My biggest fear and one of the greatest threats to humanity: the cyber epidemic (Ian Carroll, Whitney Webb + my rant about Iraq).

The cyber epidemic is a topic I have touched on before in my posts, particularly in relation to Whitney Webb’s work. The main video in this post features Ian Carroll, whose insights I really appreciate. However, as always, I do not fully agree with him, though I feel a real kinship with him. He demonstrates intellectual honesty and integrity by following Socrates’ method.

While he is highly knowledgeable and reminds me of myself long ago, his journey began after COVID, whereas mine started almost 20 years ago, around 2005-2006, during the war in Iraq. I have already shared a story about the moment my eyes were fully opened to the real world. During the Iraq war, I was following the news and noticed logical inconsistencies in mainstream media coverage of events in Iraq. Fortunately, I knew English at the time and had access to the internet, which allowed me to dig deeper in search of the truth.

Back then, I started watching Al Jazeera in English online when it was still a reliable source of news. Unfortunately, today, it has become just another propaganda tool, not much better than other mainstream media. But at the time, it was a valuable source of truthful reporting. That is why the U.S. Army bombed Al Jazeera’s headquarters multiple times – it was revealing too much truth, which made it a target of the U.S. government and military. This was mentioned in a documentary directed by John Pilger with Alan Lowery, titled The War You Don’t See.

18:32

Evidence that the invaders had terrorized civilians was provided by Al Jazeera and other Arab TV networks, whose fearless, unembedded reporters and camera crews became a threat to military propaganda. They gave voice to people who refused to be portrayed simply as victims.

I happen to be, I think, the only journalist in the world that has seen the bombing of Al Jazeera Arabic’s bureaus in both Kabul in 2001 and in Baghdad in 2003. The bombing of the Al Jazeera office in Kabul was, without doubt and categorically, a direct targeting of those journalists to shut them up and possibly kill them. Al Jazeera had informed Washington, as every news organization provides Western military commanders with exact coordinates of where their journalists are. But the point about the bombing of the Al Jazeera Arabic office in Kabul was that they were given a warning to get out.

More examples of war propaganda are presented in this film, and I highly recommend that people watch the documentary in full if they haven’t seen it yet. However, I would like to highlight one event that has stuck in my memory, even though I was just a kid at the time. Those older than me may remember it as well – the famous removal of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Iraq. This event, widely broadcast on TV, perfectly represents the distortion of reality we were fed and that most people believed.

10:34

This is Rageh Omaar reporting for the BBC from Baghdad. He described the arrival of the Americans as a liberation. People came out welcoming them, holding up V signs. This image was taking place across the whole of the Iraqi capital that day, but it was not happening across the rest of Iraq. This was another illusion. The toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein was seized upon by the invading force as a target of opportunity.

What was not news was a U.S. Army investigation describing how they exploited what they called a “media circus.” “There are almost as many reporters as Iraqis,” says the report. It was an American SCOPS officer who ordered the statue brought down. The resulting TV pictures gave no sense of the bloody conquest of Iraq that was already well underway.

“You know, I didn’t really do my job properly. I think I’d hold my hand up and say that one didn’t press the most uncomfortable buttons hard enough. As you described the arrival of the Americans, you didn’t tell us the story of how that whole statue scene was itself manipulated. Why not?”

“The entire live cameras of the world’s press were on the balcony of the Palestine Hotel, and that was really the only event that they saw about Iraqis coming out. So, it was a sort of made-for-TV moment. And the most telling moment in that whole day was when an American soldier climbed up a crane and put the American flag over the statue’s face, because in fact, that was a true iconic moment of what had happened: that America had taken ownership of Iraq.”

This “made-for-TV moment” exposed the lies we were told. I remember following Al Jazeera online, and I will never forget the moment that opened my eyes. It was an interview with American soldiers discussing what they were doing in Iraq, around 2005-2006 – I don’t remember the exact date.

In the interview, American soldiers told an Al Jazeera journalist how they received orders to enter Iraqi homes in the middle of the night with guns drawn, pointing them at innocent families. They described putting black bags over the heads of their targets, kidnapping them at gunpoint, threatening their family members, and providing no information about the person taken. Iraqi families woke up to American soldiers storming their homes, taking their relatives without explanation. These families had no idea whether their loved ones would be imprisoned, sent to Guantanamo Bay, or even killed. Just imagine the terror and hatred such actions caused among the population.

One American soldier in the interview admitted that he did not understand why they were ordered to do such things, calling the orders “stupid.” He even said that if someone treated him and his family the same way in America, he would join a terrorist group like Al-Qaeda to fight back. This was the moment I fully grasped that we were being completely lied to. The soldier thought the orders were senseless mistakes, but I realized they were intentional – designed to provoke resentment and create a terrorist uprising.

At the time, I didn’t fully understand why they wanted this, but I later uncovered the true purpose, which I have explained in previous posts. After defeating Iraq, American and Western corporations secured the most favorable oil contracts possible, but they still had to buy oil at market prices. If the U.S. had forced Iraq to sell oil below market rates, they would have been accused of theft by the international community. But what profit is there in simply buying oil at market prices? While they would still make money due to having the best contracts, it wasn’t enough.

This is why soldiers were ordered to terrorize the Iraqi population – to create resentment that would later be used to establish ISIS. The reason they wanted to create ISIS was simple: ISIS allowed Western corporations to buy Iraqi oil illegally at a discount. In essence, this was a way to steal Iraq’s resources.

Let’s say the market price of oil was $100 per barrel. The U.S. couldn’t openly force Iraq to sell below that price without facing international backlash. However, by creating ISIS, which then seized Iraqi oil fields, they ensured that ISIS needed funding to continue fighting. Since Western corporations couldn’t legally buy oil from a terrorist organization, they did so illegally – and because they were breaking the law, they could demand a much lower price, say $50 per barrel. This meant massive profits for Western corporations, which were essentially stealing Iraqi oil revenue through ISIS.

Now, consider this: how could ISIS extract oil from Iraqi fields for so long when the U.S. had total control over Iraq’s airspace? If the U.S. truly wanted to stop ISIS, they could have simply bombed the oil fields ISIS controlled. But for years, they didn’t.

This is something very few people understand. Many experts on geopolitics still believe ISIS was a failure of U.S. policy in Iraq. In reality, it was an achievement. People assume the chaos, terrorism, and the rise of ISIS were unintended consequences of American intervention, but in fact, everything went according to plan. The inability to establish a stable government in Iraq wasn’t a failure—it was a deliberate success. It was the only way for Western corporations to buy Iraqi oil below market price and maximize their profits.

People believe ISIS was a failure, but in reality, it was a strategic achievement. Just think about it: ISIS fighters genuinely believed they were battling American invaders and sacrificing their lives to free their country. In reality, they were dying so that Western corporations could buy oil at a discount. Without ISIS, Western companies would have had to buy oil legally at full market price. The only way to bypass this was to buy it illegally from ISIS.

ISIS fighters thought they were outsmarting the West by selling oil and using the funds to fight American forces. But what they didn’t realize was that the West was willing to trade the lives of its soldiers for cheaper oil. The entire conflict was engineered to ensure that Western corporations could exploit Iraqi resources at a discount.

This was my theory, and I was almost completely certain of it. Later, it was unintentionally confirmed by Donald Trump in an interview with Joe Rogan, where he explained how he “defeated” ISIS—something I highlighted in this post.

THIS Is Why The Deep State Turned Against Trump (akin to a toddler with a hammer going through the living room hitting stuff.-Christian Parenti best analysis of Trump+my views)

1:31:22

I defeated ISIS with the greatest generals. I had a guy who was so great that I flew to Iraq and met the real generals, not the idiots we usually deal with. We knocked out 100% of the ISIS caliphate. They said it would take five years; I did it in literally a few weeks. We hit them hard, and he said, ‘We’re going to hit them here, we’re going to hit them there, we’re going to hit them everywhere.’ I thought, ‘This guy’s great! I like this guy.’ I was told it would take five years, and I said, ‘How could it take five years? We have brand new fighters, the best planes, the best weapons, the best guns, the best bombs. How could it possibly take that long?’

I left at 3:00 in the morning; nobody knew I was going. I got on Air Force One, and we started flying. When we were about half an hour away from Iraq, where the airport was, they said, ‘Sir, I’m sorry, you’ll have to turn off all your lights.’ I asked, ‘Why?’ They replied, ‘We’re getting close to our landing site.’ I said, ‘You mean we spent $8 trillion over 20 years, and we can’t leave the lights on in a plane? That’s okay; turn the lights off.'”…

1:36:20

So, we go into the room, and they have these guys there. I asked, ‘How long can you do it?’ They replied, ‘We can do it in a couple of weeks, sir.’ I said, ‘Wait a minute. They told me five years. We can do it in—’ I don’t remember the exact number, but it was something like no time at all. I asked, ‘Why haven’t you done it?’ They said, ‘Because the orders came in from Washington, sir, and they would come here and tell us what to do. Don’t you challenge us; we’re not allowed to do that, sir. That’s not the military way. They tell us what to do, and we have to respect them.'

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry—this is exactly what I was talking about. I’ve been posting and writing that ISIS was created by the CIA and that the U.S. allowed it to exist to siphon oil from Iraq, and he just partially confirmed it. I suggested that the West’s goal was to trade soldiers’ lives for discounted oil, and he essentially confirmed that too.

Do you think the generals on the ground wanted their soldiers to die for cheaper oil? Do you think they wanted it to happen? But since ISIS was a CIA project, they had to go along with it. So, when Trump came in and ordered them to destroy ISIS to stop trading human lives for cheaper oil, they were happy to oblige.

.

Most political commentators still believe that what happened in Iraq and the rise of ISIS were failures of American foreign policy, when in reality, they were strategic achievements. That’s why I sometimes feel disheartened by The Duran when they dismiss the possibility of a larger, more elaborate plan behind some events. In my opinion, this underestimates the genius of those in power and is a critical mistake

For how long have they been able to convince people of lies regarding the JFK assassination, 9/11, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or COVID? And how many people still believe those lies today? They have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to obscure the truth for decades. Yet, somehow, we are supposed to believe that this time there is no grander plan, and they are unable to hide their true motives?

Many people assume that we, the ordinary citizens, are much smarter than those who own and control the world. But this intellectual arrogance is precisely what they exploit to manipulate us. After all, we are led to believe that we are so informed and perceptive that the events in Iraq and the rise of ISIS merely exposed the incompetence of those in power - so there couldn't possibly have been an elaborate plan behind it all, right?

They use people’s arrogance against them, disguising their true intentions behind the illusion of mere stupidity. This quote from Michael Parenti best describes this phenomenon.

7:20

That's what the empire is about: controlling people everywhere in the world, at home and abroad, giving them as little as possible so that the few at the top will get as rich as possible. The hungrier you are, the poorer you are, the harder you will work for less and less. 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

 

So please stop thinking 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” because you are being a bit stupid!

Back to Ian Carroll

I apologize for my rant about Iraq. I went a little off-topic, but I felt it was necessary to highlight the intellectual arrogance of many people which people in power use.

Returning to the main video, Ian Carroll himself acknowledges that he is new to this. While he is incredibly knowledgeable, his journey only began after COVID, whereas my search for the truth started almost 20 years ago. Even though he may be a better researcher than I am, I had a 15-year head start in uncovering the truth.

We share many similar views, and we both greatly admire Whitney Webb, whom we consider an authority on some of these subjects. However, Ian still holds libertarian views, and in my opinion, he does not fully grasp economics or many other aspects of realpolitik. True politics, much like the Marxist materialistic view of history, is driven by self-interest and material conditions. That is why I had to understand economics in order to fully comprehend history and geopolitics. Ian Carroll is still early in his journey, and one day, he may come to understand this as well, just as I did.

In a recent comment on one of my posts, someone told me:

"It’s never a waste of time when you get paid regardless, right?"

To that, I will quote Ian Carroll:

"Personally, I've kept myself... I mean, now I'm starting to build out more of a network of people I'm working with and projects I'm on, and I was just launching this event, and that kind of turned into a whole thing just now. But mostly, it's like I have no reliance on donors and no reliance on any of that kind of stuff that you can come after. So, I was kind of immune to, like, I still am kind of immune to all that censorship, and that was intentional because, yeah, in this space, if you're going to talk about controversial stuff, you better have your sources of income protected, diversified, and ready for that kind of criticism."

No one pays me to write what I do, and for me, it is far more important that people read my work so I can make a positive impact on the world. If I had the option to earn money from my writing but it meant fewer people would read it and my chances of creating meaningful change were lower, I would forgo the money in favor of reaching more people.

For example, if I could write on Substack and get paid for my posts, but it meant a smaller audience and a reduced chance of making a difference, I would willingly sacrifice the income in order to maximize my potential to create positive change in the world.

6:00

Intentionally, because we don't know most of the things people pretend we know. It's in percentages of certainty, and there are very few things I'm absolutely certain of. So, I don't really focus on how much I get right or how much I get wrong. I focus on, am I on the right path, and am I staying humble and open to criticism? Because for me, that's the sort of ongoing metric of, are you getting locked into this paradigm of "I know everything," which is an obvious dead end, or am I continually learning and changing? Because the point is to learn, not to gain followers, for me anyway.

This fragment demonstrates the intellectual honesty, integrity, and Socratic method I am referring to.

39:35

There's that wild theory of the depopulation agenda. Well, let's consider it because there is this eugenicist trend in science that's always been around—this idea that if you get scientific enough about it, some people suck and some people rock. If we really wanted to be evil about it, it's true that the world would be better off with all the good people and none of the bad people. So, there's always been this problem with scientific minds, especially men, where if you get rational enough, you can justify killing off all the bad people, whether that's through extermination camps, depopulation, or sterilization. Eugenics has always been a problem, and Bill Gates is openly a eugenicist. He openly talks about overpopulation as this massive problem, and when you actually look at his solutions, it basically comes down to implementing population reduction by making it so that poor people die and rich people live. Whether that's through vaccinating poorer countries and it happens to sterilize a bunch of people by accident, or whether it's through a quality of living so bad that poor people can't afford to have kids, or poor people are killing each other in the streets or starving to death—those kinds of things are eugenics policies, whether intended or not, because they're killing off what they see as undesirables. If you can't make it in this modern capitalist world, you're not good enough, and we're the ones that understand the system, so we deserve to have 19 kids or whatever it is—13 kids. It really is sinister, and when you dig into the history of groups like the Club of Rome or the World Economic Forum, they have very clear roots in straight-up eugenics. A lot of their founding members and people who have been involved in those sorts of globalist groups—you can find speeches of them on record talking about how the world would be a better place if we had more desirables.

This section touches on eugenics, which some members of The Duran community support. I wanted to highlight this because I have told these individuals that if you support eugenics, you are aligning yourself with Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and the Club of Rome.

By advocating for eugenics, you are advancing their agenda and helping them achieve their goals. I urge those who support or promote eugenics to take a moment to reflect on whose agenda they are truly backing and which side they are aligning with.

Do you really want to support and stand with Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and the Club of Rome?

The cyber epidemic

43:49

Certainly, I suspect it's a cyber pandemic, so the pandemic they were warning us about, the pandemic they were running scenarios about. There was this whole industry, if you noticed it, which most people didn't, but a few smart ones did, like Mickey Willis, who made the "Plandemic" films. He interviewed a lot of doctors that were starting to blow the whistle on this, that there's an industry not only around vaccines that's been growing for a decade or more, multiple decades, but there's actually an industry around the coronavirus itself, around the creation of coronaviruses, and that is actually like a biological weapons program that the U.S. was funding. And that's why the biolabs weren't always in Ukraine; they used to be, we used to be doing that research here in the United States, but then eventually it got a little hot because we're not supposed to be doing that, and it's obvious why. And so, they moved it all to Ukraine and then to China because that way they could keep it off the books. And so, there was so much money to be made off of patents on coronavirus technologies, not just vaccines, but actually the viruses.

And I'm not saying that, like, I'm not saying that the whole conspiracy is true. I'm saying watch "Plandemic 2: Indoctornation," dig into sources for yourself, like read for yourself, think carefully. But it's just, uh, that is this world where they prepare to make money off of a crisis, and it's really easy to cloak the response to the crisis or, like, the preparations. Like, we were supposed to, of course, we should be preparing for pandemics, and how would we know, as regular citizens looking at it, of like, were you just trying to prepare for the crisis, or were you getting into position to make money off the crisis? And right now, they're all talking about the potential dangers of a cyber pandemic and all these things, and we're being warned there's going to be a cyber attack and a cyber pandemic, EMPs. And yeah, that's real, that's absolutely something we should be concerned about. But we should be concerned about who's actually going to start it, and who's actually going to make money off of it, and who stands to benefit. And in the case of, if there's a cyber pandemic in the next year or two, it's pretty clear that the people that stand to benefit are the ones trying to control us because we are breaking out of all of our chains using the internet right now, and it's the internet that's allowing all of our communication, the internet that's allowing all this free flow of ideas, and they don't, there's no way for them to stop it. Like, the way that just my platform has worked, like, I'm a regular dude that just wanted to get involved, and now I'm ratioing Elon Musk over Israel and, like, starting all these controversies. Like, that is, there's no answer to that except to shut it down and then to try to do something while it's shut down. So, I'm worried, and I'm not saying I know it's going to happen. I'm just, one of the things I'm most worried about is false flag attacks on America that they blame on Iran and pull us into World War III, and cyber pandemics, um, cyber attacks, EMP attacks. And those could be the exact same thing. You know, if they do cyber attack us, it will, like, it's very likely they'll blame it on Muslim terrorists or on Russian terrorists or whatever, just so they can start a war because every war they start with false flag attacks, they start with whether it's the Gulf of Tonkin or 9/11.

Finally, we have reached the main topic of the cyber pandemic. I apologize for taking so long to get here, but I believe all the preceding information is also important.

To me, this is the biggest threat and a highly probable scenario, which I have discussed before, drawing from the work of Whitney Webb. The establishment faces a problem because platforms like The Duran and individuals like Ian Carroll, Whitney Webb, and even ordinary people like me can now reach audiences and share the truth. This is something they cannot allow to continue, which is why I fear that a cyber pandemic could actually happen.

This issue was previously discussed in a video by Whitney Webb, which I have shared before.

10:13

So, what first got you interested in this cyber pandemic? Not long after the COVID era began, the World Economic Forum started to be scrutinized more, particularly by independent media. People had noticed the overlap between the World Economic Forum and Event 201, for example, in the COVID crisis. During the COVID crisis, people paid a lot of attention when the World Economic Forum launched its Cyber Polygon simulations about cyber attacks. During that same period, you had Klaus Schwab, the best-known face of the World Economic Forum, saying that after COVID, there would be some sort of what he called a "cyber pandemic" that would have consequences that would make COVID's impact on society seem relatively insignificant by comparison. I think the whole idea of a cyber attack is somewhat contradictory to a lot of the stuff that was pushed for during the COVID era, where we were increasingly pushed out of the physical world into the digital world, and then the digital world is also under attack from cyber attacks and whatnot. So, I think ultimately the goal is to use cyber attacks as a means of centralizing control of the digital world. Based on some of these simulations, do you think it’s going to come in the form of a false hacker attack? Who’s going to be the villain in this scenario?

Yeah, one thing that gets overlooked a lot with Cyber Polygon and some of these other related simulations about coming cyber attacks is that they seem to involve the big banks, and some of them even involve central banks. There’s a major theme of banking here, which I think has been unfortunately overlooked, and it sort of implies that one of these cyber attacks of the cyber pandemic will be on the financial system to some degree. For example, if you look at Cyber Polygon, it was hosted by the World Economic Forum, but it was done in partnership with Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank, and one of the opening speakers was the Russian Prime Minister—things like that—which is in direct contrast, for example, to the supposed Russian hacker narrative that’s been propagated extensively in U.S. mainstream media. The U.S. government had no problem participating in Cyber Polygon and no criticism of the World Economic Forum for co-hosting their cyber attack simulation with the supposed hackers at large that supposedly interfered in the U.S. elections. They said that they did that—well, okay, so in 2016 and 2020, there were a lot of narratives propagated by U.S. mainstream media about Russian hackers, and none of those mainstream media outlets criticized the World Economic Forum for doing their big cyber attack simulation in partnership with the Russian government. Oh, they did it with the Russian government? Yeah, Cyber Polygon was the World Economic Forum and a subsidiary of Sberbank, Russia’s largest privately-owned bank, and the Russian Prime Minister gave the opening remarks. It was affiliated to some degree with the Russian government.

There have been a few entities besides the World Economic Forum that have gamed out these cyber attack simulations in a very significant way. One of them is the Financial Services ISAC, or Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which is essentially the biggest private banks in the United States coming together to share information and plan shared responses to potential crises, including a cyber attack on the financial system. FS-ISAC is affiliated to an extent with the World Economic Forum and also with the Carnegie Endowment. The Carnegie Endowment has similarly charted out potential solutions if and when there is a major cyber attack on the financial system, and they did so in partnership with the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and some of the biggest private banks in the world, like JPMorgan Chase. Their proposed solution is to merge banks, banking regulators, and intelligence agencies as far as information sharing and analysis go. That’s essentially having banks share your private transaction data directly with the CIA or any other U.S. intelligence agency that asks—just kind of like a digital fusion center, an updated version of that. Doing so is inherently unconstitutional; people would not consent to that if it were not for a major crisis that affects the banking sector.

Oftentimes, they try to pilot these solutions before they’re actually implemented, and if there isn’t sufficient onboarding or uptake by the public, invariably an event comes along that creates fear and panic among the public to a very significant degree. They begin clamoring for solutions to this problem that’s causing the fear and panic, and the solution is often something that’s been tested or pitched years prior. One example of this is the Obama administration, which tried to make a "driver’s license for the internet"—directly linking your government-issued ID to your online activity. Now we’re seeing a push to do the same under the guise of stopping misinformation or stopping cybercrime and things like that. It’s mainly coming from U.S., U.K., and Israeli intelligence and the big banks through entities like the World Economic Forum’s Partnership Against Cybercrime, for example. Do you basically think that this could be the "great taking" catalyst, or do you just see a series of events that’ll erode people’s rights?

The cyber attack seems like a very possible scenario because it’s a way for the banks to absolve themselves of any role in a financial crisis. It’s an easy way to consolidate banks so that only systemically important ones survive the hack, and it could also potentially be a very effective means of onboarding people onto this new digital currency paradigm. For example, let’s say this cyber attack on the banks takes place, and they say, "Well, the existing money in your account has disappeared—the hackers took it—but we can return to you the exact same amount of money you had, but it won’t be in the dollars you had before. It will be in USDC or this dollar-backed stablecoin, or it will be this token." So, you can get an equivalent amount of money back from the money that was stolen from you, but it has to be this new money—it has to be part of this new system. There’s the potential here for people to steal money from you and then essentially give it back to you, but with new conditions and a new social contract. You voluntarily accepted this new system and voluntarily onboarded to this new paradigm, but it’s coercion to an extreme degree—all of your money was stolen, and now you can only get it back if you take it in the form of the digital dollars that we approve of, or the CBDC, depending on where you are.

The head of DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas, has said on record that the next big threat to Americans is a cybersecurity event that he called "killware," and killware certainly sounds very scary. But if you read the existing definition of it, it refers to cyber attacks on essential infrastructure that have the potential to kill people. It doesn’t necessarily kill people directly in the name, but it attacks things like water systems, the power grid, or essential infrastructure that people rely on every day. This company called Cybereason, in 2020, actually simulated a massive killware attack that was targeting a U.S. presidential election. The way they conducted this killware simulation—which they did with DHS and some U.S. law enforcement agencies—was to get the U.S. presidential election canceled and martial law declared. They basically, through that simulation, established what types of hacks could succeed in achieving the declaration of martial law and the cancellation of a U.S. presidential election, which is pretty extreme.

So, why are they doing that? Why does an intelligence-linked company want to simulate, with DHS and law enforcement, a series of hacks that disrupt national infrastructure during a U.S. presidential election, leading to martial law being declared? Well, if you look at all of this through the lens of risk management from the elites’ perspective—let’s take the words of Larry Fink, for example, of BlackRock, who’s been obsessed with risk management his whole career. He has a quote—he’s on video saying—that the markets do not like democracy; democracy is messy. They like totalitarian governments because the risk is low. Elon Musk is one of these figures that’s trying to position himself as a free speech champion and one of these figures on the populist right, but in reality, a lot of the policies that Elon Musk promotes, like carbon taxes, for example, have traditionally been policies promoted by the World Economic Forum and entities like this that are seen as being globalist and not populist in nature. People forget that Elon Musk is someone whose business has depended to a large degree on government subsidies, and currently, a lot of his companies either depend on mass adoption of electric vehicles via policies linked to the Sustainable Development Goals to phase out fossil fuel vehicles, or they are contractors for the Pentagon and intelligence, like SpaceX.

So, you’re saying the guy looks like a front? Well, I think there’s a conflict of interest with Elon Musk. For example, take his recent ownership of Twitter, now called X. The Pentagon has spent the better part of the last decade developing very sophisticated tools to manipulate social media, including bots and other techniques that, per the Air Force in one of their contracts, were aimed at controlling people with social media like we control drones. Do you think that Elon Musk, as a Pentagon and intelligence contractor, would restrict the Pentagon’s use of those tools they spent millions of dollars and over a decade developing? I don’t think so.

People have very short memories, so many may not remember - or even be aware of - Event 201, a simulation of a global epidemic conducted by the World Economic Forum just before COVID happened. Given that the World Economic Forum is now conducting a simulation of a cyber pandemic, I find this deeply alarming.

As Ian Carroll pointed out, their biggest problem for them are platforms like The Duran forum and individuals like Ian Carroll, Whitney Webb, or even ordinary people like me who speak the truth and are heard. A possible solution to this problem could be a cyber pandemic, which might then lead to the introduction of digital currency and internet "driver’s licenses" - tools that could be used to silence voices like mine.

I have already written about how my phone’s internet provider blocks access to The Duran forum, preventing me from visiting the site from my phone. Here is screenshot from my phone:

play-The-Duran hosted at ImgBB

Image play-The-Duran hosted in ImgBB

I live in Poland, so my phone's internet provider is Polish, and so is the message it's showing. Here is the English translation of what is written:

"We have detected a threat.

The website you are trying to access is potentially dangerous. This means it could, for example, steal your data, capture your login credentials and passwords, or damage files on your device without your knowledge."

Additionally, many of the videos I post cannot be embedded or played on the WordPress site where The Duran forum is hosted. I would argue that the videos that cannot be embedded are often the most important ones - because they speak the truth. After all, we know that people are not silenced for lying; in fact, they are often promoted for it. It is only those who speak the truth who are silenced, as we have seen with figures like Julian Assange and many others.

I could write more, but I will end it here as this post is already quite long. In closing, I urge people to support The Duran. This forum is one of the few places where people like me can speak the truth, making it essential for our future. The fact that my phone’s internet provider is blocking the site already shows that The Duran is being suppressed for giving a platform to people like me who speak inconvenient truths. That is why supporting them is so important.

By allowing people like me to post, The Duran is proving that truth matters to them more than reach and profits. This demonstrates their integrity, which, if you can, you should support. Without platforms like The Duran, voices like mine would not be heard. Once again, I want to thank The Duran forum for giving me the opportunity to speak the truth.

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

Please pay enough attention, or we will all be screwed. God bless you all.

“Politics is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex.”

― Frank Zappa

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

― Søren Kierkegaard

“Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed.”

― Albert Einstein