“How World Governments are run by Multinational Companies”

The John Cooper Show (January 6, 2023)

“How World Governments are run by Multinational Companies”

RAISING THE BAR

“How World Governments are run by Multinational Companies”

The John Cooper Show

January 6, 2023

American presidential candidate and international relations expert Emanuel Pastreich discusses the events of 2020 and how it was really an attempted totalitarian takeover of local and central governments around the world by billionaires and bloodline families working through IT companies, and private intelligence firms. We talk about the perversion and Marxification of academia and how students are "mind raped" into a worship of authority by the very people that have been learning how to corrupt minds from earlier experiments at DARPA and Guantanamo Bay.  

John Cooper:

Welcome to another episode of Raising the Bar with myself, John Cooper. Today I'm joined by Emanuel Pastreich who serves as the president of the Asia Institute and is director general of the institute for Future Urban Environments. Emanuel declared his candidacy for president of the US as an independent in February of 2020. Emanuel welcome to the show.

Emanuel Pastreich:

It's an honor to be with you.

John Cooper:

I presented a little bio there, but could you explain for the audience what brought you to where you are at this moment, about your candidacy for president, and also about being brave enough to speak the truths that you do?

Emanuel Pastreich:

Well, first I'm an American And you could say that I was a card-carrying member of The establishment, in the sense that my father went to Yale and I went to Yale, I grew up in an upper middle class environment, became a professor at University of Illinois, and I was 22 years ago a prominent figure in Asian studies—and I thought I would end up with a very illustrious career. But then I was forced by 9/11 and the build up to 9/11 to face ugly aspects of American culture; it was a change, a negative mutation, in American culture and I watched people being cleared out of government, out of academics, and other places and I felt we'd crossed the Rubicon, and that therefore, as an intellectual, I had a responsibility to take a stand and to oppose this. It was not just me, but it was a small group in America of people who felt we had to take a stand back then in 2001--even before the 911 incident.

But the institutional decay and contradictions went back to Oklahoma, it went back to the Kennedy assassination in some respects it went back to the end of the second World War. At the end of the Second World War we had this very sad experience ---and equally true in London as it is in Washington DC--which is that during the Second World War there was an effort in Washington DC or in London to move away from the imperialist financial system and to get back to something closer to a republic, something based upon representation of the interests and the needs of the average citizen, to move away from global finance.

But that effort, that effort to maintain healthy institutions, started to fall apart at the end of the Second World War. It took another 30 years to weave the spider's web in which American and British corporations set up their Headquarters, in the Virgin Islands and other places, and thereby created a parallel alternate universe that is not subject to the rule of law, that is not overseen by anything; just trusts, corporations, offshore holdings.

And today that “spider’s web economy” has become the dominant paradigm. So we live in the terrarium economy—you, me, our friends-- and then there's this “Untouchable” Brahmin class of people who have accumulated billions and billions of dollars. They make up money, they control money, and they inhabit the the leftovers of the British Empire. They have become the dominant mode for economic interaction for both the United States and Great Britain, and other countries as well. We've signed, unbeknownst to Ourselves, a sort of death pact to have our societies torn apart, sold off at fire sale prices, to benefit this tiny handful the super-rich. Now it's no longer just in London and New York, but also includes wealthy individuals from around the world—from Japan, from Germany, from China, from Russia, etc. It is a disturbing world and so I decided we had to take a stand against them, not just me of course. The result was that I ended up spending 14 years in Korea. This is my second time trying to come back to the United States I don't know how it will end, and I'm not totally sure that it's a viable campaign, but at least I will try.

I say let's go back to real politics. Politics was not a bad word originally. We need a politics of truth, a politics of ethical commitment, and we need to say that those of us who had the benefit of receiving good educations have a responsibility to the common man, the common woman the working women and men of our country, of our Earth. Intellectuals must recognize that our interests do not lie with the billionaires, not with Goldman Sachs and BlackRock. Perhaps this point seems obvious to some of you, but that this is not common sense in London and Washington. The vast majority of the privileged intellectuals, those who have had these opportunities for good educations in a supportive environment, find themselves siding with the billionaires, not the working people.

I mean the will of the billionaires as articulated through their cardboard Messiahs, their pay-to-play NGOs, their fake organizations that are supposedly trying to abolish poverty or address the environmental crisis—but they are in fact following their directives from private intelligence agencies that work for the for billionaires, for BlackRock, for Microsoft, for Cisco, and for other multinationals. These multinationals are a combination of financial, Technological, and intelligence Services that are engaged in the mass manipulation of public opinion and are creating a radical class society.

________________________________

John Cooper:

What do you mean by “radical class society”?

________________________________

Emanuel Pastreich:

So class is the issue that is critical for us to understand in order to take political action, and also must be understood for the sake of self-awareness so as to start real change. We must be aware that there are radical class gaps between this small group of billionaires, and their immediate associates, who live in their own precious world, winging around the world on private jets. They are people for whom there was no pandemic and there has been no economic crisis. They never wore masks or were forced to take vaccines. If anything, they've gotten richer and they're insulated on every side. If you grow up in one of these families will you're not be aware of of what is going on in the world, or what's happening to those around you.

Unfortunately, the term “class” is associated with Marxist thought which has led some people to dismiss it. The argument advanced in the corporate-funded media is that anyone who's talking about class is a leftist, a socialist, and they cannot be taken seriously. There are two problems with that assumption. First, Marxist analysis, although it has serious problems, it is accurate in many respects and deserves to be at least explored as one perspective on the world. The billionaires have paid off a lot of people to pursue the argument that if you're a socialist, if you're sympathetic to Marxist or Leninist analysis, then you are the enemy and so we can't even listen to anything that you say. So most people have never even looked at what Marx actually wrote. The other part of the problem is that people like John Stewart Mills, who wrote on social and political issues in the 19th century, used the word class and they used the framework of class interests for understanding the world. The emergence of dominant classes who control the money, control the means of production, distribution, education, and ideology is not a Marxist concept.

Somehow, by branding discussion of class as socialist or Marxist, we take away from the common people the most valuable form of analysis for understanding the world: class interests.

________________________________

John Cooper:

Thank you for that explanation. I think that what's happened is that we have moved from class as the source of socio-economic disparity to a state in which “class” is being transposed over categories like race, sexual identity, sexual orientation. We end up with neo-Marxism, or cultural Marxism. A lot of people have a problem with this analysis that because it feels like yet another divide and conquer strategy.

Emanuel Pastreich:

That is exactly what it is. What we're looking at (I don't have access to the classified files of private intelligence firms like Booz Allen Hamilton) is how the billionaires paid off a group of people to push this neo-progressive neo-Marxist ideology of identity politics. This ideology does not come from working people but it's being force fed to us by these same groups. The same people at BlackRock, or Cisco, or Facebook, or Google who are funding the corrupt parts of Black Lives Matter, ordering them to push this gender blending, race-based, fake ideological struggle, are the same people who are funding the Trump people and their MAGA (Make America Great Again) groups, those who are attacking immigrants as the threat to America without identifying the real problem of global finance. The Trump people are not any more right, or wrong, than those on the other side. They're totally right to see how immigration is used to destroy the lives of ordinary Americans. Where they're wrong, or where they miss the point, is that they don't see how global financial institutions are investing in Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina so as to destroy the local economies of those countries and to force people to move to the United States as part of this strategy to destroy the lives of workers in both places so that the billionaires can emerge all-powerful.

Both sides, the left and the right, have become part of a puppet show these days.

________________________________

John Cooper:

These big companies work through academia, they work through the education system so as to   capture the so-called intellectuals. It is a paradox that the people who have abdicated their critical thinking skills ARE the intellectuals themselves. Whereas the common working class people, your typical man on the street, seems to be able to acknowledge the evil when he sees it, and to identify government overreach. Why is it that these intellectuals were captured in the first place, and why is it that they can't think for themselves?

---

Emanuel Pastreich:

I came from that background and so I have an intimate knowledge of this process of seduction. To some degree it's a standard strategy. You can read about mass manipulation and there are strategy books they're being passed around at Boston Consulting, and other private consulting firms, about how do you take over a country and thereby seize control of the decision-making process. This high level manipulation goes back to the Phoenix Project of the 1960s that set down the groundwork for what we see being done here today. Originally the Phoenix Project was carried out in Vietnam by the US government, and the corporations hiding behind government, as a means to take over Vietnam. The files for the Phoenix Program are pretty explicit. They are a handbook for controlling society.

Doug Valentine writes about how the United States then imported this Phoenix Project system for seizing control of politics from the Vietnam back in to the United States. Seizing control of the intellectuals was a big part of the Phoenix Program. There was a carrot and a stick for the educated (then in Vietnam, now in DC). The carrot is how intellectuals are flattered, are made to feel like they're part of the establishment.

Rich people take them out to dinner and feature them in the media as experts. The intellectuals who go along with the plan get to be famous in a way that they wouldn't normally. It is a seduction.    Eventually it becomes a form of sort of sexual abuse, almost like rape, in which intellectuals are so compromised by these elicit relationships with global finance that they themselves can no longer face the reality and fall into a cycle of denial. The stick is punishment for those who wander off the reservation. That is to say that the professors, journalists, lawyers, doctors, this class of the educated (more educated than billionaires who are their bosses) start to see their interests as being aligned with those of the wealthy. But, they also know that they can be cut off, they can lose their tenure, not get those opportunities to show up on CNN, to be invited to think tanks. That threat then leads them to self-censor. I should just add that this has been true for a while, but it's gotten much worse.

I mean, the most clear example was Drew Faust, an American historian and professor at Harvard who wrote an excellent study of the Civil War. Faust became president of Harvard and then, when she retired, she was invited to become a member of the board of directors of Goldman Sachs. I think that 20 years ago it would have been inconceivable that the president of Harvard would have stepped down and joined the board of directors of Goldman Sachs.

But Harvard has changed fundamentally in its nature. It was never perfect, but whereas there was a clear wall, a policy that Harvard would take money from wealthy individuals that it had an enormous endowment of 30, now more than 40, billion dollars that there remained a brain-blood barrier that said, we will keep out these most corrupting parts of global finance so that Harvard will be able to be independent, relatively. But that this is gone now and that is why people say that Harvard today is “an investment fund with a little university attached on the side.” And so those 40 billion dollars is what's important, not Harvard the university. And so, by extension, Harvard has become just a brand, like Adidas or Google.

which multinational corporations can use to brand their psych ops. We see this happening increasingly. The Harvard brand is used promiscuously to mask or to rebrand disturbing activities. Nor is that strategy limited to Harvard. We see that happening across the board.

________________________________

John Cooper:

Thank you for that. All universities seem to be captured to some degree and also the students that are coming out of them.   I don't just mean the intellectuals, I mean every university graduate, they are the products of their professors who were probably activists at one point in the past. It’s a kind of a follow-on, a domino effect in which an ideology is passed down. I want to know why these students are like that. It seems that they are not taught how to think; they're told what to think. They're whipped up into sort of a frenzy. It's all very kind of tribal within the universities.

They feel that they're almost militarized at university, given their ideological training. Then, when they come out, they go out in the world, into media, into the HR Departments of companies. And that is how the ideology spreads. Is that a fair assessment, and how do we change that? If there is someone watching this broadcast, someone who at the university, taking one of these feminist or sociology courses, whatever it is, Then they are given these very militant ideas about everything. What could we say to encourage them to break out of that “ideological calcification?” You know what I'm trying to say, right?

________________________________

Emanuel Pastreich:

Well, it's extremely difficult to break out and I think we're going to have to be increasingly independent. We are going to have to say that some of these institutions are so corrupt that they are not about learning and they're not about education. You get this degree, whether a high School degree, or college degree, or graduate degree, and that allows you to get a job. So it's a qualification; it's not about learning how to think. It's not about understanding the world. It's not even about science. It is just following a set of prescribed rituals that will give you a qualification that allows you to be employed. So that's not education. I think the first step is just to be brave enough to say that this is not education to put your foot down and say these schools do not have the legitimacy to be called “education,” to serve as a real education. We must admit to ourselves this fact.

As I said before, the abuse of the citizen is like rape or incest, in that the individual, the victim, is so corrupted and compromised by this process that he or she is no longer able to identify the violence and the exploitation for what it is.   So we fall back these rituals, these rites, at the Universities, and continue them even as journalism, education, governance have become but corrupt means for the super wealthy to control us and the best way to control us.

As we know from the experiments at DARPA and at Guantanamo Bay abuse is used to permanently alter the capacity of individuals to respond to authority. They become so compromised by the system they can no longer oppose anything. I think that's the ultimate goal here, to compromise us using education and media to form a relationship with the power elite like sexual abuse, so that we can no longer stand up and say, “this is wrong” to say that we have our own perspective. It does come back to self-awareness. That is why I appreciate your efforts, your focus on the individual and the self-confidence and awareness that is necessary. If we lack at the most basic level, the ability to say “this is who I am,” “these are my values,” “this is where I stand” then we're going to be incapable of articulating our opposition to this outside multinational force.

______________________________

John Cooper:

Absolutely. That is why I believe we need to bring everything back to the individual, and to really take care of yourself, to nurture yourself and to curate your own life in a way that then cascades outwards reflecting your beliefs, your values, and your integrity. I

I read in one of your articles that this hasn't always been the way. We were better critical thinkers 60 or 70 years ago. What's changed? And how did we think back then?

What’s missing now? You often reference philosophers and stuff like that. Are there things that we can do that will help us with our critical and rational faculties?

______________________________

Emanuel Pastreich:

There have been many changes that took place. The promotion of this consumption culture, a sort of narcissism that takes control of our aesthetics is in our entertainment, in movies. Above all, we see the intentional confusion, pushed by multinational corporations and the rich, of science with technology. If we're going to look for one major Factor, the origin of the current crisis, the cause for the collapse of medicine, the collapse of journalism, the collapse of academics, then this intentional confusion of science with technology is key. I would just start with what the philosopher and essayist of the 1960s Paul Goodman said famously,

“Whether or not it draws a new scientific research, technology is a branch of moral philosophy not of science.”

That is to say that technology should be ultimately concerned with the moral, the ethical, and that science is the process by which one investigates, one searches, for truth. These two realms are fundamentally different: science is a philosophical demand to discover the truth through the scientific method. That means that you observe things around you, you speculate as to possible explanations for what you observe using your imagination--so it's a humanistic creative process--and then you compare the explanations that you imagine with what You observe over time. You start with five theories, you get them down to four, three, and eventually you're able to come up with a thesis to explain what you observe, the reality based on truth. That process, that intellectual philosophical process, that science of understanding the truth might tell you to stay away from your smartphone, right? that you should not have AI cartoon characters talking to your kids when they're developing--that would be science.

We need to erect a wall, to say that we only use technology when it's helpful and we reject it when it's not helpful to us. If it's better to grow your own food because the food is organic, it gives jobs to people in your community, it puts you in charge of what you eat, making you self-sufficient and not subject to the whims of multinational corporations, and import-export logistics firms, then, yeah, that's what you should be doing. Technology by contrast are processes for an effect. That can be good, but it can easily be used in a negative way to control people and technology can be used as a means to diminish and to undermine the capacity of the individual, or the community, to think independently. That is what has happened over the last 20 Years.

The smartphone, the internet, the search engine, social media all these things which could theoretically be used in a positive sense have been transformed into covert operations whose primary goal today is to diminish and undermine, to degrade the capacity of the individual to think for herself or himself, to compromise the individual’s role in the community through these relationships with so-called friends who are actually enemies of the ordinary citizen and through that process to create a economic, social, political environment in the United States, or for that matter in other countries, in which it is no longer possible to resist the authority from above and to be critical. These technologies end up compromising the individual so that the individual feels somehow that he or she is part of this process. That compromise leads us into things like the wearing of masks.

John Cooper:

Absolutely. But before you go into masks, I just want to thank you for that explanation, and to say that it does seem that because we're depending more and more on technology, and eventually it's going to get to the stage where the technologies community guidelines will become the law. Because when everyone's on these platforms they will have no choice but to comply with them—especially if technology connects you to the local supermarket and you won’t be able to get a loaf of bread, unless you comply. 

I definitely see that's what is happening and you're right, they're having conversations about how the general scientific line of inquiry is just investigating something, but then you'll find out that the technology will character assassinate you, delete you, ban you, turn you against your friends online. That is what becomes so difficult, to know how to play the system, and to beat the system.

______________________________

Emanuel Pastreich:

Well, I had the experience last week of having 280 videos deleted from Vimeo. Suddenly they decided that I had gotten too popular I think and so they deleted me. They sent me a letter of explanation and I responded, saying that I want to talk to them and I have scientific proof for everything I wrote. “Let's have a dialogue?” They sent me this response stating that these authority figures, whether it's at Harvard, or in the American government, or in the media, they decide what is true. It is not based on a rigorous questioning through the scientific method. Rather these authority figures decide. This is the ideology that has been accurately described as science-ISM.

It's not science but rather this ideology that holds that if you're a Harvard professor, if you work at the Center for Disease Control, if you have this stamp of approval of graduating from a good high school or college, then you have the authority to dictate to the people what is true.

By contrast, if I'm unemployed or I'm just a blogger, or whatever, even if I base everything on a close scientific investigation of things, still I don't have any authority because I don't have that stamp of approval. That's not science; that's scienceism.

______________________________

John Cooper:

Yeah sciencism. I call it scientism. it's a perversion of the actual truth because it's just following orders; it's being compliant. It’s the old “8 out of 10 cats prefer this cat food” or “97% of climate scientists have said this therefore trust the science.” Anytime you hear “trust the science” you know it's not science.

____________________________

Emanuel Pastreich:

I read many articles on policy in the United States in which the first thing they state is that the public supports this according to our recent surveys. Eighty percent of Americans think that we should do this about health care. Now as an American who has never been called by any public opinion research polling company, all of which are run for profit and their shares are owned by multinational investment banks, I assume these statistics are fabricated.

I wouldn't say that they have no basis in in reality. They follow the propaganda strategy: a 30 70 mix. You take 30% truth and you mix it with 70% lies, and then you plant it in different mouths, which have different ideological flavors to them. That gives the impression that, “Oh if this part of it's true, then rest must be true. And it's being repeated by people from the left or from the right (you know Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, those cardboard Messiahs) so somehow it must be true because it's being recognized by people with all these different perspectives.”

______________________________

John Cooper:

We've something similar with the Twitter files. In the Twitter dump it was clear that  The White House was dictating to Big Tech, to Twitter execs.  They were just making sure that the company and the algorithms and the AI Bots were filtering out anything that contradicted the mainstream narrative of the World Health Organization, and they would de-platform and cancel anyone who had any opinions, any alternative views on anything. That is scientism, as you say, isn't it? That's the technological monopoly.

Emanuel Pastreich:

Twitter is a perfect example.  The debate is controlled. The question is whether Elon Musk owning Twitter will somehow make it better, or whether letting Donald Trump, and a few of these perverse false Messiahs, get an account on Twitter will somehow improve things. But Twitter is basically a platform for controlling public opinion that is run for profit and is co-owned by a series of global funds, which they tend to hide behind multinational corporations, funds like BlackRock, or Goldman Sachs, or Vanguard. But behind that they are basically funds belonging to extremely wealthy individuals and families. The primary goal of Twitter is to control opinion.

What we really should have had was a debate in which we could say that we don't  want Twitter at all, or that Twitter should be owned by its users, that all the people who use Twitter should be shareholders in Twitter and get a payment every week based upon their contribution to Twitter.  But the system is set up such that Twitter is controlled a hundred percent by these multinational Banks (behind them wealthy families) and it's used to manipulate us.  We have no say. Nobody in this debate on Twitter, Trump or Musk, or whoever, nobody said that maybe the people who use Twitter should own Twitter or that maybe they should have the right to determine what its policies are. No one suggested that we should be able to propose policy to Twitter and to vote on what Twitter's policy should be.

To my mind, the revolutionary change that we need is to hold that Facebook, Twitter, all social media can play a positive role, and that they'll be positive when they're owned by their users—who are the ones who contribute all the value to them. We write for Facebook and “Facebook Incorporated” uses that information and makes billions of dollars off of it. They pay you nothing. All they do is give you the special privilege of using it for free.

John Cooper:

So you used the the term “cardboard messiah.” So is your opinion of Elon Musk that he is just he’s a

false savior?

______________________________

Emanuel Pastreich:

I would not rule out the possibility that in the controlled environment in which Elon Musk lives that he may have more thoughtful views than some of his associates do. So I  I'm not ruling out the possibility that he as an individual may have some positive characteristics, and I have nothing personally against him. But within the larger system of things this man, who is pushing trans-humanism and who has been a central figure in the push for technology, the push for geo-fencing, and the control of the citizen. He has no legitimacy and I would say he should be in jail. I think that his role in the global takeover over the last four or five years has been central and he has tens of billions of dollars invested in this project.

This fact has been proven by the many anti-democratic, techno-fascist policies that he pushes through various holding companies. I'm not expert enough on Elon Musk to say exactly how he does it, but I'm quite familiar with how you set up sock puppets to push your agenda from the right and from the left. Elon Musk has been a card-carrying member of this elite group for a long time.

_________________________

John Cooper:

So how does he benefit from it? What exactly is his game; what's his end goal?

______________________________

Emanuel Pastreich:

Well his main game is using public Funding to make billions and billions of dollars. He comes up with these schemes like “we're all going to drive electric cars.” The he gets local and central governments around the world to give him tens of billions of dollars to develop his Tesla cars even though they don't even exist yet. He gets all this funding. And then and he pushes AI.   It is all similar, he says we have to go to this next stage of our development and that we need all this funding to develop AI. That money comes from our tax dollars, or from the inflation resulting from overspending by government.

So he is basically funded by the government even though he's a profit-seeking individual.  I think he's worse than many people in that respect the degree to which he was willing to take this enormous amount of money from central governments and central banks to finance these pie in the sky projects like Tesla that do nothing. 

Tesla is a scam. You see all these big signs for electric cars and these charging stations that nobody uses, and these Tesla cars parked in strategically visible locations to publicize how somehow we're going to go to electric cars. But, in fact, almost nobody has them and they're priced out of the range of normal people. And electric cars don't help the environment in most cases—it’s just a transfer. You're taking the pollution and putting it somewhere else and transferring it as electricity. But it's not helping the environment. If anything you'd be better off going back to riding horses.

John Cooper:

Absolutely! It seems to me that Elon musk's role is to get us all on board with him as this renegade that's going into something like Twitter and then cleaning out of all the “fascist liberals” - you know the ones who are kicking us all off Twitter. And then we all are supposed to get behind him and then we will all sympathize with his ideas about climate change and building these electric cars which are not helping the environment.  

It all seems to me that he's a well-packaged WWF character brought in as a pro-wrestling “baby-face” to make us buy into some of the things that we might not have if it wasn't for him coming in.

______________________________

Emanuel Pastreich:

It's created an enormously difficult situation because people now assume that any discussion of the destruction of the climate, of the environment, is a fraud because it's become fraudulent.  I personally base my opinion on considerable amount of research on the environment. I don't think it's a fraud. It is just that the time scale is off. Destroying the environment is not going to lead to human extinction in 20 years. But within 500 years? Totally conceivable.

And it's not just about carbon-dioxide. It is a whole range of destructive activities that are going on: the destruction of the oceans, micro-plastics, the spread of deserts, the destruction of fresh water, etc. It is a complex process.

But because so many people have degraded the debate and made it into a tool for banks to control you and limit your activities, now if I even just mentioned the words “environment” or “climate Change” people think I'm a sock puppet of the World Economic Forum. 

This discourse has problematized, and maybe intentionally degraded, our ability to even discuss the environment.

_____________________________

John Cooper:

Well it works both ways. You can't have any view that goes outside of the central narrative. Otherwise,  you’ll be called a conspiracy theorist or their favourite is “a climate denialist” (pernicious term to associate you with a Holocaust “denier”). It seems to me that there's certain things that you can't talk about, which always me ask, why is that? 

I find that it's probably the other way around.  In my experience it is the people that you're not allowed to question who are the ones that rule over you. It I think Voltaire who said that. It is things you can't talk about, or the things that if you have an opinion about them that is contrary to the mainstream narrative, you're immediately shot down, those make me think, well maybe there's something in this.

___________________________

Emanuel Pastreich:

That's why I think the analogy to incest is so valuable, especially when you talk about intellectuals. In the case of incest in a family things are different. If a parent gets in a fight with a child, then people recognize as a problem in the family. But in the case of incest there are times when these damaging relations go on for decades, everyone knowing that something is wrong but nobody being able to talk about it.

The reason is that the incestuous relationship is so compromising to everybody that it's no longer possible to even discuss it. It is a taboo and that's the process right from the Kennedy assassination, to 9/11, and then on to what we have now, this “health crisis” in which an enormous number of intellectuals, people who are knowledgeable, were so profoundly compromised by these incidents that they were no longer able to express any form of resistance, and they became pawns of the system.

______________________________

John Cooper:

I definitely see that, the agent Smiths I call them from the Matrix. Whereas the Neos were sort of bringing new ideas, a new way of thinking.  

Quickly would you mind, just as a spoke from that hub, would you mind just saying what was Covid-19 all about?

Emanuel Pastreich:

Covid-19 probably it goes back far in time. There were these efforts to find some way of creating mass control, and for using technology for global domination. We have parts of some DARPA and RAND studies from back in the 70s in which this plan is discussed. Some things are even declassified. But this discussion was going on for a while. The idea was to achieve a sort of ideological control whereby citizens would no longer be able to articulate an alternative position and would fall in with this corporate-dominated worldview.  The ultimate purpose was the creation of a new class.  The move towards action in the Covid-19 operation was aided by the massive concentration of wealth that took place over the preceding 10 to 15 years.

So, if you have the difference in wealth of 100 times, the average people making forty thousand and rich people making 4 million that is a different society than the one in which the ordinary people make sixty thousand and the rich own 100 billion. This new society is so different that you are left with a radical gap. You have these super-rich groups who are pursuing their interests, and then you have this terrarium economy in which you hold the people from working class, up to those who hold five to ten-million dollars in assets.  They are all in this little contained ball. And so this terrarium economy leads to a profound misunderstanding wherein people think, “Oh I have five million dollars so I'm rich.”

From the perspective of the billionaires, however, the difference between having five million dollars in assets and being homeless is the difference between being an ant and a cockroach. I mean it's it's nothing to them. And so a system came into being in which at the highest levels the Brahmin class, beyond your reach, they come up with policies that they enact in manner that transcends not only local government, but also national governments, and even supra-national, global organizations. As a result, all these governments are essentially run by their pets.

That is why it's so hard to conceive of how this small group of people would engage in policies which are meant to degrade your ability to think. Basically everybody, 95% of the population 95,  or more, is their target. They destroy your bodies, your ability to reproduce. They introduce chemicals into your body that'll cause cancer and other diseases and that will over time kill you off in the what they call “the slow kill.” 

Most people could not conceive of something like that, partially because it's just so evil. People can't conceive of evil. So that is one barrier. More importantly, we're thinking that things are being done by the president, or the senator, or the head of our local Lions Club, or our mayor, or the rich guy in our neighborhood who's a real estate agent.   Somehow we thought that these guys are the authority figures. And now we see that they are like us, basically in the same position, and so we think “Oh well, they must know what's going on. It's not on their interest to promote a fraud that damages them. Obviously they're not going to do it.”

We're unable to conceive of the fact that all of these people, all the way up to Joe Biden or Donald Trump, all of them are basically in the same lobster pot in which we are being slowly cooked, and that there is another class of people above them who are willing to kill all of us, or turn us into slaves according to whatever proportion fits their latest algorithm. They don't care if we live or die.  The people we see on TV for the most part are not the people making the real decisions.

______________________________

John Cooper:

So this class that you talk, that top 0.0001%, how many are in that class? What kind of people are we talking about? The billionaire philanthropist types?

Emanuel Pastreich:

There's a lot of debate about this topic and I have gotten into arguments with fellow travelers about where we cut it off. There is a book by Peter Phillips entitled Giants: The Global Elite that gives a useful analysis of who the major players are in investment Banks, and other places, who has large amounts of wealth. I think the analysis is quite good. But there are theories out there. And that is where we get into trouble.  Certain groups will say it's the Zionists, or it's the Rothschilds, or it's the Freemasons, or it’s the Vatican.  These accusations are not untrue, but that lack scientific clarity, and they tend to spill over into emotional and cultural baggage that clouds the mind. I sometimes get into disputes with fellow Travelers who embrace what I think are oversimplified visions of who's actually making the decisions.

What I see as the most likely scenario is you have maybe a couple thousand people in  these very wealthy families who  got these intelligence reports telling them how much of a crisis we're going to be facing economically and environmentally and they embraced this plan to create a class society made up  of slaves and the super-rich (with a lot of people marked to disappear over the next 20 years).   But the actual planning is not done by the super-rich, but rather by this class of advisors, often ex-military and intelligence—not just the U.S but from other countries as well. These guys advised them on how to carry out this agenda and they wrote up classified plans.

Someone forwarded me an email a couple of months ago which was from the CIA, a call for  Asia experts. The advertisement said that basically all the positions had been outsourced to Facebook, Cisco, Microsoft, and Google. Basically these government organizations are no longer government organizations at all. There no is government in the sense that in an engine you have a governor. There's only the parts of government, whether in the UK or the United States, or in Japan Germany, China, or Russia, that have been outsourced to for-profit organizations pursuing their own narrow short-term interests.  That is why we've been rendered blind.  The government cannot govern. The university cannot educate. The newspaper cannot practice journalism. In the land blind, the one-eyed man is King. But it's worse than that. It's a one-eyed psychopath who is King.

John Cooper:

It is terrifying when you put it like that. It is a reality check. It's sobering to hear you say That, but it makes sense that the people in power, those that we think are in power, are merely the puppets. They're just follow the teleprompters. They are there to give the impression that they're looking after their people. In reality they're just relaying a message given to them directly from those core companies, or intelligence agencies, that are running the show.

______________________________

Emanuel Pastreich:

Donald Trump is the best example of that role. People have this impression that Donald Trump is one of the members of that elite. That is not true. Having a couple billion dollars (and even more in debt) not nearly enough. He does not count as one of those the super elite. The concentration of wealth has created a radical divergence. Our minds have not been able to keep up with the radical shifts in our society over the last 15 years.  The COVID-19 crisis is not the cause, but rather the consequence, of that concentration of wealth.

We reached the point at which the concentration of wealth was so extreme, the control of technology, of information, so profound, that it became possible for the first time in history to take over everything.

That is what the super elites thought to themselves, in any case: “We can just take over everything and  destroy humanity.”  If the gap hadn't been so great, I don't think that plan would have been adopted.  Of course this plan for a total takeover existed before.   Back before 2019, if Bill Gates and his friends were shooting the breeze at the club, they would have said to Bill, “Nice idea, but you couldn't possibly pull it Off.”  The question is, why was it that in 2019 that suddenly they thought that “Yeah, we can pull it off. We're gonna go for it!”  The operation is extremely risky.  Obviously they're taking a lot of risk too. We're at risk, but they're at least as much risk. Bill Gates and friends may not survive this –the risks is that high.  But somehow we got to such a place in terms of the collapse of values, the decay of ideology and culture, and the concentration of wealth that these people really thought that could pull it off, could destroy most of humanity.

They are following, basically, the model for the colonization of the new world which was to destroy all the native populations of North and South America. Same strategy for the project of 1940s to destroy millions in Europe. Most people describe it as “destroying the Jews” which I think is not entirely accurate. Most of the people who were killed off systematically in death camps were Russian POWs. The basic plan was to kill off a large number of people in Russia, Ukraine, Poland, and throughout Europe to create this “living space” which would then be settled by Germans following the American model: destroy the native peoples and take the land.

Now we find ourselves in the position where we (establishment upper middle-class Americans) are the

ones, we who thought WE were the elites, who are being treated like the Navajos or the Iroquois: slated for extermination.

John Cooper:

It's not over yet; That's the thing. This part is the first wave of something, and there is a swell. And then another wave will come crashing in. Classic “Art of War” stuff.  

I think that they stood back and thought “I can't believe how much the people bought into that.”  They're probably having a whale of a time thinking, “God they did all that, the social distancing, wearing the masks, they even took the anal swabs. We could tell them anything and they would do it because they're in a state of hysteria and fear.” They cannot believe how compliant everyone was.

______________________________

Emanuel Pastreich:

Maybe I could say a word about masks. so Masks are an extremely important part of this operation. Not

because they block viruses—which they don't—but because masks have been usedin torture and re-education for centuries. It's not a new technology.

So, by creating an environment in which the individual is forced by circumstances, by social pressure, to put on the mask VOLUNTARILY the individual is forced into this unnatural violation of her or his conscience, her or his sense of what's right. After being forced to do repeat that ritual (wearing the mask) over and over again the individual loses the capacity to resist.

That is how profoundly they are compromised by this act of participation in the destruction of their free will.

Most of the people wearing these masks, at some level, know that these masks are not scientifically meaningful. But they do it anyway. They participate in their own mental violation. It is form of mental rape, what Joost A.M. Meerloo calls “The Rape of the Mind.”

They just repeat this ritual until the individual, the community, is no longer capable of organized intellectual resistance.

_____________________________

John Cooper:

It inculcates a state of fear that lingers on in the minds of people, even if they're just seeing other people wearing masks. This pandemic is still going on. It is a visual performance, a kind of trickery of the mind that keeps people locked into a certain mental state.

I definitely can see that rape of the mind—I agree 100% with that.

So when did the pandemic end? Why are people suddenly, now, taking off their Masks?

I think that it's because they took the funding out of certain channels, like the funding for the mainstream media. The designated propaganda money ran out. Now the people on TV aren't talking about it as much. So the pandemic went away in the eyes of people. It is a perception thing.

_____________________

Emanuel Pastreich:

At this moment we see an interference pattern: on the one hand there are those at the top who are following their own strategy, who are saying to themselves, “Well, we got all our money out of the pandemic, so now let's push forward with a risk of nuclear war, or food shortages, or destroy banks and

money etc. They want to start plan B, C and D.

So that's part of it. But there is another part. Some people really were organized and we saw the beginning of real resistance. That also played into it. We are seeing a combination of the two

I want to conclude NOT by saying “Oh it's all planned out,” but rather to stress that our conversation, and of course I include those listening to us, means that we're starting to organize a real resistance, not follow a bogus “cardboard messiah” Donald Trump or

Bernie Sanders type. We are making an effort to actually launch a real flesh and bones opposition in which we the people start to engage in our own governance.

This conversation, our meeting today, that it to say John and Emanuel speaking the truth. What do we have? We have the Constitution. We have morals. What we have is justice and we have legitimacy. We are creating our own form of governance so that we can stand up and say,to those who are supposedly in power, that “we are legitimate and you are not legitimate.” Although we start with nothing, if we look at history we see that in the past there have been numerous times in history when it was possible, starting with a tiny minority who are willing to stick to principles and take risks, to flip things so that the whole equation was reversed.

_____________________________

John Cooper:

A message of hope is possible, that is not top-down.

We don’t need a great reset; we need a grassroots reset, a grassroots change. We the people to stand up, based on their individual morality and integrity, and to hold the governments accountable. That's what we need isn't it?  

Emanuel. Do you have a few closing words?

Emanuel Pastreich:

I really appreciate everybody joining us today. I think that our own self-awareness, mindfulness, and practice is where we should start because if we can’t identify who we are, and we cannot separate ourselves from the poisonous toxic environment around us, then we can't start this process in a constructive way.  I would be happy to engage and to help all of you. We have to assume that the entire system out there for governance, for corporations, for economic interaction, is so corrupt that we must create real alternatives. That has to start with a debate, a discussion, about how we'll do so.

We have a research institute, the Asia Institute, for which the website is not working now, but you can email me directly at epastreich@protonmail.com.

Here are the important websites:

My blog: 

Circles and Squares

circlesandsquares.asia

Campaign for president of the United States:

Emanuel for President

emanuelprez.com

US Provisional Government

usprovgov.asia

Emanuel Pastreich @ Global Research

https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/emanuel-pastreich