Grzegorz Ochman
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Stop believing they are stupid!
Let us turn to the most knowledgeable person I know on the subject of the deep state — Whitney Webb, who, in my opinion, is the greatest of all time (G.O.A.T.) in deep state analysis. I would like to begin with the statement I used in the title: “If you think they are stupid, you have already failed in the pursuit of finding the truth.” This can be considered a paraphrase of a Michael Parenti quote that I frequently reference.
That’s what the world is all about unfortunately and for you to think that our leaders are stupid, for you to think that the people who own this world, the people who have built hundreds and hundreds of military bases and are controlling and getting people to kill other people to advance and protect the interests of this top elite, if you think these people are stupid, you’re being a bit stupid. -Michael Parenti
I will quote Glenn Beck from an interview I have attached:
7:13
A couple of things. First of all, for years now, I have looked at what is being done to us with both horror and also, in a strange way, admiration. They are so thorough. They are so well-thought out. The structure of this, the fallbacks, the use of behavioral scientists, and everything else. At some point, a book is going to be written that says, ‘Look at how all of this was designed.’ Yeah. It is, it’s really, it’s incredible to me how many great minds have spent so much time trying to enslave their fellow human beings, you know.
In this case, I share the same view as Glenn Beck. I, too, have a certain admiration for them — and don’t get me wrong, I don’t support them. My goal in writing is to help people understand the truth and expose their lies so that their plans will fail. But that doesn’t change the fact that I admire their brilliance and their abilities.
We need to think about this logically: underestimating them is exactly what they want. They hide behind the lie that they are stupid or that they simply don’t know better. They are waging war against us, and as Lao Tzu said, “There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.”
So, when I hear someone say that they are stupid, I can already see that this person has lost the fight being waged against us — that they have already failed in the pursuit of truth.
This is also something my G.O.A.T. of geopolitical analysis, John Helmer, constantly says. Here’s a quote:
https://www.youtube.com/live/iSCtej_3NJQ?si=52avW17iuj-o2RdQ
17:04
Neither do the Europeans. They’re not mad. They are not ‘the coalition of the brain dead’ as some podcasters want to say. They’ve calculated the money. They’ve calculated the power. It’s politics and cash.
This is why I love and respect John so much, and I really wish he would appear on The Duran. I remember hearing about him for the first time over a year ago from Alexander, who was referencing John’s blog Dances With Bears and praising his insights in his videos.
The same goes for Brian Berletic, whom I also respect deeply and have advocated to reappear on The Duran. He constantly emphasizes that they are not stupid, and that’s exactly why I respect him so much.
You can’t truly understand what is happening if you base your analysis on false assumptions. I’ve written before that even I sometimes fall into their trap and start thinking they are stupid. But when that happens, I remind myself of Michael Parenti’s quote and realize that if my analysis leads me to that conclusion, I must have failed somewhere along the way. It means I’ve missed something essential in understanding the truth — and so I start again from scratch.
Whenever we begin to think they are stupid, we need to look at history and remind ourselves of what they have accomplished and how powerful they really are.
Look at the JFK assassination and the magic bullet theory, which breaks all laws of physics — and yet, they managed to convince people to believe the official narrative.
Look at 9/11 and the official story that two planes supposedly pulverized three buildings, defying basic physics — yet again, people believed it.
Look at the COVID narrative, which goes against much of what we know about biology and virology — and still, the majority accepted the official version.
Look at global warming — or rather, climate change, as it’s now called — another story that contradicts science and logic, but still, people were persuaded to believe it.
And consider Nord Stream, that “unsolvable mystery.” Biden literally said he would stop it if Russian tanks crossed the Ukrainian border, while standing next to the German Chancellor — yet many still believed Russia blew it up, even though the pipeline was financed 100% by Russia, and the gas flowing through it came from Russia. They could have stopped the flow at any time. But none of those facts mattered — people were still convinced that Russia destroyed its own pipeline.
When you look at how they’ve managed to make people believe so many absurd lies, it becomes clear just how intelligent and powerful they are. So stop underestimating them.
Deep state
Now let’s go to Whitney Webb and deep state.
5:32
So, there are different ways to get what they ultimately want, but it all comes down to public perception. A colleague of mine, Ian Davis, who I’ve worked with closely on digital ID for a few years now, recently wrote about what is going on in the UK. He’s based there. He posited that maybe what Kier Starmer is doing is actually a bait-and-switch: creating all this unpopularity about this style of digital ID, but then someone later could come in, riding the wave of the discontent that this is creating, and offer a new solution. This new solution would be more along the lines of what I just described, which is actually how the UN itself and SDG 16 (the Sustainable Development Goal that includes digital ID) lay out their roadmap.
The roadmap laid out there is not the same as the one laid out by Kier Starmer. In that scenario, you still have a public-private partnership, but the private sector would be leading as opposed to the public sector leading. What we’re seeing come out of the UK right now is being sold as a public-leading thing, and it’s grossly unpopular. I think they are a lot smarter than people give them credit for. They are fundamentally very manipulative and they want us to get stuck with the same policy, but they are very apt at selling it different ways. They know that they’ve become very unpopular with large segments of the population. So, like a chameleon, they have to take a different form, but ultimately the goal is to lead people to the same type of technocratic, Orwellian system.
This is a very interesting theory — and it aligns with the way I think. It also confirms what I wrote in the previous part, as Whitney Webb says: “I think they are a lot smarter than people give them credit for.” This is exactly why I respect Whitney Webb so much. Just like John Helmer and Brian Berletic, she doesn’t underestimate them. Only by understanding how smart and powerful they truly are can we begin to understand how the system really works and uncover the truth.
I want to add one more point about people underestimating them. Just look at The Duran during the early days of Trump’s presidency — even they were manipulated by the narrative. Don’t get me wrong, I was also manipulated by that same narrative until the moment of the fake Trump assassination attempt, which made me realize that they actually want him to be president.
We must have huge respect for The Duran because, even though my viewpoint was different and I criticized them at the time, they showed great integrity by allowing me to post my posts on their site — even when my views and criticisms went against theirs. Back then, I challenged their perspective and advocated for them to bring Brian Berletic back onto the show — whom, by the way, I first discovered through The Duran programs.
Over time, they recognized they were wrong and corrected their position, which shows just how powerful deep state manipulation really is. I have great respect for both Alex and Alexander — they are very intelligent — but even people as smart as they are can fall into the trap of official narrative manipulation. That alone proves how intelligent and sophisticated the people behind these manipulations are.
I’m also extremely happy that both Alex and Alexander eventually saw through the manipulation, and now I agree with most of what they say. Still, I remember Alexander once saying that there couldn’t be some bigger plan — and that underestimating them was what caused him to get caught in the official narrative. This is exactly why I keep insisting that we must never underestimate them.
Now, back to Whitney Webb.
14:24
Larry Ellison of Oracle, who is one of the main funders of Tony Blair’s institute—one of the biggest pushers for digital ID in the UK—said this at an Oracle shareholder meeting: “We’re recording and surveilling everything, and citizens will be on their best behavior, terrible, because they have to,” essentially paraphrasing. The fact that Donald Trump is listening to that guy is terrifying to me. I mean, he has put some people around him on this tech board that are not friends of freedom and liberty. They just are not. Larry Ellison is leading that pack.
A lot of them are, I would argue, overtly and also covertly globalist. You have people in that network you just mentioned serving, for example, on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group, which is a well-known, closed-door, globalist confab. Unfortunately, some of them have been able to characterize their policies as, for example, libertarian, even though some of those same oligarchs are on record saying that “the free market is for losers. If you want to get rich, build a monopoly.” And build monopolies they have, unfortunately.
I think, again, this is what I was saying earlier about the World Economic Forum; there’s an effort to sell this. Since they couldn’t sell it from the left, the goal now is to try and sell it somehow from the right, and to try and frame it under metrics and dialectics that will be more appealing to the group that was most against these policies just a few years ago.
Unfortunately, with AI and all of that, it potentially could happen. It could happen if people aren’t vigilant. Just a few years ago, someone like Elon Musk was a major promoter of things like carbon markets and pricing carbon, for example. That was actually why he had a falling out with Trump in Trump’s first administration—because Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreements, and Elon Musk was like, “Well, I can’t have that.”
So, have these oligarchs really changed, or have they instead tried to make themselves more appealing because they’ve noticed the change in public opinion and want to try and get us to continue to buy into their solutions that they have a lot of money to spend convincing us are actually good and rebranding them?
This is why I say it’s important to focus on the policies specifically.
And here comes that word again “dialectics” which I touched in my preview post:
The word “dialectic” has many meanings, but the one you may have heard recently is connected to Hegel’s dialectic and Marxist dialectics, often defined as:
“Dialectic as a method: Dialectics is not a fixed formula but a tool for understanding how social and economic phenomena are interconnected, developing, and changing over time.”
Whitney also touches on dialectic again in a later part:
53:59
Because ultimately what they want — what the powers that be wan t— is that same Hegelian dialectic of problem, reaction, solution. They want to solicit that reaction, which has us consent to the solution that they wanted to implement anyway.
And so, I fear that because of the increased power of an entity like Palantir in the U.S. government now, the next shoe to drop will be a huge push for pre-crime predictive policing as discussed earlier. Trump nearly fell for that trap in 2019 when there were a spate of mass shootings.
William Barr, who was Attorney General, got barely any media coverage, but he created the legal infrastructure for pre-crime in the United States through a program called DEP. DEP is an acronym—I forget exactly what it stands for, but it's something about deterrence through early detection, or something like that.
Basically, the legal infrastructure set up by Bill Barr there was that you could ostensibly arrest someone before they committed a crime, preemptively. There have been only a handful of arrests through DEP, to my understanding, but because it's there, anything could happen that could make it be deployed at scale.
That was particularly concerning at the time because after that, due to the outrage about the spate of shootings—which I think began with the El Paso Walmart shooting of that year—Trump said that social media platforms need to develop tools where they look at what users are saying and determine who will be a shooter before they can commit an act of violence (I'm paraphrasing there).
Then, his administration was considering, but did not implement, a health-focused version of the Pentagon's DARPA. They were calling it HARPA. The pilot program of the proposed HARPA would be another acronym, and I'm sorry that I don't remember what it stands for, but it's quite long. It was called Safe Homes.
The biggest lobbyists of this to the president at the time were Jared Kushner and his daughter, Ivanka. Basically, what that program proposed was for an AI to go over all of American social media posts and determine what they called 'early warning signs of neuropsychiatric violence.' If a user's profile was flagged, all sorts of things could be triaged from that, including court-ordered physician appointments and all sorts of things that sound terrible. Trump, according to the Washington Post, liked the idea, but he ultimately didn't pass it. You can take the Post's reporting however you want, I guess.
What did happen is that the Biden administration did create HARPA, but they created it under another name. They called it ARPA-H and they framed it as, "This is how we're going to cure cancer." But a lot of the same programs are still there. The same architects of that HARPA proposed to Trump for those purposes in 2019 were also involved in the creation of ARPA-H, which has been pushing for people to wear wearables, for example. These are, you know, theoretically usable as surveillance devices, but you wear them on your body.
Palantir runs a lot of that same data as well. If they were ever to combine and end the silo between healthcare and law enforcement, since they contract to both, there is a potential for very, very Orwellian, terrifying stuff when it comes to predictive policing and predictive analytics.
It again depends on who is around the president and how much he listens to them. Since that happened in 2019, there was an attempt to get him to implement that program then, and if there is a big enough event again, that could lead to huge calls to "do something." We could see that be marketed as the "solution." And who wins there? Well, the Big Tech oligarchs that control all of the infrastructure that would be behind pre-crime and the AI algorithms.
What's troubling too about the war on domestic terror is that the government's definition for it across administrations is incredibly vague. One example is that you can be defined as a domestic terrorist if you feel like you have to stand up against "perceived government overreach" is the term. So, that could very easily be anyone on either side of the political aisle.
Again, when we want to suspend civil liberties and constitutional rights for just one segment of the population because we're told it's necessary so that we can feel safer, what ultimately happens historically is that those rights go away for everybody except the people at the very, very, very top that are controlling these systems."
Now, consider all of this and think about Trump constantly talking about the “radical left” — and how that narrative could be used. I already touched on this subject in a psyop post, which I’ve linked here.
No Title
No Description
This is not normal behavior for immigrants who don’t want to be deported. If you’re an immigrant in America and you want to avoid deportation, you don’t burn police cars or stand on them waving the flag of a foreign country.
On the other hand, if your goal is to implement an Orwellian police state, this is exactly the kind of behavior you would want to see. This is the “dialectic” that Whitney Webb and I often talk about.
If you want to establish an Orwellian police state, you first open the borders to create a crisis — and then you offer a “solution,” which is what you wanted all along. You could never make people accept such a system under normal conditions. But if you create a crisis strong enough to scare them, they will ask you for it in the name of safety.
To generate that fear, you promote situations and images like the ones I’ve linked here. This is the psyop we are living through right now. The same thing applies in Europe — authorities refuse to prosecute crimes committed by some immigrant populations, while promoting these incidents in the media. It’s the same manipulation we see in those California riots.
At a certain point, when fear and anger in the population have been sufficiently provoked, the “solution” will arrive — an Orwellian police state. People won’t just accept it; they will demand it.
The fact that immigrant populations are sometimes treated better than native citizens, and that their crimes are not prosecuted, is not a mistake — and it doesn’t happen because leaders are stupid. It’s done deliberately to stoke fear, anger, and resentment among the native population. Only when those emotions are inflamed can people be manipulated into accepting the measures that were planned from the start.
For example:
First, you allow illegal immigration into Britain. Then, you treat that population better than the native one while avoiding prosecution for their crimes. At the same time, you highlight these facts in the media to fuel fear and resentment. Finally, you approach the frightened and angry public and say you’ll fix the “problem” — by implementing something like a Digital ID system.
My good friend lives in Germany, and he sees the same serious problems there. When we spoke, he couldn’t understand why our Western civilization seems to be destroying itself. He believes in the “foreign Islamic invasion” narrative — a lie that’s being promoted.
When I talked to him, he thought the situation was being engineered by Arab states, China, or some other foreign power. I understand his logic, but I believe he’s wrong. The foundation of his analysis assumes that the West is acting out of stupidity and being manipulated from the outside. He doesn’t see the dialectical manipulation at work.
His analysis fails because he attributes this crisis to stupidity, when in reality it’s malice — a deliberate creation of chaos designed to manipulate people into accepting the very solutions the elites wanted from the beginning. You can’t make people accept an Orwellian police state under normal circumstances, but if you create crises and generate enough fear and resentment, they’ll accept anything to make it stop.
By assuming stupidity instead of malice, my friend concludes that foreign actors must be responsible. But in reality, it’s our own leaders who have created these crises intentionally — because that’s the only way to convince people to do things they would normally never agree to.
As I said, my friend believes in the so-called “Islamic invasion” narrative, which, in my opinion, is false and deliberately promoted. What he doesn’t realize — and what I tried to explain to him — is that this narrative about the “evil and dangerous Islam” can be used to justify a Western jihad against Arab nations.
If Islam is portrayed as so evil and threatening that it’s supposedly trying to destroy us from within, then it becomes easy to convince people that we must “strike back” — to send Western armies to invade and conquer Arab countries in order to “protect ourselves.” That’s the dialectic. That’s the manipulation.
Under normal circumstances, people in the West would never agree to send their children to die in wars of conquest. But if you convince them that they’re being invaded, you can make them believe they’re fighting for their survival. This narrative about an “Islamic invasion” is not being promoted by accident.
Ask yourself: why is pedophilia on Epstein’s Island or within the Christian Church covered up, while pedophilia in the Arab community is constantly highlighted in the media? These people don’t care about children — they care only about manipulating you and shaping your perception of reality.
Digital fictionalisation
17:19
Well, Larry Fink is now running, I believe, the World Economic Forum; he's acting chairman. In addition to saying that everything will be tokenized, he has said that everything will soon be on the same universal digital ledger or database. Everything on that database will have a unique identifier number. For you as an individual, your identifier number will presumably be your digital ID or directly linked to that, but everything will have a digital ID.
The tokenization agenda in particular seeks to tokenize not just assets that we traditionally think of, like real estate or gold, or physical assets, as well as digital assets like Bitcoin. There is a major effort, connected with people like Fink and also people like Mark Carney (who's now Prime Minister of Canada), to tokenize the natural world and transform it into financial assets.
There was an attempt to do this to an extent under the Biden administration, I believe through the Department of Interior, with Natural Asset Corporations, but that has not gone away. There are groups—for example, one of the creators of the ETF model originally, which BlackRock now owns iShares, his name is Peter Kesz, I think is how you pronounce it—he's trying to turn the Amazon rainforest into a digital commodity. This is sort of similar to Bitcoin in terms of the scarcity idea: each hectare of the Amazon rainforest would represent a token, and then they would financialize it that way. Each hectare would then have its unique identifier right on the blockchain and would be serviced by surveillance drones and all sorts of stuff.
So, even our most natural places on Earth, these people want to come and place surveillance technology, tokenize it, put it on a blockchain, and use it. I would argue, particularly in the case of Natural Asset Corporations and the group behind it, the Intrinsic Exchange Group, they just want to open up a huge new asset class. They call it 'nature's opportunity' so that they can continue engaging in the same type of bad behavior that, for example, brought us the 2008 financial crisis, by basically quintupling the amount of assets currently in play.
It's very insane. I had a guy who worked very, very high up at Citibank, and he told me around 2008, he said, 'Glenn, don't worry about the financial system.' I was like, 'Aha.' And he said, 'You know, we're never going to go broke. Do you know how much just the national parks are worth?' And I looked at him and said, 'Are you seriously telling me that we should commoditize the national parks?' And he said, 'It's going to happen.' And I wonder now if this is what he was talking about, if it was just a digital, not actual, commoditization of our parks.
So, apply this now to the phrase that we all heard during the COVID era: 'You'll own nothing and be happy.' Well, there are certain people that want to own everything. That includes things that have never been able to be owned before that were considered things like the public commons—like rivers, lakes, the ocean itself, natural forests, all of it. These people want to put all of that into the financial system, fractionalize it, tokenize it, and sell pieces of it around, use it to speculate on. I mean, it's very bonkers.
And so, this is just one aspect of the digital currency play. Obviously, there's a lot more going on as well. I would argue that a lot of this push, particularly in the U.S., for dollar stablecoins supposedly being better than a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), also falls into this paradigm we talked about earlier of moving from the public to the private of the public-private partnership.
The big concerns about CBDCs were that they're seizable, surveillable, and programmable. Well, all of those three things also can apply to stablecoins. The only difference is that you would have a private company issue it and control it. But we've seen time and again how a lot of these private entities are willing to do that when contacted. Just look at how Bank of America behaved with January 6 with people accused of wrongdoing on that day, for example. They have no qualms in doing that and engaging in those types of activities.
The biggest dollar stablecoin issuer, Tether, which just hired Bo Hines from the White House, has openly said that they are a close partner of the U.S. government for dollar hegemony globally. They have uploaded the FBI, the Secret Service, and other aspects of the U.S. government onto its platform directly and have seized Tether from people just because the government told them to, and this was during the Biden administration. So, they obviously are willing to do that under any administration, and it's essentially functioning as a de facto public-private partnership, even though we're being told it's much better than a CBDC. In terms of its impacts on civil liberties, that's not necessarily true. So, again, vigilance is important here.
Again, dialectical manipulation comes into play here. CBDC is portrayed as bad, so they tell you to relax — you won’t have a state-owned CBDC; instead, you’ll have privately owned stablecoins.
Regarding digital financialization, I recommend looking into Catherine Austin Fitts and her Solari Report. I don’t fully agree with her, but she’s an excellent source of information on this subject.
An even better source, in my opinion, is Mark Goodwin, a friend and frequent collaborator of Whitney Webb (I’m not sure if they’re together, but they often appear in interviews side by side).
I’ve posted about both of them on The Duran, based on videos featuring Catherine Austin Fitts, Whitney Webb, and Mark Goodwin — for example, videos like this one:
Unfortunately, the video attached to this post was removed, but I still have some quotes from it. I also have a post featuring one of the best videos I’ve found with Mark on the Due Dissidence channel — a must-watch, in my opinion.
Mark Goodwin on Digital Currency, Surveillance, DOGE, and the Coming Techno-Feudal Order.
If you want something more recent, I found a video yesterday featuring Mark Goodwin on a channel I don’t particularly like — Michael Farris (Coffee and a Mike) — which often hosts Tom Luongo and Alex Krainer.
While I’ve criticized Alex Krainer in my posts, I’ve also shared content from Tom Luongo in the past. However, I honestly can’t listen to Tom Luongo anymore. His narrative has become so misguided that I’ve started to suspect he might be a paid actor. The moment he argued that Benjamin Netanyahu needs to finish his genocide in Gaza because that’s supposedly the only way to achieve peace in the Middle East, I stopped listening to him altogether.
Since Tom Luongo frequently appears on that program, I don’t care much for the channel. However, Mark Goodwin is someone I deeply respect, so this particular video is still worth watching. Even Mark criticizes Tom Luongo in it:
1:02:30
You know, I think these ideas—and I say this lovingly because I don't think anybody really knows what's going on—but folks, kind of, maybe like Tom Luongo, who are like, 'It's the City of London, and Trump's fighting them, and he's taking back, and effing the EU,' and it's like, I just don't believe in that as much as you do: that there's really this factional play happening.
I think it's way more in lockstep than you'd think. I think that it's more of this wrestling theater where as long as we have someone we hate, we'll do anything. We'll comply and consent to anything at home if we're fighting the bad guy. That has been a tactic of empire for a really long time. That's how we have consented to a lot of the imperialism of the United States—because of that. 'There's the bad guy,' and we've had this phase shift, and now the good guys are running stuff, and now it's all awesome. And it's like, I don't know, I don't know if it's awesome, you know?
I love America. I love Americans. I think it's the greatest country in so many ways. It's so awesome. I'm so glad I grew up there. There are so many things about it that I could say a lot of these things, you know. There's a lot of stuff about the Constitution and about America and Americans that I love so much. But, at the same time, I also think the American government is the biggest terrorist organization in the world. I think both things are true. I don't want them to just have my love for America and Americans to give consent to, like, financial debt slavery and, and, you know, blowing up boats off of South America because 'drugs are bad, Mark. Mark, drugs are bad. We have to...' Well, yes, say no to drugs.
Who has trafficked more drugs than anyone else in the United States? The CIA. I mean, like, give me a break now. They don't need to finance black-book operations with drug trafficking because they have crypto. They can create a Solana meme coin and get their billion-dollar funding for their shady stuff. They don't need to sell drugs anymore to have cash off-the-books stuff. They don't need it right now. We're blowing up, going after the cartels that we empowered and created. You know, there's no fentanyl coming out of Venezuela. I mean, it's just a joke.
Mark is more polite when talking about Tom Luongo — I’m not. I have little patience for the nonsense he’s spewing. Anyway, if you want to understand digital financialization and how it’s being used to prop up our financial Ponzi scheme we call the economy, I highly recommend the work of Mark Goodwin.
Back to Whitney.
AI
25:27
I think people have been increasingly normalized to the dissolution between the digital and virtual worlds. And that's not by coincidence. Going back to the World Economic Forum, the goal of the West's so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution is to blur those lines very overtly. What we're seeing here are stepping stones leading us to an increasingly encroaching, all-digital system.
It probably began some time ago. I'm sure you remember several years ago, Muhammad bin Salman, for example, gave citizenship to a robot, and that was kind of framed as novel. But there has been an effort to normalize these kinds of things with respect to the government.
Now they are having AI run the government under the guise that it's more efficient, more trustworthy, and all of that. But again, who is accountable if the AI makes a mistake? Because AI does make mistakes. AI also hallucinates and returns results that are essentially indicative of an unreality—something that is completely not true. So, who is accountable in those cases? Can they hold the AI minister directly accountable? Not really. Does the accountability fall to the person who programmed the AI? It obviously opens up a pretty sticky situation.
I would argue that this is in furtherance of an agenda that was actually laid out by Henry Kissinger and Eric Schmidt in their book—oh, I forget what it's called, sorry about that—but they wrote a couple of books on AI. The earlier one, I think it's The Age of AI: And Our Human Future or something like that. They essentially argue that we should put AI in charge of government because they assume—they obviously believe—that AI is a form of a super-intelligence. Therefore, it knows better than humans do.
Even when it returns these unreal, unreality results, we should take that as a sign that it can see things humans cannot see. We should just trust that it's there because we should trust that it's super-intelligent and sort of offset—give it power over our lives—supposedly because it's a better arbiter of what's real and what's not than we are, which I think is just insane. Sorry to keep repeating that word, but some of this is really insane; just bonkers stuff.
In addition to that, Kissinger and Schmidt laid out that their biggest interest in AI was its impact on human perception. Ultimately, if you are able to completely control how people perceive reality, you control their behavior. You don't need mind control at the end of the day or any of these things that the CIA and national security agencies were experimenting with. You don't need that if you can completely control their perception of what's going on.
The goal, as they laid out in that book, is to have people rely on AI for their perception of essentially everything. Eventually, by doing so, people would be what they called cognitively diminished to the point that they wouldn't be able to understand how AI acts upon them anymore. But that wouldn't be true for everyone. There would be a small class that is not affected that way, and they would be the class that programs and maintains the AI, determining what it does. But the rest of us—a large underclass—would be acted upon by the AI but again lose the mental capacity to understand what it's doing to them, and that eventually it would start determining their preferences for them and all sorts.
This is such evil. I mean, there is no other way to describe this other than evil. When you are taking humans who are built to act, not to be acted upon, and you purposely put them into a class that you can be acted upon, there is no better word to define it than evil.
The term that gets thrown around a lot for this is the posthuman future. But what is more evil to humanity than that? Just eliminating us and turning us into what some of these libertarian oligarchs call technoplastic beings. Some of them think that humans are nothing more than bootloaders for digital intelligence. That's how we are perceived by a lot of these tech oligarchs because, again, a lot of their goal—and they've been relatively open about this—is to live forever, but in defiance of natural law. So, using technology to allow them to become gods. A lot of these tech oligarchs, including like the co-founders of Google, have been pretty open about that. Even someone like Jeffrey Epstein, for example, who was very interested in eugenics and AI and all of that, was interested in those technologies for those same ends.
I mean, there's a whole group of, I would call them, pretty sick billionaires who want to use this technology to better themselves in that way and live forever while the rest of us become cognitively incapable of questioning what ultimately amounts to slavery.
I’ve written a few posts about AI. I’ve been interested in the topic and believe I’ve developed a good understanding of it, if anyone is interested. I have several posts covering different aspects of AI.
Regarding the manipulation of AI and the use of technology to influence people, I highly recommend the work of Shoshana Zuboff and her book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. I’ve also shared some of her videos in my posts, such as this one:
Narrative
Here, you have host Glenn Beck interviewing Whitney Webb in the main video, which reveals his ignorance and how he is being manipulated by the narrative.
49:19
I've been looking at South Korea since Charlie Kirk died. I was asked to take on a couple of things that he was doing, and one of them was South Korea. I had no idea what was going on in South Korea. I knew somewhat, but I knew that there was a president who was an awful lot like Donald Trump—was fighting against a lot of the literal Chinese communists that had infiltrated his country.
They did all kinds of stuff—a lot of the stuff they did to Donald Trump. But he was backed into a corner and made a huge mistake: he went authoritarian. He was like, 'I'm suspending—because I don't believe any of you guys, you're all part of this. I'm suspending the legislature and declared martial law until it can be sorted out.' Well, the people rightfully revolted. They threw him out. He was impeached. I think by the end of the day, he was out.
But that swung everything towards the revolutionaries on the other side. They've opened their border to China, to North Korea, letting people just flow in. They are now starting to persecute anybody who had a conservative point of view, anybody that was involved, you know, five years ago with this president, or voted that way. Now, churches and pastors are going to prison. It is really frightening to watch this.
I've been watching it, and I thought, 'Wow, I think this is the playbook here for America and any of these people like Donald Trump that, you know, they say, 'Well, they have tendencies towards authoritarianism.' Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. I'll be the first to stand up if you start breaking the Constitution.
But I'm watching what's happening, for instance, in Chicago, and I'm thinking, 'Okay, if I'm the average person, I'm like, "Well, something has to be done."' And that's your first mistake. When 'something has to be done,' it doesn't follow with 'something constitutional must be done.' You find yourself in a whole different ballgame.
We're entering a time where the left is causing so much chaos on the streets. They are—I mean, they—it has... 'something has to be done,' you know what I mean? And then, because of that, you have this growing feeling on the right saying, 'Yeah, I know something has to be done, and it just has to stop.' That's where South Korea ended. I fear that if we're not really super careful, that's where we're going to end. And that's by design.
Does that make sense, or is that just crazy talk?
And here is Whitney Webb giving him a brief history lesson, mentioning Operation Gladio — something I’ve discussed in my posts.
52:20
I don't think it's crazy. What it does remind me of is something that happened several decades ago, mainly in Europe, that was called Operation Gladio. I don't know if you're familiar, but it basically involved intelligence agencies, organized crime, and elements of the Vatican, funding terror attacks against civilians. They were framed in that particular case as being terrorist attacks from the left.
But the ultimate goal was to create so much terror that people would give up their liberty for a feeling of security; a feeling that it was safe to take the bus again, that it was safe to live a semblance of a normal life. It's sort of similar to what happened during COVID: people would give up so much, right? Take the injections, get the vaccine passport, just to have a semblance of a normal life. But this is the same way to do that, but with violence.
We should be asking here who ultimately wins at the end of the day. We need to keep in mind, too, that particularly in the United States, every president since September 11th has opted to expand the so-called war on domestic terror. You'll have a Democrat president in, and they'll weaponize it against the right, and vice versa. But either way, the more it grows, the more it endangers our constitutional rights.
This is what I’ve been writing about earlier in this post. The image of an immigrant waving a Mexican flag while standing on a destroyed police car is our modern version of Operation Gladio — a PSYOP designed to manipulate people.
During Operation Gladio, the CIA worked with the corrupt elements of the Vatican, the Christian Church, organized crime, and former Nazis to carry out actual terrorist attacks that killed Europeans.
By the way, in my recent short post where I shared two videos — one of which discusses the Marshall Plan — I didn’t add any comments at the time, but I remembered hearing that part of the Marshall Plan funds, which were supposed to help Europeans, were siphoned off to the CIA. Later, I quickly checked this with GrokAI, and here’s what I found:
However, a portion of Marshall Plan funds did support the CIA's early covert operations. Specifically, the agency received about 5% of the plan's total allocation—roughly $685 million over six years—to finance anti-communist activities in Europe. This included setting up "front" businesses for trade and propaganda, funding labor movements, and countering Soviet influence (e.g., during Italy's 1948 elections). These funds were drawn from "counterpart funds" in local European currencies generated by selling U.S. aid goods, providing a secret budget for the CIA's Office of Policy Coordination.
The money from the Marshall Plan, which was supposed to rebuild Europe and help Europeans, was instead used to finance the CIA — the same CIA that later used those funds to commit acts of terrorism against Europeans, with the help of the corrupt Vatican and Christian Church, organized crime, and former Nazis.
This is how our “lovely” Americans helped us Europeans — by killing our own people in order to manipulate us into abandoning leftist ideas that threatened the capitalist oligarchy ruling America. That’s why, when I hear ignorant and naive Americans saying that “America was the good one,” I get so angry. And there’s only one thing I want to say to them: “F**K AMERICA!” — as Mark Goodwin said, “The American government is the biggest terrorist organization in the world.”
This new version of the Gladio operation — whether in the form of riots in California, unrest in Chicago, or the events happening in Europe involving Muslim communities — serves the same purpose.
People think the WEF is left-wing or even communist, which I’ve criticized many times in my posts — including the last one, where I showed that this “woke” movement is not real and was actually created to destroy the genuine left. Real leftist movements threaten the power of the same oligarchs who rule over us — the ones who own and control our world, including those within the WEF.
So, I don’t understand how people can think that these oligarchs, who dominate global finance and politics, are somehow “real leftists,” when real leftist movements are the greatest threat to their power — and the very thing they fight against most fiercely, as shown in the example of Operation Gladio.
Now, they want to turn people against the “woke left” — not because the woke left threatens them, but because they fear that it could evolve into a real leftist movement. That’s what they’re most afraid of.
Just as during Operation Gladio they carried out terrorist attacks and blamed them on the left and on communists to scare people away from those movements and push them to the right, today they do the same thing — by staging riots in California or Chicago and blaming them on the “radical left.”
History repeats itself. And if we don’t understand our history, we won’t understand what’s happening now — and we’ll allow history to repeat itself again. That’s precisely why Operation Gladio remains hidden and not widely known.
To quote Orwell:
The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.
Or to quote the greatest Pole Józef Piłsudski:
Who doesn’t respect and value his past, is not worth the honour of the present, and has no right to a future.
Palantir
59:47
My work on Palantir argues that it was an effort to privatize a program that was pushed on the public after 9/11 that was called Total Information Awareness (TIA), which was also housed in the Pentagon's DARPA.
There was a huge outcry about this program at the time because it was, I would argue, rightly described as eliminating the constitutional right to privacy because everyone's data was being sucked in and spied on. The ultimate goal of TIA was to have a pre-crime system in the United States that would stop, they said at first, terrorist attacks before they could happen. But they were not just looking at terrorists; they were looking at everybody. So obviously it was moving towards predicting crime before it happens. It also had a health component where they said they would hopefully predict bioweapon attacks before they happen—this is again during the aftermath of the anthrax attacks of 2001—but also that they would predict pandemics before they happen. A lot of that renewed interest, you could say, occurred during the COVID era.
As this program was getting into trouble, and they tried to change its name and tried to do all these things to keep Congress from defunding them, Palantir was incorporated by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp. Thiel and Karp, two of the Palantir co-founders, talked to Richard Perle, who put them in touch with the person who was running TIA, Admiral John Poindexter. They basically viewed him as the godfather of modern surveillance and wanted to essentially recreate what he was doing, but they did so as an entirely private entity. In doing so, because the government wasn't directly involved, a lot of the outcry just dissipated.
The earliest funders of Palantir were Thiel himself, but also the CIA's In-Q-Tel, and the CIA was Palantir's first client and was their only client, I believe, for their first five or six years as a company. Alex Karp has said the CIA was always the intended client of Palantir. You had Palantir engineers going to CIA headquarters every two weeks, having them tweak their product. It appears to be, I would argue, a CIA front company.
The CIA, particularly its Chief Information Officer at the time, a fellow named Alan Wade, had also been one of the biggest cheerleaders of Total Information Awareness. He was also apparently a business partner of Ghislaine Maxwell's sister, Christine Maxwell. They tried to make a homeland security software program together called Kallad, which is worthy of scrutiny as well, and I have some writing or more information about that in my book.
Basically, there was a scandal in the '80s that involved Robert Maxwell, her father, called the PROMIS software scandal. This was where the CIA and also Israeli intelligence put backdoors into this software program that was marketed to countries and to corporations and banks throughout the world. Christine Maxwell had actually been directly involved with the front company that her father used to market that software. After his death in 1991, she actively said that she and her twin sister (also Ghislaine's sister) were trying to rebuild their father's legacy. So, they created this tech company that became one of the early search engines, but they developed a very close working relationship with Bill Gates and Microsoft, which is probably how Bill Gates actually met Jeffrey Epstein many decades before they officially met. There are other attestations to that as well.
The software that she created with Wade, Kallad, was a proto-Palantir, and the PROMIS software was actually very similar to Palantir as well. But the software had been stolen from a fellow named Bill Hamilton and his company Inslaw Inc. The Hamiltons had been suing the U.S. government to try and get payments restored to them for the use of their software, but it was stolen illicitly. So, by sort of laundering it into these different companies, they were able to avoid ever paying the Hamiltons any money for the software that they essentially stole.
Anyway, I don't want to get too off the topic of Palantir, but these are the characters that essentially created it. It labels people as... there's a label you can label someone as a 'subversive' in the Palantir system, and it collects essentially everything about you. Currently, it's being used to target and classify immigrants for deportation, but it has those same capabilities that could be used against actual American citizens domestically if the 'war on domestic terror' was ever to begin in earnest. I find it an immensely concerning company, particularly its interest in predictive policing and pre-crime, which it was one of the earliest pilot programs of. I believe they started in New Orleans.
There's also the fact that the co-founder of Palantir, Peter Thiel, was relatively dishonest, I would argue, about his meetings with Jeffrey Epstein. He was involved in funding a company that also has pre-crime capabilities that was championed by Ehud Barak and Epstein. Epstein put a lot of money into it; it's called Carbine. Newly released emails showed that they were all sort of talking to each other about Thiel investing directly in Carbine, and Thiel invested. I think one of his venture capital firms received a significant amount of money from Epstein, and he had not been very upfront about that until relatively recently.
That company, Carbine, has creeped into a variety of counties across the U.S., taking over the 911 emergency call systems. If Congress is to pass legislation that would federalize the 911 system, make it an all-national system, which there is a push to do, Carbine has been the top lobbying firm for that. They have a pre-crime component, which they call the Crecords component (but you can't find it on their website anymore after there were reports on it). Essentially, it would comb all of the data off of your smartphone and use it, put it into its pre-crime analytics, to determine if you might be calling 911 again in the future or be the reason 911 is called. The eventual goal is for street lights in smart cities to call 911 for you on their own.
Now, your wonderful “freedom-loving, fighting-the-good-fight-against-communists” Trump was supported by Peter Thiel, and his vice president, JD Vance, was essentially created by Peter Thiel. So, the next time you want to say that Trump is a good guy fighting the evil “communists” of the WEF, think twice — because you sound really stupid.
Once again, the Glenn Beck show demonstrates naivety, showing how completely he is consumed by the narrative. Again, it’s the same “evil communist” talk.
1:09:32
They could, I mean, you know. Oh yeah. Use acts of terror, like they did in something like Operation Gladio, to make people so afraid for their lives that they will give up all of their liberties.
They did. This is what the communists did to take over, I think it was Hungary. The NATO thing was, 'We'll have peace, but you can't go in unless invited. You can't turn any countries into Russian satellite countries unless invited in.' And so they just went in and they did pretty much what's happening now, you know, and built the framework for it to fall in, and then caused chaos in the streets. They had tanks parked right on the border, and when the chaos got to a certain level, their people inside the government of Hungary said, 'We need help,' and Russia rolled across, and they were a communist country overnight.
Yes, of course — it was the communists who caused the problems in Hungary. Never mind that we have proof the CIA worked with the corrupt Christian Church, organized crime, and former Nazis to create chaos in Europe, using money from the Marshall Plan that was supposed to rebuild and help the Europeans. But sure, the problems in Hungary weren’t caused by the CIA using the Church, the mafia, and Nazis — it was those evil, pesky communists behind it all.
Never mind the fact that we had the Solidarity movement in Poland — the original color revolution — or the Islamic revolution in Libya, or the color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, all organized by the CIA. But in the case of Hungary, no, it had to be the communists! They must have been lying when they said it was the CIA behind the unrest in Hungary — just like they tell us today that the Maidan coup was caused by Russia, and the CIA had nothing to do with it, and that the people on Maidan were simply “organic protesters.”
Because, of course, the communists had to lie — since communists are evil, and we in the West, and the CIA, are just freedom-loving good guys… right?
Conspiracy theory
1:27:43
Well, I think at this point, for me, it's intuition and also the fact that a lot of my work is historical. So, I look back many decades. If I get an inkling of something suspect happening now and the parties involved happen to be directly connected to people that I know engaged in wrongdoing and crime in the past, then I tend to be more inclined because there are patterns, and a lot of these people repeat the same tactics and the same patterns of criminality over and over again.
There was a deliberate effort to try and undermine the reporting on real conspiracies by muddying the waters and flooding it with poor language. It was a CIA operative, wasn't it, who said 'discredit people by calling them conspiracy theorists' after the Kennedy assassination? Yes.
But in addition to that, more recently, Samantha Power's husband, Cass Sunstein, wrote a bizarre paper—I forget exactly when, I think it was in the Obama era. I don't recall exactly what the quote is, but it said, 'Even if it turns out to be true, discredit.' That was it. It was like your first go was to call it a conspiracy theory. Even if it turns out later to be true, it doesn't matter. Discredit, discredit, discredit.
But in addition to that, there was something about infiltrating conspiracy movements in order to push the needle to a narrative that was more favorable to the powers that be. So, as one example, he said a lot of the conspiracy movement in the U.S. at that time did not trust the government. So, how do we infiltrate conspiracy movements to make them trust the government? I would argue that something like QAnon likely was downwind of that. Wow, I never thought of that.
It's very possible that that continues now. I would argue it does, especially since they know that a lot of this information about past conspiracies or even current ones can't always be put back in the bottle. But if you muddy the waters, you 'flood the zone,' to use one of their terms, with things that are dubious, it becomes very hard for people to sift through the content. And then we're left doing what Eric Schmidt and Henry Kissinger proposed: relying on AI to sift through all of that for us, to tell us the right answer.
So again, critical thinking is very important. Because trust is at an all-time low, it just depends on the person. Obviously, there are a lot of people that are 'terminally online' and sort of drift into places where they might think things are true that certain people would definitely not agree with. But again, I think it just comes down to individual discernment and critical thinking, which are qualities that are not taught to people anymore in schools. It starts with parents teaching that type of discernment.
For me personally, history adds a lot of the necessary context to having that ability to discern. I would urge people to look at what these particular networks have done decade over decade. The reason my book is so long and is in two volumes is because I thought that the repeated patterns by the repeated individuals that are all connected together would show that obviously there is something wrong here.
Maybe we won't get an admission in writing about Bill Gates's Epstein relationship or an affidavit from intelligence agencies that they had connections to Jeffrey Epstein. It's very unlikely we'll get those documents. So, what can we look at in the publicly available public record? Obviously, I think my book shows that there are various instances of the same individuals repeating the same tactics over and over again, using a lot of the same institutions to do so. It just stacks so much that it becomes, to me, quite obvious that something is very wrong with that particular network.
When you have so many instances of financial crime, arms trafficking, and sex trafficking concentrated in such a small group of people, many of whom have ties to the organized crime gangs from America's not-so-distant past, it looks to me like a lot of those people rebranded. The main thesis of my book is that those organized crime interests got in bed with our intelligence agencies. Some of those organized crime figures rebranded as philanthropists or other things. But ultimately, that fused entity wants an authoritarian government, and we have to fight against that despite all the things that they could throw at us and all the manipulations they may target us with.
I think, over the short term, it's going to be more than we've probably ever seen before. But people have to be very steadfast in how much the Constitution matters to them—that constitutional rights are for every American, not just the American that we happen to agree with. Who benefits the most if we start hating our neighbor and want to kill them, you know?
Funny enough, I was once called “sick” — as in suffering from a conspiracy theory sickness. Because now, they’ve turned it into an illness to discredit it even more. After all, conspiracy theories can’t possibly be right, so it must be a sickness, right?
And then, those infiltrating conspiracy theory movements end up creating things like QAnon, or pushing nonsense that the WEF are communists, or that there’s some imaginary Islamic invasion. This way, people start believing that the WEF is full of evil communists and that we’re being invaded by evil Arab Islamists. But don’t worry — QAnon told you that the good and wonderful Trump will fight for your freedom! He’ll wage the good fight against those evil communists from the WEF and those evil Arab Islamists who supposedly want to invade you — and against the evil “radical left.”
So when he allows Palantir to build an all-seeing Orwellian police state, you’ll accept it — because he’s doing it for your own good, to protect you from those “evil communists” from the WEF and those “evil Islamic invaders,” right?
Add to that the claim that the “evil City of London” is behind everything bad, and you end up a lunatic like Tom Luongo — the guy who says we should let Benjamin Netanyahu commit genocide in Gaza because it’s the only way to achieve peace in the Middle East — and you’ll start calling Trump “Orange Jesus,” just like he does.
This is what happens when you get trapped in their narrative. Please, don’t let that happen!
Thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always…
“Knowledge will make you be free.”
― Socrates
+
“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”
― Richard P. Feynman
=
“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”
― Grzegorz Ochman
"There is no better breeding ground for the bacteria of falsehood and legends than fear of the truth and lack of will."
— Józef Piłsudski
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
— William J. Casey, CIA Director
“It's one thing to question your mind. It's another to question your eyes and ears. But then again: Isn't it all the same, our senses just mediocre inputs for our brain? Sure, we rely on them, trust they accurately portray the real world around us, but what if the haunting truth is, they can't? That what we perceive isn't the real world at all but just our mind's best guess?”
— Elliot Alderson(Mr.Robot)
What is your mind's best guess?
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
