time, and the buck stops with this Cabinet Office. All the good studies of the Cabinet Office will show that the leading committees there have a direct line to the City of London. They represent elite corporate will, there is no democratic control, and even the personal crown, the monarch, is not involved.

I don’t know whether that was shown on screen a moment ago or not, but people can also easily find it as one of the main UK column graphics on the Cabinet Office censorship network. What we’re dealing with is a British system of psychiatric manipulation which has been sold worldwide more or less. We have the City of London again aiming for world control.

Reiner: Is that why the Common Purpose people are creating their own future leaders? Is that a special position apart from the young global leaders’ program?

Alex: Well, as with these things, the attack comes in from parallel directions so I would strongly suggest that many people with Lupus network will have no idea of what the wider objective is they are recruited in. The time I was really researching in detail somebody would be recruited locally and asked to join. It wasn’t as if people were going to Common Purpose to join. Common Purpose sought out the people they wanted, and the agenda was clearly to train that future leader to work with other common future leaders and this is why so significant when you see Common Purpose now operating. For example, very strongly in India and former Prime Minister David Cameron was part of the team promoting Common Purpose in India so Common Purpose is one of the routes by which people are being recruited and reframed.

The World Economic Forum young global leaders would be another route by which probably more powerful people are recruited reframed to bring them in line with what their new role is so Common Purpose is particularly operating at low level, public level, in the first instance but as time went on from 1985, it was clear to see that they got involved the corporate the big global price much more strongly. From there they’ve gone to their world status but we’re selecting people, their egos are being stroked because somebody’s suggesting they’re going to become a very important future leader. The World Economic Forum calls them global leaders and then these people are being put together in order to change the world. That is the objective.

Reiner: Thank you very much. I think our next witness Whitney Webb is under a little bit of stress. I hate to cut you off, but we have to give her a chance to maybe fill in the gaps which we will try through asking questions. Unless my esteemed colleagues have any further questions, we would very much like to thank all three of you for your excellent presentations and then we will switch to Whitney, is that okay?

Well, thank you very much Brian and Alex and Debbie. This is very important as far as the geopolitical and historical background of what we’re witnessing is concerned and messy. Whitney, one of the questions that I keep asking myself is: what is the role of China in all of this? If you look at this as an Anglo-American or City of London-dominated game, really what is the role of China in this?

Hi, can you hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you before. Okay, great.

Whitney Webb: I’m not really a China expert but I have done some work on the transnational networks of capital and influence. I guess you could say from the nexus that people have been talking about so far today, the City of London Wall Street nexus, and how they’re very influential in China. Probably the most accessible example is Steve Schwartzman, Blackstone Capital, who finances a program at a very prestigious Chinese university. It’s his personal vision of the young global leaders’ program of the west in a sense. The Blackstone Group is intimately related to Blackrock having come out of that same sphere in Wall Street. He’s considered one of the US-China whisperers. The original figure in American politics to have that sort of title was Henry Kissinger. Beyond that you have someone like Henry Paulsen who was Secretary of Treasury under George W. Bush, previously Goldman Sachs – he’s also very intimately involved in China. He has a focused philanthropic foundation. Another individual would be like Bloomberg who actually resurrected an event that used to be hosted by the World Economic Forum in China. I believe it was called The Annual Meeting of the New Champions and continued in 2018. Since 2018, it’s been the Bloomberg New Economy Forum which is specifically focused on the US-China relationship and what happens there. The decisions made at that meeting facilitate creating this particular system that people have been discussing.

The sort of technocratic control grid, jointly constructed by the US and Chinese leadership. Something that I wrote about a couple years ago was an organization called the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence headed by Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google. It was in that commission. It was mainly Silicon Valley, the US, military and the US intelligence community represented. In 2019, before Covid, they talked about the need to either beat China in the AI arms race or work together with China in the construction of this sort of driven technocratic control grid as a way to avert world war.

This was promoted by Henry Kissinger in one of the events of this particular commission and Eric Schmidt emphasized. It ties in with the Great Reset, as it’s often called, going on across the world but in the US specifically. In this context the effort to completely digitize every sector of the economy and society in order to amass data and to use that data to train AI algorithms, basically the EU, with this Commission. The forces represented there see it as necessary for the US to maintain its current military and economic hegemony to have the best AI algorithms thus, they need to have the biggest stores of data. They recognize that China, because of its large population and more technological control systems already in place, are far ahead of the US in terms of amassing that type of data. The US knew this organization, before Covid, was talking about the need to urgently force people to do everything online from shopping to teleworking and all of these things, to telemedicine, and of course there was a huge push for that during Covid19. While they frame this sort of new Cold War type of context, they say within their own documents that there’s a need to do this alongside China to essentially create the same system in a parallel way and collaboratively in order to avert world war. This is essentially what is happening at events like the Bloomberg New Economy Forum and things like that.

I don’t know if you want me to go any further because there’s a time limit and I have to go in 30 minutes.

Reiner: The social credit system, whose invention is it really? The Chinese? When I say Chinese, I mean the Chinese leadership not the Chinese people it was it invented by the Chinese leadership or was this invented in cooperation with the City of London Anglo-American financial interests.

Whitney: I’ve never really written about the origin of that system. I don’t think I’m the right person to talk to about that specifically but from what I understand, there is a biometric technocratic system that exists within China that was developed by Chinese leadership or at least with their blessing and implemented by the government over there.

It’s worth pointing out as well that ever since the opening up of China during the Nixon era which involved Henry Kissinger quite intimately, there has been a lot of going between the leadership of China despite them being publicly labeled Communist with the same transnational networks of western capital and negotiations with western leadership that ultimately have their governments essentially co-opted by that same transnational network of capital.

Vivianne: We see like someone like Henry Kissinger popping up over and over again, but has that changed in the meantime?

Whitney: It’s not so much individual figures but more like a network of people connecting in between these different areas of interest. I think Kissinger is definitely on the way out because of his age and has been for some time. There’s a lot of the people he mentored, specifically when he was teaching at Harvard, that have come out to be the new generation of Kissingers as it were, with a Klaus Schwab probably being a leading example of that in particular.

I see Matthew has the comment and he probably is more qualified to talk on some of these things than myself because I was under the impression I was going to be talking about Dark Winter and Anthrax, but I can continue to talk about this if you prefer.

Matthew: If you want to talk about Dark Winter and Anthrax, you should do that. I thought the presentation was over. No, it’s fine.

Reiner: Do you have an answer to that question? What is the role of China in all of this, Matthew?

Matthew: I wanted to ask, are you guys familiar with Soros getting kicked out in ‘89 in the ouster of Zhao Ziyang and the club of Rome in China? No, I didn’t know that. Xiaoping is, I can maybe speak for one minute, but I recall Zhao Ziyang with Soros’ man in China. He was called the Gorbachev of China and he ran the Chinese communist party for two years in 87, 88, 89, he actually ran a think tank with Soros and brought in Alvin Toffler, the trans humanist. He called for the fourth industrial revolution and brought in the club of Rome and their computer models to manage the one-child policy in 79-80. That was one of his key collaborators.

The whole 80s was an effort to get a Yeltsin process of Perestroika in China, which was happening in Russia, to privatize their entire banking system and bring in the technocrats, Milton Friedman, everything. But he was ousted because there was a coup d’état in 89 that he was supposed to run with the CIA MI6. I shared an article on it but it’s useful to look at these anomalies like why Soros is not allowed to operate in China for the past 30 years, whereas he’s running the west coast. That’s something I could address later because I know Whitney’s brilliant, and I don’t want to…

Reiner: Try to give us the very basics of that, okay? I mean the very basics.

I think it has a lot to do with what Guterres warned about when he said that two different opposing paradigms are emerging around AI geopolitics last year or not even, it was last November. But up until 2010-11, Soros was still saying that China is the role model because they like the social credit, they like the technocratic controls, the centralized controls. They love that stuff – the transhumanist Borgs in the west, they love that. They don’t like the actual utilization of national credit because China never privatized their central bank and they also don’t like the large-scale infrastructure development, the high-speed rail, all this stuff that pulls people out of poverty, like a billion people in 20 years. They hate that, they don’t like the idea of a nation-state determining their economic destiny so there’s a fight over AIs not going away. A lot of these things aren’t going away, and China’s been penetrated with deep state columns like fifth columns for a long time that they’ve been trying to purge back.

Jack Ma is a great example of the World Economic Forum trustee who called for the overthrow, essentially economic regime changes in China last year. He was taken out, totally stripped of power. You have evidence of these fights, especially with the Shanghai Clique of billionaires who have been allied with the western liberalists. Russia has the same thing too. They’ve got their own fifth columns around their liberal privatized central bank tied to the west. That’s tied to a lot of these big pharma networks inside of Russia so there are fights going on all over the place, but I think the military encirclement of China and Russia is a serious issue that people should think about. There is something frightening the oligarchy such that they are. I don’t know where your thoughts on that. Why would they put so much effort to do a full containment, full spectrum dominance of China and Russia?

Reiner: Whitney, James Bush is with us, and he is going to give us the details on Operation Dark Winter, Rockefeller, Lockstep and Event 201 but if you can introduce us to that, that will probably be very helpful.

Whitney: Well, I was going to talk about something that’s probably a little separate from him, more like the importance of Dark Winter. Some of the parallels between 2001 and in some of the figures that Covid and Anthrax have in common, things like that, so I’ll be pretty brief about it. I’ll let him since I guess he was there. No, talk about Dark Winter in detail but for those that don’t know, it was a simulation of a smallpox outbreak that also included a potential threat of an Anthrax attack within it. It predicted major parts of what would then become the September 11th, 2001, narrative. People who participated in that exercise in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 show the parent for knowledge of those attacks, the Anthrax attacks that would follow soon afterwards. So, we have the simulation preceding the event there and then Event 201, we have that as well. You also have Crimson Contagion which I believe Debbie mentioned a little bit ago.

That’s significant because the person who came up speaks the name Dark Winter within the exercise. Robert Cadlick was the human, the HHS assistant secretary for preparedness and response under the Trump administration that led that exercise, Crimson and Contagion in 2019. After the 2001 Anthrax attacks, he assumed a lot of power and essentially constructed the assistant secretary position over the course of basically 20, a little under 20 years. He occupied it at the time Covid happened to take place. How coincidental. But the Crimson Contagion is significant because it didn’t last a couple of days like Event 201 or Dark Winter. Some of these other ones actually went on from January 2019 to August 2019 and involved public-private cooperation. It occurred at the federal level, the regional level, the local level, at the municipal level essentially and was very extensive. You could argue, a little more predictive of what would come later in Event 201, even in the sense that it was focusing on the outbreak of a pandemic influenza within China whereas Event 201 placed the album taking place in South America.

But a lot of these, Event 201 and Dark Winter, involved some very significant connections, mainly the people involved in both of those, Thomas Inglesby, had ties to organizations like the Institute for Homeland Security created in the late 90s. That was intimately tied to the CIA and some other institutions which also had intelligence links. Beyond the commonalities of these two simulations between the Anthrax attacks and Covid, you have the spectre of gain, of function research being very prominent. In the case of Anthrax in 1997, the Pentagon created plans to genetically engineer a more potent variety of Anthrax, allegedly because a Russian scientist had claimed to have created a strain of Anthrax that was resistant to the standard Anthrax vaccine and animal studies but not necessarily for the purpose of biowarfare biodefense. But the Pentagon used this to justify the gain of function experiments and at the same time in 1997, the CIA also began gain of function experiments on Anthrax. These experiments were at a facility called Patel located in West Jefferson, Ohio, that currently has ties to the Leslie Webster Foundation for people familiar with his role in the Epstein network. He also does contract work for the CIA and the military. I’m not going to go into extreme detail on this but basically a CIA asset at the time, a defector from the bioweapons’ biodefense program of the Soviet Union, Ken Alabeck, was the program manager for these gain of function studies at Battelle and he and another figure named William Patrick, who wasn’t initially suspected of the attacks, but then added to the investigation i.e., a cover-up of those attacks, with people leaving that gain of function research.

Most people that look into the Anthrax attacks are aware that Bruce Ivins was not a lone wolf in all of this and are aware of how the narrative is inaccurate including several US attorneys. At the time, Ivins had a very untimely suicide, it was believed that Patel was responsible and a serious 2001 Anthrax researcher I’m aware of thinks Patel was the site for the Anthrax that was actually used in the attacks. Moving on to another parallel biosurveillance solution, this is arguably one of the most critical in the context of what we’ve been talking about here today. After the Anthrax attacks and 911, there was a push to create a system within DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) called Total Information Awareness.

One of those programs was the biosurveillance program which was aimed at developing “necessary information technologies” and resulting prototypes capable of detecting the covert release of a biological pathogen automatically. This would be accomplished by the monitoring of non-traditional data sources, pre-diagnostic medical data and behavioral indicators obtained from civilian data. Even though it claimed to be focused on bioterrorist attacks, it wanted to acquire early detection capabilities for any sort of normal disease outbreak as well that would then be automated with some of the precursors to today’s artificial intelligence algorithms. It basically wanted to be a massive data mining program – that was essentially the goal. The Total Information Awareness was shot down by Congress because it said it would eliminate civil liberties for Americans entirely in that the right to privacy would no longer exist. It was scrapped but the architects of Total Information Awareness including neoconservative figure, Richard Pearl, worked hand in glove with Peter Thiel and Alex Cart to create Palantir which is the private sector successor of Total Information Awareness, which had been in a public-private partnership with the US military.

Palantir wasn’t so involved with the military after its creation. It was more intimately involved with the CIA. The CIA helped them create their product and the CIA was their only client from 2005 to 2008. Some aspects of the Total Information Awareness program which was scrapped. The Biosurveillance program had been resurrected in the cobot area era under people like Robert Cadlick in the monitoring of wastewater systems to detect disease outbreaks. That was all planned out during that earlier period of time and it’s no coincidence that all the data modern-day, now in the Covid era, if you want to call it that, is being fed into a database being managed by Palantir. The UK NHS Covid data is being handled by Palantir as well, So, it’s the Anglo-American Total Information Awareness control grid that’s come up in Palantir. It certainly doesn’t get the attention it deserves but their origins go back to this particular period of time and in 2001, many more of the same actors were involved in setting it up. It’s also worth pointing out that Peter Thiel is a major funder of right-leaning media including in the alternative media sphere, so I’ll leave that there because that’s for another time.

The last thing I want to point out is that both the Anthrax situation and what happens with Covid19 is the fortuitous rescue of imperiled vaccine companies with deep ties to the US military. The first one would be Bioport which today is Emergent Bio Solutions. They changed their name in 2004 because of the controversy around their Anthrax vaccine, they had a monopoly on the production and in the sale of it to the US military, the US. The same network responsible for the Anthrax attacks mandated the use of the Anthrax vaccine for US troops. It ended up causing what is often referred to as Gulf War Syndrome in a litany of adverse effects. They were bailed out by the Pentagon multiple times as their factories were being shut down repeatedly because of violations of safety regulations and health regulations amongst other things.

They didn’t use the money to fix those factories. They were using executive bonuses and executive office refurbishments among other things which are quite typical in these circles it seems. They teamed up with Patel at the end of 2000. As I mentioned, Patel was doing this gain of function research for the Pentagon and the CIA at the time and the research entered a new phase when this partnership began because it directly involved the Anthrax vaccine. The Pentagon was going to release a report on how to continue their mandatory Anthrax vaccine program without this company in September 2001. This is derailed by 9/11 because the administrative wing working on the report was hit by a plane on September 11, 2001, essentially ending that inquiry. Donald Rumsfeld decided to rescue that program. The concerns heard in Congress and throughout the US political system at the national level during that time about this particular vaccine product disappeared in the panic of the Anthrax attacks. It was replaced with calls not just to make the vaccination campaign mandatory for the military but for first responders, for teachers, firefighters, policemen and so on and of course the pit. The commonality in terms of that sort of company today is Moderna which they’ve even admitted now was going to collapse if it wasn’t for Covid19 coming at the exact time it came. I want to stress that a month or two of difference and they would have totally gone under.

Moderna has very deep ties to the US military, DARPA specifically, which has been funding them since, I believe, 2012. For more information on either of those things, you can go to my website unlimitedhangout.com and look at the investigative series engineering contagion on the Anthrax issue, and then I have one called Mederna about Moderna. I forget the exact name of the series I think it’s called Mother Nature’s Miracle or something like that for Covid19. I’ll stop there because I have 10 minutes in case you wanted to ask about another topic or issue.

Vivianne: A quick question – these emerging biosolutions – they’re involved in the production of the vaccines now, is that right? Yes, well initially, they were, I think, after they produced, I believe six.

Six is a very significant number of doses for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine that were deemed contaminated and unusable. I think they were scrapped but it’s worth pointing out that Robert Cadlick, who I mentioned earlier, has long-running deep ties to that company and actually founded a separate company with the founder of Emergent Biosolutions – and even the Washington Post was forced to admit he showed them favoritism in awarding of contracts for Covid19. Despite the really horrendous track record and complaints within the system, they were given contracts to produce vaccines. I forget exactly which companies were doing it, but the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was one and they got a lot of push back. I’m not sure if they’re still manufacturing that, but I would say some of these mRNA companies, specifically Moderna have now shifted to using a new company that was created during the Covid era called Resilience to produce their RNA specifically for their vaccine, that has people from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the FDA, the Pfizer board, a member of the 911 Commission, the head of NQTEL, the CIA’s venture capital firm among other groups producing their products. That company was created in November 2020 and they’re hoping to produce mRNA going forward within the United States and Canada.

It seems there’s some infighting going on. There are all these different interests pulling in the same direction but it’s not clear who’s going to be the leader of the pack. I think the end fighting is more over the pro so much that at the end of the day, the agendas of both of the mRNA companies Moderna and BioNTech, which is being used by Pfizer, both of them have come under a lot of pressure recently. Their share price is more or less collapsing and this is due to the fact that there’s a decision in the United States that forces Pfizer to more or less declassify the documents that they wanted to hide from the public. And all of a sudden there’s a recent interview by an investment banker by the name of Ed Doud who explains this in great detail. All of a sudden when people can see what’s really going on, they decide to dump the shares, so the rescue seems not to really have worked but that is only as a result of other people exposing what’s really going on right? Which I don’t think they anticipated necessarily because it proves Matthew’s point that they don’t really have everything under control. I would agree with that as well and I think that’s why we’re seeing them for example in various countries, particularly western countries, roll back restrictions. For the time being, as Leanna Nguyen, one of the CNN medical experts said this was so that public trust could be restored so we can use these measures again in the future for pandemic, or an event to that extent.

If you look at the World Economic Forum, their theme for last year was rebuilding trust with the public so this is something that really concerns them, the lack of trust the public have and the elites. I think they’re this mindset still. Even if they start to not trust us en masse, what are they going to do about it? I think that’s essentially where this is. But I think they’re also planning to try and ramp up different things that are not necessarily covered as that particular narrative crumbles, to try and keep people divided and distracted and confused by the massive information coming out all the time. As people have explained before, PSYOP, the psychological operation side of what’s going on.

Vivianne: Are there any further questions from you Virginie or Dexter or Anna or Dipali? No questions for me. Thank you very much, Mrs. Webb.

Vivianne: Yes, thank you very much. We’ll now do a little insertion of some witnesses because we have to for the records and for the audience to see what’s really going on. I think we have to. It’s so crazy. Through these two years, we sometimes seem to forget what we used to have. What we used to think was the normal way things would be handled, that you could choose without like deception, whether you wanted to have a medical treatment or whether you wanted to protest against something without having to deal with the police and so on and so we have prepared. I think it’s two videos and we have two witnesses, one here with us and another one in the zoom.

I would like to start to show you what we experienced when we got word from a whistle-blower that in an old people’s home here in Berlin that some vaccination was going to go on a Sunday. I think it was actually the vials were provided by, or like, accompanied by soldiers. And so, the old people were confronted with soldiers, like you know, working with the doctors to get the vaccine and some one person was not really voluntarily accepting it. It was dementia section of an old people’s home and some of them obviously were not quite able to… I mean, were not able to sign the papers themselves clearly, but you have to still respect a natural will kind of that they express, whether they wanted to be treated or not. We’re going to see that we had one whistle-blower verbally telling us about this incident and what happened afterward that was that of these 31 people who got vaccinated eight passed away rather quickly after the vaccination, in within a few weeks. I think the last person who died was two or three months later. And they were really in good shape if it wasn’t for the vaccination. Before the vaccinations, there was a section where they would freely roam basically, and some were jogging every day, someone was a piano player and they had like singing songs the night before basically and then already on the evening, some of them had serious problems.

What’s also interesting about this, is that later on we got in touch with the police and I personally filed a criminal charge or complaint against them and asked them, because of the two people who deceased at the latest in time, they were the corpses were still with the undertaker. We informed the police and said that they should investigate this and the district attorney, and then they sent us the letter saying they don’t even see anything suspicious, where they could even start investigating. I think that’s very remarkable. After we had done the whistle-blower interview, a second whistle-blower came forward and provided some footage that you can see now. And for you to see this, you have to turn to the screen. Take a look at this, it illustrates what we’re really talking about. Because we have today, tonight, we have been talking about the run-up to what is actually happening and now we’re looking at the consequences.

I do think it is important for us and jury to understand that we’re not just talking about irrelevant games that are being played, power games, these games have very serious consequences. This is what this video clip very clearly illustrates. This shows that when you, Brian, said that they’re killing people, they’re not killing people in theory. They’re killing people in real life. One of the people who we saw in this video, which was filmed with a hidden camera, died. The old man in the pajamas died. This is what this is all about. There are real consequences as a result of these so-called power games. This is really about control, and this is really about population reduction, as I think this short video clip clearly illustrates and this is just one example. There are many more such examples. We have gotten lots of information from similar nursing homes where the same thing happened. This is particularly impressive for us because it’s right here in Berlin. 31 people were vaccinated and within two weeks or so, eight of them had passed away, 11 more had developed very serious symptoms. We don’t know what happened to them, but these eight people who died. One of them, as Vivienne mentioned, had been playing the piano the night before he got the shots. Another one was a runner, and he was running the night before he got the shots. This is what we’re really talking about.

Now we have another video clip that we will see. It’s from a small demonstration, a vigil basically, that took place. He’s the witness and will tell us in a second. For several days 60, 62 days. This was the final day, where there was supposed to be a little get-together. It was a small event and you’ll be surprised by the amount of police compared to the size of the event. You will see and how harshly… Then they sort of ended it. I think we show the clip first and then we will talk to a woman, Masinoff . You can see in this proportion what’s going on. And there was not even like hygienic aspects, like violated, and I mean like in earlier times we would have thought this is a normal event and so. But maybe let’s talk to Roman Madino.

Reiner: Hello. Oh my, what happened there? So, I’ll have to speak in German, good. Let us briefly talk about it and I’ll translate it in a few words. You had done this demonstration 60 times and then it ended that way exactly? I had held a vigil in front of the chancellor’s office because demonstrations weren’t possible in Berlin anymore because we always, it always escalated in police violence. It always ended in police violence. And so, I organized a vigil because with a few people right outside the chancellor’s office, the police can’t overreach as easily, and we did that over a period of more than two months.

Very frequently there were media with us, and they left and right to us, and they never reported on us. They were there because there were something happening at the chancellor’s office. One of us had registered with the chancellor’s office and the last day, 1st June was the World Children’s Day. We resisted; we did not put on masks. That’s the least level of resistance you can offer and, of course, it escalated and our demonstrator, our assembly, was disbanded. You know also going dire in the direction of the children and actually when this… when they… so that there was a lot of media usually there, but they never reported about this demonstration because they actually, they obviously, wanted to keep it under the rug or like, you know, not talk about this. And then the only thing that was not complied with was that outside you’d have to wear masks, although people were keeping their distance. And so, you can see that the police immediately decided to even kill this small demonstration, or this small protest, at that point in time. So, Roman, thank you. Thank you very much for your statement and for sharing this experience with us. Yeah, now we have… Okay, then we’ll continue with other examples in the future.

Yes, now James, you’ve been waiting for quite a while, but we are very interested in hearing about Operation Dark Winter, the Rockefeller Lockstep Simulation, and Event 201. You are muted; you are muted, Jim.

James Bush: Okay, okay. I’m absolutely flabbergasted by everything I’ve heard today and the intelligence and the experience of the team that’s producing this. So, I wanted to thank you all. My credentials are very simple I retired after 20 years in the United States Marine Corps as a lieutenant colonel. I was an infantry officer, a forced recon officer, and then I became an engineer. And I worked as an engineer for the Honeywell Corporation as a launch guidance engineer for the shuttle program and then I became a special operations engineer for special environments and mechanical systems. I was the engineering officer and manager for the North Colorado Medical Center for the Infectious Disease Research Center at Colorado State University in Colorado and the Center for Disease Control Vector Board research facility in Colorado and Fort Collins, Colorado.

My interest in this actually peaked well before I had gotten into the knowledge of what was going on today. I was working for Hewlett-Packard and in my engineering capacity; I was the bio-safety officer for the Rocky Mountain West, and I was invited to go to a program called Dark Winter in Oklahoma City in June 2001 at this point. I’m going to share my screen and I am sincere it’s quicker than the other presentation. So that’s my resume. I already went through that with you. I have a Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering at BS and Epidemiology.

This is Dark Winter, and you’ve heard it referenced and maybe you may already be aware of it, but it was ostensibly a program supported by the government and private organizations on June 22nd, 23rd of 2001 at Andrews Air Force Base in Oklahoma City. You’ve heard when he mentioned, answer homeland security and ceases the Oklahoma National Memorial Center for civilian bio defense. These are all organizations that were precursors of all the elements that it takes to eventually create a bioweapons system in the United States. So, Dark Winter, this slide set they’re seeing is only a very, very small part of a slide set that was generated during that presentation. And it was a presentation, it wasn’t a real study. They called us and said we’re going to study this but basically when we got there; they said, okay here’s what we’re doing and sit back and watch, and here’s what we have cut into conclusions. Please take this back to your companies into your organizations and share it with them because the government was totally in control of this. It was an exercise designed to simulate the possible reaction to a deliberate introduction of smallpox in three states in 2001. Dark Winter was developed as a program by the street centers for strategic and international studies and the John Hopkins Center and the answer incident for homeland security. And I believe you’ve all heard those names before. You’re going to continue to hear as you go through this process of it, analyzing.

What’s happening to our country? Answer: The Institute for Homeland Security was eventually converted to a nationally funded cabinet post called Homeland Security. I will show the key participants. You, who they are, what the goals are, with the introduction. It was a scenario, so our government and many governments really love scenarios. They’d ask what happens if we this? What are going to be the next steps? So, this was supposed to be a scenario study. But please know the characters that were playing this is in 2001 and some of the most key people in the government and the defense of the United States of America took their time off to go to Oklahoma City and ask the question “What happens if we get hit by Smallpox?” and smallpox isn’t clearly defined by every organization out there. The World Health Organization and the CDC, the FEMA, everybody says it’s a pandemic disease because it has a fatality rate, a true-life fatality rate of about 32 to 33%, as opposed to the coronavirus – which depending on who you’re talking today, is maybe .012%.

They were using a true pandemic disease to see what would happen but the people who came said I’m not a US Senator. Frank Keane, he was the Governor of Oklahoma, the National Security Adviser to the United States, the CIA director for the United States, the Secretary of Defense. John White, the chairman of the United States Military, the joint chiefs of staff general. John Tilley, Secretary of State for the United States. Hey, Frank Weisner, the secretary of health and human services was Margaret Hamburg, the attorney general George Terwilliger, the Director of FEMA, Jerry Hauer, and the Director of the FBI now. I’m sure that this type of an assemblage of people has been formed before, but I don’t think in the history of the United States they ever come into a meeting like this, created a document, created a scenario, and then disappeared because, within two or three days of this program ending, some of us got actual copies of the slide set. It disappeared everywhere else. It was on the internet for a while but if you recall back in 2001, the internet was not what it is today and it took me several years to find this on the internet.

In the meantime, I had a copy of it on my computer, and later when I worked for the Infectious Disease Research Center or the CDC, I would bring this up to various researchers and ask what they think of it, and they would all kind of turn green and walk away. They didn’t want to talk about what this was about. So, the question is: What would happen if a local biological weapons attack were to hit America with a contagious pathogen? That could the country, the government response- will pose enormous challenges to civil liberties. The less prepared we are, the more threats. There will be no civil liberties. So, in the beginning, documentation, some of the first turns are civil liberties and what they are going to take away during this event.

So, I’m going to stay on that page for a moment and say to you, that during this study – it was two days long – and we got out early because, this study, when we got there, they had all kinds of slides. And I’ll be glad to show these slides to anybody who wants to see them, but the slides really show the thought process, the initiation of an agenda whereby they wanted to share with the people in the room. And the people in the room were people of IT, of science and industry, and business and they were saying to us how will this affect you? They showed what happened after one day, after six days, after three days, how many people are sick, how many people were injured, how many people have died, and how does it progress?

This document was provided as a means to create two or three things: one is a tutorial on how to initiate and get the results we want from a pandemic disease, the other would be how we control what would be the results, how many people would die, how do we take care of inoculations. This was of a known disease that had an extraordinarily high fatality rate and they translated that and that gave them the opportunity to create an outline, a primer, a document that they can use when it takes, when it comes time, to create a bioweapon national security pandemic event. That’s what they did, and I’ll be glad to share the rest of these.

My current presentation on Dark Winter is about two and a half hours long because I go into all the details about what a bio safety level one, two, three, and four facilities and where they are, how they’re used, and how our government and our universities are studying this. But there’s a wealth of information in that slideshow and Reiner asked me to keep it relatively short so this is the beginning. This is the first stage where our government engaged some of the most powerful people in our administration to bring forth this concept.

The next one was Operation Lockstep and Operation Lockstep was ostensibly done by Ralph Epperson. He kept referring to John D. Rockefeller. It was claimed to be a three-step approach to a permanent lockdown resulting in massive depopulation. I’ve done some significant research on this, and Operation Lockstep was actually a concept that was created by people doing research on not just Operation Lockstep, the book which was a 54-page book by Ralph. Yeah, I’m sorry, Ralph Epperson wrote the book The New World Order. It was 320 pages and the prima facie information from this entire Operation Lockstep came from page 18. In that book there were two elements, the Operation Lockstep was created by the information from the new world agenda and another program that did come out of the Rockefeller Institution.

So, my question is, what is it really? The published document is basically people got together and said, okay, based on us reading the information on a new world order, here’s what we see is happening and it fits fully well what’s in the 320-page document of the new world order. This is very clearly a pattern of what actually did happen and the reason for that is that Operation Lockstep came out in the middle of June of July last year. There was a lot of people trying to refute it but there was nobody what happened created according to the documents in 1989.

So, we have 2001 Dark Winter, 1989 with Operation Lockstep, the birthing documents were created for that. Then we move forward. As we go through our nation’s history, you see the New World Order by Ralph Epperson, the Rockefeller Foundation Nation, and the Global Trading Organization, which contributed to the New World Order. Rockefeller contributed to the next book which is about a 54-page book called Scenarios for the Future of Technology & International Development that was done by the Rockefeller Foundation and on the internet, you find that it keeps referring back to what you see on the right side of the page, which is the first phase, the second phase, the third phase. Back in 1989, nobody knew anything about 5g radiation. Nobody knew anything specifically about Coronavirus. So, somewhere this information came out, but it was truly a combination of data created in The New World Order. I don’t know how many people have read The New World Order, but it is a malevolent and a disgusting tutorial book on how to destroy western civilization. It cites George Bush and the whole litany of people that keep talking about the Lockstep.

Reiner: James, can you do us a favor and read those three paragraphs? I think this is extremely important for people to understand what happened in 1989. Let me, yeah, I’ll be glad to. First phase: Common Flu – mild symptoms, at most media endorsement of mass paranoia and fear, flawed testing system utilized which picks up any genetic material in the body and triggers a positive result, inflation of Covid cases numbers through changing of death certificates, double counting and classifying all death, including other diseases and natural causes, as Covid.19. Lockdown – what can condition us to live under draconian laws, prevent protests, and identify public resistance. That’s step one, phase two. The first phase will lead to compromised and frail immune systems through lack of food, social distancing, worrying of mass, and lack of contact with sunlight and healthy bacteria. Exposure to 5g radiation will further attack the immune system thus when people re-emerge into society, more people will fall ill. This will be blamed on Covid19. This will all occur before the vaccination is ready to be ready. In order to justify it, a longer and more potent lockdown will follow until everyone takes the vaccine. That’s their intention.

Third phase: If a majority of the people resist the vaccine, a weaponized SARS, HIV, MERS virus will be released. A lot of people will die from this. It will be a survival of the fittest. It will also be the ultimate push for everyone to be vaccinated in order to return to normality. Those who have taken the vaccine will be at war with those who have not been, and there will be anarchy. The predominance of that came from page 18 in the other document, the scenarios for future technology and technological international development. This is all tied together, and this was poured out. It was meant as a document to do two things: tell people where it’s going and if you tell somebody it’s gonna happen, you keep reading it. Eventually, people are okay with it happening. We’ve heard that all day today. Let’s go to the next one. Lockstep is the fulfillment of the concepts and goals expressed and solicited in the philosophies of the New World Order, and the scenarios for the future of technology and international development. Those concepts and agendas were put into operation for the Covid19 pandemic. The actual author of the Lockstep documents is unknown, but it is clear that the Lockstep was created in 1989. Sorry, the New World Order was created in 1989 and the scenarios for a future technology were created in 2010 and that’s when the other document known as “Lockstep” was created.

Just the next page. I don’t know if you all can read this, but I’ll try not to read too much of it, but this is the concept in the scenario this is the Lockstep scenario. So, this was a scenario done by our government studying what Lockstep should be: a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.

In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain originating from wild geese was extremely deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed with the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing eight million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies, international mobility of both people and goods screeches to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism, and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers. The pandemic blanketed the planet through, disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols.

Even in the developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’ initial policy of strongly discouraging citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency.”

“ I’m going to see if the next… “ “However, a few countries did fare better. China, in particular, the Chinese government put quick imposition enforcement of a mandate quarantined for all its citizens as well as its instant and near hermetic sealing off the borders saved millions.” This information was written. This is where the entire concept came from. So, they had Dark Winter; they decided that they really didn’t want to use something like smallpox, and the enhanced development and genetic modifications of diseases are practiced all over the world and ostensibly it’s used for the development of medication and preventive medicine.

The reality is, and I say this having been there in running the laboratories, I’ve worked on six corona viruses. I’ve worked on 78 other biosafety levels, three and three plus diseases. The reason that the universities and the military and the government do this research is a bioweapon program. They are trying to find tools that are less expensive to use against a common enemy. Use and develop tools that they can control. They’re the whole development of the process. When I worked for the CDC and CSU (Colorado State University), there was never a time that I saw any vaccine go out in less than six years and they tried to tell people of science they had created vaccines that were safe. There are four different vaccines that do different things to the human body and, oh, by the way, we did it in less than nine months. Ladies and Gentlemen, I can only tell you that from my perspective, it’s lies and damn lies.

Finally, on October 18, 2019, many of you already know what happened but the John Hopkins Center, the Bill and Melinda Gates group, and the World Economic Forum… Here we go back to the financial side of this atrocity. The John Hopkins Center and for all security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York. The exercise illustrated areas where public-private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a serious, severe pandemic order, diminish large-scale economic and social consequences statement about the novel coronavirus and our pandemic exercises in recent years.

…The world has been growing and seeing a growing number of epidemic events, amounting to approximately 200 events annually. These events are increasing..”, and so on. “…The experts agree that it’s only a matter of time before the epidemics become global….” How could they possibly put together a meeting with all the most important people on the east coast in New York City on October 28th and all of a sudden less than a month later we now have coronavirus coming out of the Hunan province? And I will tell you, having managed these facilities, I’ve managed one of the largest in the country – it’s Colorado State University – they don’t accidentally get out. You can take them out. When I worked there, I could walk out there any day with your yersinia pestis (Chris – bubonic plague bacillus), with HIV, with tuberculosis, with all kinds of corona. The coronas weren’t even used to level three facilities; they were worked at level two.

You asked why I’ve got the Central Intelligence Agency and the question still remains, how come all the media? You get up in the morning and you listen to one radio station, go to a TV station and they all say exactly the same thing. Did you all know about Operation Mockingbird? It’s a CIA program that was created after World War II and it is still operational today. It’s where the CIA creates the dialogue and works with the six or seven ultra-media systems in the world. And I can say this because, you don’t know her name, my daughter is a military intelligence officer with the US Army. She’s been in for 12 years, she’s a major selected for lieutenant colonel and I showed this to her, and she said, “Yeah that’s what they do, they do it now.” There are lots of question as to why, and I think the question is exactly as every one of you has spoken to today, but this is an important piece of information that I wanted to share with you.

When I started managing the Infectious Disease Research Centers, both of them were in Fort Collins. About 14 years ago, there were 25 to 27 bio safety level 3 and 4 laboratories in the world. It’s now 2022 and this is directly off the CDC’s website. I’ve compared it to other websites as well and this is the distribution of biosafety level three and four laboratories around the world. And you can see that Australia has four, almost all the rest of the countries have them. Germany has four. India has three. The United Kingdom has six. The United States has 15. And when I started this business, there was three and the biosafety level phrase, now these are the ones that work on diseases like coronavirus, which is the influenza, which is HIV, the things that are not extraordinarily capable of being made into a bioweapon. But the BSL3s are the test beds for the fours, there are several smaller countries that have one or two BSLs, the BSl3’s all of the countries on the BSL4 list have similar numbers of BSL3 labs now as the BASl4. The United States of America has over 200 bio safety level 3 labs in the continental United States so between BSL 3 and 4. The United States of America has 215 bioweapons research facilities. They call them normal research, but I can tell you it’s not true. So, that’s one question.

Reiner: I must ask you these two questions having looked at the documents you showed us from Operation Lockstep. You quoted these three paragraphs. Were these terms really included in that document? Terms like Covid19 and what’s the other one, 5g – was that really included?

James: That’s from a book. Very observant and that’s absolutely the answer to that question it’s in the document that people are using for Lockstep, that’s exactly what they are. That’s the… I found that document all over the internet. I said I could not find an author of that particular document and said it was page 18. In all references, the page 18 it was referring to is the scenario page that I had pulled up. Let me see if I can go back.

Vivianne: Okay, but that’s basically, maybe an inspiration that they used for the Lockstep scenario.

Reiner: No, the question is, was it really included back then? Was it in 1989? Were these new terms?

James: There’s the 2010 document that was on the internet and in the scenario for future technology and international development. The Lockstep scenarios. No, the other, they took this, the other one with the three paragraphs. We just looked at it. Yeah, it is slide number 10. It is slide number, that said, death is the one that was on this one. Number ten. Yeah, that one. Okay, this slide is on the right-hand side.

Reiner: Yes. Is that really originally from that book written in 1989?

James: No, it is not- and what I’m saying is this was the document here and this slide was made up from someone going in and referring to this page. Can you see that?

Reiner: Yeah.

That’s from the Lockstep which was done by the Rockefeller Institute. They took the transmorphized the current events and plugged in the concepts from this paragraph, and they made it. The world believes this, and the irony is, if you look at the content of the paragraph from the scenarios for the future of technology documented, that’s where they got this information from. And the 5g and the Covid19 are not in any of the paragraphs, that’s why I thought… But it still ties it all together because the information was there in 2000, 1989, 2001, 2010, and that again for Event 201 in 2019. There is a progression that goes along with the historical dialogue that your other history speakers and experts presented, and this one really shares the information from my perspective. Dark Winter is a critical factor in showing that they have the ability and the intent to do a preparation that actually reflected the same thing as Event 201. 201 was the second Dark Winter so that’s Dark Winter and that’s the information that I can share with you on Operation Mockingbird and the Lockstep.

After we started doing some more research I wanted to do exactly what you said. I wanted to find this particular page in the book The New World Order by Ralph Epperson. I went there looking for it, it’s not there. I went for the scenarios, for the future of technology, it’s not there. And I looked up all the information I could on the internet and clearly, someone made that particular document to match it, and it was an attempt to coordinate that. And it gives them credence to the new world order. I don’t know how many people on the group right now have read “The New World Order”. I’m gonna try to get out of here all right.

Reiner: The problem with documents such as that one, is that it is not only confusing, but it makes us look bad if we turn it off.

James: That’s why I wanted to show it to you because I’m not sure we can use Lockstep unless we simply refer to the new world order and the scenarios those two stand all the tests Lockstep does not. I got it here. We are there. You are okay.

Reiner: Well, thank you, James. That leads us all the way to probably the World Health Organization’s role in all of this, but we have two more speakers for that. In the meantime, however, are there any questions that Virginie, Dexter, or Dipali want to ask?

Dexter: Thank you, Mr. Bush. Thank you for the evidence but I want to find out from you… You have mentioned that based on your experience, it takes approximately not less than six years before a vaccine goes to market. I would like to make a connection with the operation of hopespeed (I think he means warpspeed – Chris) – how does dead basically tie in? Because, in a sense, it seems like when it comes to the fact that they’ve actually expedited those vaccines, covered 90 vaccines to the market, they justified, and they say “No, but this is in line with operational speed” – can you basically give some clarity in relation to that?

James: Sir, the answer to that is they are not doing a true vaccine. They are creating a DNA modifier. It’s an injection that has nothing to do with the normal process of taking a live disease and learning how to fight it with the human biome and applying the right chemicals and the right endurances to the testing, and going over time doing human, doing animal testing, doing human testing and developing an actual vaccine.

The material they’re injecting into people today, as far as I’m concerned, and like I said I’ve worked on vaccines for 12 years in environments where my job in those facilities was, I operated the biosafety committee, and I kept the disease from getting out, I kept people during my tenure. There were six thousand researchers in those facilities. No one ever got sick, so we knew what caused the sickness. We were able to stop that, but it was also built into the understanding of the knowledge that you cannot develop a vaccine accurately in less time than six years. When I started hearing people say we’re going to have one this year, they’re injecting materials that who knows what is in it. I’m not a physicist. I’m not an MD and I’m not a research doctor. I worked with them, and I can tell you that there will never be inoculation going in my arms or anyone in my family because I fear what’s in there. And that’s what some of your other experts are going to testify into as well.

Look at the results we’ve already talked about today, with how people are reacting. They are reacting to something very quickly, shortly after getting the inoculation, and that doesn’t stand the test of a true vaccination. Thank you, Sir, and I want to reiterate, for if there’s any question at all when the illusion was that some type of Wuhan disease got out of the Wuhan laboratory is a BSL3 N4 BSL. The Wuhan, the virus they were working on in China was in a BSL3, so it does not meet the requirement for the extreme care and consideration and security that BSL4 does. And when I managed the facilities in Colorado, we did tests to find out if people could get out of our building with a select agent, again go to the CDC’s website and look up select agent and it basically tells you that a select agent could be genetically modified to make it into a weapon or master structure.

That’s why they call them select agents but at the time we did tests, we had the US Army corps of engineers. Amrit people come in, the FBI, the local fire department, police, and we did tests to find out if somebody could get out of our facility. There was no way to stop them; if somebody wants to get out with that material they couldn’t be stopped. There are those laboratories I showed you, the numbers on, there’s no way to stop anybody from getting those things out of there. What they are working on and these – it’s, as far as I’m concerned – it’s a bioweps program and what they’re working on is basically the ability to modify other forms of injections to control and to kill the general population. And that’s why they’re doing it in Lockstep. It’s chimeric. Are you all familiar with the chimeric concept? You have?

Dexter: You can explain the concept.

James: A chimeric drug is, you develop a drug, and you inject that into an animal agent, or a person and it does – it sets up the body for certain reactions. And then you come back with the second part of the chimera, the two-part, and you check that, and that causes extraordinarily big changes and or death.

I believe the inoculations are chimeric and to go along with your question about the vaccines themselves – how is it possible that you have a disease, there are two questions here. How is it possible you have a disease that is being solved and it has a solution being created at 95 – 100% efficacy with four different types of inoculations that don’t even resemble each other in their content? And beyond that, in the history of mankind, science, medicine has never come up with a cure for the common cold and the common flu, both of which are coronaviruses. I’ll leave you with that. In the meantime, I’m sorry Dexter. No, that’s fine. No, you can continue.

I meant to mention that other experts who will testify have in the meantime clarified the situation at least as far as Pfizer-BioNTech is concerned. It does not have an efficacy of 95%. It’s less than 1%, some people even say it has absolutely no efficacy whatsoever. This is because we see countries that have a very high vaccination rate, also have very high – like Israel, like the UK – also have very high what they call ‘breakthrough cases.’

Reiner: In other words, the vaccines don’t seem to work at all. In other words, you’re probably right, Jim, we cannot call these injections vaccines, but we will learn more about this from other experts. I applaud everything you’re all doing and if I can help anymore, I shall do. Well, Jim, thank you so much. Thank you very much for walking us through these three exercises.

Okay, now let us talk to Dr. Astrid Stukelberger and Dr. Sylvia Behrendt, both of whom worked for the World Health Organization. Do you have who’s going to go first?

Sylvia: I think it’s me.

Reiner: Okay, and then Astrid will go on.

Sylvia: All right so, thank you very much. Just my credentials: I have received my Ph.D. from the University of Saint-Gauden Switzerland on the topic of the International Health Regulations and the executive authority of the World Health Organization during public health emergencies of international concern. Very long title (sound of something ringing) and it’s not my phone, and I was a visiting researcher at Georgetown Law under Professor Gaston, funded by the Swiss National Fund. Later, I collaborated with the International Health Regulation Secretariat in Geneva at the World Health Organization and conducted WHO country missions for the purpose of national implementation of the International Health Regulations.

The other experts providing their expertise – the last we heard from Mr. Bush – were speaking about financial geopolitical and security issues, particularly under the paradigm of bioterrorism that provides evidence there that there is a path that led to the current Covid19 pandemic. I would like to focus the attention on the fact that we are currently not confronted with a medical pandemic response. Most of the criticism raised by the scientists and doctors centre around the issue that from a purely medical perspective, all health measures recommended and required by national health authorities or are actually contrary to the epidemiological and medical state of the earth, and this is so on purpose I condemned because the underlying concept used for Covid19 does not follow established scientific principles but rather a different ideology which is called, framed as Global Health Security. It means to treat health as a national security issue requiring national and global states of exceptions to deal with that. Therefore, I consider it crucial to provide a short historical analysis of this concept in order to understand why the current global health crisis we face is not about medical science and health in the common sense we would expect.

The progressive replacement of medical, the political aim, started in the context of emerging infectious diseases in the early 1990s and originated actually from the US. As we already heard, within a short period of time WHO institutionalized this new approach but a rapid setup of an entirely new division called emerging and data communicable diseases, and interestingly, they didn’t engage the staff of the communicable disease control department at that time. This policy confirmed that the new paradigm shift from lowering the incidence of regional endemic diseases was to be the sole focus on preventing the international spread in real-time and most preferably within a 24-hour timeframe. There was a need for a technocratic apparatus of surveillance networks that were capable to deal with these new threats. Consequently, in 2001, there was a resolution of the Voltells Assembly that already inserted this novel concept, and called for the first time, to find a definition for a public health emergency of international concern for the purpose of revising the outdated sanitary laws called International Health Regulations. Because nobody was interested in sanitary laws at that time, the problem was they had a very narrow scope and applicability only for yellow fever, black, and cholera.

At the same time, particularly in the US bio-terrorist scenario planning, we all heard right now a lot about it within the military and at the academic level with the most prominent exercise like the Aquinta was launched, and interestingly all these events went really short after that. But what is also very interesting, and we did not hear, is that not only the exercises were held which turned into reality, also the legislation in the US was prepared to curtail civil liberties for the fight against bioterrorism from 1990 on onwards. This undertaking was started by the CDC and eventually finalized by professors from Georgetown University like Professor Gaston together with the John Hopkins University, and it was called the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. This model act has been sharply criticized at that time in the US for transforming governors into dictators but was used over many states eventually.

The most important milestone in the revision process of the International Health Regulations, an international treaty, was the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome abbreviated as SARS, as we all know in 2002. It was accompanied by an alerted media attention that was not proportionate to the threat of the disease, which was remarkably low. In addition, there was a quasi-consensus among scientists that the novel SARS outbreak could have had a bioterrorist potential. This political bio-terrorist framing of the source of spread outbreak led to the agreement of the international community that the old secondary laws needed to be rewritten to include bioterrorism without naming this goal officially at WHO. This came under the barrier time of an open all-hazards approach which means that not only various sources of risks were included but also that any intentional release would come under the paradigm of the WHO and that the IHR needed to be revised.

The legal dimension of the Global Health Security concept was eventually successfully integrated into International Health Regulations in 2005 and thus the US model of public health emergencies has been exported to the international community and is now merged into national constitutions which were never having such constitutional emergency provisions. Then the outdated IHR provisions of disease containment were replaced to include pathogens that pose a threat to national security and require an emergency regime that enabled the derogation of legal standards, not only in terms of medical stability regulations but also in terms of fundamental standards, not freedoms and civil rights. According to this new paradigm, endemic diseases which count for the most death do not fall under the attention of this global set of rules, which are now a standard procedure for pandemics but only newly identified pathogens without medical treatment that therefore require an emergency licensing as these substances are all unlicensed. In addition, the importance of diagnostics emerged under the Global Health Security ideology as a new priority issue because the threat needs to be identified as threatening prior to devastating effects according to this ideology. So, the availability of diagnostics is labeled as a necessary requirement for pandemic preparedness and response.

I hope you can follow. Moreover, under the threat of bioterrorism, the establishment of laboratories boosted throughout the world, as Mr. Bush already explained to us, because biological weapons are defined as weapons of mass destruction and constitute a crime under international law, the only legal pathway to lawfully undertake research and medical treatment is called biodefense which takes place in laboratories as we learned. I would like you to remember that all SARS coronaviruses come under the US category C of potential bioterrorism agents and are also classified under the expert regime of the EU for dual-use, which refers to the potential of civil and military use. I hope now that the picture becomes a bit clearer, why some historic knowledge is needed to understand why, who and the global community do not address SARS-CoV-2 in accordance with state-of-the-art medical knowledge but rather fight the virus as a threat to the nation in an unproportional manner, with the military instead of medical terminology referred to it as medical and non-medical countermeasures and throughout all health ministries in the world. New departments I established, called national house security departments. This was part one of my kind of expertise. I would like to explain how all those newly identified diseases came to WHO or should I go forward?

Okay, if you have no questions, as a second step I would like to explain in more detail why the small number of atypical pneumonia cases of Wuhan in late 2019 and the first days of 2020 were reported to WHO and soon ended up as a public health emergency of international concern and soon later as a pandemic. This is all due to the International Health Regulations and the revision thereof. Also, DIHR, referred to as IHR, included an all hazzards approach. Some pathogens, like any novel strain of an influenza subtype or any source coronavirus, are still prioritized and have to be reported within a 24-hour time limit to WHO. The identification of this novel virus was possible because China had a very tight screening regime for respiratory diseases since this outbreak in 2002. It was possible for China to identify this novel pathogen already on the 1st of January. WHO requested more information about the outbreak due to information by davan on 3rd January. China notified WHO officially of a cluster of 44 patients, of which 11 were severely ill with pneumonia of unknown etiology after. WHO -… 44 cases – , After the WHO already requested more information and there was the closure of the Wuhan market.

Reiner: so that doesn’t sound like a pandemic.

Yeah that’s true.

Sylvia: This politicization and interest of WHO at this very early stage, on the 1st of January when only 44 people had this atypical pneumonia and 11 people suffered severely from this atypical pneumonia, is indeed an interesting aspect that should lead to some precautions about how the entire crisis started, as there were no deaths reported and no international cases, and the potential of human-to-human transmission was not assessed at that time. In the meantime, the novel virus was identified as the coronavirus, so this means the identification of this new virus falls under the International Health Regulations that formally requires an automated official report to WHO, and the Director-General is obliged to constitute an emergency committee under the IHR once such an official notification has been received. So, he’s legally obliged to constitute this emergency committee then.

Reiner: Now, it’s becoming interesting.

Sylvia: At the same time, Professor Drosten and others worked in Germany intensely to deliver to WHO a diagnostic test essay via the PCR method for this novel virus, and Professor Drosten was also the elite author in 2003 when the novel SARS coronavirus was identified, and since then nominated as a WHO expert. His first protocol was officially delivered to WHO on 13th January 2020, which implied that he had, of course, worked prior to this date of submission and who immediately circulated his first protocol of this essay to its member states. Later, this essay was a bit revised and finally published in the Euro Surveillance genre on 23rd January, so he also contributed to the WHO interim guidance they did on 10th of January, and this interim guidance was published. You can have more information if you want later, but it’s getting complicated otherwise.

This information guidance was published as a part of a comprehensive package of about 10 guidance documents of WHO for countries covering topics related to the management of an outbreak of the new coronavirus disease. On 10th January, the WHO had a comprehensive package already published at that time….

Reiner: That’s, interesting.

Sylvia: … when there were literally no cases except for the 44 cases. These were getting official, and it normally takes a very long time at WHO to get something published because it has to be cleared importantly, as any source coronavirus requires an official notification under the IHR. The Director-General had to convene a Covid19 emergency committee as a legal obligation under IHR. You can find the WHO website, the experts who are on this committee, and you can find your CVs there. This emergency committee advises the Director-General in the proclamation, whether a public health emergency of international concern exists, which is an executive authority of the Director-General in accordance with the legal principles set out under the IHR.

The first meeting was held on 22nd January where the experts found no agreement, whether a “PHEIC”, that’s the abbreviation of public health emergency of international concern, what WHO uses. So, a PHEIC exists or not and they agreed that there was no international spread of the novel coronavirus outbreak which was due to 17 deaths and 557 confirmed cases on 22nd January. So, they had an idea this aid in 10 days within the days they will again meet and consult and assess the current situation of new cases. That’s what they did on 13th January and by then the cases have risen from over 500 cases to 14 times higher, to 7,711 confirmed and even much more 12,167 suspected cases. That’s all in the statement of the second emergency committee of the WHLS, all in official information. You can look up yourself how the cases are defined, positive test results. The cases will have been confirmed by this essay by a trusted professor. It was an official publication circulated by 13th January and it was also worked into the later published interim guidance laboratory of testing of humans in suspected cases of novel coronavirus. These documents are still all on learner future because sometimes it could be that they are withdrawn afterwards but they are still online. It can still be looked up and it’s still referenced to Drosten and his publication.

Reiner: When was the first emergency meeting and when was the second one again?

Sylvia: The first was on 22nd June and then they agreed they did not tenure, they did not have enough cases because it was only 550 cases or 557 cases and there was no international spread, and the international spread is a precondition for calling and for defining a public health emergency. So, they had to wait 10 days, and then there was a 14 times increase in cases through the rapid diagnostics which was also referenced in the statement, that they were very grateful, that they were rapid diagnostics so they could identify and diagnose this new threat called south Coronavirus II.

Reiner: So, what had happened is Drosten had delivered his test kit to the World Health Organization and through the use of his new test, all of a sudden, we had 14 times the number of cases that existed before he used his test. That’s what the documents say.

Okay, I would like to make a remark on this because we also have information from Freedom of Information Act requests that we did with Charité (Medical University Hospital in Berlin) , and you know, it turns out that actually, they do you know the company TIB Mulbiol, they would, which produced the test together with, or like produced, or developed it together with Drosten. They were listed, so the constellation came that basically they were doing the logistics Charité claimed and sending. The companies knew that Drosten was the one in charge or had developed this test from the information kit that you said that was sent out through the WHO.

The test essay member states that it was the official guidance but there was the contact information was to Drosten and TIB Molbiol so they knew they could get in touch with them and then TIB Molbiol would do the send out like for Drosten or someone else. It was basically all in their hands and they could deliver it worldwide. They did. I think it did not go through via the WHO itself, but through this connection of the first mover advantage, basically of what the two had developed. But what this boils down to is that the cases that they needed in order to declare a public health emergency of international concern came into existence because of the test. Is that correct?

Sylvia: At least they needed the international transmission, and they have to diagnose it and without diagnostic test essays, it’s not possible.

Reiner: The only one WHO gave this test to say isn’t the document referenced as Drosten, that’s what the documents say. Had it not been for his test, the WHO 10 days later would still have probably had 44 cases or maybe 500 cases, but not 14 times that many.

Sylvia: If there is no test, you cannot qualify it as the new virus. That’s the problem and the really important thing everybody should know is that the proclamation of a public health emergency of international concern because this is connected to vaccine manufacturing, that’s actually the most important thing any legal person or anybody should know. It’s not a pandemic. There is no legal consequence if WHO proclaims or defines a pandemic. That’s interesting for the media. But the public health emergency is connected to the regulatory pathway for emergency use authorization.

Reiner: Without a public health emergency of international concern, there cannot be any use of untested medic untested drugs like vaccines, right?

Sylvia: Because all secondary laws, like the EU, the FDA, and the US, used the concept of the public health emergency also proclaimed by WHO.

Okay, Virginie wants to ask a question.

Virginie Barrett: Yes. Mrs. Virginie Barrett, I would like to confirm with you that Mr. Bill Gates put pressure on the rule to declare a pandemic and that we know that Charité (Medical University Hospital in Berlin) ,Berlin, which is linked with trusting us, develops these tests with the financing of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Welcome Trust. I don’t know if you can confirm that.

Sylvia: Maybe, Astrid. I don’t know so much about financing and some more about regulatory issues.

Dr Astrid Stuckelberger: Yeah, that’s great. Yeah, it’s a good question. What we can confirm and that’s what I was going to explain to you, is that there is really a plan since 2000, even maybe before 1999.

There is a plan that you can see chronologically with events that is mounting up. Gavi from a vaccine alliance in UNICEF to start joining the United Nations not only with UNICEF but with the World Bank and show through the financing of this IFM, the International Financing Facility Immunization. They did a trio with Triad in 2006 and at the same time, Gavi started to be Global Alliance in Switzerland, as a foundation. They registered in 2006, at the same time as a tripartite agreement between World Bank, WHO, and Gavi, to get financing from the member states. You can find this even on the web.

That was the first step and as you know, in 2006 the IHR started the implementation phase and what we can find out is tracking, what he’s doing is that he started to- Well, I’ll jump to the most important. In 2009, it registered as an international organization in Switzerland of a new type, and we have a press release signed by the Swiss government that shows that it was created specifically for Mr. Bill Gates, this international organization with total immunity. You cannot do anything. You cannot even take him to a tribunal. They do their own tribunal if they have any sort of aggrievement. From then on, it started. We had the documents in the WHO and there are executive boards we can find. I found out very late that we can find out everything on the web. They created a decade 2010-2020 of the global vaccine and did the IHR implementation to teach and train the countries to be prepared. We finished the first round in 2012. From 2009 to 2012 we received this with Georgetown University, Pretoria University.

I was with the University of Geneva and at that time when we got funds again from Japan and suddenly, they stopped and said there were no more funds. We almost had the contract signed and now I know why, because in 2012 at the World Health Assembly they appointed Bill Gates as the leader of the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2012-2020. So, it’s beautifully carved from then on. He was in the driver’s seat, and it’s mentioned that Gavi is the leader of most of what is concerning vaccine, and it’s not only children like UNICEF anymore. It’s the whole world. If that’s enough of proof of at least that there is a plan, and it keeps on. He is in the strategic expert advisory group, and they did even- it’s very funny, it’s not funny… But they even did in 2016 an assessment report of this 2012-2020 global vaccine action plan GAPC and in 2016 they are very upset because they did not immunize the whole world.

Immunization is vaccination, and they would make any excuse with vaccination. They don’t talk about experimental or validated. It’s all vaccine of course. In 2016 you can really see that they are not happy. Gavi Global is saying that we really have to make an effort, so they made a program called the accelerator program. A vaccine – okay, so that’s at least some of the steps that you can get very clearly. It’s all on the web without talking about the financing which I can talk about too.

Reiner: Who received diplomatic immunity in 2009. Was it Gavi or was it Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or was it Bill Gates personally, or all of them?

Astrid: No, it’s really Gavi Alliance Foundation but they took away the name foundation and, in the agreement, it’s really Gavi, the Global Alliance for Vaccination. I can find the exact term in my paper but concerns really him. What I find out more and more, is that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is more the financial mechanism of funding or receiving funds for programs. I also found out that the Swiss government, the Swiss Medic is the FDA of Switzerland, has signed an agreement to it in 2020 to 2023 to provide to the Bill and Melinda Gates $900,000 in three years, so $300,000 every year for his program project. You cannot see in the paper, you have to go and look at the project, and I did not go, but it concerns the vaccine.

I’m suspecting that when we take a model like Switzerland or the US has about mechanics between the national and International Health Regulation and it’s applied everywhere in the world, the law on epidemics of a national country is binding to International Health Regulation. We found that in Switzerland, even the Constitution of Switzerland has a little line they have added, without asking us, which says that international law supersedes national law in health matters. Then you can see that the law of epidemic was passed in 2016. So, we should probably check all countries. I’m pretty sure we saw a law of epidemics or law of emergency law in Canada that says the country will obey the International Health Regulation. If a fake is declared a public health emergency of international concern, every country has to immediately trigger the mechanism of obeying. That explains why on 16th, 17th March or around that time, the whole world locked down, but this is incomprehensible. According to the International Health Regulation and according to the stress of one, it never happened like this ever, that suddenly the virus was everywhere.

It happened with Omicron too, which started in South Africa and the next day it’s all over the world.

Reiner: But is there any as far as the International Health Regulations are concerned? Sylvia and Astrid, is there any democratic legitimacy to these International Health Regulations? Has anyone who invented these International Health Regulations been voted into some office? Is there any democratic legitimacy to this, or is this a private enterprise by people who control the World Health Organization?

Astrid: I can answer first and then, Sylvia, you can fill in what. When we were teaching and training about the International Health Regulation, it was the question that came very often, how come this is binding to member states? It was an extraordinary answer which will explain to you how important it is to look at this new pandemic treaty. It’s at WHO, I have looked and looked, it is for the moment the only United Nations specialized program or an agency that has a constitution.

The WHO constitution, not convention constitution article 21 19 21a and two, are binding member states directly if they adopt the International Health Regulation. They don’t need to go through the whole procedure of a treaty. They can, and that’s why this WHO constitution is very dangerous. It’s as if it was planned to supersede all constitutions of the world because, why would you use the word constitution? The answers of the lawyers from WHO were always “Oh, we have adopted it at the General Assembly of 2005 under the whole constitution article 21a and Article 2.”

Reiner: But the funny thing is and it’s not funny at all, is that the people who created the International Health Regulations have not been voted in there, or have no authority. Or is there a connection between the member states people, not their governments, the member states people, and these International Health Regulations? Or is there only the constitution which they themselves invented?

Astrid: Let me explain the mechanics of the United Nations. It’s linked with all the big agencies like the international labor office, the ITU telecommunication for the refugee. Every year there’s a world assembly with an NGO. A World Health Assembly takes place in the United Nations in Geneva in May, the third week of May. All member states have their little seat, and they are all together. They have an agenda and decide the agenda of the world together. Normally if there is a big decision, they are just children of the United Nations General Assembly. They go up to the General Assembly to get the blessing of the Secretary-General, the head of the United Nations, which gives a blessing to WHO. I don’t see this in the case of International Health Regulation. If that’s a past clue.

Sylvia: I will add to this, the International Health Regulations which started in 1815 is a very interesting regime because it’s an international treaty that dates back to the sanitary conventions from 1850. It’s one of the oldest international legal regimes taken over to WHO. It was recognized under the whole constitution because they already had in mind that they wanted to have a regulatory fast track regime. They had a regulatory process that says under the regulations for sanitary laws, now pandemic laws, you could refer to, the member states need to opt-out and not opt-in. By the resolution that is passed, the international treaty has to enter into force in the member state otherwise it has to opt-out on purpose. It’s the reverse process of international law and that’s a very unique thing. I think no other international organization, or I found no other international organization, having this capacity. But it’s democratic because it was an intergovernmental negotiation process.

The interesting thing is that only because of the merchants of SARS, they had this new ideology adapted to the Global Health Security idea, not that endemic diseases are devastating to people but only new diseases that have no medical treatment. So, they inserted this new concept into the old laws that were ever-existent at the WHO and never existed in the world. They have adopted this totally new ideology and that’s the very striking thing we have now, and it’s passed as a resolution. And the interesting thing is, it’s an international treaty, and WHO is not a party, it’s only bound by the resolution whereas other international treaties, like the framework convention on tobacco control, the WHTO is the signatory so that’s international law, a bit tricky.

Reiner: I still don’t understand, I don’t see any connection between myself, my countrymen, and these International Health Regulations.

Sylvia: That’s the problem of international law.

Reiner: Well, not really.

Sylvia: I think this is quite unique because member states have adopted, member states give their consent. In 2005 they all said they wanted to have this new kind of rules for international law and now they are obliged to implement it nationally. Or since 2007, it entered into force and they obliged to implement it in, for example, Austria. In Austria, we have no emergency clause in our constitution, and we did not adopt our sanitary laws, our epidemiology laws. There is no clause of emergency, and we still have the same regime. So, that’s what I always say: whatever legal regime and whatever constitution countries have, obviously the system can impact any country and any constitutional system and any legal regime, it’s possible with or without emergency clauses, they apply emergency rules. That’s what I can see, at least that’s my opinion.

Astrid: It’s the same with the millennium development goal and the sustainable development goals which seem to match, you know, 2000 to 2015, 2015 to 2030. The sustainable development goal that they’re doing – a whole mechanism around this – it is more and more obscure how much us, as a citizen, really decide, and we don’t decide anything anymore because it becomes so complex and obscure.

Reiner: We definitely have to take our sovereignty back. That is the conclusion that I draw from this because even if the EU wants to come up with a new law, for example, they can decide that they want to introduce these laws but unless the member states ratify it in their own countries, it doesn’t become law in their countries.

This is quite surprising to me, and I think many lawyers should know about these things as well. This is very disturbing I think.

Sylvia: The EU has created this HERA agency, which is the same, but probably much more coercive and that’s a huge problem. They have no authority in health matters, but they still pretend to have and still create the agencies and instruct on us without democratic processes.

Reiner: I think that stands for Health Emergency Response Agency, right? And isn’t there a rumor that if our national member state governments in the EU collapse, then they’re going to take over, and under the EU Commission there will be a kind of mini world government? Does it sound plausible?

Sylvia: I have no idea but I’m sure they would love to.

Astrid: That’s the idea of this pandemic treaty. Because this pandemic treaty has articles at the end which say: with the constitution of WHO, we don’t need any other constitution as member states.

Not only do they diminish the power of member states which is a United Nation, but they have invited a whole lot of non-state actors. They call it NGOs Gavi intergovernmental; he’s an NGO international organization because he can use many things. Bill and Melinda Gates might be an NGO and then they make different things. The Rockefeller Foundation and I’ve met them in WHO, they come and sit in meetings, and you know they are NGOs. We don’t know what they are so the non-state actors are also invited in this new treaty which would take over literally through the WHO constitution, a world constitution because of the pandemic.

Reiner: So, ultimately, what we’re looking at is private associations, private individuals even taking over our national governments through the World Health Organization, using health as a crowbar to do whatever they want.

Astrid: We could say that because of the PR public-private partnership, you can see it through the financing because Gavi and private partners have started to invade and interfere with the whole United Nations. I actually looked into this because I was called to organize for Switzerland joining the United Nations. The whole United Nations opens for two days so I learned a lot of organizations that nobody hears about.

Sylvia: And one is really a private entity called the UN Global IMP Compact and this United Nations Global Compact is the only private sector, and they can, for example, finance. It’s open to partnerships and the implementation of the International Health Regulations. It’s very strange because it’s done by churned external evaluations undertaken by the Global Health Security Agenda. If you look up the page of the website of the Global Health Security agenda, it says it has a private consortium and there is no information which private consortium this is. These external evaluators go to Germany, go to every country. It’s even on the website of the Air Kayi, applauding how great it is, but they don’t say it’s implemented by private entities.

I don’t want to have laws implemented by private entities. That’s absolutely undemocratic and they are very proud of it.

Reiner: It’s bizarre.

Virginie: I don’t understand. There are private advisors that I work with in the world, like McKinsey on the accenture, and they are also the arm of the Bill Gates Foundation.

Astrid: It’s a good question. I’ve actually looked for the link between McKinsey and WHO because we know that they are creating the communication. I think they have been putting it under something they’re setting up now, an intergovernmental panel, for this treaty for negotiating intergovernmental, negotiating network, something like that. So, this is happening. It happened at the executive board, it is a bit worrying because you think that, and I think that, all those communication agencies are buried into that. They’re not the only ones,

Vivianne: So what is this treaty adding to the situation that we have right now?

Syvlia: The treaty is very mythical. I heard the former legal counsel of WHO speaking about it. It’s available on the internet and it’s very political. Probably the fiercest proponent is Charles Michelle. He suggested this treaty to the European Union once. The US is opposed to this treaty, they proposed that the IRS should be strengthened. The problem will be a dog track world because if they are rushing into a treaty, only a small number of signatories will sign and the IHR is a universally acknowledged tool. And we did not mention that it would actually have good aspects in it which are neglected and infringed. It has a human rights implementation clause that is not respected, absolutely violated. There were compromised deals at the end when they passed through the resolution, but they are not mentioned, and nobody does. No court would find a violation of this. The problem is they would like to have an upstream and a downstream of the pharmaceutical industry, probably because it’s not even clear scope in the treaty. Not even this is clear. The only thing is that there’s a lot of communication about it.

The Director-General is a huge proponent of this treaty because he’s very political. In a way it’s very strange, what kind of intentions are behind that? It’s called for preparedness and response. What we know is that they invented a new procedure which is also problematic. It’s called WHO emergency use authorization, that very huge company, big pharma, can go to WHO. Say I’m inventing a new pharmaceutical for a new diagnostic set for this kind of disease for this public health emergency and we would you put it on our list. Then WHO puts it on the list and has a disclaimer that there’s no warranty, and no endorsement of WHO, and if somebody dies, it’s not WHO’s fault. It’s only a list and then Gavi takes this list and says “Oh, we can export it to the entire world. Even if we don’t have stringent and very competent medical authorities, we have this listing of WHO and now we can contribute to the world.

That’s what they did in the treaties of Gavi and this vaccine alliance, this COVAX Facility, it’s called the third pilot of this act accelerator. They probably would like to find better regulatory ways, that it becomes a normal process. That big pharma goes to an international organization but then actually it’s the treaty of international, of private international law, not of public international law, because the problem of customer international law is not recognized. It’s used cogens, that means it’s a norm which you cannot derogate from. There are no medical treatments whatsoever without your consent. Yes, it’s a huge problem.

Reiner: So we’ve learned tonight from all of the other experts, including, of course, the three experts who testified at the beginning of this session that, for example, in the UK, healthcare has been largely privatized. It’s being controlled by private groups, private charities even. We’ve learned that through this privatized – even their psychiatric system has been privatized – there are private people behind all of this, and this is how they control everything. They even create their own future leaders next to what the World Economic Forum is doing, meaning they have their own people who they then seem to be told what to do, in positions of power in the governments.

If I look at the WHO, there’s a man by the name of Tedros. He’s the Director-General. Who is he? I have read in the papers that in his own country that a criminal complaint has been filed against him for genocide. Is that the typical, let’s say puppet, that the private entities who are running the health care show are using in order to further their aims?

Astrid: I must say, I’ve never seen a Director-General like that. I’ve known many but this I know also from inside, that the staff were very unhappy with him. They asked for his resignation, and of course, it never happened. Another scoop, if I did not say this already, is that on the board of Gavi foundation, you can see the names of people who have been part of Gavi. TedRos was part of Gavi before he was the elected Director-General, conflict of interest. He was on the border between. I wrote it here on 22 January 2009 and September 2011 and that’s one of them.

The other person’s conflict of interest, the President of Ireland, who was at the head of the Human Rights Commission, and I know her. I’m very surprised that she was there with President, with signature, even of Gavi from November 2008 to November 2008 to September 2011. I can give you the papers, no problem. It’s very precise – 25th November 2008 to 14th September 2011. You see the CO, there are many names, I’m sure you will find them your countries too. Many country representatives in Gavi were there before they were even in position. It’s clear he was already entangled with Bill Gates.

Reiner: Wherever you look you see conflicts of interest. Debbie and Anna have their hands up.

Ana: Yes, I checked to see which countries are members of the WHO. I see many. In fact, I don’t see any I don’t recognize. Are there any countries? 194. Are there any countries that are not members of WHO at the moment?

Astrid: I think the US, I know they came back. Okay. No, the Vatican is an observer in the United Nation, as you might know, or not, and that’s also a topic I want to talk about. When you talk about values, religion, PSYOP, they’re observers and they’re everywhere. The other religions are in general at the World Council of Churches, right in front of the big building that Bill Gates has been building with our Swiss money. In three years, it’s been you have to know this… Oh no, that was a question, so I answered right.

Ana: There are no countries that are not members. The Vatican might be an observer but it’s not a member.

Astrid: I don’t know if any- Sylvia, would you say?

Sylvia: I even thought it was around 196 to the International Health Regulations because the Vatican and Liechtenstein are not WHO members, but they are members to the signatory to the International Health Regulations.

Reiner: Debbie has her hand up.

Astrid: I would want to add something that might be interesting. Legally there are. In the annex at the end of this International Health Regulation of 2005, two countries made reservations that they don’t agree completely because they want to apply their global security nationally. And you wouldn’t guess who it is. It’s the US and Iran. So, it’s interesting to see that account. Two countries have managed to put a reservation to this. How come the others haven’t?

Reiner: It’s because their people haven’t spoken, but they will. Debbie.

Debbie: Thank you. I wanted to mention very quickly. When you mentioned the UK, we’ve also got a serious issue going on here with the unvaccinated, in that anybody that seems to be admitted to hospital with a Covid19 positive seemed, or would appear, to be put on an end of life, an accelerated end-of-life care plan. Patients seem to be given Midazolam and Morphine. This is without their consent, without their family’s consent. These decisions are made by the clinicians alone, the families and the patient don’t have any say in it at all. I want to be sure to include the victims of this absolute disaster that are unvaccinated and also bring your attention to CEPI. CEPI was founded in 2017. CEPI and Gavi work very closely together. In fact, financially, very closely together. When CEPI was launched in 2017 at the World Economic Forum launch, Bill Gates said that they would be cutting out safety with regards to clinical trials. It would and he said it straight out. It was actually featured on UK column news. Bill Gates said the safety data and manufacturing would be cut out, which would enable the 100-day mission to go ahead. To have vaccines rolled out within 100 days of the World Health Organization declaring a pandemic. I wanted to mention that and also with regards to Whitney earlier talking about DARPA.

We have our very own kind of diluted DARPA. We have ARPA but we also have Welcome Leap which Whitney has got a lot of information about. When it comes to bioweapons and the making of bio biochemicals, I want to go back to patent because of Rothschild’s 2015 patent. If you look at the full paper, everything that we’re seeing today was put into that and it was approved in 2020. It was given priority in 2015. So, it was written in 2015, and what we’re seeing now is everything within that pattern. So, that together with SPARS pandemic 2025 to 2028 was a coronavirus, and some names are the same as in the John Hopkins futuristic scenario like CORVAX.

There are an awful lot of similarities and I know we’ve been talking, you’ve been talking about Lockstep, but I want to remind people that SPARS pandemic 2025-2028 gives a month-by-month breakdown. If you look at when we first started in the March when we had the first case in our country, or in December in Wuhan, it literally goes month by month. The prediction going forward would appear to be anti-microbial resistance, which is already written in SPARS. We’re finding many people in this country not being able to access antibiotics, and GPs and physicians not wanting to give antibiotics. I wanted to throw that in, thank you.

Reiner: We do have lots of reasons to worry about our sovereignty. One of them, not the least one, is the World Health Organization’s health regulations. That seems to be the overarching theme. This is how, through their constitution, and through the revision, through the revised International Health Regulations, they seem to be trying to gain control over the rest of the world, including of course, all the 196 member states. Is this a correct assessment?

Sylvia: Yes, at least, I think because in the first part of my expertise I stressed that the military aspects were included in this agenda but were not named. That’s the reason why we now have a pandemic response that is not medical, which is unproportionate and political. We do not realize it because they included this bioterrorist scenario, and they adapted the language to Global Health Security, that’s also the Center for Civilian Biodefense. At the time of Dark Winter, it was called John Hopkins Global Health Security Center, Center for Civilian Biodefense I think was the correct name. They also had a journal called Bioterrorism or Biodefense and now it’s called Global Health Security. We should not forget about that. A biowar could go on at least, so it’s much more political as the politicians would themselves agree.

Astrid: I will add two points: one, we should worry about the whole United Nations because the sustainable development goals are 17 goals and 169 targets in the agenda 2030. It is all entangled, especially with climate change, for example, but there are many other mechanisms under that have to be looked at. The second, such as the UN Alliance for SDG financing. I mean, what is this I’m finding? You know, when you dig, you find a lot of things very mysterious that we have to find out. But the other one that might interest you is, remember that pandemic or epidemic or public health emergency of international concern has four typologies that I was taking care of the case studies. It’s very important to distinguish. That’s what we should do with what’s going on now because we’re all focused on the biological factor. But, in fact, the first one is infectious biology, the second is foodborne biology and there’s a whole organization behind called INFOSAN. The third is chemical, and chemical is mercury, can be metal, etc.

There was one expert, Kersten Gutsmith, a German, that I was inviting, and he was always making great reports, but it’s very difficult to find the experts there. The fourth is very important and you will see why; it’s nuclear radiation and that’s even more difficult to find experts. I realized this because in our courses we were inviting people. Who are taking care of this? It is the International Atomic Energy Agency based in Vienna and they are experts on radio nuclear, Chernobyl, Fukushima. They are the first in line there and what I was shocked about, is when we were doing the case studies of Fukushima, we also did WHO what do. They said no, WHO was not allowed to access Fukushima. They will refuse the visa because the first one to be there is the IAEA (International Atomic Energy) and what is very strange, I don’t have an agreement or written statement, which gives them power over WHO.

I went to look at what they’re doing now with Covid just today so I’m very happy to tell you, or very scared to tell you, that they are in charge of the RT PCR kit. It’s crazy to actually know before I say how they have presented this; is they are independent of the United Nations. They have their own international treaty, and they report to the General Assembly and the Social Security Council every year. This is for nuke, it’s for radio nuclear threats which could kill the whole planet. They say that the IAEA has developed a nuclear derived diagnostic technology that can help detect and identify Covid or anything else in humans and in animals. Because animals are treated by veterinary and by FAO, the Food Administration Organization, they have developed this test. This RT PCR test is very efficient because it’s a polymerized chain reaction and rapid test. They think they are the experts, especially for Ebola, Zika, and the African Swine Fever virus. Today, I read this and for me, it rings a bell because they are now offering the PCR test kit and their lab, so they’re linked to labs.

We were saying that’s where the power lies and where things have to be, I think, looked at closer. I don’t know what you think, Sylvia, but that’s a bit worrying.

Reiner: You mean other private organizations or half private or most of these organizations which we spoke about tonight, pretty much all of the international organizations, are more or less controlled by private citizens, by private groups, charities, etc? This harkens back to the theme we first heard about today, how the City of London, basically big finance, is controlling everything through their emissaries. They’re private people trying to gain control over the rest of the world. Again, we have to take back our sovereignty, that is what all of this tells me, right now. We also have to take a much closer look at PCR testing, which we will do in tomorrow’s session. Maybe also look at all the NGOs because in NWHIS, World Alliance of Hospitals, the world alliance of the alliances of alliances, a lot of British people are in charge. You also know that many militaries are there because the CDC in the US was formerly military and I think it still is, by the way. So, we have to, I think, disentangle those NGOs, it’s the world NGOs, or the BINGO, the Business Interested NGOs, because they are the mechanics and it’s very difficult to find them. They have a lot of power, more than we think. The people have to learn that they have to disconnect and start grassroots democracy, look into their regions and their communities. They know best what’s good for them.

It is very late already. I know Dipali is a few hours ahead of us, three or four hours, right Dipali? Yes, four and a half. Oh, my God. It’s been a very long day and unless there are any further questions, I think we should close this session for tonight. Yes, go ahead, Dexter, please.

Dexter: I want to talk about Dr. Sylvia. You were mentioning global youth security and I would like you to maybe put it in perspective when it comes to the definition changes from the World Child Organization in 2009. You mean that you refer to the search for the pandemic criteria?

Sylvia: That’s correct. My personal views are that WHO realized that they don’t need a pandemic definition anymore. Everything that is needed is a PHEIC , a public health emergency of international concern because they want to manufacture vaccines. It doesn’t matter how the pandemic is defined in non-legal documents. They actually alleviate at a very high threshold because they realize they can, at any time, make a public health emergency as long as there’s international spread and as long as they have diagnostics. They focused no attention on this theme, I think, and that’s our problem.

The lawyers are always looking for this pandemic definition, but there are no legal consequences linked to the definition of a pandemic. There’s a huge legal consequence if you proclaim that the Director-General takes his authority and proclaims a public health emergency of international concern.

Dexter: Thank you very much.

Virginie: It explains, perhaps, why they used the models of Sir Ferguson to increase the fear and explain there is a pandemic. Because with the epidemiology, some mathematics they used on that is not useful, it’s wrongly used to study the spread of the virus. They use this synthetic information from these models, perhaps because it seems very strange that they used the models of Sir Ferguson, which doesn’t work at all, and these models were duplicated in other countries, in France, for example. We took this for granted. It’s not based on experience and medicine at all. It’s only mathematics, we can’t use that at all. I would like to know if it’s for this reason that the WHO has used these models to increase the fear of the pandemic and to mass manipulate.

Sylvia: I don’t know any specifics about it. They had everything they needed to proclaim a public health emergency. The national governments knew the population would go along. They needed it for the population because there was also the first PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) declared in 2009 where the vaccines were manufactured but nobody was threatened. At least, I was not threatened by this PHEIC because there were no media releases that threatened us. But now they needed the population to stay at home during the lockdowns and to get the vaccine. In the end, that’s my personal explanation, Astrid. I don’t know, from the model of Sir Ferguson, the only solution was vaccines and no treatment at all only.

Astrid: I could add that there are many definitions of scientific definition. They have changed, not only pandemic, but they have also changed the definition of health professionals, it’s everybody. They have changed data privacy, there is no data privacy anymore. They have not made ethics, for example, in communication in the International Health Regulation implementation course and you have to do it to reassure people. We don’t know. We are looking for something. You will you know what is going on, and step by step you keep people informed, and there it was fair, right away. Not only was this a psychological operation for that fear, that constant fear, with cases, with images, with deaths that were not deaths. Because we know today there was not more mortality in 2020 but also, with contradictions, it was said before and this is in Melanie Klein psychology: you make psychotic people and children when you say, “I love you” but “I hate you” and you push. Or you say, “I love you” and “I hate you” at the same time with behavior, so they made crazy nonsense of coherence. No sense of control. It’s also another concept in psychology and they made people totally insecure which diminishes their immunity by the way.

What they also did psychologically, was they took away all religions and belief systems, and this is something that keeps people up. They censor the religion, they censor death, forbid the ritual of death, which is one of the most important rituals. If you want to have a good grief development, I mean coherence and healing, there are many things they have done. Not just this manipulation. I don’t know. Sir Ferguson, a bit I think, and I could add one more. They reversed completely the values, and this is a bit of the Melanie Klein psychotic, I call it the Hansel & Gretel Syndrome because “I love you, I’m gonna give you this, I’m going to, you know, be ethical, we’re going to treat you well with the vaccine”, and they’re killing them. They have absolutely abrogated ethics research guidelines that we developed from 2006 to 2009 and I was involved in that. All the values are also a PSYOPS. They have changed the values and the definition for certain.

Reiner: This is not about health but the world.

Debbie: Professor Ferguson: if I could clarify Professor Ferguson. In 2002, he modeled 50,000 deaths would happen in the UK from Mad Cow Disease, and he modeled it completely incorrectly. We saw the burning of all of our cattle for 150 deaths, he was very incorrect. We were very surprised in the UK when we’d found out that Neil Ferguson was responsible for the modeling of this pandemic because he was so incorrect in the last one. He also hit the headlines a number of times and had to resign from his post in Sage because he was caught breaking lockdown rules. Just wanted to add that about Professor Ferguson.

Reiner: The question is: How come he’s still in office?

Debbie: That’s a really good question and I can’t answer that one I’m afraid, but he shouldn’t be. He shouldn’t.

Astrid: Conflict of interest.

Debbie: Absolutely, he works very closely with Saudi as well. I’ll find out the name, I can’t actually read it to pronounce it, but he works very… Imperial College has the largest alumni of Chinese. When President Xi came on his state visit, the only university he visited was Imperial. Imperial have huge Chinese ties and they’ve also taken over a number of our hospitals so that we have now an Imperial NHS Trust. Imperial, I mean I could go on for hours about Imperial and Professor Alice Gast, who who’s the President of Imperial, who gave a lecture based on George Orwell’s 1984. There’s an awful lot going on at Imperial and I could talk a lot more about Imperial, but Professor Ferguson was discredited back in 2002 for Mad Cow Disease and wanted to throw that in.

Reiner: Thank you. It is astonishing indeed how many people, who are completely incompetent at what they’re doing, one of them being the person who runs the EU Commission, failed at every single job she’s ever held. It’s incredible how many completely incompetent people are kept in office, obviously by the people who put them there. Those super-rich people somehow seem to be fuelled and kept alive through the City of London and its fifth columns that seem to be everywhere in the world. We will have to take closer looks into all of these occurrences.

Astrid: Yes, okay. I would add one thing. We were talking about Mackenzie and Von der Leyen’s son working for McKinsey. And the son of Fabius in France, he’s working for McKinsey. The nepotist, more it’s a term used in Pope’s.

Virginie: because they also had a problem when she was a Minister of Defense in Germany, I think.

Reiner: And when she was the Secretary of Families, or something like that. She always had problems.

Astrid: But she was always kept in office. It was already a problem with the McKinsey contracts.

Reiner: McKinsey is a major institution in all of this because we have learned from another expert that Bill Gates is using McKinsey in order to make sure that his advisors become the advisers of, for example, Dulozafone, all the other major political figures through the network of McKinsey.

Astrid: It’s amazing that we had exactly the same messages two years ago in the shops and the airports as now. Wash your hands. Wear the mask. In Europe, at least for those who don’t have those measures but, and it’s the same voice, it’s like a marketing agency. This should also be analyzed if it’s the same voice everywhere and you know something weird.

Reiner: We’re looking into that as well. But tonight, it’s been a very long day and I know that Dipali needs some sleep, we all do. So, unless there are any questions that urgently need to be answered, I think we should close our session for today. I really want to thank everyone. This has been extremely valuable. Thank you, Astrid. Thank you, Virginie. Thank you, Sylvia. Thank you, Dexter and Anna, and Dipali. And, of course, thank you, Debbie. Thank you very, very much. One big step forward. Thank you. Thank you. Goodbye, it’s crazy.

Digiprove sealCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2022 Chris Parkinson SUPPORT CHRIS