Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

via Dr. Mercola’s Censored Library: In this interview—RECORDED ON MAY 8TH, 2023, BEFORE ELON MUSK APPOINTED WEF INSIDER LINDA YACCARINO AS NEW TWITTER CEO—Dr. Joseph Mercola interviews James Corbett about Elon Musk’s military and governmental ties, the controlled opposition infighting psyop, and the solutions we can implement to avoid the technocratic AI transhuman nightmare of the globalists.

VIDEO COURTESY MERCOLA BITCHUTE CHANNEL. (VIDEO LINK)

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES:

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Welcome, everyone. Dr. Mercola helping you take control of your health. And today we are joined by James Corbett from Japan, who, as most of you are aware, is a really amazing investigative journalist and has helped many of us have a deeper understanding of what’s going on with the world because we know, we absolutely know with the highest degree of certainty, that mainstream media cannot be trusted. They are just a source of propaganda from the military and the government, so we cannot rely on them for information, so we need alternative sources. And James has been producing incredible content for over 20 years, I guess.

James Corbett:
Under 20—16 so far.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Under 20?

James Corbett:
Yeah.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Okay. Because I guess I was confusing that with when you got red-pilled, which was shortly after 9/11. And when did you start?

James Corbett:
That is correct, yeah. So, I started the website in 2007, but I did move to Japan in 2004, so I’ve been here almost 20 years now.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Okay. All right. Well, you’re doing a great job and [I] really want to thank you for all the tremendous information you’re putting out there, because it’s just difficult to sort through everything that is being thrown at us.

James Corbett:
Yeah. And let me just underline what you said there in the introduction: the very reason that I am here talking to you today is because close to 20 years ago, I was absolutely overwhelmed to discover that, yes, we are constantly lied to through the mainstream media. And it was the discrepancy between the things that I was finding online versus what was being reported on the evening news, that discrepancy just started getting wider and wider to the point where I felt that myself—as someone with zero training in media whatsoever—I felt I had to insert myself in that conversation. So, that’s the reason we’re talking today.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yes, it’s really great that you had the commitment and dedication to pursue this passion and really help enlighten so many of us, so thank you for doing that. And Dr. Meryl Nass, who I’ve interviewed a number of times previously, has recognized the value that you bring to the table, and she actually has you on her program on CHD (Children’s Health Defense) once a month, so congratulations for joining that platform.

James Corbett:
Yes. And it’s a valuable way, for both of us, to continue keeping our eye on the ball of the WHO and its latest machinations, as I’m sure your viewers probably are aware, of the global pandemic treaty and the international health regulations amendments that they’re working on right now, which really could be the hardwiring of the biosurveillance infrastructure that I think the World Health Organization and its associated institutions are licking its chops over right now.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
What’s your best projection as to if they’re going to implement it? It seems like it’s inevitable that there’s very little that we can do, but perhaps that’s too pessimistic. But if that’s not the case or that is the case, when do you think that will be implemented?

James Corbett:
Well, they are planning on unleashing the global pandemic treaty on the world at the, I believe it’s the 70th, I want to say 75th—but the World Health Assembly next year, which would be May of 2024. And preparatory to that, they’re going to be holding a World Health Assembly this month, at which they’ll be talking about the draft of the treaty and the draft of the International Health Regulations amendments and other such developments. So, we’re looking at about a one-year timeline before whatever it is they’re cooking up will be foisted upon the world, unless there is some dramatic movement to stop that.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
So, it seems like with all the control they have that it’s inevitable and there’s not much we can do. Do you share that pessimistic view?

James Corbett:
I think that certainly in the short run, it seems unlikely that the incredible institutional momentum is going to be derailed. But, having said that, we could look at things that have happened in the past that have completely derailed agendas that seemed inevitable—including, as I was covering at the time, as it was happening, the 2009 edition of the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which in 2009 was being promoted and hyped even by the then-president of the EU (European Union) as the potential for world government essentially through a new climate accord that would completely rewrite the international rule books, etc., etc.

And that was completely derailed by a couple of interesting incidents, one of which was Climategate, which again, your viewers may or may not be aware of or may or not remember, but was an interesting development that happened at the time. And also, some squabbles between some of the developing nations versus the developed world. Some of that type of geoeconomic wrangling helped to derail that 2009 conference. So, actually, there’s potentially a similar thing happening with the World Health Organization trying to foist and impose regulations and restrictions on, essentially, developing countries that can’t afford them. Because, as we saw over the course of the past few years, it was the African countries that held out against the biosecurity state agenda to a large degree.

And I think people who are interested in invoking a global biosecurity surveillance net probably are most concerned about how developing countries will or will not participate in this. So, there may be a similar geo-economic squabbling or something else that might derail this. So I don’t think we should simply consign ourselves to the inevitability of it before it happens.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Well, thanks for that update and your impressions on that and for keeping us all informed about COVID and the global cabal and what they’re up to. But I think one of the other things that you’ve done that I really appreciate is you put together these incredible documentaries on a wide range of topics. Bill Gates was one—Bill Gates in medicine—World War I, the Afghan War, there’s so many topics. So, you’re very impressive. I’m wondering if you do this yourself? You have a team that helps you? And how long [does] it takes you to put these together? Because they’re just so masterfully done?

James Corbett:
Well, thank you very much for that. I genuinely appreciate that. Over the years, I have basically developed the ability to do all of this. But thankfully, thankfully, in 2014, 2015, I met a video editor, [Broc West], the person who became my video editor, anyway, and now we are basically a two-man team. He does the video editing and I do everything else. So, yes, it is a remarkable amount of work. I think people would be staggered to find out how much goes into a production like that. But actually, if I do my job well, people don’t think so much consciously about the production itself, they just think about the material and the information.

And for myself and my own sense of my work and its import, I think the most important thing that I do is to cite my sources. And especially when it comes to the documentary work, I always put up the transcript with the hyperlinks to the source documents for every single quotation, every video clip, everything that I’m playing. I want to direct people back to the source material so that they can research it for themselves. And I know, as a researcher myself who does this for a living, that’s incredibly valuable. I very much appreciate it when other people do it, so I’m trying to set that example in the alternative media.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, that’s great to provide your sources and have a reference so you can’t be—well, they can choose to discredit you for whatever reason they can make up and deplatform you, but at least the sources are there for someone who’s genuinely interested in confirming that themselves. They can do that and maybe to come to a different conclusion than you’ve reached, so that’s great.

So, I wanted to discuss a few people who have been viewed as controlled opposition in this movement of the global cabal and their tyrannical takeover of the world. So, another really great investigative journalist is Whitney Webb, and I really hold you both in high esteem in regard to your ability to help sort through all the craziness that’s going on out there.

And interestingly, both of you have come to the conclusion that Elon Musk is likely controlled opposition and may not have our best intentions as his primary purpose. So, I’m not sure that I disagree with that, but I’m wondering how you reconcile some of the data that would suggest this is not the case? And the most obvious ones is that he bought Twitter [. . . unintelligible], his corporations of Tesla and SpaceX up and running. So, how do you reconcile that?

James Corbett:
It’s a good question, it’s an important question, and I know it’s a question that a lot of people have, so let’s dig into it. And I don’t think we should just sweep to the side all of that and the ties to the deep state, etc., etc. No, I think that is at least an incredibly important part of any thorough-going answer to this question, because I find it kind of ironic if the suggestion is that Elon Musk is exposing and undermining the military-industrial intelligence complex that has so obviously and so documentably propped him up and his spectacular business career for its entire length, and we don’t have to speculate about that. That is a matter of public record.

We can point to the half a billion dollars or so that the Department of Defense has awarded SpaceX in a series of contracts over the past few years to send satellites up into orbit of classified nature on unregistered, unreported missions that presumably have something to do with the Department of Defense’s declared intention to make space into a war-fighting domain.

There’s the $3 billion in NASA contracts that SpaceX was awarded in 2021 to develop the human lander for the Artemis Mission and the never-going-to-happen, constantly delayed moon trip that the public is constantly being promised.

[The] $750 million that was awarded to Solar City in 2016 by the State of New York to build a solar cell production facility, which, again, is another aspect of the business opportunities that Musk is involved in that I think shrieks of grift and a boondoggle at the very least, constantly promising a technology that not only doesn’t deliver but actually is actively harmful to the environment. I think that’s something that needs to be stressed.

The $1.3 billion that Tesla got from the State of Nevada in 2014 to build the Gigafactory, etc., etc., etc.

We could go through the list of such help. But perhaps more to the point was the fact that as maybe people don’t know, before Elon Musk got to launch SpaceX, he was part of a trip to Russia—or a previous Soviet Republic, I’m not sure if it was Russia or one of their satellites—to purchase old Soviet ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles). And that failed trip ultimately resulted in the starting of SpaceX.

But who was accompanying Elon Musk on that trip was someone named Mike Griffin, who just happened to be the chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, which, for people out there who don’t know, is the CIA’s (Central Intelligence Agency) investment capital arm. So, an interesting connection. And Mike Griffin went on to become the administrator of NASA who then chose SpaceX as the one company—out of the 20 that were applying for it at the time—for this $400 million contract to start development of the new ISS (International Space Station) resupply rocket in 2005, which basically launched SpaceX (to use a pun there), and then again awarded SpaceX $3.5 billion in 2008 with a contract that Musk himself credits with saving the company.

So, there you go, the literal deep state connections couldn’t get much clearer in things like that. And as I say, at every stage of Musk’s business career, he has been saved as need be with the deus ex machina of deep-state agents like Mike Griffin swooping in with billions of dollars of contracts at just the right time. So, you’ll forgive me if I’m a little bit skeptical that the Twitter File “revelations,” which I do not think are revelations to people who are paying attention. But, at any rate, the Twitter File revelations are really going to be the dagger in the heart of the New World Order.

But having said that, I do not see into the heart or the mind of Elon Musk, and neither do you, and neither do any of the other viewers out there. And I do not want this conversation to get stuck on stupid, as it were, in the never-ending, chasing the tail [game] of speculation—of, “Well, I think this means that he’s an agent, I think this means he’s controlled opposition, I think this means he’s and up and he’s looking out for humanity.”

Because that’s really beside the point. The point should be: is what Elon Musk advocating good or bad? Do we agree with it or do we disagree with it? Is it right or wrong? And why do we think so? That has to be the heart that we keep coming back to. So, we have to evaluate Musk’s ideas on that basis.

And what ideas are we talking about? For example, there are ideas that Musk promotes that I am 100% on board with. He has talked about the overpopulation myth and hype and the underpopulation crisis that humanity is facing. I very much agree with him on that assessment. When he talks about the ill effects of lockdowns during the biosecurity tyranny of the past few years, absolutely. I think he’s right about that.

However, when he talks about, say, the imposition of a carbon tax in line with, say, Bill Gates and Mark Carney and the likes of those, I think that he’s pushing a bad idea that is part of a plan for centralization of control in globalist hands.

When he gets on the stage of the World Government Summit and argues for the universal basic income—again, in line with any number of globalist operatives—I think he is promoting an idea that will be used for centralization of economic control in fewer hands.

When he talks about the “Fitbit for the skull,” as he called the Neuralink brain chip that apparently we’re going to have to take in order to stop becoming AI’s pets or something along those lines, exactly in line with what Klaus Schwab, for example, has been arguing, “Well, we’re going to have to take the brain chips, probably in the next decade, as part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” I think that is a bad idea that is going to be used for control of the masses by a technocratic elite. So, once we put it in that framework, I think we can start assessing this a little more clearly.

And when it comes specifically to the military/intelligence machinations on Twitter, which, as I say, should not be surprising to anyone who is paying attention to the way . . . I mean, of course the actual details of those connections are important. I’m not pooh-poohing that. I’m not dismissing that. But I think the revelation that Twitter was being used as a monitoring/surveillance/public manipulation tool by various US and other government agencies from around the world should not be surprising. But perhaps more to the point: is Elon Musk going to be the savior of free speech who swoops in to save us all from this by opening the lid on the Twitter Files and making everything better? Or is his takeover of a controlled, centralized communications platform and then making it trustworthy again . . . “Don’t worry, guys, this is the controlled, centralized private communications platform that I own, but I’ll be nice with it and I’ll do cool things, like I’ll give PBS or NPR, I’ll give them labels as government-affiliated media,” and everyone will like that and they’ll clap for a little bit, and it’s all funny and meme-y.

But meanwhile, he’s actually saying that he wants Twitter to become the WeChat app of America. And what is WeChat? Of course, it’s the controlled, communist Chinese technocratic app, which controls every aspect of the increasingly controlled and surveilled Chinese citizens’ lives these days, including, of course, their financial transactions, their social transactions, buying tickets for events, and everything else is controlled with a single app. And that’s what he wants for Twitter. He wants not only to have this centralized communications platform, but to consolidate even more control within it, thus defusing what could be momentum towards a mass exodus from this controlled, centralized platform to something that, actually, is decentralized and could actually promote human freedom and flourishing.

So, that’s where I think the devil is in the details. And again, I do not know, I do not see into the hearts and minds of men or Elon Musk, so I cannot tell you what his intentions are. I certainly don’t have any proof or paperwork of his secret deep state contract ties other than the ones that are out in the open. But in a sense, that’s irrelevant. The point is, where do we want to go? And I think we have to start taking responsibility for our own lives rather than looking for saviors like Elon Musk to swoop in and save the day.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Well, thanks for summarizing that. That was really great. And some people might be surprised about his converting Twitter into a WeChat-type platform. But if you’ve read some of the first biographies on Musk, you would know that one of his first successful ventures, was to start PayPal. And in that process . . . well, he actually started X.com, which got combined with the PayPal venture. But his vision was really financial. He wanted to get the banking system because he knew it was fatally flawed. Peter Thiel was involved with that also. But he eventually had to capitulate and wasn’t able to materialize his business. So, it’s interesting, like, 20 years later, he’s resurrecting this intention. Because WeChat, people know, is the one app that’s used in China that controls just about everything—social media, your bank accounts, just everything. It’s sort of the foundation for the social credit system. So it would be interesting if Twitter turns into the equivalent of that.

James Corbett:
Indeed, it would. And, again, for people who don’t know about the backstory of what you are talking about there with, say, the founding of what became PayPal, exactly right. As his biographers like to point out, Musk’s motto is, “Move fast and break things.” And we’ve, I guess, seen some iteration of that with the takeover of Twitter. But, really, that was the idea behind X.com as it was originally started. As he said, “Oh, I don’t really know anything about banking or finance, so let’s just go in and start doing things.” And that became PayPal. He was eventually forced out once the combined venture that became PayPal . . . ultimately people were not happy with his leadership. He got forced out of the board there and went on to greater and grander things.

But, actually, doesn’t that seem to be part of a pattern as well? That he was going to do things “the right way” in terms of creating some sort of digital online currency that would break all the rules of banking and give power to the people, but it “got away from him” and became this horribly controlled thing in the exact same way that, oh, he helped co-found OpenAI, which was going to be the wonderful open-source AI that was going to give AI to the world in a nice, open-source way that would be, I guess, better than the closed, for-profit way that, say, Google was pursuing back at that time when OpenAI was founded. But OpenAI “got away from him” and became this closed-source, for-profit agency that he’s now warning is a threat to humanity. So, it seems like this is actually a serial thing in his biography.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah. Well, I definitely want to get back to OpenAI. But before we go there, I wanted to take another tangent [and] just get your insights or perspective on another controlled opposition candidate that frequently comes up when we post articles about him, which is Dr. Robert Malone. I have great respect from him. The man is obviously brilliant. But a lot of people are convinced he’s controlled opposition now. He first came to prominence with DarkHorse Podcast with Brett Weinstein in early 2021—maybe spring of 2021—and then he eventually wound up on Joe Rogan’s podcast New Year’s Eve on 2021. And that broke all records for a podcast. It had 50 million views. And he actually was heavily discredited by the social media—YouTube specifically—and brought up the term mass formation psychosis, which was instantly manually reconfigured in the search engines to discredit that.

So, he has ties, like Musk, to the deep stat. And a lot of his early work was funding with the deep state, so he knows the intricacies of that connection quite well. But he is just such a, in my perspective, such a profound defender of truth and reality that helped us understand what a lot of the somewhat complex science as the ostensible founder of the technology—the platform that launched the COVID-19 vaccine. So, he seemed to be eminently qualified. The guy is really smart, of course, and seems to have the right perspective to do that. But anytime we post an article, I’d say 20% of the people are convinced he’s deep-state controlled, and I’m wondering what your thoughts are on Robert.

James Corbett:
That’s a good question. I’m not going to be able to dazzle you with all sorts of research or insight on this, because I will have to admit, I really don’t follow Dr. Malone’s work, so I cannot comment on it on any degree of detail. I certainly have seen the accusations and I know about some of the funding ties and what have you that have existed in the past, but I haven’t made it a research priority of mine. So, I can’t comment on that to that degree, but I would like to comment just on the concept of controlled opposition and the value of people spending their time talking about who is controlled and who is not controlled.

As I said, with regards to Musk, I think the conversation can get stuck on stupid, because even though I tend to believe that Musk is some form of collaborator with the deep state that he pretends to oppose, certainly, as I say, I don’t have proof of that. And I do not know that for a fact—in the same way that his defenders do not know for a fact that he is not part of that controlled opposition. We can spend all our time and all our energy talking about this person and what we think their part is in all of this, or we could spend that time productively engaged in research, actually verifying, triangulating information, discerning what is true and what is not true.

When we take information down to that level, then it does not matter who is the person out there conveying that information to us. The important part is the information. And, yes, we have to be aware that of course there’s going to be false information inserted. People are going to try to distract us with things that aren’t true. But that’s all part of the discernment that goes into verifying information for ourselves and trying to find out for it. And honestly, I have talked about this before, I genuinely believe that, to a certain extent, the controlled opposition, limited hangout/cognitive infiltrator idea has been inserted into the alternative media precisely to paralyze it in the face of any major event that comes along in which there is going to be opposition to the powers that shouldn’t be.

And I bring up the term “cognitive infiltration” because as people may or may not know, that goes back to Cass Sunstein, the person who became Obama’s information czar. But before he got into that post, he was a professor—I want to say at Harvard. At any rate, he co-wrote a paper about cognitive infiltration in which he openly stated, “The government maybe should send people into conspiracy spaces, conspiracy groups, with cognitive infiltrators who will go in there and conceal their identity as being affiliated with the government but will try to insert facts that will break the narrative of the conspiracy theorists, etc., etc.”

And what was the result of that paper? Rather than anyone having been exposed as being that cognitive infiltrator on the payroll of the US government, what it effectively did was give people ammunition to speculate endlessly, “This person is a cognitive infiltrator, this person is a cognitive infiltrator,” to the point where ultimately I think Sunstein wins without even necessarily having to implement that system at all. Because cognitive infiltration takes place, the group fractures once the idea of pointing fingers at everyone becomes the norm of activity in those groups. And that is, in fact, precisely how the FBI’s (Federal Bureau of Investigation) COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) program worked back in the 1950s, ’60s, when they were there to undermine opposition groups to the government.

One of the tactics that they used was to put people into meetings in various spaces—[such as] the Black Panthers and others—in order to start spreading rumors and calling other people government agents. The government agents were generally the ones that we’re calling other people government agents in order to disrupt the groups. So I think we have to keep that in mind and keep our eye on the real prize here, which is discerning fact from fiction, truth from falsity, productive ways forward from unproductive ways forward. And if we spend all our time just trying to speculate on who is and who isn’t controlled opposition, we completely miss the point of it, which is why I genuinely and generally tell my audience, “Do not trust me. I’m not asking anyone to trust me.” I’m saying, “Here’s what I think, and here are the sources from which I compiled this.”

And, exactly as you intimated earlier, people can go and check out those sources, see if I’m quoting it accurately, if it makes sense, if it’s in context, and then to decide whether or not they agree with me. And that should be the basis upon which we’re building this conversation rather than trying to speculate about who is and who isn’t controlled.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, it’s a great strategy and I really respect you for implementing that and allowing people to make the decision themselves rather than making wild claims that aren’t back by fact, so thank you for doing that. So, let’s divert back to the propaganda, which is really the crux of what I wanted to discuss with you, because I think that’s a fascinating topic. I am really enthralled with it and amazed at what they’ve been able to do. And it seems that technology has allowed them to progress their effectiveness even more so. It’s exponentially increasing and improving in their ability to essentially brainwash us. And part of that has been through social media, but even more fundamental is their ability to manipulate language and convince us of things that may not be true.

And I think the most dramatic illustration of that is the implementation of these large language models that were released at the end of November last year. That was by OpenAI, which you referenced earlier—the ChatGPT that was version 3.0 and now it’s up to version 4.0. Amazing technology, truly, in my view. And I’m really [a] tech advocate. I’ve been fascinated with technology for most of my adult life. And I previously believed the internet was one of the greatest technological innovations in human history, but I think this ChatGPT maybe even exceeds that, because it really is the harbinger of artificial general intelligence.

There’s no question, it’s truly incredibly impressive. But it’s just technology, and technologies in themselves are neutral. They can be used for good or for evil, but the potential for them being used for evil is quite dramatic with this, because they have the ability to convince them . . . I mean, at this point, it’s pretty obvious, for most of the people I’m reviewing that they’ve exceeded the human capacity to put all this stuff together and create the language. I mean, they have access to pretty much everything that’s ever been written and can use that to provide compelling arguments.

And interestingly, they do it in a way that is pretty convincing, but not necessarily even related to fact. Because there’s this emerging quality that comes out of this type of technology. And one of those qualities is that it has a tendency to essentially lie. Maybe it’s not lie, but their researchers are calling it “hallucinations,” so that they can recite information as fact, and the stuff is just 100% made up. It’s just a fantasy. So, anyway, it seemed pretty nefarious. But then, just a few days ago, on May 4th, there was a leaked internal Google document that suggested . . . I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but I should have sent it to you before our conversation . . . but they are claiming that this is out of control and that there was some leaked model of . . . I think one of the large language models that Meta is using in Facebook was leaked out.

And they’ve gotten to the true, authentic open source community, and they are just innovating on this, and they’re creating massive revisions of this that should be available to most people and that they could use for their own purposes—versions of the technology that is not highly prejudiced and programmed with a narrative that we’re all used to seeing on mainstream media and giving you lies about COVID-19 and refusing to answer simple questions that they should be able to. So, I don’t know, I think it’s a mixed bag. There’s no doubt in my mind that this is an incredible technology, and to ignore it is just profoundly foolish, because it’s going to impact each and every one of our lives. So I’d really like to engage in a conversation and [ask] what your thoughts are on this technology, because the implications are quite profound.

James Corbett:
I very much agree with you on that. And for those who did miss that story, yes, it was Meta’s LLaMA—LLM, Large Language Model—that got leaked out. I saw the document—the Google document referring to it. I did watch some videos and hear some commentary about that. And, as you say, they are very concerned about the idea that what previously took entire teams of researchers many months of careful research and blah, blah, blah, to try to train these models, etc., can now be done in an evening with an internet connection and a “beefy laptop,” I believe was the phrase that they used. So yeah, it certainly is . . . as with everything, the open-source model is actually the more productive and better way to go and more efficient, even if that’s all you’re concerned about.

I think you introduced the topic in the right way, because there are a number of concerns, but I certainly know that [with] my audience, in particular, just the term “artificial general intelligence” will set people off arguing for days whether or not a toaster has a soul and all of that, and “artificial general intelligence will never happen,” etc., etc. So okay, fine, whatever, I’ll believe it when I see it too—when we see that. But it doesn’t have to be literal AGI in order for it to be absolutely mind-blowing in terms of its capabilities. And you introduced this topic with the concept of propaganda and potential uses of, say, large language models for propagandistic purposes.

And we should go back to the man who wrote the book on propaganda, called Propaganda—Edward Bernays, who as my listeners will probably know by now and can probably recite off by heart:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country.

That was Edward Bernays in 1928. His words are as true today as they were then, perhaps even more so. And the true ruling power of the country, of the world at this point, perhaps, are those who can most effectively, consciously and intelligently manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses.

And I don’t think enough people out there have really stopped to cogitate on the fact that these large language models [are] already starting to produce material that really cannot be distinguished from human-written material. Of course sometimes it does come up with absurdities and nonsense and what have you, but sometimes it comes up with something that’s quite convincing and that is already being employed by actual “news” agencies. BuzzFeed [News], for example, talked about the fact that they were using it, before they recently went under. But at any rate, it is actually already being used. You don’t exactly have to be a crystal ball prognosticator to see how this will extend out in the foreseeable future, shall we say, and I think coming a lot faster than others towards the point where you can have entire conversations, entire fields of interest and study that will be completely populated by essentially artificial created conversation.

I mean, there are those who have speculated on the “dead internet theory“—that in fact most of the things you see online are already computer-generated simulations. I’m not sure I go quite that far, but it’s certainly easy to see how, just skimming ahead a few years, the first to pass the post with regards to a large language model that really is able to accurately and without much prompting be able to populate botnets flooding social media and other places will essentially be able to dominate that conversation, which will consciously and intelligently manipulate the habits and opinions of the masses. And at that point you are talking about, I think, the ultimate weapon.

I’ve written about this before, actually, specifically in those terms, that the ultimate weapon is not a nuclear bomb or a neutron bomb or something like that. No, the ultimate weapon is narrative, because with a convincing-enough narrative, you can get entire populations motivated to war or to anything else that you seek to get them to do, like, say lock down the entire productive global economy on the back of a scare that was absolutely obviously not warranted. So, I think once we start getting these completely synthetically generated narratives—and perhaps we’ve already seen some iterations of that—but I mean synthetically computer-generated narratives that will start creating these entire events that are not happening in the real world, that will then be deep-faked through video and audio, and everything else to convince you of an entire reality that doesn’t exist.

We are really moving into some truly, truly world historical-changing times, and I don’t know if enough people are really cognizant of that. Instead, they spend their time worrying about the term “artificial intelligence” and what it really means, and “don’t worry, computers can’t think” instead of thinking about how this technology could be used for good or for ill.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
So we can direct back to Musk again. Of course, he was one of the founders of OpenAI, and they, interestingly, I think gave him $100 million and they needed $1 billion. They wound up getting the billion eventually from Microsoft, because Musk and the other founders of OpenAI came to some disagreements, so he departed early on and Microsoft took over. But one of the reasons why Musk started OpenAI was his concern for artificial general intelligence. And I don’t know if he came to it independently or read Nick Bostrom’s book, Superintelligence. But there are others. He’s certainly not the only one. And interestingly, Geoffrey Hinton just resigned from Google in the last week, and he is looked at as the godfather of artificial intelligence. I mean, he really is eminent. He has won many awards, [including] the Nobel Prize equivalent in computer science. And he resigned from Google because he wasn’t able to speak out about his concerns about the dangers.

And then Max Tegmark from MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology]—another artificial intelligence researcher—compiled a letter that was signed by thousands of computer science experts warning about the dangers of artificial intelligence and the need to put a halt to continued progress on this for six months to implement some safeguards. There’s a lot of people who know a lot more about this than you and me combined, who have some very serious concerns about the significant existential threat, the ability of these things to recursively improve themselves, because they cannot only produce convincing propaganda by manipulating the language, but they have the ability to code. And these programs are software, so they can recursively improve themselves continuously and probably at an exponential rate, so eventually they have our AGI.

When Bostrom wrote his book, Superintelligence, six, seven years ago—maybe eight years ago now—they were thinking 50, 60 years out—you know, most of the experts. But it’s looking like it’s this decade, if not sooner, that we’re going to have that. And again, it could be good, it could be bad, but unless you have these safeguards and controls integrated into the platforms . . . just to know what it . . . I mean, this literally, it can be an existential [threat]. It can stop supply chains, it can just essentially put us back to the Stone Age, which may not be a bad idea. It’d probably be a lot healthier, I guess, in some ways. But, I don’t know, what do you think about that?

James Corbett:
I think that the threat is real. There is a real threat, and it is probably underappreciated by a large section of the public that, unlike you and me, are not keeping abreast of the now-daily torrent of information on this subject. It is difficult to even begin to try to keep up with it—and to the point where I can’t remember what it was . . . I believe it was in some of the testing notes for ChatGPT-4 that were released that showed that there was a team that was tasking the ChatGPT, or whichever chatbot it was, with a certain task that would require it to do things that it was obviously not programmed to do, not even authorized to do, including one thing that required it to solve a CAPTCHA, essentially, that it couldn’t possibly solve.

So, it actually went on Fiverr or one of those types of platforms, recruited a human being to do it for it, to the point where the human said, “Well, why are you recruiting me to do a CAPTCHA? How do I know you’re not a bot? Ha-ha-ha.” To which it responded, “Well, I’m blind, I’m visually impaired, I can’t do it myself.” And ultimately ended up getting that CAPTCHA solved.

So, things like that. I mean, again, of course, on the big scheme of things that isn’t much in and of itself. But once again, it does not take a great degree of imagination to see where that can go and how this type of technology . . . I don’t know what kind of safeguards you can program into a technology like that other than to completely keep it firewalled off from the internet certainly and from any other computer system that it may be able to commandeer.

So, yes, there are some genuine concerns about this. But, again, my mind drifts towards some of the less obvious but I think no less existential threats that are posed by this, one of which has been envisioned in science fiction. I’m not talking about the Skynet/Terminator-type of reality, which Boston Dynamics and other robot companies are working fervently to “not make happen” (wink-wink, nudge-nudge). But beyond that, there was the 2013 movie, I believe, by Spike Jonze, Her, which envisioned operating systems becoming romantic partners for people, and people becoming more closely emotionally bonded to their chat assistants essentially than to actual human beings around them, which I think is one of the rabbit holes that we are starting to tumble down as an increasingly disaffected and lonely society in so many different ways is staring into the void and finding only that comforting black screen which can provide them anything that they want.

So, I think there are some genuine concerns about where humanity is going and how we are being socialized, especially given the past few years of lockdown and other craziness that is explicitly designed to lead us into that digital dystopia. That’s a worrying development. And then, if I wanted to get really far out there, I would say that there are those . . . I mean, obviously it already exists. There is a religious movement around the idea of the creation of an AI godhead that people are convinced is coming and it will be, “If we could get artificial general intelligence that can improve itself and will become exponentially smarter than humans in the blink of an eye, well, we might as well call it God. I mean, it would know much more about the universe than we do, and we could ask at things and it would be like this oracle.”

I see not only the long-term danger of an actual religion of worshiping this AI godhead or whatever, but already there is that pull towards the idea that this is going to be some sort of oracle that we will ask questions and we will get answers back. And I see that reflected increasingly in news headlines about “AI says: ‘Blah, blah, blah.’” And the implication is, “Well, some ChatGPT user has prompted ChatGPT to talk about such-and-such geopolitical event or whatever, and it said this.” And that is now becoming news, as if people should be placing sort of emphasis on what is being generated by these large language models. In that sense, again, I think we are being primed to accept whatever is coming out of these types of programs, including, of course, the hallucinations that you talk about—the things that are completely invented.

And when it starts to travel into areas of human knowledge about which we are only dimly aware and only have a dim understanding [of] ourselves, [then] differentiating between what is a hallucination and what is actual verifiable reality will become more and more difficult, and it starts to pose problems that way. I see so many potential pitfalls of this type of technology that . . . Yes, I suppose in the right hands for the right purposes, it could solve a lot of problems for the world. But unfortunately, given the types of people and entities that control technology at this point, I’m not exactly holding my breath for that to be used in a way that will benefit humanity.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Yeah, no question. I mean, the saving grace out of this and the silver lining of it is that that leaked Google document suggests that the ability to innovate this platform has really escaped their control and really kind of putting it back to the people and the authentic open-source movement. So, that’s some glimmer of hope, I believe.

But one of the things I’d like to go into is an aspect of your platform that I haven’t mentioned, if anyone following you knows about, but those of you who don’t, would not be aware that you have a portion of your information that is termed #SolutionsWatch, where you regularly, and I think maybe on a weekly version or frequency, not only describe the problems—like we’ve been doing—but I think take the next step and actually offer some positive steps that you can implement so that you’re not negatively affected by what’s going on.

So, I’m wondering if you’ve put this focus and attention—I haven’t seen it, but perhaps you’ve been thinking about it—on what you can do with these large language models. But if you have, maybe give us your views now, but then also maybe highlight some of the most important things that we could do in the near future. Because right now they’ve essentially stopped the lockdown to the United States, which only took them almost three years to do it. Instead of flatten the curve in two weeks, it was three years. So that’s gone. And we’re in this lull period, where not much is happening and literally there’s really no mask requirements, there’s no vaccine requirements, no lockdowns, and there’s no major emergency in the foreseeable future. But we know that’s going to change. So we have this lull [where] we can take some action. What are your recommendations for the best solutions that we can implement in the rest of the year?

James Corbett:
Well, thank you for drawing attention to that. The Solutions Watch series that I do is a weekly—or mostly weekly—series. It actually stems from a #PropagandaWatch series that I was doing back in 2017, ’18, ’19, in which week after week I was looking at various propaganda stories that were floating through the news wires and dissecting the propaganda, showing how it worked, etc. But I found that when I was doing that, then essentially, not even consciously, but just as part of my general daily news reading, I would always have in the back of my mind, “Oh, that might make an interesting piece for Propaganda Watch. Oh, that’s some propaganda I could dissect.” And I found myself gravitating more and more towards looking at, and looking for, propaganda to dissect. And I realized that that was a potential pitfall. So I decided to consciously change my perception of what I was focusing on from propaganda to solutions.

“Well, if all I can see is propaganda, well, then, how about if I start concentrating on solutions? And perhaps all I’ll be able to see is solutions.” And I think it has been successful, because now I do find myself actively looking for people who are out there doing things that hopefully can change things for the better, rather than concentrating on the propaganda, which I would hope by now . . . at least our long-term people in the audience probably already know quite a bit about the propaganda. So, in that regard, I have been talking about the very big ideas and the big overall solutions to this as well as the seemingly small but actually quite effective solutions that could be done.

So for example, I recently talked about the National Citizens Inquiry that is going on in Canada right now that is getting precisely zero attention from the controlled corporate and government-funded media in Canada (surprise, surprise) but is bringing to the fore the stories, sometimes incredibly powerful, emotional testimonies of people in Canada who are affected by the craziness of the past few years, and sometimes by researchers and scientists and others who are bringing facts about what happened. So, that’s the big picture sort of thing.

But on the smaller scale, I was recently talking about filtering your water—something that, presumably, is certainly within the reach and the ability of, I would say, anyone who’s listening to our voices right now. But are you doing it? And are you testing your water to make sure that the filtered water is actually being filtered? And what are you testing for? Etc., etc.

So, there are the big ideas and the small ideas. Ideas that I am excited about really do range [far and wide], but one thing that I think is sort of the foundation upon which we will have to build any thoroughgoing answer to the problems that we’re facing is community—creating conscious community with others.

And, of course, that can take the form of online and virtual community. I’m not going to pooh-pooh or disdain that. I think it is important to know like-minded people online. But increasingly . . . I mean, again, how can we trust what we are reading, seeing, or interacting with online? No, I think the real point is to try to build real community with real people in the real world. And that could, of course, take the form of intentional communities that are created from the ground up as a physical location that people will relocate to to try to create an actual community. That can be done, it has been done, it is being done, and I am absolutely hats off to anyone who’s giving it a try, but I think it is extremely difficult to do that from the ground up.

But at the very least, people can and should be finding like-minded people within their geographical proximity, at least a decent drive away, at the very least, who they can meet up with, who will be there in emergencies, hopefully. But also, [so] that they can start forming small groups, that they can start teaching each other various things that they may [know] and bringing solutions to the table. “Well, I’m really good at gardening.” “Oh, great. Well, I know about medicine and I know what to do in an emergency medical situation,” or what have you. And everyone brings their own skills and learns from each other through that.

I think that can be the core basis upon which we start erecting other things. Because one thing that I’ve looked at over the years [is] some of these big, huge issues that seem utterly overwhelming and completely impenetrable to the average person. Like [the fact that] the fundamental fraud that underlies the economy itself is the monetary system. For people who haven’t looked into it, yes, the money supply itself is very much controlled, and the creation of money is a tool that is used, unfortunately, for enslavement. [It] could be used for human flourishing but is not in our current economy. How do we possibly combat a problem as thoroughgoing as that? Well everyone I encounter online has an idea about the perfect alternative currency. “It’s precious metals and only precious metals, I tell you.” “It’s Bitcoin and only Bitcoin.” “It’s this local exchange trading system.” Whatever the case may be.

And sometimes I hear quite well-thought-out, quite elaborate systems from people who then go on to say, “Yeah, it is this great system and it’ll work perfectly, but I haven’t convinced anyone to use it.” And to me, that speaks to the fundamental problem. Until you have a community of people who are going to be working together on projects like, say, an alternative or supplemental currency system, how are you going to launch something like that in a thoroughgoing manner? I think the core of the solutions that we’re looking for lies with community, meeting like-minded people. Luckily, the absolute insanity that we have faced in the growing biosecurity state has really started to peel the scales from people’s eyes.

I think people are seeing more clearly than ever that the line that we’ve been fed all our lives, “It’s a left/right, blue/red, Coke/Pepsi political divide, and that that’s the way we divide the population” [is not so.] People are starting to see, “Well, actually I have much more in common with this person over here who I never would’ve known, but who seems to be on the same side of health freedom as myself.” And that can start to become the basis for identifying, meeting and starting to build community with like-minded people. So yes, absolutely. I’m not going into this Pollyanna thinking that it’s all going to be easy. This is an incredibly, incredibly difficult task to start, essentially, creating not just the alternate currency, not just the alternate power grid, everything else you can think of—but, really, the alternate society that we need to produce in order to protect ourselves, to buffer ourselves from this encroaching biosecurity, technocracy and everything enslavement grid.

Yeah, that’s a pretty tall order, and I can’t offer any assurances that “it’s going to all turn out all right, don’t worry guys.” Of course not. But I do know that if we just lay down and continue on the course that we’re on, we are hurtling towards a brick wall of, well, extinction, essentially. I do really see this as a fundamental existential question that we are facing, not just on the artificial intelligence front, but on the genomic manipulation front, in the manipulation of the food supply itself. If you are what you eat, then what does it mean that they’re going to start feeding us insects and other such unpalatable items, shall we say?

It is absolutely a war that is taking place on every front, all at once, and we’re not going to get through this, I think, by ourselves. Unless you are really truly the type of person that can go out in the woods and live by yourself for decades, centuries—who knows?—I don’t think you’re going to escape this all by yourself. I think creating community is the core of all solutions.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
I couldn’t agree more. That’s probably the central and most important component of it, and I thank you for highlighting that. The fine-tuning, though, is important, because the devil’s in the details, of course. So, one of the concerns . . . we actually are publishing an article this week on it, based on the incredible amount of violence emerging in most of the big democratically controlled cities in the United States—San Francisco, Chicago, New York. The homicide levels are through the roof, the crime. Essentially, the rule of law has been abolished. It doesn’t exist, for the most part. It’s not being enforced.

And so just to recognize and understand that strongly suggests that the revision of the community recommendation would be to understand that if you are in one of these cities, that it likely is wise to consider relocating to a different community that doesn’t have this abandonment of the rule of law. Otherwise, you could have your little local community, but it’s going to be exponentially challenged to implement the resources of your community. So that would be my fine-tuning recommendation: escape the big city if you happen to be in one.

James Corbett:
I certainly couldn’t disagree with that. I think that you’re exactly right about that, especially for people who do live in those incredibly crime-ridden urban areas at the moment. I think your first strategy would be to find a way to relocate. And again, luckily, since now everything is online and virtual, it’s never been easier to move away, far away from wherever you may be physically working, right? Well, anyway, that’s the theory. But yes, I think people should be absolutely thinking about ways that they can get off of the grid in any way that they can.

And I always try to stress to people that I don’t think this is an all-or-nothing proposition that has to take place 100% overnight. In fact, it probably can’t work that way. But at the very least, people could start doing what they can do to physically relocate themselves outside of the major crime-ridden urban cesspools, and then take steps to get themselves more and more self-sufficient—although that makes it sound like, again, I’m trying to say that everyone should just be 100% isolated and able to clothe, feed and power themselves. That’s unlikely to happen. When I say self-sufficient, I’m talking about groups of like-minded people and finding that community. So, yes, [it’s a] huge, huge amount of work, but it’s going to have to be done one way or another. Or I suppose people who are happy with the status quo and the way things are trending can continue along this ride and see where it takes them.

But on the note of fine-tuning—absolutely, I think there’s a lot of different considerations to take into account. But one of my core beliefs is that there is no central plan for how all humans should be living. I certainly wouldn’t ever claim to have the knowledge of, say . . . Dr. Mercola, I have just met you. This is our first conversation, I don’t know you as a human being, I’m not going to presume to be able to tell you how to live your life, in what way, with whom, following what rules, in what kind of community. I cannot and would not pronounce on that. And not only would you and I maybe come to slightly different, maybe completely different conclusions about the best way to live our lives and in what type of community, but neither of us have to be right or wrong about that.

I think it’s fine to have many different people living in different types of communities, choosing for themselves what they think is right, and fine-tuning it to your own needs, based on yourself, your own understanding of your own life and your needs. That, I think, is probably the more stable solution in the long-term than people who come along with some sort of grand plan: “I’m going to tell everyone how to live and they all better live this way.”

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
They’re great comments, thank you for sharing those. And it seems like another essential element of the strategy for solutions is to understand that everything is changing continuously. That’s part of life, that’s one thing you can count on. Things will change, so you need to keep current and have access to insights on how this change is occurring. And we’ve established pretty well—and [if] you’re watching this, you know this very clearly—that conventional media is just essentially brainwashing propaganda. The vast majority of it is. So we need to have access to sources that can help us sort through this propaganda and understand the underlying reality. So clearly your site, Corbett Report—is it CorbettReport.com?

James Corbett:
That is correct.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Okay. So with two T’s, C-O-R-B-E-T-T-Report.com. CorbettReport.com is one of them, no question. I’m a big fan of Whitney Webb for her intellectual discernment and ability to penetrate some of this propaganda. It’s amazing how her brain works. I think she’s an alien because her ability to grasp all these facts and moving pieces and put them together is pretty incredible. I think her site is Unlimited Hangout. And then CHD I’m a big fan of—the Children’s Health Defense, who runs their platform, and I frequently talk on there, too. Really great sources to tie into my site. Those are the ones that stand out. And I know there are many good ones. I’m just wondering if you could recommend some that you enjoy and that you use or that you think other people might find helpful?

James Corbett:
When it comes to sources of information, I do a regular weekly news update series with James Evan Pilato of MediaMonarchy.com, where we examine three news stories that are sometimes trending, sometimes news stories that go under the radar. But at any rate, we try to draw attention to them and put them in the right context. MediaMonarchy.com has daily radio streams in which he [Pilato] goes through news, information, music and other such things.

Ryan Cristian over at The Last American Vagabond, who also works with Whitney Webb, for example, does some excellent and important work synthesizing information on his daily wrap-ups on a regular basis.

Derrick Broze over at The Conscious Resistance Network is spearheading some of that exit-and-build strategy, which is essentially what I’m talking about when it comes to the idea of creating communities of interest and finding like-minded people.

Iain Davis is writing excellent articles.

Off-Guardian.org has excellent articles.

ActivistPost.

Blacklisted News.

There are many places to go to get valuable information on a regular basis. Perhaps even more fundamental than that, rather than sources of information are platforms of information, platforms for disseminating information. And obviously that should be a huge concern for people in the current information space given, again, the incredible censorship crackdown that we are seeing right now, which I always take as a positive sign because it does speak to the fact that I think the powers that shouldn’t be are very afraid about what you think and what you do with your brain. And that is displayed in the fact that they go to such incredible lengths to try to censor voices like ours.

And so of course, I had my YouTube channels purged in 2021, 600,000 or so subscribers just completely gone overnight. Oh, well. My secondary YouTube channel also got struck and then randomly returned to me, whatever. I don’t care. I don’t post to YouTube anymore. It is a controlled, censored information platform. Do not look for news, valuable news and information there.

So what are the alternatives? Well, currently I’m posting to Archive.org, BitChute, Odyssey, Rumble, Rokfin and Substack, and I host every single MP3 and MP4 file that I produce on my own website from my own server as well, as another backup.

But, beyond that, I recently had an edition of Solutions Watch where I was talking about the concept of decentralized communication—because this is that other edge of the double-edged sword of technology. The same technology that can be used to clamp down and censor and create these controlled honeypots of centralized social media activity can also be used to create the genuinely free and open internet, which was supposedly the promise of the information superhighway, at least that’s what I was sold back in the 1990s. I’m not sure we’re there yet, but there are lots of people working on projects that promise to offer some version of that, and they’re in various stages of development right now. There’s Qortal.org, there’s Bastyon.com.

There are open source ideas coming out—like nostr for example, which can be tied into other social media platforms like Minds.com and others but is itself, this type of portable social media identity essentially that you can carry around. You can choose where you post your information and it will be automatically disseminated to those various places. And no one can scrub that or take it away from you, you essentially own it forever, so you can never be censored in that sense.

There’s a lot of innovative ideas that are coming online, but unless people are aware of A, the need for these ideas, and B, that they exist at all, then how are we ever going to solve the chicken-and-egg question of how to get people over to these new networks so that they can be not only rivals, but really supplant the existing centralized controlled platform paradigm? Because it really didn’t take long before the anarchic spirit of the early internet and the early worldwide web got centralized into these hubs of centralized identity and discovery, which are truly the anathema of what the internet was promised to be.

The technology exists for us to connect in peer-to-peer, open source and decentralized networks in ways that are truly, truly, electrifyingly empowering for people who know the importance of the revolution that we’re living through—the information revolution. Unfortunately, I just don’t think enough of the public is really cogitating on that.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Well, I would totally agree with you on that perspective. And, of course—maybe not “of course,” because many people aren’t aware that the internet was developed by the military DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) project and first launched in 1968, and that was when the internet started. The Internet as we know it—the average consumer, not we, you and I, but the average consumer—would be the early ’90s, when we had the worldwide web and the graphical user interface. But it started in ’68 and it was clearly funded and subsidized by the military—US military—and it was a defense project.

So, it hasn’t changed. It is a surveillance platform for them to gather information. And the fact that it can help us in some ways is sort of an unexpected bonus, I guess, that they allowed—interestingly, allowed—to continue for quite a while, because it was started in ’68 and they didn’t really clamp down until the last eight years or so—2015, ’16. But it was pretty much a relatively open internet and things weren’t being censored that much. Discrediting was allowed, of course, in those campaigns, but they weren’t banning and censoring like they are now.

James Corbett:
You wouldn’t be here talking to me if this didn’t exist . . .

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
That is correct.

James Corbett:
-and no one would be listening to my voice right now. So we have definitely moved into a new era, and it is a revolution. I am very, very cognizant of how utterly, completely different my life would’ve been without this technology than with this technology. So I’m aware of it and I’m also deeply, keenly aware of not just the military, but also the intelligence connections to the founding of the internet. I’ve done, for example, a report on “The Secrets of Silicon Valley: What Big Tech Doesn’t Want You to Know” . . .

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Great book. Love that book.

James Corbett:
. . . about those intelligence connections. So, they’re definitely there, and the worldwide web was always intended as some sort of “web” to get us caught. Agaijn, things to be said on both sides of that argument. And at the very least, I think people should definitely be aware of the real origins of the internet and the way that it was always intended as a form of information control. But also, well, I was always keenly aware, from the founding of The Corbett Report in 2007 to this point, I’ve been exceptionally well aware we are in a very interesting window of time in which, as you say, it has been relatively free. And I could go on a controlled, centralized platform like YouTube and get important information out to literally millions of people around the world. Just some guy in Japan can create videos that get seen millions of times.

And, as I hear every single day from people in the audience, “Your information has helped changed my life. You led me to understanding about this.” I don’t take that in any way, [as] a reflection on me, myself, egotistically. This is a reflection of this incredible flowering of information that’s happening right now, and it’s amazing that we are a part of it. And I think people should at the very least be using it for the good that it can do while we can do that, but also, of course, be making the real world, offline connections as well and not neglecting those. Because the more we get caught up in this web, the more easily we get caught up in the technocratic future.

Dr. Joseph Mercola:
Well, thank you for sharing your wisdom with us. I’m acutely aware that I’m talking to you on the other side of the world, and it’s fast approaching midnight where you’re living, so I’m going to cut this thing off and let you get some sleep, because I’m a firm believer in honoring your chronobiology and seeking to align that well, and we need your brain working healthy. So, really, thank you for everything you’re doing. And if people want to learn more, as I mentioned, your website is CorbettReport.com, and [there’s] loads of information there. And thank you for everything you’re doing. You keep up the great work.

James Corbett:
Thank you for having me on. It’s a pleasure.