tyb
The Harvard Control Grid
The Hidden Nerve Center of Global Power
Why Harvard’s Endowment Board Was Never Just Academic - It Was the Interface for Empire
The Control Interface - Harvard’s True Function
Harvard’s reputation is imploding. But what lies beneath its collapse isn’t merely bad press, or political missteps, or misguided ideology. It’s exposure.
Because Harvard was never just a university. It was a control terminal.
For decades, Harvard served as the centralized interface where capital, compliance, and globalist agenda-setting quietly merged. It was the credentialed cockpit of an invisible empire - cloaked in crimson banners and prestige, but wired into the real-world architecture of influence: endowment-backed investments, ideological pipelines, and elite boardrooms that shape the world behind the curtain.
The epicenter of this influence was the Harvard Management Company (HMC) - a legally separate investment engine with a $50+ billion war chest, shielded from public oversight and run by individuals whose ties read like a blueprint of coordinated control.
Think Blackstone. Rothschild. Rockefeller. Goldman. Davos. CFR. Trilateral Commission. Ford Foundation. Asia Society. Bilderberg.
This is not speculation. This is structure.
Harvard’s stewards weren’t merely investors. They were architects of consent. The same people who managed the endowment also advised world governments, funded foreign propaganda, sat on intelligence-adjacent foundations, and chaired elite economic forums. From their seats inside HMC, they funneled resources into the very infrastructure - financial, medical, technological, and ideological - that kept the old system intact.
The collapse we’re witnessing now - the donor flight, the resignations, the endowment sell-offs - isn’t just about public relations. It’s the systemic implosion of a command node.
https://badlands.substack.com/p/the-harvard-control-grid
—
Dr. Klaus Schwab or: How the CFR Taught Me to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
The World Economic Forum wasn’t simply the brainchild of Klaus Schwab, but was actually born out of a CIA-funded Harvard program headed by Henry Kissinger and pushed to fruition by John Kenneth Galbraith and the “real” Dr. Strangelove, Herman Kahn. This is the amazing story behind the real men who recruited Klaus Schwab, who helped him create the World Economic Forum, and who taught him to stop worrying and love the bomb.
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/03/investigative-reports/dr-klaus-schwab-or-how-the-cfr-taught-me-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb/
—
Wilted Ivy
The Death of Prestige and the Rise of Sovereignty
For centuries, Harvard stood as a monument to untouchable prestige… the shining city on the hill of academia, a fortress of influence whose walls were lined with crimson banners and crowned with privilege. Presidents walked its halls. Bankers, media moguls, and bureaucratic kings and queens bore its seal like a knight's crest. It wasn't just an education; it was an initiation into the ruling class.
But nothing built on illusion stands forever…
Today, Harvard is scrambling to liquidate over $1 billion in private equity assets, not to innovate, but to survive.
At the same time, the walls of media, finance, and academia are crumbling across the board:
CNN sheds massive audiences and staff.
Disney’s empire faces collapse-level layoffs and revenue losses.
Goldman Sachs quietly sells off private equity holdings, echoing Harvard’s moves.
The pillars of the captured system are fracturing…
This isn't a market correction. It's a controlled demolition.
It started with an invisible trigger: Executive Orders 13818 and 13848, signed quietly while the world was distracted. Orders that legally authorized the seizure and realignment of assets tied to corruption and subversion.
The cause-effect timeline is clear:
2017-2018: Trump signs executive orders setting seizure infrastructure.
2020-2022: Institutional narrative enforcement accelerates (ESG, DEI)
2023: Big Three begin showing cracks. Larry Fink retreats from ESG rhetoric.
2024: Harvard’s President Claudine Gay resigns amid scandal. Harvard begins liquidation.
2025: Full public realignment discussions emerge: Sovereign Wealth, decentralized ownership.
The invincible towers were never as strong as they appeared.
The era of manufactured consent is ending.
The future belongs not to centralized overlords, but to the sovereign people.
Let’s walk through the fall of the old empire, and the birth of the new one.
…
https://badlands.substack.com/p/wilted-ivy
This just aired at #cocacola600 @CLTMotorSpdwy
https://x.com/DODResponse/status/1926803745288991010
BACK AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE! 🇺🇸
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1926815308829827533
>Miami Beach military flyover
Whitney Webb, an investigative journalist renowned for exposing the underbelly of power, has sounded a clarion call for a public reckoning on the unchecked fusion of Silicon Valley and the national security state.
In a recent interview, she highlighted the growing entanglement of tech giants and government agencies, a partnership that threatens to erode civil liberties under the guise of innovation.
Far from being a Luddite, Webb insists that the issue isn’t technology itself but the lack of transparency, accountability, and public debate surrounding its deployment—particularly when AI algorithms, hyped as infallible, are outsourced to make critical decisions impacting lives and freedoms.
Webb points to a chilling example from the COVID-19 era in Rhode Island, where then-Governor Gina Raimondo greenlit a partnership with Diagnostic Robotics, an Israeli company tasked with using state health data to predict COVID-19 outbreaks. The goal?
To identify “hot spots” and trigger localized lockdowns, restricting commerce and freedom of movement. Yet, as Webb uncovered, the algorithm’s accuracy—touted by the company at roughly 70-80%—was never independently vetted.
“What if it’s closer to 60% or 50%?” she asks. “That’s no better than a coin toss, yet we’re handing over immense power to these systems, with real consequences for people’s lives.”
This case raises profound questions about the reliability of AI and the motives behind its adoption. Webb notes that Diagnostic Robotics’ use of health data, even if “anonymized,” likely skirted HIPAA protections under emergency COVID-19 justifications.
The opacity of these decisions—coupled with the company’s ties to broader tech and security networks—underscores a dangerous trend: private-sector AI, often backed by multimillion-dollar contracts with the national security state, is being sold as a public good without scrutiny.
“When companies with deep conflicts of interest are shaping policy and decision-making, we need to ask who benefits,” Webb argues. The hype surrounding AI, she warns, has created a public perception that algorithms are inherently smarter, more efficient, and more cost-effective than human judgment.
This narrative, fueled by industry PR and amplified by a complicit media, obscures the reality: many AI systems are unproven, prone to errors, and deployed without rigorous oversight.
In Rhode Island, an unverified algorithm could have dictated who could leave their homes or keep their businesses open—a power Webb deems “terrifying” when accuracy is questionable and accountability absent.
At the heart of Webb’s critique is the erosion of civil liberties, a process she sees as opportunistic and accelerating. The national security state, long adept at exploiting crises to curtail freedoms, has found a willing partner in Silicon Valley.
Together, they form a “fused blob” that operates with impunity, shielded by claims of proprietary technology and national interest. “This isn’t about stifling innovation,” Webb emphasizes. “It’s about ensuring that innovation doesn’t become a trojan horse for surveillance and control.”
Webb’s call to action is clear: the public must demand transparency and independent validation of AI systems before they’re entrusted with life-altering decisions. From local governments to federal agencies, outsourcing to algorithms without rigorous debate is a recipe for disaster.
She urges Americans to question the narratives pushed by tech giants and their government allies, to scrutinize conflicts of interest, and to prioritize civil liberties over blind faith in AI’s promise.
“If we don’t have this discussion now,” she warns, “we risk waking up in a world where our freedoms are algorithmically determined—and no one asked for our consent.”
https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1926738429154390234
Credit: @_whitneywebb; @TomBilyeu