This time on Questions For Corbett: Did eugenics fake its own death? Why was KAL 85 ordered to squawk a hijack code on 9/11? Will deep fakes make people more skeptical of authority? And can you download Corbett Report videos directly from the website? Join James for the answers to these and other burning questions.
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
QUESTIONS AND NOTES:
EMAIL Q FROM VAN:
In my high school biology and history classes, I remember being taught how eugenics was discredited. We conquered the Nazis and so too this evil and false scientific idea of theirs. Of course, the eugenics idea is alive as an influential force today.
We know there was hidden powers behind the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. You know when a guy fakes his death in movies so that he can elude his would-be killer? Do you think that motivation was thought out beforehand?
A: Yes. This is an example where merely knowing the right word for something (calling that thing by its right name, if you will) helps you to discover its existence. In this case, that word is “crypto-eugenics.” Search that word in my search bar and you’ll see some of the work I’ve done on that topic in the past.
Long story short: in 1957 the Honorary Secretary of the (British) Eugenics Society drafted a memorandum on “The Eugenics Society’s Future” which he submitted at a special meeting of the society’s council. In it, he advocated a policy of “crypto-eugenics” to carry on the dream of eugenics under another name…literally. (This led to the Eugenics Society being rebranded the Galton Institute, Eugenics Quarterly becoming Social Biology, etc.).
Short story long: The full story will be presented in an upcoming podcast specifically on the subject of cryptoeugenics.
Q FROM WIESIEK
Your podcast “9/11 War Games” is superb! I hope it will open the eyes of many! Keep doing the good work!
One detail… you said that some pilots “inexplicably” squawked the hijack code. In a sense, yes, but the Korean pilot was requested to squawk the code by the ATC controller in Anchorage, who himself was “ordered” (in his own words) to request the pilot to squawk. He originally refused, but later complied. I might be confused here, but the Korean airliner, when requested to squawk, was already being escorted by the US military jets on his way to Whitehorse, Canada. By squawking, he was making himself a legitimate target for the jets to shoot at. Please watch this 12 mins video if you haven’t seen it yet.
A: And he provides a link to a video on the strange incident. Firstly, it should be clarified that I dide not say that KAL 85 inexplicably squawked the hijack code, I said it “inexplicably sent ‘five separate and ongoing indicators of a hijacking situation’ before being intercepted by NORAD fighters over Alaska and directed to land at Whitehorse in northern Canada or be shot down.” As usual, those are not my words, but the words from the official report issued by the Yukon government about the incident, which is of course linked in the transcript at corbettreport.com/911wargames.
But the video that WIESIEK provides really should be seen as it raises even more fascinating and, as the question suggests, disturbing questions about what on earth was happening with that plane that day.
LORI TOWNSEND: At some point the the passenger jet was squawking a code in the 5,000s, meaning that everything is “status quo,” or that’s what it’s supposed to mean. But at some point you were given an order from FAA headquarters in Washington, DC, that seemed quite strange. Talk about what happened then.
RICK WILDER: Yeah, I’ve never had to issue a hijack squawk to an aircraft. I mean we can issue an emergency code if we think the aircraft is having an issue. And what they do when they squawk, there’s three particular codes that they can squawk, and it’s basically: emergency, radio failure, or hijack. And it actually tags up on other controller scopes and also scopes down the lower 48, like at the command center, probably the military (I can’t really speak to how their equipment works). But it just kind of tags them up a little bit differently so it’s a more pronounced target on the scope.
So I’ve never had to do it before, I never had to do it after that. It was a strange request at the time. I’ve never read it in the books where we had to do that. I’ve never—you know, we wouldn’t necessarily ever issue that code to an aircraft. Because the way I look at it, it’s not ours to issue it’s the pilot’s to issue because it’s a very serious code. So the 7500 squawk—the hijack code—It was actually a supervisor that came down and said “We need to have the Korean Air squawk 7500 so I said, well, I didn’t really think it was the right thing to do. So they actually left and regrouped and talked about it and I had my opinions of why it wasn’t. But then later I was ordered to do it.
TOWNSEND: And what were your thoughts? Why did you not want to do that?
WILDER: We had already had some miscommunication with the military that morning. There had already been some threats to shoot down some aircraft. One that I was particularly working there were probably others it happened to, that if they didn’t follow whatever air traffic commands that we issued at the time that they would be shot down. And I had one an aircraft that was just south of Anchorage, on his way in he was told to land in Anchorage, and at forty miles south of Anchorage I was told to turn him or that he would be shot down. And there was a lot of miscommunications with the civilian sector and the military sector.
There were fighters with this Korean Air, and with the kind of communications that occur, or “breakdowns,” we would say—occasionally they occur between the civilians of the military my first thought and after I guess you’d say 19 years of experience I knew how the military operates to an extent and I thought well what if the guy’s trigger-happy that’s not a bad thing you know that’s their job and that’s not my job is to destroy your crap of that series and if they saw this code I was afraid that it would well I was very afraid I was more than frayed it was probably the worst thing I ever had to do in my life issue the code
Please do watch the rest of that clip as it gives more of the context of the very strange nature of the way KAL 85 was being treated that morning.
SPEAKPIPE Q FROM JOSH:
CELDF.org. Constitution protects corporations because they’re “persons.” Teaching communities how to block corporations using the rights of nature, e.g. river v. person. But this is 501(c)3. Is this an Agenda21 idea? Have you covered this?
A: Yes, I have. Or, more specifically, James Evan Pilato and I have.
We talked about a New York court which was going to rule on an argument put forward by the “Non-human rights project” that chimps should be treated as persons with legal rights. (Spoiler: the court ruled they shouldn’t be.).
You are right to be suspicious, as I pointed out in that episode of New World Next Week:
JAMES CORBETT: This is obviously a glimpse of something that’s going to be coming at us a lot in a lot larger way in the future. But I think it’s another example of one of those stories where the kind of basic underlying idea of it is something that appeals to people—well, you know, non-psychopaths generally would say “Yes, we should treat animals more humanely, with more respect. We shouldn’t, you know, treat them in torturous ways for our own kicks.” And everyone has that underlying sense they don’t want to be cruel to animals, but now trying to encode that in courtrooms in the law? I mean, clearly, this can go very bad very quickly when people start representing the animals in the courtroom. Who gets to speak for the animals and in what way and how will that be applied? And then is that lowering the human rights status of humans and things like this? So I think when we start to bring in the courts sphere of it I think we should all be skeptical even if—I mean, look, I have nothing against people who are for animals, better treatment, but I think doing it in the courtroom is not the right way and it’s going to be used against us as a weapon as pretty much everything else that goes into that sphere of criminal justice ultimately does.
As for CELDF.org, I haven’t looked into them specifically, but this is very much in line with an Agenda 21 / Agenda 2030 approach, and I note that, like the UN-pushed “Global Cities” idea, this is pushing “rights of nature” legislation at the municipal level. There’s a lot to look into on the site so if there are any intrepid Corbett Report researchers who want to go down that rabbit hole and see what they find, this is the type of topic I’m very much interested in reporting on in the future.
(For those who need the bigger overview of Agenda 21 and how environmental causes are being used as a false flag cover for the corporate monopolists themselves to monopolize the resources of the planet itself, I HIGHLY recommend going back to Episode 322 of The Corbett Report podcast, What Is Sustainable Development?)
EMAIL Q FROM ASRA:
You mentioned this type of technology before (https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1343-new-world-next-week-with-james-evan-pilato/ + https://www.corbettreport.com/dont-believe-your-lying-eyes/) and discussed the bad consequences of such technology. I think that you are right that such things can be used by the powers that shouldn’t be to make us not trust anything that exposes them if someone takes footage of politicians or someone like that.
But I think that one perhaps unintended consequence for the creators of this tech is that people will have to become more critical and wont be able to trust anything that is said by an authority since it might be faked. Instead, what is said has to be examined regardless of who says it. What do you think?
A: 100% right, which is why (as both JEP and I have been preaching all along) media literacy is (sadly) one of the most important skills we can be teaching our children in this age. We really are moving into an age where the media illiterates will be total automatons, literally programmed by whatever information they are unquestioningly accepting.
EMAIL Q FROM ROGER:
Why does Saudi Arabia see Yemen as so much of a threat that it is willing to bomb it into oblivion?
A: In the interest of time, I will simply direct you to a very thorough conversation between Ernie Hancock and Scott Horton on that very question from a recent edition of the Declare Your Independence radio program.
SPEAKPIPE Q FROM ALEX:
Do you have an index of your Iran-Contra work and how it relates to the Gary Webb story?
A: No such index exists, but here are the main pieces that I think people should explore in that regard.
A comprehensive documentary on all of this connecting it together in one concise narrative is absolutely in order…but until I find a spare year or two under the couch, I’m afraid it’s not on the front burner of projects I’m working on right now.
EMAIL Q FROM MICHAEL:
I was wondering if you could make your videos available directly for download on your site? It’s getting increasingly difficult to access your videos on YouTube. I’m not going to sign in on any of the FANG companies to leave a trail behind.
A: You’re in luck! All of my videos are already available for download from my website! They always have been! Enjoy!
EMAIL Q FROM SETH:
Hi James, I was wondering if you know about a different proxy YouTube viewer besides HookTube, because I heard that they recently changed such that one could no longer view videos through them and not give views to those videos on YouTube. I am aware that there are many proxy viewers, but not of one specifically providing this perk.
A: If only. Looks like hooktube caved into GooTube’s legal pressure. I’ve heard tell of a beta test of something similar, but if any of the good Corbett Reporteers out there know of a workable alternative, please do leave it in the comments.