Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chris Barnard

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chris Barnard

  1. One of the most unpalatable views I have here amongst an audience that holds politics closely to its hearts, is the concept of two parties being counterpoints, or two news networks being counterpoints to each other or government. ie serving a purpose in a larger, more complex game. If the Republicans move left, as long as the Democrats move left at the same time, nobody notices the shift and, vice versa. The same with Labour & Conservative in the UK. Media also facilitates that move, they run stories and headlines that are as far left or right as possible and, the party shifts and acts as if it is responding to the people. We can sit and say whilst living in Maine that those views don’t represent me but, because the country is so vast, we don’t know if people in other states were crying out for the shift. Tech algorithms make that even harder to understand. Did you notice Facebook removed the ‘Poll’ options. They were a bit inconvenient during 2015/2016, as they gave a true reflection (as far as we knew). We have no idea where we are at, we trust the news and the party to be a mirror of society, when they are often not. There is much passionate discussion over Trump here, was he necessary for an agenda, in the way Al Quaeda were needed to push the patriot act through? The 1/6 discussion rages on another thread but, the outcome is domestic terror laws that permit the state to break up protests and hold individuals captive, as a danger to democracy. How great is the propensity for misuse? If we have agendas coming that may invoke a public outcry and protests, will these laws be used to stifle them, make sure they are not heard?! We can look at how North Korea, Iran or China treat their dissidents to understand how this enhanced need for security and censorship is going to take us into dark times. If we were to think of news as entertainment, perhaps the popular American WWF wrestling might be analogous in some ways (imho). The audience is all consumed, full of passion, and chanting for their desired victor. Given two horses we simply need to choose one. At the end of it all we are either elated or disappointed but, the journey is what entertains us and gets dopamine and adrenaline flowing. In a political race the news is part of that entertainment and we release the same chemicals during the excitement or combat. The election is much higher stakes, we feel our future depends on it, we are so much more invested. At the end of it, we’re triumphant or angry, feeling as though we won or lost something. Most of us are aware that the WWF is fake but, we think the election means something very significant, a reflection of democracy and fairness. The WWF winning fighter has been chosen to win and the losing fighter has been chosen to lose on that occasion. If we think about political candidates, the policy differences are almost always very narrow (the odd exception granted), the actual differences in office are even narrower still, with very little promises stuck to and very little change, of course for the powerful entities, continuity is great. The parties have sway or, the opportunity to manipulate who makes it to the election as their candidate (Hilary v Bernie). As we know in the past, candidates with benefactors or who can raise a lot funding have an advantage and a debtor or something they’ll feel they owe. The system in general is corrupted by the way that politics is funded. Is there some small possibility that we are watching a rigged game, a theatre At times does the odd idealist like JFK slip through the net and win an election that was intended to go the other way. One way to avoid that might be vetting candidates to make sure you have people that owe favours, that are utterly self interested and that understand the way the system works. How far away from the founding fathers vision of how the American constitution should work, are we? How far away are we from the America JFK desired? We’re in a bad way.
  2. Hi David, My understanding is that any negative commentary on these two companies is exclusively from niche sources, as opposed to MSM. Traditionally in the west we had laws against monopolies or cartels, they seem to have evaporated or to be ignored. Regarding the media networks, it seems like you get down to about 9 conglomerates, I don’t think its clear the connection between some of them and Blackrock/Vanguard. You would think this might be newsworthy, that people invested in renewables are also in oil, or that if we buy Pepsi or Coke, McDonalds or Burger King, your profits reach the same people. Most peoples notions of a global conspiracy might be Bond villain-esque, a bunch of evil people sat around a table (like Quigley pointed out in terms of Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner). When you consider how much influence and sway the people sat around the Vanguard table might have, do we create the circumstances of the Bond plot but, expect there to he only good as a result or, do the financial aims or other goals of shareholders prove incompatible with democracy or what is best for humanity? Or, do such individuals have aspirations of a world shaped by their own ideas and experiences? If we cast our minds back to times of fuedalism, the monarch largely did what was best for them, whilst recognising on some level that consent rested with the people, and all they had to do was avoid or resist revolution. The Roman’s for example kept their people happy with fantastical gladiator games, alcohol and women, it kept the minds of the masses totally occupied with entertainment. In the modern era we have more dopamine releasing entertainment and substances to abuse than at any moment in history. I had this whole discussion around a table with some friends on Friday evening, one friend, a psychoanalyst felt that the circumstances today are a mix of capitalism and a natural progression (ie collectivism is creeping in by itself). I asked; if there was a conspiracy at play and the governments were being manipulated or controlled by a higher-order, how might the world look? He paused for a moment and said “It would look exactly the same as it does now”. Whilst I understand it’s heretical to make such a claim, considering the perception most people have of the world and how it works, I also think looking at the almost $20trn held as a combined by these two companies, it is probably something we should take more seriously. Cheers Chris
  3. Did you watch this video breaking it all down? (Who owns what) https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/04/bill-sardi/who-runs-the-world-blackrock-and-vanguard/
  4. Interestingly, the biggest shareholder in Blackrock, is actually Vanguard. Vanguards leading shareholders are ultimately private. Which means ultimately we have a situation where so much power and influence sits in the hands of so few. I am not a fan of Marx but, he predicted what the end days of capitalism would be like, the system would cannibalise itself and we'd end up with oligarchies. We might just be about there.
  5. Is Neil Oliver OF GB News right, are we heading to a dark place in the west?
  6. Hi Paul, I see & agree. For some reason I thought you'd implied the bullet from the back had immobilised him. TBH that level of editing probably wouldn't be too difficult, we'd miss some things due to the framerate anyway. Has Jackie not said anywhere that he was choking? She said coughing right? I would trust anything Chris D says, I just wish it was in simple terms for us tech laymen. He does some amazing work. Cheers Chris
  7. Just read the article, what a dreadful piece of journalism.
  8. Hi Paul, One thing that occurred to me is what it’s like to be choking. Your only focus is on clearing the throat. JFK has blood and air in his throat, along with pain. I have both been winded and almost choked to death on a boat, with food lodged in my throat, I couldn’t do anything but focus on trying to breathe/clear the throat. I would think he (JFK) had zero awareness of what was going on around him, all he’d want is to breath and ease the pain. I am not sure what else you or I would do in the same situation. Was he wearing the back brace? Would that have kept him upright or unable to bend right forward? We might assume that he’d duck or react like people do when shot in the cowboy movies, I think all his focus is on the wound. I know there is all of the shell fish toxin / ice gun chatter on here but, a bullet slightly off track via the windscreen seems more probable and less complicated. Thats how some others have explained his lack of movement. Just my thoughts. Cheers Chris
  9. Chris Hedges talks about how the Elites have used the pandemic to steal from us. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you need to understand this.
  10. Lisa Pease’s book “A lie too big to fail” is a great read on the assassination of RFK and the aftermath. Thane Eugene Cesar seems like the one who fired the shot that Noguchi cites as the fatal wound. It it seems like there were other shooters. Its a compelling read.
  11. Hi Benjamin, I think the narrative gets made before the commission even starts its work, the commission then seems like it is reacting, confirming or rubber-stamping the story that has already been floated throughout the media and the majority of the public are consciously accepting (or subconsciously). For example; if you have the first 10 pages of every newspaper for months being saturated with terror stories, it does the work for the commission. Cheers Chris
  12. Hi William, I am glad you are taking on the mantle regarding this topic. To me, this is indicative of censorship and the way press/media is structured. They are able to squeeze out any controversial topic, as the press hold so much unelected power. In a free and open society, all sides of an argument should be heard. Though I am not Spike Lee's biggest fan, he is taking one for the team here and feeling the full wrath of the media (or starting to). Let us hope that HBO haven't prompted his u-turn/editing. They're owned by WarnerMedia, who are owned by AT&T, who are in turn owned by Vanguard/Blackrock, the two largest shareholders. Vanguard & Blackrock have a monopoly in every major industry, over $9 trillion in assets each, which includes many of the defence military contractors and producers of munitions who profited from the towers coming down. In reality, all that would need to filter down at HBO is that "we're concerned about using these sources (truthers) and that it will damage the credibility of HBO. Slate Magazine is owned by The Graham Holdings Company, their largest shareholder is Vanguard. Raytheon's largest shareholder is Vanguard, then Blackrock. . Northrop Gruman largest shareholder is SSGA, who are owned by State Street who have Vanguard as the largest shareholder. Lockheed Martin are the same as Northrop, having SSGA and Vanguard as largest shareholders, with Vanguard also being the largest shareholder of SSGA. And so on, you get the idea. Chris
  13. I don’t know how I have never seen this film with Chaplin, and whilst I find small parts of this contradictory or, slightly off the mark, how many of these sentiments are relevant or correct in 2021?
  14. Thanks for sharing that, an interesting read. No, he isn’t opposed to vaccines in general. There is another thread discussing this.
  15. Thanks Steven. Given all of the above, the powerful mechanisms delivering information or misinformation, as well as the modern proclivity or addiction to dopamine triggering substances, we should perhaps all consider what the reality is, or the reality we experience and perceive.
  16. Assange on the goal in Afghanistan ... https://youtube.com/shorts/eCdBpwqgKMw?feature=share
  17. Hey Ron, I clicked on Eric Clapton first but, did read the article. Amongst some experts, it’s sounding a bit like the unvaxxed are less vulnerable to new variants than the vaxxed. Did you watch the CDC in that link above admitting they’d used a data sample that included the period when all were unvaxxed to try and make their case? Highly corrupt. There was 19 in my local hospital last week, 15 double jabbed and 4 unvaxxed. This Dr, PHD, JD, has an hour long podcast discussing most aspects of this pandemic and the treatments. It might be an eye opener. This was simply put by the Children’s Health Defense too: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/reasons-not-getting-covid-vaccine/ Cheers Chris
  18. Is this now a pandemic of the unvaccinated? Or are we again the victims of misleading data? https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/08/16/pandemic-of-unvaxxed-lies.aspx
  19. $2TRN spent on the Afghan War 240k lives lost The objective was never to win, only to keep it going and make it last, for purely profit reasons. Tax payer pays for it, private corps pick up the profits and want it to last as long as possible. Defence contractors funding the blue & the red team, election after election. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=D https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/social/corporate https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/39092315 Major General Smedley Butler’s “War is a racket” is as relevant as its ever been. As for Vietnam, it was the same thing. The war cost $120BN. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/06/namric-antiwar-research-vietnam-war https://www.counterpunch.org/2003/12/11/war-profiteering-from-vietnam-to-iraq/ The media won’t inform us, as it makes it harder to pull the wool over our eyes and play the trick again.
  20. Morning William, Thanks for your thoughts. From what I have read, largely stuff researched by others, the concern is that they have circumvented or broken bio-warfare protocols since the 1989 treaty. The reason its been done in China and funded by US grants is because the USA didn’t want the stink or stigma of it being done on it’s own soil. I forget the two labs in the USA that were originally doing the same research (both universities, I can look them up) but, it was then outsourced. You then have Fort Detrick which seems to have been carrying on Bio-Warfare stuff, after its supposed to have ceased, the discredited in MSM Mikovits has alleged that too. TBH reading her book, even if I take what she is saying with a pinch of salt, it might seem, where there is smoke there is fire. She was credible, next thing she is a fugitive and accused of taking her lab notes home with her, which breaks protocols. Anyway, without going off topic, and in answer to the why China question; it depends on your outlook. The Koch foundation in 2012 ran a simulation of a coronavirus pandemic, that started in China in a food market. Thats circumstantial or coincidence. The Rockefeller Foundation ran the same simulation with a coronavirus in asia. Event 201 with the WHO and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation runs a very similar scenario in Event 201 in Nov 2019. You can say, its preparedness and en eerily accurate scenario or, practice for something planned. From a Chinese perspective, do we think the government managing the worlds biggest population cares about people? Does their human rights record suggest that? Not really. Did the pandemic starting in China incumber their economy, it did initially and then came back stronger than ever. It’s the heart of the global supply chain, they simply ca’t keep up with the global demand for goods. Locked down, neurotic afraid people tend to shop a whole lot more online than they do in normal times. Many industries, particularly ones making outdoor goods have been sold out of everything since June 20. China is doing great. Do you remember at the start of the pandemic when we saw very harrowing videos of the crisis coming from China, people collapsing in the streets like something from a horror film? They were broadcast all over the world, as far and wide as possible. We never saw that happen anywhere else but, China. Then we were sold the idea that China because of its extremely draconian measures, had solved the issue in quick time, while everywhere else struggled as we didn’t take lockdowns seriously. Given the transmissibility of this pathogen, does that make sense? When I say; it depends on your outlook. The media for a long time trained us to see China as the next big threat to the west or the American dominance. What if they are right on board with this one world government, NWO or whatever we want to call it? Quigley is pointing out in 1964 that this cabal of elites in America that he is very close to us funding China as a third super power, because by doing so there is a better balance than the dangerous scenario of just the soviets and the USA. For me, just like most of what the news is pushing, we are seeing theatre. Another question might be, if the USA and China are enemies, why would you let your enemy develop bio-warfare tools in a lab in one of your cities? You have your own intelligence services, you must know its going on?! I am the first to admit, I thought the War Games in Wuhan (Nov19) fitted together nicely as a delivery system for the virus but, that was before the lab stuff, and gain of function research came to light. If we follow the world economic forum and the words if Klaus Schwabb since 2016, it looks as if they have been gearing up for this fourth industrial revolution. We have politicians and news anchors all over the world using the catch phrases “build back better” and “the new normal”, they’re all telling us what a marvellous opportunity this is to restructure, to build a better world. People can call me a cynic but, with the fastest and largest shift of wealth upwards in history, is this all a fluke or, has this been planned? If we apply this ‘Cui Bono’ that we like in JFK books, it’s pretty obvious who is gaining. I know some are not worried about the tech advances. Lets just mention vaccine passports or biometric ID’s and the drawbacks / uses I see. A rational person may think, I don’t mind scanning my phone or a card at retail establishments, concerts etc etc, after all, we do that anyway in metro stations, its no big deal. Lets say that quickly morphs into a social credit scoring system like in China, where dissenters of government can’t even leave the country. A rational person might say; I pay my taxes, obey the law, it’ll be fine for me. I think those people are wrong, completely wrong, because that school of thought is on the proviso that the laws and orders from government are reasonable, if you hand all authority to the state, the same people pulling the strings now, will do whatever they like, and they’ll use this collectivism or ‘greater good’ as the method of getting the public to do just about anything. Tyranny doesn’t happen over night, you need people to consent to it initially, it starts slowly and gains pace. The fact western media outlets are now using China as an example of some good stuff, ie how fast they sorted their part of the pandemic, how well they are doing with internet censorship etc etc, we’re in trouble. I am not saying Joe McCarthy’s infusing America with communist paranoia was particularly helpful but, I am sure we can all remember a time when we learned about the dangers of communism and totalitarian regimes, the threats they posed to democracy. Those fundamentals are now vanishing like a whisper in the wind. If things are done incrementally, the public don’t notice. Just a bit more on the technology; if you do circumvent the Nuremberg code, and you have a state that has the power to put anything in you that they like, that sets a very dangerous precedent. From a financial perspective, not only will pharma corps advocate shots for life, for everything going, regardless if they work or not. But, you also start a health data revolution (The NHS has just achieved consent to sell UK citizens personal health data for the first time). With this data you can play on peoples health fears, and sell them anything, in perpetuity. Fear, as we’ve learned during this pandemic is a very powerful method of persuasion. We may sit there and say, well, perhaps we’ll make perfect human beings that never get diseases and everyone will be safer?! Is there profit in perpetuity doing that? No. They need medical issues that need treatments, thats the business model, shareholders would be unwise to invest, otherwise. We may be thinking, how can Pfizer or Moderna etc have so much sway? If we look at who owns these Pharam companies, ie the majority shareholders, we get down to two companies, Blackrock and Vanguard. They have a monopoly in every industry, food and beverages, agriculture, fossil fuels, mining, retail, etc etc. Whether you buy pepsi or coke, have Pfizer or Astra Zeneca, Mcdonalds or Burger King, BP or Texaco, your money lines the pockets of the same people. Vanguard & Blackrock have $9trn each, the biggest share holder in Blackrock is Vanguard, they have private shareholders. If we just think about that for a few moments, in terms of the handling on the pandemic, it looks a lot different. The World Economic Forum is the marketing department of change, a change that creates two classes, instead of three and effectively creates a neo-feudalism. Back to tech, the stuff that DARPA have been developing, thats been mentioned periodically in the Guardian, Independent and science journals is claiming to be able to take away from your brain, they very things that make us human. They are selling it that it will end abhorrent behaviour. The reality will be that it will take away your ability to think, your creativity. Meaning for a ruling class, they’ll have an even more malleable society, even less alert, even more compliant and obedient. Even Musk realises the dangers of AI and the propensity for this tech to be misused in the future. Another facet is eugenics, and population control. The message is, we have too many people on earth, maybe we do. Are we ok with reducing the worlds population with enforced pharmacological means, or it being done without or knowledge? Or government behavioural science departments coercing is with means that we are susceptible to, yet unaware of? Its in the 1970’s minutes of the Rockefeller Foundation’s annual meetings, latterly the WHO, they are seeking vaccines to reduce human fertility. For me, the jury is out still on the jabs right now, we won’t know the mid or long term effects for years but, in such a dystopian scenario as above, do you think the state will resist the temptation to stop us having children? Or even to reduce the population down to a level that they feel is desirable for their comfort and enjoyment? I know you are a big believer in democracy and people voting on things. How might the direction we are taking impact democracy? I think we are at the very least, half way across that Rubicon. We are lucky that we still have history for reference, we can see how some of these things have panned out in the past, when tech was very basic. The outlook is bleak. In summary, in answer to your questions; people with wealth and power think they are special, and have a right to be here and a right to preside over those they view as incompetent, inept, or a waste of space. 120 years ago they called them feeble minded, they were looking for ways back then to stop them from breeding. Essentially, it amounts to human nature. Not the conscience and morality we were brought up to value, theirs is ‘survival of the fittest’ or ‘natural selection’. Thats a good point about the Bond Villain scenario, the bad guy is often hellbent on ruling the world, the bad guy thinks he is superior, he is wealthy, look at Moonraker, Drax wants to repopulate the world with perfect human beings. I could go through the whole list and the motivations would be similar. Then you have Bond the archetype, the virtuous, hero, who believes in good and saves the day. We watch that as kids and buy into the good vs evil story, over and over, good triumphs, we like the story, we learn these virtues as kids. What that actually does is trains us, its incredibly repetitive. Then when someone Machiavellian like this is pointed out, we sit and say: “that can’t possibly happen, sounds like something from a Bond villain “. In reality we can’t conceive it because it’s not something we’d do with our kind mentality, we can’t imagine government, the people society looks up to being complicit, we can’t imagine the very wealthy having bad intentions as we always see them giving fortunes away (fortunes to us, not them). Because we are ruled by law and our conscience, and we fear incarceration, we can’t imagine why they’d risk their wealth and comfort by doing something malevolent, that amounts to corruption. The question is; who is there to hold the richest people in America or the world accountable? I’ve pointed out previously in this thread how everything is being funded by so few, money talks in a society geared to make people aspire to amassing more wealth, for those who do have conscience, we still have self preservation kick in from our subconscious to stop us speaking out. For me, no book highlights this as well as “Confessions of an economic hitman” by John Perkins. He is earning so well but, he keeps wanting to blow the whistle as he is ridden with guilt. Each time he comes close to doing so, someone offers him another role as a non executive director, that he’ll need to do no work for and just collect a big salary. Thats America. Back to the Bond villain thing; Cecil Rhodes, the diamond magnate left all of his wealth to a group, their goal was to control ever habitable portion of the globe. He died in 1902, Quigley wrote about the same group in 1964 and how much power they wielded and how much of a huge influence they’d had in that period of history, including the Council on Foreign Relations and it’s British counterpart, The Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs. You may want to look at the events held at Chatham House. Thanks Chris
  21. But, she has a son and two daughters she cares about, and a brother whose plane blew up in mid air. Any family members backing the release would be an enormous help ...
  22. Inconvenient? https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/nih-grant-database-revealing-fauci-wuhan-ties-down/
  • Create New...