Discussion between Ivor Cummins and Jacob Nordangård
Included are:
John D. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford Foundations
Birth of modern allopathic medicine (and destruction of natural medicine)
Role of philanthropy, NGOs and other organizations as seeding the plans
How to hide your billions in a "philanthropic" trust and give your "solutions" to the world that aim for your outcome
Role of League of Nations, United Nations, Club of Rome (Limits to Growth), Population Council, BLM,
how Global Warming and Climate change were rolled into this and how ICCP is a Rockefeller funded creation
Henry Kissinger, Klaus Schwab, Maurice Strong, Queen Beatrix, Michail Gorbatshov, Greta Thunberg, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, Jose Manuel barroso, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Emmanuel Macron, Jacinda Ardern, Sebastian Kurz,
The idea of lockstep and narrative control
How dissent must be crushed early on and totally
How modelling and scenarios are used to control people's fears, the narrative and ideas of "solution"
Their five crises horses they like to ride: CLIMATE DISRUPTION, PANDEMICS, FINANCIAL COLLAPSE, END OF OIL, MACRO-TERRORISM
Their road maps: Agenda 21, Millennium Goals, Agenda 2030, Agenda 2050, etc.
The Global Brains Trust (1500 "experts") who will call the shots in the future
The world will be "guide through crises" by the brain trust, as long as crises are coming, and they will keep coming and coming and every country will follow the same steps in lock step
The goal: global citizen, One World, One Government, One Currency, One
and the BASIC rule of thumb :
"if you see anything coming out that's apparently a global problem that we all together need to address , but the only permissible solution is a global one and will involve handing over Power Authority to Global organizations , and if dissent is crushed or pushed against and censorship in any way, or there's a static idea of the science, and a consensus claimed right ... then you do not need to look at the modelling, and it'll usually be modelling that's causing this you don't need to look at the math you don't need to look at the science right you know it's a scam ."
— Nick Hudson
If you don't want to cause costs to Youtube by watching this video there, then download from WeTransfer:
a) "is not" implies utilizing "is nothing" as the foundation to describe something. That's a contradiction...something out of nothing.
Consider this instead...everything "was" perceivable before one can shape a suggestion about what it "is". Ignoring was (perceivable) for is (suggested) represents ones ignorance of everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested).
In short...nothing represents the state of ones own ignorance of everything perceivable; which others exploit with suggestions.
b) can life; while being moved from inception towards death, "do nothing"? How could one do nothing within a moving system?
it is unawareness
Can one be unaware of breathing aka the need to adapt to impressing input? How about thirst and hunger? Nature (action) forces adaptation (reaction)...RE- (respond to) ACTION (enacted upon). Reaction can only exists within action, hence partial reactions (life) within whole action (inception towards death).
In short...awareness is implied for being; ignoring implication (if/then) represents each beings free will of choice; and choosing to ignore prevents ones growth of self discernment.
One (center) is aware of surrounding, even if one lacks to discern ones position...lacking self discernment implies ones willing ignorance about growing it, hence "self" discernment.
so how does one not know something?
KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"...ones choice to ignore perceivable (knowledge) for suggested (understanding) prevents one from comprehending what one ignores.
The trick...suggested words (fiction) tempt one to ignore perceivable sound (reality). Guess how fucking hard it is to communicate this while using words...
Anyway...you consented willingly to suggested "not" (nothing) and only you can choose to let go of it. The more you resist the temptation to hold onto suggested nothing (fiction); the more your comprehension about perceivable everything will grow.
Take "not" out of your question and ask yourself: "how does one know something"? Nature doesn't suggest words, so being told something implies an artificial suggestion tempting one to ignore naturally perceivable.
by not learning that thing
a) to teach self implies to learn for self and vice versa.
b) ignoring to learn implies teaching oneself about ignorance.
c) choosing to not learn that thing teaches one how to avoid learning that thing...avoidance from implies awareness of.
Example..."not" learning about degeneracy aka ignoring the degenerate behavior of others will teach one about degeneracy, when the consequences of ignoring it are starting to fill up ones surrounding. Ignorance attracts those who exploit it.
which is almost everything.
Suggested "almost" represents a rhetorical trick to deceive one to doubt all (whole) for most (greatest part). Another such deception represents a "puzzle"...partials can never create whole, because even if one puts all the pieces together; they each are still apart from one another, hence showing a visible outline.
The sleight of hand for puzzles...partials within the box; whole on the box.
reality must be realized or its not reality to the subject.
a) does a subject (reaction) within an objectifying system (action) need to suggest other subjects what it "is" or does a subject (life) while being objectified (inception towards death) adapt to what "was" before one came to be within?
b) "reality must be..." tempts one to ignore "being within reality". Being represents the subject (center growth) within objectifying reality (surrounding loss).
c) energy (inherent/Internal power) implies velocity (loss) generating resistance (growth) at its center, which in return allows resistance to experience velocity...
All of this can be discerned if one resists the suggestions by others...
real; fake
a) ignoring perceivable (need) for suggested (want) shapes a conflict of reason (want vs not want).
b) ones consent to the suggestion gives the one consenting the power of ones consent to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested.
c) real vs fake represents revisionism of wanting vs not wanting suggested; while ignoring perceivable need.
Test this: hold your breath and reason (real vs fake) about breathing...a few moments later...velocity will force you to resist by breathing. Velocity doesn't care if resistance reasons about real vs fake...velocity was before resistance can reason what it is and velocity will be when resistance runs out, because resistance runs out back into velocity.
As form (life) within flow (inception towards death) it goes flow to form (inception); form within flow (life) and form to flow (death) aka transmutation of ingredient out of base...alchemy.
Absolutely. They are playing the long game of empire bulding. In this they don't seek instant gratification, they aim to direct the course of an enormous structure that is evolving through time and force it to where they want to go.
Yup. It goes at least as far as back as Cecil Rhodes and Rhodes Society, and then before that, and before that....
What the above video distills is the human lifespan history of c. 100 years, starting from John D. Rockefeller.
The longer game, that is way over multi-generational, way longer than multi-family, that's the ancient game and it goes back to the actual custodians of the planet earth. And they are not humans.
good vid, ty! but probably way longer shenanigans have been going on with the same groups.
i'd be thoroughly unsurprised if there were 5+ family bloodlines mucking about, playing power games since the middle ages, and 2+ since the time of the pharaohs, long before Jesus walked the earth. definitely some secret/not-so-secret societies have been around for milennia, maybe a couple even since Sumer was a thing.
even if the two links below are a larp, they absolutely describe something that is 100% possible, if not probable.
1 (good luck slogging through html text; PITA but worth it)
A decent 2 hour overview of the past 100 years.
Discussion between Ivor Cummins and Jacob Nordangård
Included are:
and the BASIC rule of thumb :
— Nick Hudson
If you don't want to cause costs to Youtube by watching this video there, then download from WeTransfer:
https://fatemperor.wetransfer.com/downloads/162095d46cc93886bd84c0c20496a49c20230623213525/3a9662
Or you can watch on Odysee:
https://odysee.com/@IvorCummins:f/the-greatest-history-never-told-full:6
Free will of choice represents ones key to resist "standing under"...which unlocks ones growth of comprehension.
a) how does one realize doing nothing (don't)?
b) does reality (perceivable) have to be realized or do those within (perceiving) need to resist wanted fiction (suggested)?
a) "is not" implies utilizing "is nothing" as the foundation to describe something. That's a contradiction...something out of nothing.
Consider this instead...everything "was" perceivable before one can shape a suggestion about what it "is". Ignoring was (perceivable) for is (suggested) represents ones ignorance of everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested).
In short...nothing represents the state of ones own ignorance of everything perceivable; which others exploit with suggestions.
b) can life; while being moved from inception towards death, "do nothing"? How could one do nothing within a moving system?
Can one be unaware of breathing aka the need to adapt to impressing input? How about thirst and hunger? Nature (action) forces adaptation (reaction)...RE- (respond to) ACTION (enacted upon). Reaction can only exists within action, hence partial reactions (life) within whole action (inception towards death).
In short...awareness is implied for being; ignoring implication (if/then) represents each beings free will of choice; and choosing to ignore prevents ones growth of self discernment.
One (center) is aware of surrounding, even if one lacks to discern ones position...lacking self discernment implies ones willing ignorance about growing it, hence "self" discernment.
KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"...ones choice to ignore perceivable (knowledge) for suggested (understanding) prevents one from comprehending what one ignores.
The trick...suggested words (fiction) tempt one to ignore perceivable sound (reality). Guess how fucking hard it is to communicate this while using words...
Anyway...you consented willingly to suggested "not" (nothing) and only you can choose to let go of it. The more you resist the temptation to hold onto suggested nothing (fiction); the more your comprehension about perceivable everything will grow.
Take "not" out of your question and ask yourself: "how does one know something"? Nature doesn't suggest words, so being told something implies an artificial suggestion tempting one to ignore naturally perceivable.
a) to teach self implies to learn for self and vice versa.
b) ignoring to learn implies teaching oneself about ignorance.
c) choosing to not learn that thing teaches one how to avoid learning that thing...avoidance from implies awareness of.
Example..."not" learning about degeneracy aka ignoring the degenerate behavior of others will teach one about degeneracy, when the consequences of ignoring it are starting to fill up ones surrounding. Ignorance attracts those who exploit it.
Suggested "almost" represents a rhetorical trick to deceive one to doubt all (whole) for most (greatest part). Another such deception represents a "puzzle"...partials can never create whole, because even if one puts all the pieces together; they each are still apart from one another, hence showing a visible outline.
The sleight of hand for puzzles...partials within the box; whole on the box.
a) does a subject (reaction) within an objectifying system (action) need to suggest other subjects what it "is" or does a subject (life) while being objectified (inception towards death) adapt to what "was" before one came to be within?
b) "reality must be..." tempts one to ignore "being within reality". Being represents the subject (center growth) within objectifying reality (surrounding loss).
c) energy (inherent/Internal power) implies velocity (loss) generating resistance (growth) at its center, which in return allows resistance to experience velocity...
All of this can be discerned if one resists the suggestions by others...
a) ignoring perceivable (need) for suggested (want) shapes a conflict of reason (want vs not want).
b) ones consent to the suggestion gives the one consenting the power of ones consent to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested.
c) real vs fake represents revisionism of wanting vs not wanting suggested; while ignoring perceivable need.
Test this: hold your breath and reason (real vs fake) about breathing...a few moments later...velocity will force you to resist by breathing. Velocity doesn't care if resistance reasons about real vs fake...velocity was before resistance can reason what it is and velocity will be when resistance runs out, because resistance runs out back into velocity.
As form (life) within flow (inception towards death) it goes flow to form (inception); form within flow (life) and form to flow (death) aka transmutation of ingredient out of base...alchemy.
I'm in 100% agreement.
Yet, even the greatest elephant is eaten piece by piece, not swallowed whole.
Absolutely. They are playing the long game of empire bulding. In this they don't seek instant gratification, they aim to direct the course of an enormous structure that is evolving through time and force it to where they want to go.
Yup. It goes at least as far as back as Cecil Rhodes and Rhodes Society, and then before that, and before that....
What the above video distills is the human lifespan history of c. 100 years, starting from John D. Rockefeller.
The longer game, that is way over multi-generational, way longer than multi-family, that's the ancient game and it goes back to the actual custodians of the planet earth. And they are not humans.
Most are not ready for that pill yet.
good vid, ty! but probably way longer shenanigans have been going on with the same groups.
i'd be thoroughly unsurprised if there were 5+ family bloodlines mucking about, playing power games since the middle ages, and 2+ since the time of the pharaohs, long before Jesus walked the earth. definitely some secret/not-so-secret societies have been around for milennia, maybe a couple even since Sumer was a thing.
even if the two links below are a larp, they absolutely describe something that is 100% possible, if not probable.
1 (good luck slogging through html text; PITA but worth it)
2