James Corbett appears in two separate interviews for KLA.TV. In the first, he discusses how the US/Israeli relationship explains Uncle Sam’s moves in the Middle East and how technocracy explains the so-called “Donroe Doctrine.” In the second, he goes in-depth on the Epstein files and what they reveal about the operations of the kakistocracy.

Skip to Interview One / Interview Two

---

FIRST INTERVIEW

Description via KLA.TV: Which greater goal is being achieved with President Maduro’s arrest and the US economic warfare against Cuba? What is the agenda behind the aggression against Iran and Palestine? Investigative Researcher James Corbett answers these and more questions in this brand new Kla.TV short interview.

VIDEO COURTESY: KLA.TV

TRANSCRIPT COURTESY OF KLA.TV:

Interviewer:
So great to have James Corbett back on KLA TV. James, thank you so much for agreeing to yet another interview.

James Corbett:
Thank you for having me on

Interviewer:
I would like James Corbett’s take on America’s strange behavior vis-a-vis Iran, Greenland, Venezuela, Cuba, and Palestine. Now, I know that’s a lot, we could do two hours. But I wonder if you want to put all of this in a nice nutshell, encapsulating the insane…well, let’s just say encapsulating the U.S. stance. Or do you want to take these one by one?

James Corbett:
Let’s take them in two groups. I would say that Iran and Palestine and what is happening there definitely have a relation. And the common factor in the U.S. stance in both of those situations is, of course, Israel.

And I think Israel’s desire to undermine Iran as a potential regional rival fully explains why the U.S. has the stance that it does against Iran. Does anyone—anyone in the entire world—believe at this point that the U.S. government is involved in trying to destabilize the Iranian regime because they care about the Iranian people and they want to see democracy flourish and blah, blah?

Of course not. We are old enough to understand that that is absolute nonsense and tosh.

So, what is the real answer there? Well, I think it has more to do with the Zionist faction that is looking to create the “Greater Israel” and recognizing that Iran would be a bulwark against the creation of such a thing. And obviously with Hezbollah and other such things operating against Israel and of course [Hamas] in Palestine as well.

And to whatever extent that Trump may or may not actually be the “wheeler-dealer businessman” that we understand his public persona to be and that maybe he really is just trying to get “Trump Gaza” going with these casinos on the beach and whatever else is supposedly going to happen in those AI monstrosity fantasies that are being constructed by Trump’s fans online—to whatever extent that that might be a thought in his head it is only there because, of course, he is really working with his friend, his partner in crime, literally, unconvicted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu.

So, I think that that explains that side of the geopolitical aisle.

But when we talk about the “Donroe Doctrine” and its various implications for Venezuela and Cuba and Greenland and other things in the Western Hemisphere, I think we have to understand this in the context of an interesting map that one could find at the Cornell Library. It has it online in very high res if you want to go download it.

It’s called the “Technate of America,” and it was a map that was produced in 1940 by Howard Scott, who was a complete charlatan who somehow or other managed to worm his way into academic and upper-crust circles in the 1920s and 30s in order to create something called “Technocracy, Inc.,” which was an organization that was dedicated to the social engineering of society by technocrats—mostly engineers and scientists who would know how to precisely balance the inputs and outputs in the economy in order to stop the big swings in the economy that was, of course, the defining characteristic of life for people living through the Great Depression. [People were] wondering “how are—you know, capitalism has failed—how are we going to solve this?” Well, there was Howard Scott and his friend, King Hubbert, who people will know as [the progenitor of] “Hubbert’s Peak,” aka “peak oil,” [which] comes from a Shell Oil researcher along those lines of oil, et cetera.

Anyway, he came up with the peak oil [idea]. He also wrote the Technocracy Study Course, which is this voluminous study course about how the technocrats will rule over their technate.

And so they said, “we don’t want governments. We don’t want elected politicians. We don’t want any of that. We are going to set up a technate!” And the “Technate of America” will include—and there is the map that you can go and look up online—and it includes Greenland.

And interestingly, it includes part of Venezuela, and it includes Cuba, and it includes Panama, and Central America, et cetera. And all of this will be conjoined in a single unit called the Technate of America that will be stewarded over by these technocrats.

Now, obviously, Technocracy, Inc. is long [gone]—well, actually it still exists, but it is a rump organization at this point. But the idea of technocracy continues to thrive in the 21st century.

And, you know, there are some interesting historical parallels with some of the people who make their presence known on the international stage, even to this day, like say Elon Musk, who people may or may not know, his grandfather, his Canadian grandfather, was literally a card-carrying member of Technocracy, Inc. in Saskatchewan back in the 1930s before he was run out of Canada and ended up in South Africa, where the Musk family originates from. His grandfather, Joshua Haldeman. Look that up and fact-check me.

Interviewer:
Okay.

James Corbett:
But it is true. His grandfather was a literal technocrat. And then you get Elon Musk tweeting such things as, you know, “preparing for the Martian technocracy,” et cetera. So I think technocracy is the lens through which we have to understand this unfolding Donroe Doctrine.

What is really going to unfold from this is the consolidation of the Western hemisphere into this Technate of America.

Interviewer:
Now, this consolidation, I mean, it’s it’s just too fantastic to imagine that it’s going to happen in the very near future as an invasion of these countries. I mean, you can’t foresee boots on the ground in Greenland, Venezuela are Cuba, can you?

James Corbett:
No, well, no, I will qualify that. But for example with Greenland. So we saw this play out, obviously, over the course of the past month.

Interviewer:
Yeah.

James Corbett:
Suddenly [at] the World Economic Forum, the main topic of discussion is: will Trump invade Greenland? And you have NATO talking about stationing troops there and Canada was going to come to Greenland’s defense, all of this craziness.

Interviewer:
Yeah.

James Corbett:
And then what eventuated is Trump announced, “well, we’re not going to take it by force.” And so it seemed like just another “Art of the Deal.” Trump obviously getting people to talk and think along one line and then retreating so that it seems like we can cut a deal.

But all of that, of course, was distraction, because, in fact, the U.S. already has a military base operating and functioning in Greenland right now. It has had a longstanding post-World War II relationship with Denmark to situate American forces on Greenland. They have been operating there for over half a century at this point, 80 years or so.

So, the idea that there would ever need to be a full-on American invasion in order to make these things happen does seem fanciful. But perhaps that’s the point. No, the military side of this is not the operative part of it.

It is to some extent about securing resources, including of course the rare earth deposits and other such things that obviously Greenland has in abundance and that are sitting out there for the taking in this new mad scramble for the Arctic that’s going on geopolitically. But, more specifically, the securing of the resources for the Technate of America—as in, for this coming political consolidation unit that is coming into view right now.

And I think we’ve been being prepared for the consolidation of these grander geopolitical regional units for some time now, because we’ve been seeing the “NATO versus BRICS” sort of idea of some sort of “multipolar struggle” taking place on the grand chessboard of geopolitics for some time. And I think we’ve been being prepared for the idea that it’s going to be some sort of consolidation of a North American/Western hemispheric continental regional security apparatus of some sort.

Will it be literally a government that will consolidate all of these with boots on the ground? I don’t think that is the most likely way of doing it. But some sort of consolidation politically, economically, and in terms of supply lines and supply chains, which is probably the operative part of this going forward into the 21st century.

Interviewer:
I want to preface this question with a pre-question, and that is this. Consider the two wars in Iraq and the interim when President Clinton was in power in the United States and we still had an economic embargo on Iraq. We still had a no-fly zone. I think we still might have been bombing them. Certainly, we were blocking off many kinds of supplies, including, as far as my research, or as far as I know, medicine and food.

So, could you consider that that interim period was also simply a continuation of the war and the war actually did not end?

James Corbett:
Absolutely, yes. No, of course, the war just took a different form. And it was, of course, concentrated on, at that time, the civilian population. And that was actually known and deliberate.

Because, of course, there’s that infamous clip of Madeleine Albright on 60 Minutes in the 1990s talking about the half million Iraqi children who had died as a result of the sanctions.

Interviewer:
Yes.

James Corbett:
And she said, well, you know, the price is worth it. which of course is that infamous clip that hopefully people have seen by this point.

So yes, this was just warfare by another means.

Interviewer:
“Warfare by another means.” So, if we consider economic strangleholds as warfare, and then we consider the case of Venezuela and Cuba and the fact that—well, I could just list the oil tanker that was heading, I think, from Venezuela to Cuba, a country that’s kind of in tough straits anyway. And I think for them, removing one oil tanker could be quite significant.

So, in the sense that we have an economic stranglehold on these countries, are we at war with Venezuela and Cuba? Is the U.S. at war with Venezuela and Cuba now?

James Corbett:
I suppose clearly there was a state of warfare going on with Venezuela over the past few months. Perhaps that state of warfare no longer pertains simply because America has seemingly achieved its objective of being able to steer the current Venezuelan government in whichever way it wants. To the extent that the Venezuelan government now complies with American dictates, then I suppose the state of warfare doesn’t exist. But the threat of warfare, of course, certainly does.

And so, yes, there are still elements of an economic blockade, but I think that is really just positioning in order to get the American corporate interests in there to take over, essentially, the oil industry, et cetera, there. We’ve already seen, of course, that was what was explicitly put on the table as the reason for the Venezuela takeover. I don’t think that’s the full story, but at any rate, that is contributory to it.

And so as long as the current Venezuelan government is compliant with American demands, then I think America is happy not to be involved in that warfare.

Interviewer:
Yes. Do you think these corporate interests will have luck in Cuba as well? Do you think that the Cuban people will be soon blessed by McDonald’s and BlackRock and everything we enjoy in the United States?

James Corbett:
If the current administration gets its way, it does seem that that is where this is trending. And perhaps if they don’t get their way—at least, not in the way that they want, with some sort of spontaneous people’s uprising as the people start to rise up against their government as a result of these strangulation blockades ultimately having their political effect—if that does not eventuate, then we’ve already seen the precedent is for the president of the United States to send in the Navy SEAL Team 6 or whoever needs to go in in order to abduct whoever claims to be in power today and do whatever else needs to be done. Can we possibly say that anything would be off the table?

No, of course. I think anything that we have seen already eventuate, like, for example, in Venezuela, is very much on the table for Cuba.

Interviewer:
OK, now, when you say if the current administration gets its way, do American geopolitical interests align with, let’s say, globalist geopolitical interests?

Or is Trump somehow this guy that is, you know, anti-Davos, anti-WEF, et cetera, et cetera?

James Corbett:
I think any time that we try to generalize from individuals into groups, we start to run into the problem of over-generalization. So it is not, I think, fair to talk about the administration as a singular unit.

No, it is composed of various people, various powerful nodes in a vast network. And some of those nodes have more power and influence than others. But combined, certain less powerful nodes may be able to combine in order to overpower some of the more powerful nodes.

And if people want an inside look at how such operations really work within an administration, different factions can fight within the same administration for different policies, Peter Dale Scott, a veteran, of course, researcher, Peter Dale Scott, had a a very illustrative example of that in his book The Road to 9-11.

There was a chapter about the so-called “Vulcans” fighting with the other faction within the Carter administration [Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, et al., vs. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, et al.] And I can’t remember what pithy epithet they were given [editor’s note: “Team B”], but at any rate, they were fighting about the American foreign policy under Carter, for example. And he [Scott] goes and outlines the different factions and what they wanted and who ultimately ended up winning in that fight. And of course, we know what eventuated with, say, Brzezinski and Operation Cyclone and the funding of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, et cetera.

So, it doesn’t mean that everyone is working on the same page towards the same goal. And I think there probably are many, perhaps even most people working at that level within an administration, within a certain political nation-state unit who genuinely believe they are working in the interests of their nation-state and their nation-state’s allies.

Interviewer:
Yes.

James Corbett:
But I think there are other, probably much more powerful nodes of interest in that network who operate above the nation-state level and are thinking on that globalist level. And it is the interaction of those different things. And when their agendas meet, we are more likely to see some sort of grand, deep event happen, like 9/11 or what have you.

Interviewer:
Okay. Okay. Last two questions are on the Trump administration. And have you heard the latest news from Marco Rubio in a press conference?

James Corbett:
I have not.

Interviewer:
Let me read you the title. You’ll be impressed. “Rubio exposes the 50-year plot.” Marco Rubio blew the doors open on the 1977 CFR report outlining the controlled disintegration of the U.S. economy.

So, should we thank Rubio for this? Because we knew nothing about the CFR before he enlightened us today.

James Corbett:
Well, not if you listen to the mainstream news, I guess.

Yes, I don’t know. I’m intrigued. I want to know more. I am highly skeptical that this is going to be some sort of definitive takedown of the CFR or its machinations, but I’m all ears.

Interviewer:
Okay. I got this from a group, a pretty popular group. I think they have like close to half million viewers on YouTube called Promethean Updates. Have you ever heard of them?

James Corbett:
The name rings a bell, but I’m not, I certainly don’t follow them consciously, no.

Interviewer:
Yeah, I think they are kind of leftovers from the old… Oh, who was the guy that was on all the campuses and he’d come around and tell you about water projects from Canada and stuff? He was kind of a Roosevelt-style populist.

James Corbett:
Oh, not LaRouche?

Interviewer:
Yeah, yeah. These are former LaRouche-ies who have, I think, have taken over the LaRouche organization. And they’re very, very pro-Trump these days. And they say that Trump is extremely in favor of the revitalization of the American economy. And I want to read you just a couple of quotes.

Oh, by the way, do you still write a regular economics report? You used to do that, didn’t you?

James Corbett:
For The International Forecaster. I used to write the regular weekly editorial for them. Now I write just my own editorial, the Corbett Report Subscriber.

Interviewer:
Okay, gotcha. Well, listen to these two quotes and then I’ll get your comment and we’ll finish up. According to this organization, “Trumponomics is reviving real economic sovereignty.” Second quote: “Trump isn’t just talking. He is reversing deindustrialization on every front.”

So, I mean, that’s good news! I’m an American and I’m looking forward to the reindustrialization of America. We need our jobs back.

James Corbett:
Well, first of all, as a Canadian in Japan, I could give the outside perspective to say, at the very least, I don’t care about America first. But actually, given that the general economic understanding of the public is that we live on some fixed pie, and so you better take as much of that pie as you can for yourself in order to screw everyone else—or, if you end up screwing everyone else, who cares?—if that is the general economic understanding, then I should be against America first. No, it should be Japan first, Canada first, whatever, something like that. But that isn’t my understanding of economics anyway.

Having said that, I think that the LaRouche-ite understanding of economics is sadly hobbled by a number of problems and…. Including, I mean, as an example of the symptom of their underlying failure to understand economics, you will note that Larouche-ites think that Alexander Hamilton was some great defender of America and American interests.

And they like the idea of a central bank and the United States going into debt in order to finance itself. Because that is a “good thing” for the American system of economics that the Larouche-ites propound. So, I think that shows a fundamentally flawed epistemology, a fundamentally flawed understanding of economics that goes right to the heart of it.

Having said that, on the other side of things, I am a believer in human freedom and that voluntary choices amongst consenting adults is the way forward for humanity and that that would be the ultimate thriving of all of humanity, including, of course, the field of economics.

But if you really look into the term economics and what that means and where it comes from, perhaps that’s the entirely wrong way of framing what it is that we’re interested in. So I will proffer a different word for people out there who are interested. Look this one up. It’s “catallactics.”

And if you look up about catallaxy rather than economy, you will find a very different way of understanding the reconciliation of humans that come together in the Agora—the marketplace of old—and what that means in terms of fostering human cooperative thriving rather than trying to reduce things to economic terms.

So that’s that’s a little homework project for people out there who are interested.

Interviewer:
Thank you. Now I just have to ask another question. Of course, you are a big, big fan of voluntaryism among individuals. And I assume you are also in favor of voluntary interaction among nations too. And something that upsets me and surprises me is so many—not so many, but a few of my friends who are, let’s say, on the “freedom dissident” side, still can lick their chops a bit when they think about how gas prices might go down if we take over Venezuela or something like that with no thought to do the Venezuelan people want this, you know.

James Corbett:
Yeah.

Interviewer:
I have visions of that that famous American general who wrote War is a Racket. Butler. Smedley Butler, saying we shouldn’t have our—if these countries don’t want us in there, we shouldn’t be there, period.

James Corbett:
Right. Well, again, yes, I am a believer in human freedom and human voluntary interaction. But because of that, then I don’t talk in terms of nations and I don’t talk about Venezuela as if it’s a kind of a singular unit. Again, I think that’s over-generalization.

So, I think the real answer to this is understanding and respecting private property amongst individuals. And so—and that solves a number of these supposed quandary on the geopolitical space or the economic space or what have you—the socio-political space.

The “open border versus closed border” debate is a false binary because there, of course, the real answer is private borders. I own my property and I can decide what happens on it and who is or is not allowed on my property. I cannot decide what happens on your property because you own that. And with private borders, suddenly there isn’t the question of this gigantic line on a map that’s been drawn in some boardroom thousands of miles away from us and decided by people based on some contract that we didn’t sign.

No, we own the property that we own and we set the rules and boundaries for our property. And that is all that we have the right to do. And no one else with any shiny badge or hat has the right to come and restrict or to permit whatever happens on our own individual private property.

And nor do we have the right to go in and intrude on other people.

So, again, the question of Venezuela and what it’s going to do with its oil is not about some thing that’s being drafted between individual states. No, it’s between individual human beings and who ultimately owns what property in order to decide that.

Now, that is an incredibly thorny question because of course unraveling all of that means, well, how do we decide at this point in human history who gets to decide who owns what natural resources of what parts of the planet? And I will admit that that is not going to be an easily solvable problem. But I do know that we are thinking of these problems in the wrong context and thus we will always arrive at the wrong answer.

Interviewer:
Okay. Okay. Well, James Corbett, thank you so much. We’re out of time. And this is a quick one, which I’m sad about, but I wish you all the best. And please come on again someday.

James Corbett:
Thank you for having me on

---

SECOND INTERVIEW

Description via KLA.TV: What is in the 3 million files related to child sex offender and eugenicist Jeffrey Epstein that have been released by the US Department of Justice on January 30, 2026? The renowned investigative Journalist James Corbett has inspected some of these documents and has made remarkable findings. He joined Kla.TV and gave us a magnificent quick overview of them. There still is a lot of work ahead to investigate all these documents. James put it this way: “…unfortunately, it is too much for any one person to handle or to synthesize, which is why I think this has to be part of a collective open source effort to really start reporting on these different data points.” We encourage everybody to dive into and share the investigations that James Corbett and other investigative journalists have already conducted. They are linked below. And don’t miss to check out the Epstein files release for yourself.

VIDEO COURTESY: KLA.TV

TRANSCRIPT COURTESY OF KLA.TV:

Interviewer:
We’re joined today by the groundbreaking investigative journalist and author who has spent the past two decades putting mainstream media narratives into the bigger context, showing the bigger picture of the world. It’s great to have you back, James Corbett.

James Corbett:
Glad to be here, thank you for having me.

Interviewer:
Well James, I’d love to ask you a few questions about the latest Epstein file release. And maybe to start off, this: how do you evaluate the credibility of this latest file release with the three million files?

James Corbett:
I, for one—Well, that’s an interesting question, actually, because I was inclined to say that I do not question the credibility of what has been released, but I mean that in a specific context. I believe that these really are documents that the DOJ has on file and has been working with that are related to the Epstein case.

But having said that, some of the most sensational claims and ideas from these files do not stem directly from, say, Jeffrey Epstein’s personal internal emails. It’s more like: “this is an anonymous tip that the FBI received from some anonymous person, and it’s presented in a document, and it’s….” I understand to the average person who’s just digging through and taking a look here and there, they’ll see an FBI document with a rather salacious claim on it and will immediately say, “oh, look! Here is proof from the FBI that such-and-such an event occurred,” when actually what they are looking at is just an anonymous tip that may or may not have been investigated and may or may not have any credibility at all.

So, the evidence itself is credible in the sense that, yes, it’s really a document that I trust really did come from the DOJ. But that doesn’t mean that it actually represents the truth.

And once you start digging into details like that, you start to see that, yes, in a way, they could be releasing actual documents, but some of those documents may not only not get us closer to the truth, they may actually distract us from the truth.

Interviewer:
Right.

James Corbett:
So, the idea that this is, in some way, some form of limited hangout is, I think by definition true, since we know we only have about half of the 6 million pages or so of documents in the DOJ’s Epstein files. At least what they admit to. We know that we have only received half of that. So we know that this is a limited hangout of some variety.

But I have noticed that there are those in the independent media who will poo-poo the entire thing, everything that is contained in here. And generally [this comes] from what I’ve seen from people who have not spent a single second looking through any of these files or weighing the evidence with regards to any of the documents.

I wish it were that easy to simply dismiss this, say, “it’s a distraction!” and move on to something else where I don’t have to actually sift through documents and do reporting. But, unfortunately, reality is such that generally we actually do have to dedicate a serious effort to understanding, reporting, connecting dots, finding documents and determining the actual worth or lack thereof of those documents and the evidence they contain. That’s a lot of work. And I understand why a lot of people don’t want to engage in it. So, I certainly do think that there is valuable information to be gleaned from these documents, even though I am sure it is not the bottom of the Epstein rabbit hole.

Interviewer:
Right, and you’ve been starting to do that and published a lot about it already. And so maybe to start out with with the content of those files, one of the probably most horrendous and terrifying parts of the files is what you titled as “Epstein’s Black Market in Babies.” Can you tell us briefly what that is about?

James Corbett:
So, there are unfortunately disturbing pieces of these files, documents, etc. that do indicate that at the very least—again, it’s not like there is definitive proof here—but there are multiple accusations of Epstein and Maxwell and potentially others using some of these women, these victims, as human incubators.

And we even have that, for example, from one particularly disturbing document that I have—in fact, it was a series of documents, of journals, of someone who was a victim who was undergoing therapy after having been victimized by Epstein, who was leaving detailed journal entries in cryptic code about being used as a human incubator. It’s talking about “flushing the fetus down the toilet” and other such truly reprehensible things. And so when these things are combined together, it certainly does paint a picture.

And it certainly does paint a picture when combined with some of the other reporting that we’ve known for some time now. Last year, I had an extensive article up on “Epstein Eugenics: The Plan to Seed the Human Race,” talking about that bit of the Epstein story that did come out in 2019, at least a little bit, but was never really thoroughly reported on. Talking about the many people who had said that Epstein had talked about seeding the human race with his genes in some sort of bizarre breeding project that he was trying to operate out of his Zorro ranch in New Mexico.

And I did some reporting on that last year, talking about the very, very many connections between Epstein and eugenics and various scientists—the scientific community. And we have more of that, those pieces of that puzzle coming out, not only with the black market babies story and whatever that might indicate about the actual selling of some of these babies, but also in the correspondence between Epstein and some of the researchers out there who are literally working on cloning, including human cloning and other such things that were talked about in Epstein’s personal correspondence. So there’s definitely a bigger, bigger story here that I still haven’t seen a lot of people reporting on.

Interviewer:
Wow, now I’m just going to move on to the next thing already because we only have a short time, which would be, could you briefly explain to us what is Pizzagate and what do these new Epstein files tell us about Pizzagate?

James Corbett:
So, back during the 2016 presidential selection race in the United States, people might remember that Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff at the time, John Podesta, was spear-phished. Essentially, he received an email to his Gmail account saying, “your account is being hacked from Ukraine, so you better go change your password,” and providing [him with] a link. And Podesta, being the idiot that he is, apparently asked his IT team, is this legitimate? And they said, “Yes!” And so he went and “changed his password.” And, lo and behold, we have the hack of the Podesta emails! Or at least that’s the story that we’ve gotten about where that hack of emails came from.

Whatever the case may be, in that email tranche is where certain people started to find evidence of a code of sorts, where pizza was apparently being used in some sort of cryptic reference scheme towards some sort of pedophile sex ring. And this was tied back to a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C. And there are a lot of strange, strange connections and strange social media posts and other such things in that story.

But people may or may not remember that story from about a decade ago, which culminated in an actual shooting taking place at that pizza parlor as someone came in, convinced he was going to uncover the whole incident, and ended up shooting a server with a bullet somehow and getting arrested. And from that point on, of course, any discussion of Pizzagate was absolutely derided as total deranged conspiracy theorizing of the worst sort and probably part of some sort of Russian election interference campaign, or something along those lines.

At least that was the way that it was portrayed in the mainstream media and and lovingly aped by people in certain online fora, like Reddit and other very establishment internet locales…until this latest release of Epstein emails, which shows, again, a strange compulsion of Epstein and his correspondents to talk about and evaluate pizza in extremely odd and puzzling ways that don’t make sense if you are talking about literal food. I pointed out some of them in the recent article I wrote, “10 Things I Learned from the Epstein Files,” where I link to some of the message chains that Epstein was involved in, where people were talking about “butt pizza”and things like this. The “pizza monster.” Talking about a pregnant woman and “that’s the pizza” and things along these lines.

Again, people can look into this for themselves and see that there certainly seems to be a strange code of some sort going on here. And perhaps, I suppose, Epstein’s defenders, if such people exist, could say that this is maybe those people taking up this strange internet’s crazy conspiracy theory and making light of it, or something along those lines. But I would invite people to take a look through the emails themselves and come to their own conclusion about what these many, many, many references to pizza and grape soda—”only you and I will know what that means”—and other such cryptic references might mean.

Interviewer:
Now, which persons within Epstein’s network stand out to you as especially noteworthy? I know that’s a hard one. There are many, but pick the one or two best.

James Corbett:
There are way too many. Yeah. No, it’s an excellent question, because we do need to start looking at individuals and the way that they’re connected.

And one that I just randomly stumbled upon was Kathy Ruemmler, which was not a name that was in my mental Rolodex. I had never really thought about Kathy Ruemmler or who is this person. But in my episode on this just last week, I pointed out that there was a correspondence between Epstein and this Kathy Ruemmler talking about the possibility of genetically engineering pigs to have non-cloven hoofs so they would be kosher and thus, I guess, edible by Jews and Muslims, I guess. Something along those lines. It was just such a strange email that I pointed out. And from that, I started to follow the thread of, well, who is this Kathy Ruemmler?

Well, as it turns out, she was in the Obama administration back in the early two thousand tens. Until she was forced out or she left to to go into private practice and ended up at Goldman Sachs as, I believe, a legal assistant or lawyer on their team, and was apparently at one point being considered to go back into the Obama administration as the attorney general. But apparently that didn’t pan out because, as it turns out, she had been involved in that—remember that story about in Colombia, there were some secret service agents and other White House officials who had gone ahead of the Obama administration at some conference or something that was taking place in Colombia and they all got busted for escorts and prostitutes, et cetera? Well apparently some of the latest correspondence shows that Kathy Ruemmler was involved in that and in covering up what had happened there, et cetera, and was consulting with Epstein on PR advice about how to handle the PR fallout from this, et cetera.

So again, there’s some weird connections going on there. Long story short, apparently Goldman Sachs has just sacked Kathy Ruemmler from their legal team.

Interviewer:
Bizarre.

James Corbett:
We’ve heard, of course, by now about Peter Mandelson, the ex-British ambassador to the US from the UK, who had to give up his seat in the House of Lords over the disgrace that’s happened right now. And now there are questions about current UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and what he knew and when and why he overlooked what was already known about the Mandelson-Epstein relationship.

Of course, though, I would think that probably of more relevance are Epstein’s ties to Israeli intelligence of various sorts. For example, his hosting Ehud Barak’s personal assistant, and a former Israeli military intelligence officer in his Manhattan apartment for weeks at a time, along with Epstein’s many, many, many relations to the Israeli government, to Ehud Barak, to various deals that were being done.

There was the cryptic, or the interesting, not even cryptic, very out in the open reference that Epstein made to Peter Thiel saying that, “as you probably know[,] I represent the Rothschilds.” Was that meant in jest or was that meant seriously?

Well, he certainly did have a relationship with the Rothschilds. Both Ariane de Rothschild of the Swiss Rothschild family in particular, as well as the Rothschild group generally. I can’t remember particularly which banking arm it was, but one which he had a $20 million dollar contract [CORRECTION: $25 million] with, handling some of their funds. So again, there’s that whole thread to unravel.

And then there’s Epstein’s many, many ties to the big tech broligarchs like Elon Musk, like Reid Hoffman, people of that ilk. And now we get to watch Musk and Hoffman tweeting at each other in some tweet war about who is more guilty in the Epstein files, interestingly.

And there is, as I said before, that interesting connection between Epstein and a whole host of scientists and people of interesting background. Of course, the big name scientists like Stephen Hawking, but also some interesting scientists like George Church, who probably most people don’t know, but is probably one of the currently operating scientists who is most closely associated with modern-day eugenics.

So again, there’s there’s a lot to explore. And unfortunately, it is too much for any one person to handle or to synthesize, which is why I think this has to be part of a collective open source effort to really start reporting on these different data points.

Interviewer:
And why do you think the establishment, like the US government, put out these files right now? Who benefits from that?

James Corbett:
Well, yeah again, since we know that at least half of the tranche of documents has not been released, then the real question is what has not been released and why has that not been released? I think that’s probably the more operative side of the question because there’s no doubt that putting out literally millions and millions of pages of documents, even if they are all 100% true, well…. “Here you go, here’s the tidal wave!”

And I think that if there is a strategy here, it may be the “tidal wave” strategy. “Here’s a tidal wave of documents. Of course, it’s not the half of the documents that we want to keep to ourselves, but here’s half. It’s a few million pages, have fun!”

And some people will fall under the bus, but the oligarchy itself will survive. That might be one of the factors at play.

Of course, this is all speculative because I am not privy to whatever decisions are being made on the inside of all of this, but it certainly seems that there is a—at the very least, a sort of “flood the zone” technique that is being deployed here, where they are trying to put out so much information that, in a sense, it will overwhelm people who are trying to put these pieces together. I think to the extent that this is a coordinated or crafted plan, I would assume that that is the strategy that’s being employed. Rather than asking, “why are they putting it out now?” it’s more, “why are they putting it out in this way?”

And what are we expected to do with that information?

Interviewer:
Wonderful. Maybe one last question, because there are the believers in QAnon and that secret military operation handling Trump. They’re really happy about this because this proves that QAnon is right and Trump is our man and he is draining the swamp, he’s exposing the establishment. What I mean, what do we know about Trump being complicit or implicated in this and what is your statement, what would you say to these QAnon followers?

James Corbett:
I have certainly seen the online chatter about “QAnon was right!” And so I am tempted to say, “QAnon was wrong!” But that’s not even correct. I would say QAnon was right in the exact same way a broken clock is right twice a day, insofar as it is incidentally right about some of the things that may have been claimed under the rubric of this QAnon operation, whatever that was.

But QAnon was wrong about many, many, many, many very specific identifiable things that were said, at least under the name of that QAnon account, originally on 4chan and then 8chan and wherever else it ended up online.

And I went through that in my documentary on hopium, “A Brief History of Hopium.” So, if people want to find out about the details of that, go to corbetteport.com/hopium. And I go through some—just a few—of the very specific things that were completely wrong. Going right back to, of course, the very first “Q drop,” so-called, on 4chan that was talking about how “Hillary Clinton is under arrest, guys, and everything’s going down and it’s all happening on such and such a date.”
And guess what happened on that date? Absolutely nothing.

And they were wrong over and over and over about all of those specific predictions of various people being arrested at various times and it’s over, the deep state is is done, et cetera. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong again, wrong on every count. Only “right” when QAnon broke the news about Epstein.

For example, just one example, at least three years after I reported about Epstein in a 2015 podcast I had about “Political Pedophilia” where I was talking about Epstein and the Prince Andrew story and everything at that time, But I certainly take no credit for breaking that story because there were people like Nick Bryant, who’s been on this case for decades and was in fact the person who actually released the Black Book and the flight logs in the first place, online.

So, people like that were right. Nick Bryant was right. QAnon just happened to pick up and regurgitate some of those pieces of information that it took from other people. And now people are saying, “QAnon was right.” That is wrong.

And QAnon was wrong about everything important that QAnon was claiming about “the white hats on the inside who are coming to save the day” and “don’t worry guys, Trump 1.0 back in 2016/17, that’s the end of the deep state and we don’t have to worry about this anymore. The good guys have taken over!” Oh wait, that was all total nonsense, total rubbish meant to keep the people placated and to stop them from actually demanding justice.

And so I hope that the real thing that we learned from this is QAnon was wrong about everything that mattered and was only right when it was plagiarizing the work of real researchers.

Interviewer:
Great. Where would you send people like the two or three best independent resources to understand the Epstein network and Epstein himself better?

James Corbett:
I would definitely say that people should be familiar with the work of Whitney Webb. She, of course, wrote the two-volume One Nation Under Blackmail, which is well over a thousand pages of densely worded and and extensively footnoted information, with literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of references and links pointing to, not only to the Epstein story, but the window into the larger idea of blackmail and espionage and underworld of crime and organized crime and how these things tie into political machinery, et cetera. It’s an incredibly documented voluminous work.

And from there, of course, if people are interested, they can check out, of course, not only Whitney Webb’s work at Unlimited Hangout, but my interviews with her on this subject. And if I may toot my own horn a little bit…

Interviewer:
Sure

James Corbett:
I would again send people to not only my recent podcast episode and article on this subject about what I learned from the Epstein files, but also that previous recording I was talking about with regards to “Epstein Eugenics: The Plan to Seed the Human Race.” Because again, I think that’s an incredibly important part of this that hasn’t been adequately explored.

But one other exploration/research that I think deserves highlighting is a recent post by Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo, who was doing the deep dive on these new Epstein documents and what they show about the Epstein / Gates / Rockefeller nexus in the pandemic infrastructure that was being set up in the 2000s and the 2010s. And there are documents in this new release of documents that are that show more about how that came together and how pandemics were weaponized and financialized in order to make a lot of money for certain well-placed individuals. So, that’s an incredibly important research project that Sayer Ji has been undertaking there.

Interviewer:
Well, thank you very much, James, for this dense information. We’ll definitely link all of that below the video so everybody can go do his own deep dive into this, as you said before. Thanks so much for coming on and sharing your insights into this.

James Corbett:
Thank you.