Whitney Webb on Tom Bilyeu’s channel:“…this underclass will become cognitively diminished and mentally unable to make decisions for themselves without AI’s help.”

37:05
“The Club of Rome is an entity that has a very intertwined history with groups that have become infamous over the past several years, like the World Economic Forum, for example. Dennis Meadows essentially said something to the effect that, for the good of people, the planet, and the economy, it would be necessary either to reduce the world’s population so that people could have freedom and use resources as they want, or that a scientific dictatorship would have to be imposed on 8 billion or 7 billion people in order to ensure accurate allocation of resources, all of this by an educated, technocratic scientific elite.

There are some thinkers in Silicon Valley, like Eric Schmidt, for example, who wrote a book on AI with Henry Kissinger. They essentially say that there’s going to be a future brought to us by AI, where there will be a class of people that understand how AI works, who program and maintain it, and then there will be another class—really, they don’t say ‘underclass,’ but I would use that term—of people upon whom AI acts, who can’t understand what AI is doing to them. Eventually, because of their dependence on AI, this underclass will become cognitively diminished and mentally unable to make decisions for themselves without AI’s help.

There are many other indications, I would argue, such as Universal Basic Income (UBI), which, again, I don’t think is intended for the top oligarchs in Silicon Valley like Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman, and Peter Thiel. Instead, UBI is likely intended for other people who aren’t necessarily in that economic tier. If these people succeed in their designs, I think it’s very likely we’ll see more of a two-tier society, without any sort of need for a middle class.”

“Eventually, because of their dependence on AI, this underclass will become cognitively diminished and mentally unable to make decisions for themselves without AI’s help.” I would argue it’s already happened but not with regards to cognitive diminishment, but rather in the loss of knowledge and understanding of history and the world. So what if people are not cognitively diminished if they don’t possess any knowledge about the real world? For people to be able to use their cognitive abilities, they need to possess knowledge about the world. But since we live in an Orwellian world, they are deprived of real knowledge about the world.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
― George Orwell, 1984

A great example of this is the host of this video. I love his dumbfounded face when he listens to Whitney. All of us know many people with big cognitive abilities—simply put, smart people who are saying stupid things and believing in the world of the naive created by propaganda. To be able to understand and use your cognitive abilities, you need to understand not just some specific event or thing, but also the context in which it happened. Having cognitive abilities—so being smart—means nothing if you don’t understand the world; in other words, if you don’t understand the context of those things.

4:10
“All right, we’ve already, here in the opening minutes, put a lot of things on the table. I want to start now piecing them together into a worldview that someone who doesn’t have your depth of knowledge can begin to understand—how this all fits together.

So, me as someone on the outside of this, I look at it and I’m way more worried about whether Republicans or Democrats get into office based entirely on what their economic policy is. You’re really the first person who’s been clear in saying, ‘No, no, no, you’re looking at the wrong level of analysis. You need to understand that they’re both going to the same people to come up with their policies, so whatever promises you hear, that’s ultimately not going to matter.’

What I want to understand is, if BlackRock is really where we should be paying attention, if Larry Fink is who they’re both basically going to, or Larry Fink-affiliated entities or people, what is BlackRock’s agenda? What do they want?

Yeah, so I think there are things we can look at, as far as BlackRock is concerned, that give us clues as to what their agenda may be. The most concerning thing to me about that, as it relates to people like Larry Fink, is that Larry Fink is on record saying things like, ‘Markets don’t really like democracies because they’re messy; markets like totalitarian governments.’

Larry Fink is someone who’s been very obsessed with risk management for most of his career and sees free democracies—and arguably also a free market—in some senses as generating more risk than he would like to handle. So, when you’re able to control and centralize both markets and governments, you’re able to control the amount of risk that’s there.

Maybe that’s good for asset managers like Larry Fink, who are obsessed with this kind of stuff, but for regular people, it ultimately reduces the amount of freedom that we would have. I sort of see Larry Fink as someone who’s looking to centralize power and centralize wealth, and obviously, that has major impacts on regular Americans and the people who aren’t necessarily in the oligarch class or in the top 1% that would benefit from those types of policies.”

So did they make people “cognitively diminished and mentally unable to make decisions for themselves”? NO, but they made sure people do not possess a true understanding of the real world, which makes their cognitive abilities useless. Again, a good example of this is the host of this podcast. He seems smart. I have heard some of his podcasts once, and he specializes in economics. I just look at his face, and he really seems dumbfounded. I am trying to see if he is acting and knows the truth and is just playing, or if he is really so oblivious. I was inclining more to being oblivious, but one part made me doubt that and suspect he might be lying and acting, and it’s this:

1:04:13
“If the system is set up so that you will end up getting exploited if you do this, or if they were smart, could they put in legislation that says, ‘Okay, we’re actually going to assign a value to all of these different items—the rainforest, whatever, whatever?’ And now, according to the Coase theorem, it basically says the reason that we end up with these imbalances, where people pollute a river and now you have a company that’s able to make a ton of money because they can force us all to pay a cost for the pollution, but they get to reap all the benefits. If, instead, you assign an owner to the river, now all of a sudden, the owner of that river knows exactly how much damage is being done, and they can go to the company and say, ‘You owe me this much money because you are injuring this asset that I own that has a cost.’

So it becomes basically a statement of, without clear property rights, people get away with things like the tragedy of the commons, where they’re able to push their pollution downstream and reap economic benefits from it. As I was hearing you say the story, that was what came to mind. It was like, ‘Well, hold on a second. If you actually assign a value to this stuff—to the rainforest, just to stick with one example—now, suddenly, the rainforest has clear property rights.’

If the property rights are clear, as long as those people have not signed a stupid deal, and if the property rights are clear and just—I’m going to use a terrible word right now because I don’t have a better one in this moment—but if they are clear and just, now all of a sudden, we should be able to get into a position where the local people, or whomever, are able to capture an accurate amount of value and know who is deleteriously impacting their ownership. So if the Coase theorem is correct, that may actually have a positive benefit.

Now, I am barely beginning to understand this theorem, so for anybody that knows better, drop something in the comments about what I’m not understanding. I’m very early in the journey of getting knowledgeable about that. But anyway, to really be succinct with the question, do you think it is a fundamental nature of our economic system that will become a point of exploitation, or could that, if structured correctly, be a boon for any local region that has a natural asset?”

Like, what the hell is he talking about here? It’s like he literally got some talking points from the IMF or deep state. Like this part made me second-guess his reaction, but anyway, if you know what Whitney is talking about, to 90% of the population who don’t have at least a little idea how the real world works, you get the same dumbfounded look as he makes.

“Man is so intelligent that he feels impelled to invent theories to account for what happens in the world. Unfortunately, he is not quite intelligent enough, in most cases, to find correct explanations. So that when he acts on his theories, he behaves very often like a lunatic.”
― Aldous Huxley

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
― George Orwell

“That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.”
― Aldous Huxley