The Philosophy of Revolution

Transcript

I want to rewind and go back a little bit to the history of modern revolutionary philosophy. And then we’ll work our way up to today and we’ll see how that revolutionary philosophy is at work in the establishment’s plans for austerity, ESG, lockdowns, and all the measures they want to put in place to enforce a technocracy written by a defender of the establishment, Fire in the Minds of Men by James Billington, the origins of the revolutionary faith.

He’s of course not a conspiracy theorist, but a person who was, as an academic and a historian, archiving and chronicling the history of revolutionary philosophy and thought from the time of the French Revolution all the way up until the early 20th century. And James Billington noted that to really understand today’s revolutionary philosophies, you have to go back to the faith of the original revolutionaries at the time of and right before the French Revolution and their influences. What were they influenced by?

Well, they were influenced by philosophies like Platonism. There was a Byzantine Platonist named Plethon that influenced Spinoza, that influenced Weishaupt and other Jacobins. And the philosophy of Pythagoras played a key element as well as the philosophies of ancient pre-Socratics like Heraclitus. Heraclitus taught that all is fire and all is flux. And so one of the things that the early Illuminists, people like Weishaupt and a guy called Buonaroti, who were really influential on the Jacobins in the French Revolution, they decided to take certain symbols from ancient mystical religions like the Zoroastrians. And Zoroastrianism is a dualistic religion that believes there’s always these two principles eternally fighting with each other throughout history and that never ends.

It’s an eternal dualistic dialectical battle. That becomes kind of the basis for later hermetic philosophers like Hegel who will influence people like Marx. But before we get to that, we have to understand that the French Revolutionary philosophers had a radical view of equalitarianism across society. And they thought that because, well, what’s the best way to fix man’s ills? Man’s ills relate to believing in any kind of hierarchy at all in the hierarchy of church and state. And so if we get rid of that and we put in place a radical egalitarian and equalitarian society, perhaps a form of utopia could develop or could be imagined. And so this is where entities like Masonic lodges and secret societies of that time began to be useful to certain revolutionaries to try to spread their revolutionary ideas against the notions of nobility and aristocracy. However, some of these were extremely radical in their views to the extent that they even believe that all things should be held in common, including wives and children. And one of the things they did was they took the doctrine of fire from Zoroastrians and from Manicheans to be a symbol of their religion. Because if you think about it, fire is always kind of moving, it’s hot, it never ceases to, it never comes to any rest. And so it’s a perfect image for the old Heraclitian idea, the pre-Socratics and the philosophers, that everything is flux. Nothing is true. Nothing is stable. Everything is perpetual revolution and change. And so the religion itself becomes change. The journey is the end, some of the Marxists have said in history.

They borrowed their model on how to structure this inner party, outer party on the Jesuits. Doesn’t mean that they were at this time actually Jesuits. I don’t believe that they were. I think that Weishaupt himself did leave the Jesuits and borrow the structure for his society on how the Jesuits were structured. Although I think that eventually later Jesuits are part of this superstructure because they are eventually allied with the CIA in the 20th century, as is the papacy after the Cold War. And so what we have is this idea that we can structure an inner party and an outer party, and we’ll eventually have a happy equality, happy equalitarianism. There will be a completely natural religion that will be like the noble lie or the state-fostered, state-funded, and created and controlled religion. And it will be something like a kind of civic nationalism or a civic global religion that H.G. Wells talked about, who’s a consistent sort of ideological lineage of this conspiracy HG Wells is a high-level Freemason and so he knew about the the positions and ideas of Vyshoft that would eventually become Basically technocracy and that’s what HG Wells and the whole Royal Society pushed for. They later combined it not just with egalitarianism, at least for the masses, but with the idea of the Malthusian idea of depopulation.

Pythagoras is one of the key philosophy figures because Pythagoras was a proto-communitarian, a proto-communist.

The idea was to overthrow all traditional forms of nation states, people groups, all traditional forms of religion and statecraft, including the idea of the king or any kind of hierarchy to create this equalitarian society. But what’s interesting is that in reality, I think the inner group, the inner elite, the inner party, they always knew that it wasn’t really egalitarian. That’s what they tell the people to manipulate the masses because these radical philosophies always had, for the most part, very powerful, wealthy, influential supporters in the background. And that’s because more perceptive and more cunning people understood that philosophies like radical communism, radical socialism, Marxism, could actually be tools for statecraft, tools for foreign powers, tools for changing the existing regime into something else.

And as we progress in the history of Marxism, many of the classical Marxists continue this radical worship of flux and change. You find this in Lenin, you find it in Trotsky, you find it in Mao in their writings. And what that means is that there’s no longer principles that are objective or outside of man that man submits to. So there’s no principles of hierarchy in nature, right? Jordan Peterson talks a lot about lobster hierarchies, lobster dominance, the dominance hierarchies. Well, the dominance hierarchies are actually in nature. It is a principle of the natural order. But the consistent revolutionary realizes that all external impositions, including hierarchy and nature, is an unwanted oppression.

And so by the time of post-Hegel and post-Marx, everything turns into an oppressor-oppressed, control-power dynamic. And so it’s no longer about anybody submitting to or having to recognize external principles of truth and falsehood, good versus evil, purpose. Purpose doesn’t exist. Meaning doesn’t exist in the world. It’s all a social construct, just like everything else was a social construct. This is the inevitable result. It takes a few centuries for this to come about. But you go back to the skepticism of David Hume, David Hume is already beginning to psychologize all of these principles that the ancient and medieval world would have seen as actual principles operant in the external world. Essentialism, right? Aristotle’s essences, those things existed in the world. A man’s a man, a woman’s a woman, authority is authority, right? Objects have the identity that they have. A tree is a tree, a dog is a dog. When all of that begins to break down post-Enlightenment, post-David Hume, post-all these people, eventually what you get is post-Darwin and post-Nietzsche, a pure will to power, top-down control structure with no intention of submitting to any kind of external principles. There are no laws, there are no rules, everything is determined by, dictated by the establishment. That is the operating system that we’re under today.

The Hegelian idea that the state is the march of God in history. And the state in the Hegelian system, and this is why it works so well to blend with Marxism, the state is synthesizing and emerging into a superstructure that can even destroy itself in multiple revolutions, because it’s a secret inter-party state that runs the public states that we know of as the state. It can destroy itself and revolutionize itself to create the synthesis out of all of these oppositions, which is ultimately the technocratic one world state, as all of these people envisioned centuries ago. That’s where we’re going, that is the plan. There’s only one plan, and it’s been the same plan, at least back to Weishaupt, in terms of the modern era. Openly, and Buonaroti, all least back to Weishaupt, in terms of the modern era, openly. And Buonaroti, all of whom wanted a one-world socialist, technocratic, eventually technocratic government.

This is the Alex Jones Show. We’re going to look at more examples of this in the modern era. We have managed dialectics and revolutionary control of both sides of major conflicts.

And I wanna kind of fast forward to a couple modern examples. And if we think about the recent information that popped up in regard to the supposed neo-Nazi groups out of nowhere, just all over social media that it suddenly exists in everyone’s purview. The irony here is that while the establishment has been telling us for many years that anyone who questions elections or who has conservative tendencies at all is a neo-Nazi, a fascist, right? If you follow Trump, you’re a neo-Nazi, all this nonsense. Well, the irony is that the very groups that have been calling us out as these ridiculous positions, they’re the ones that have been consistently funding and fostering the kind of the very groups that have been calling us out as these ridiculous positions. They’re the ones that have been consistently funding and fostering the real neo-Nazi groups throughout the Ukraine.

Going back to 2014, John McCain famously took a trip over there, appeared on stage with the right sector, pro-vice sector people. Those are people connected to Ozil Batallion and Rachel Blevins of RT, she recently did a report where she interviewed one of these characters, Boneface, I guess is his name, this guy looks like a total prison recruit guy who claims himself to have been trafficked around to these conflict zones by the FBI and the CIA, and that makes perfect sense. Why is that? Well, it ties into my dialectical control theory here, my position here, that we went back to the French revolutionary figures to look at. Fast forward to today, and if you go into the history of the Ukraine, what we find out is that really the Ukraine has been about a 75-year proxy for is that really the Ukraine has been about a 75 year proxy for Western intelligence. This goes back to the World War II intelligence networks that were set up by Reinhard Galen. He was probably one of the most famous World War II intelligence operatives for the Germans. And he was very adept at creating and establishing vast spy networks. He’s not the only one. There were other people involved in this, people like Otto Skorzeny, members of the SS and so forth, who made up these networks, who post-World War II, when the Nazis were defeated, they reached out to Allen Dulles, Bill Donovan of the OSS, and James Jesus Angleton and said, I will hand you all of these networks to use for Western intelligence if you allow me to have my freedom. And so Galen went on to become the head of the BND, the German intelligence for all the way up until the 1960s. So nobody seemed to care about this Nazi history and pedigree. This is part of paperclip because he made a deal and he was allowed to have that freedom status for turning over these networks, which the CIA then utilized to be part of Gladio to set up their stay behind units in case of a supposed Stalinist Soviet invasion of Europe. But what happened is that a lot of these groups, these paramilitary fascist groups that were part of the P2 Lodge, the Gladio operation was really masterminded according to Paul Williams and people like Daniel Ganser in his PhD thesis by Kissinger. So this is really a Kissinger project to stave off any kind of Soviet invasion of Europe. But what happened was that this also allowed for a lot of networks and cells to be set up all throughout Europe that were trained in black ops, trained in terror, trained in bomb making, assassinations, mass shootings. So this is a fact, this all came out in the 1990s when Gladio first began to be exposed. And this is run by NATO. So in other words, NATO is essentially a terrorist organization in this regard, regard to Gladio. And NATO recently declassified or came out or it was declassified or just published in the Gray Zone, did a great report about this in 2021. I think we did a full breakdown of this in one of the fourth hours did a full breakdown of this in one of the fourth hours of Alex a couple of years ago when it came out, but it’s NATO’s cognitive warfare document.

Now, remember, we’re supposed to be bad guys in the US if you support Trump, you’re a Nazi, but the actual establishment really does have and has utilized Nazi stay behind networks and units since World War II famously public declassified document that Reinhard Galen’s networks were taken over by the CIA in the post World War II period. Now, those same networks under Galen sent people to train the Nazi groups that still exist today in the Ukraine. Now people, you may have heard of Stepan Bandera, he’s one of the key figures that was running that for many years in the Ukraine. There are actual SS and people under Galen that were sent to train those people. So those post World War II networks have always been there. And so this shows that the system is not actually interested in going after neo-Nazis and Nazis. That’s all just for public purview. They’re perfectly happy to fund, use these groups, even all the way up until John McCain flying over there, even up until to today. If it’s useful to supposedly fight Putin, who’s also Hitler. So it makes no sense. Funding actual neo-Nazi groups to fight against Hitler, Putin, literally makes no sense. That’s all propaganda, you see. But this completely destroys the narrative that the establishment, the system is genuinely concerned with combating the greatest threat to America, white supremacists. Well, now, wait a minute, then why are you funding the actual neo-Nazis in the Ukraine? And the media has made a big fuss about that. The media was complaining about this. Mainstream media was complaining about neo-Nazis being supported and aided in Ukraine all the way up until the Russian special military operation, which now it suddenly became an issue. Now there are no Nazis in Ukraine, you see. So Zelensky was corrupt, according to mainstream media, all the way up until the last few years. Now he’s no longer corrupt, now we have to support. You see the absurdity and the Orwellian contradictory notions involved in this Emanuel Goldstein style operation, a la 1984, right? The cutout villains that are out there that are really just used by the system. And so this is an example of manipulation of dialectics.

So you’re supposedly bad for supporting Trump as a, you’re a Nazi that supports, or the fascists support Trump, support Trump, the fascists support Trump, which is just completely ridiculous. Meanwhile, the actual establishment since 2014, at least, and it goes back older than that, you can go back to the 1980s, the West, the CIA was funding a lot of these groups as well back then. And all the way back, as we said, to the post-World War II era, when Ukrainian nationalism, at least right after World War I, was erected as this bulwark against the United States, to the post-World War II era when Ukrainian nationalism, at least right after World War I, was erected as this bulwark against Sovietism. And they utilized these Nazi networks to do that, which had been there for a long time. I mean, the Nazi networks post-World War II, but the anti-Russian sentiment, at least back to 75 years there. So this is a geostrategic plan that plays into large-scale dialectics, and it just demonstrates that the establishment really has no desire to actually combat Nazism. That’s just a weapon and a tool that they use to smear and go after anybody in the United States who has mildly conservative views, you see. That’s dialectical manipulation, and that shows that these are not real threats in America, right? There are occasional wackos and people oftentimes that might even be goaded by the feds to act in this kind of a way. But if you look up the documentary, The Newburgh Sting, which there was a radical mosque set up, which was a honey trap. If you look up the history of Elohim City and McVeigh, same type of honey trap operation. And I think that the danger is that, I think Whitney Webb pointed this out, these same groups from Ukraine might be utilized to spark some kind of a fake event, staged event here in the US, at least after all of this Twitter furor with Musk. So the danger is an event like Alex has been talking about.

This is the Alex Jones Show, don’t go anywhere, I’m your guest host, Jay Dyer, Jay Zennels. Manipulated control groups like the neo-Nazis in the Ukraine which are really assets for the West, proxy groups to be used to put pressure on Russia. And the absurdity of sort of calling out anybody who would question that or would question recent events as Trump Nazis or some sort of ridiculous thing like this. So, but I wanted to now move to a NATO document that we mentioned, the C warfare document. Because if you heard Alex yesterday when he was talking about the Greg Reese report or the John Bowne report on the DARPA lecture that was given in 2017 about various kinds of nanotech weaponry that could be rolled out that might relate to a new pandemic or something like that. That lecture is very similar to what was warned about or, excuse me, what was presaged, I guess you could say, in the 2020 NATO study Cognitive Warfare.

And when this, the PSYOP document came out in 2020, it was actually utilized its principles are utilized by the Canadian government to push a lot of the COVID fear and narrative. So there’s an actual lecture that a lot of NATO people in Canada, the Canadian government utilized this this document, they even talk about how they would utilize all this fear. And that anybody who questioned the establishment and the narratives that were being put out would be considered potential enemy combatants. So in other words, the domestic population, not wanting to go along with vaccines, not wanting to go along with vaccine passports, vaccine tracking, total surveillance. That would be considered in terms of cognitive warfare, this new version of hybrid warfare, a potential enemy combatant status and that you could even be linked into this database or whatever, without knowing it, you would be targeted. And so it’s a very ominous, dystopian kind of presentation and document where drones, autonomous vehicles, and the development of biological and chemical neuro weapons, as they call it, would be pursued to not just alter, as classical psychological operations did, the ideology of the enemy, but as this document says, to actually change the biology and the brain itself of the enemy. That again perfectly overlaps with the lecture from the DARPA guy.

And so this kind of weaponization of neuro research or neuro ST as they call it, could mean then that the opponents would not just become passive, but actually might be neutralized, which sounds of course like they could put you to death. And so it’s no longer just changing the opponent’s mind, but exactly what Klaus said, we will change your DNA, we’ll change you, we’ll be under your skin, that’s the real goal. That’s exactly what the NATO cognitive warfare document says. And so you understand that the development of controlling both sides of conflicts over the centuries, the mastering of what we call dialectical philosophy from Plato to Marx to Hegel and subsequent philosophers after that. This really, Darwinism even you could argue, this really allows the establishment to have this position beyond what most people are involved in in terms of conflicts. You can think of it like a circle, and within that circle is the accepted Overton window of what you can and can’t talk about and what types of things are allowed in public discourse, even in terms of the questions that are asked. So, for example, you wouldn’t be allowed to, it’s not even considered within the purview of the possibility, to ask a question like, well, could the wars of the 20th century have been intentionally fostered by an elite or a superstructure?

That’s not an allowed question. It’s not within the domains, the parameters, the magic circle of what can and can’t be discussed. And so a big part of perception management that Kissinger talks about has nothing to do ultimately with what’s true or false. All that matters is managing the public’s perception of what things are possible and not possible, what questions can and cannot even be asked. This is also famously covered by the well-known philosopher Eric Voegelin, who talked about how technocracies operate in a neo-gnostic way. There’s a sort of inherent neo-gnostic principle that it sets the parameters of what questions can and can’t be asked. So you’re not even allowed to ask a question like, has there been a revolutionary plan for the last several centuries going back to Billington’s Fire in the Minds of Men theorizing and analysis that you get French revolutionary, you know, communist, socialist, proto-technocrats, even back then, that’s not a question, that’s a nonsense question. You’re not allowed to ask that.

And that’s why the media, mass media, has been there for so long to control and set the parameters for the questions that are allowed to be asked and that are not allowed to be asked. Nowadays, media is basically there, I think, to just sort of confuse the public. And so you get this overwhelming, this avalanche of data that’s all conflicting and contradictory and confusing. And that’s intentional, right? The public doesn’t have an education in how to know these things and patterns in history. There are no patterns to history. History doesn’t exist, right? Remember 1984, there is no such thing as history. It’s whatever the party writes at that moment. And that’s all part of that new revolutionary dialectic.

Basically all of modernity is premised on liberalism. And by liberalism, I don’t mean GOP, RINO, that stuff. I don’t mean Democrats. I mean post-enlightenment removal of the notion of all forms of hierarchy in nature, all forms of meaning and principles in the external world. Those don’t exist anymore, according to the establishment. And Hegel, I think, is a key figure because Hegel really said that the state is God’s and the state will tell you what’s meaningful. That’s why it was a very big deal when they were starting to be pushed back what a year ago or so on the notion of whether or not the infants have the principle of being made in the image of God or have life from the womb, or is the right to life something dictated by the state? In the Hegelian sense, in the technocrat sense, the state dictates when you’re alive. And so perhaps you’re not alive or conscious until age three. Maybe you’re a potential person, but you’re not a human person until age three. Well, then you could be conceivably aborted up to age three. And there are some radical people out there who push for that. I think Peter Singer pushes for that, as well as a bunch of other nasty things, supposedly ethical philosophers, right?

And so the establishment has a vested interest, obviously, in the state, the super state, the corporate state, the technocratic state, dictating meaning, dictating what’s true, dictating gender, dictating all of these things as not real, as whatever you want it to be. And so there’s a cloak of freedom and liberty that’s actually a tool for social control. Telling you, telling children, telling people that you can be and identify as whatever you want to, is a method of destruction and control that is intentional. It is a weapon. Tavistock developed it. It’s not good-hearted liberals that want to do right and want to help people. Maybe at the lower levels, there’s people who, the normies out there, maybe they operate that way. the normies out there, maybe they operate that way. But at the higher levels, this is fourth, fifth, sixth generation hybrid warfare. It’s intentional destruction of what came before. And more and more people are picking up on this, that the plan was to actually destroy the existing systems, destroy from within the existing medical system, the existing political systems, the nation state, destroy even the education system, let all of these collapse and crumble from within the same way that like Cloward and Piven is intended to put stressors on the economic system to break it down, to accelerate the next phase, right? That’s dialectical thinking. You can intentionally cause chaos and destruction because chaos and destruction furthers the dialectic. The process furthers the process.

Process philosophy. Hegel. Whitehead, right? These are almost revolutionary faiths. In other words, the faith as he calls it, notice at the bottom of the book, it’s the revolutionary faith. Because there’s a religious commitment to creative destruction. And so that can be weaponized, that can be utilized, and military strategists, people who study civilization, civilization studies, they are aware of this and they know it can be weaponized. This is the Alex Johnen era have as their goal and that is ultimately what was published by World Economic Forum luminary Noah Yuval Harari in his book Homo Deus. So for many, many years, of course, we’ve been talking about this, and we’ve been explaining that this is the ultimate plan. Alex has talked about it, right, all the way back to Ray Kurzweil and Endgame, and even before that, that the idea was that technology would allow man to evolve into being his own god. And there are older books that kind of presage this as well that were way ahead of their time. I remember some years ago I read A.C. Wells’ Island of Dr. Moreau, which I’ll be covering on my channel in the near future. We haven’t looked at that in many, many years. And one of the theories that was way ahead of its time in that book was the plasticity of human nature. Now, there can be malleable plasticity elements to human nature, which are there. But we shouldn’t conclude from that that therefore it’s all plastic. We’re all just Gumby people. And there’s no actual metaphysical meaning or that there’s no chromosomes. None of that. Right. We’re not just Gumby people. We have identity over time. There is such a thing as human nature, it does exist. But the premise of Dr. Merove, you don’t know, is that there’s this sort of mad science doctor who’s got a god complex on an island and he’s experimenting and creating genetic hybrids and he’s creating these sort of, you know, monstrosities. And so somebody’s stuck on this island and they’re trying to get off of it because it’s a kind of a, the island is kind of a microcosm of the world, you could say. The island represents sort of the future dystopian world that could develop as a result of, you know, DNA splicing and all that in the mind of H.G. Wells. I think he wrote that in 1896. So he was way ahead of his time in that regard as an insider of what the future plans were.

Now, if we fast forward to today, Harari’s book, and by the way, he’s a historian, so he’s not a scientist. The establishment’s always interested in, do you have the credentials? Are you a, so he’s not actually a scientist, so he’s not a scientist. You know, the establishment is always interested in, do you have the credentials? Are you so he’s not actually a scientist. So he’s a historian. But this book was published in 2016. And the idea from the very beginning of the book is that there’s not a there’s not a meaning external to man. Man creates all of his own meaning. He doesn’t discover meaning. He doesn’t discover meaning, he doesn’t discover principles, he creates these things. So the second chapter, for example, is that or excuse me, the second section is that man gives meaning to the world. So we create our own meaning. Meaning is not something that we discover, we create our own meaning. And if we can create our own meaning, then we can create our own godhood eventually. That’s the point of where the book goes, is that we are evolving beyond old stories of religion to a new humanity. He calls it a new human. What’s the new human? The new human is the coming, no longer interested in religion human, but the religion of AI or what he calls dataism. So the religion of the future, the religion that’s an emerging deus ex machina right now is data, dataism. And the future will all be about pure, raw data. That will be the new meaning. And again, meaning is not something that’s a principle in the world. Purpose is not something in the world. Things don’t have purpose, they don’t have meaning, everything is evolving, you see. So he’s within this tradition of the same revolutionary philosophers that we were talking about, that everything is in evolutionary flux. Since everything’s in flux, there’s no stability, there’s no fixity. It’s either or, you either believe in everything being in stasis, or everything’s in flux and change. 

Well, if everything is flux and change, then the principle that everything is flux and change would also be subject to change. That’s self-refuting. So obviously it’s not true that everything is flux and change. That’s a self-refuting statement. There’s both fixity and change in the world. There’s stasis and change. Both of those things are true. Objects have identity over time and they change. It can be a both and, not an either or. And a lot of bad philosophical mistakes are premised on false either ors. But also so is dialectical manipulation. It’s premised on false either ors. You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists. Well, wait a minute. What about a third option where both of you are wrong? What if I don’t like neoconservatism or terrorism? No, I have to choose either or. It’s a false either or. It’s a very low-level manipulation, and that’s a fallacy in logic. But you’ll notice a lot of propaganda, a lot of government pronouncements, and, you know, old-school Bush speeches. They operate on basic fallacies. But the fallacies are very useful in propaganda, you see. For example, appeals to emotion are used all the time in propaganda. Oh, do you support the death of children? Oh, you must support. So if you don’t like the Iraq war, it’s because you like Saddam throwing babies out of incubators. You see how low IQ and silly this is, but it works, right? That’s very useful because most of the public doesn’t operate in a critical thinking way. They operate unfortunately on an emotional basis. And so there’s an emotional reaction to these propaganda, which most of the time they’re fake news stories, right? Especially things that are intended to provoke war, right? The barbarian, for example, Tavistock got really sophisticated with this. Before it was Tavistock, it was called Wellington House. And the Bryce Report wrote up all these stories about how the leader of Germany, the Kaiser, the Kaiser was the butcher. And they just called him the butcher, the beast and butcher, I think they even called him the butcher of Baghdad, or something akin to that, the butcher of whatever, the butcher of Germany. And then they used that butcher of Baghdad for Saddam’s exact same propaganda they used for the Kaiser. And it doesn’t even matter if the stories are true. It’s just in the media that, oh, he’s the butcher of, yeah, we got to take down that Saddam because he’s the butcher. But he’s, I mean, Saddam was trained by the CIA and put in by the CIA, famously, well known. So the same people who can be established, set up by the system, by the West, can then be dispensed with and thrown away when they’re no longer needed. And that’s the unfortunate nature of dialectical manipulation in big geopolitics, but it’s all playing out right now. We just see this with these fake, right, neo-Nazi groups. And that ultimately ties into the long-term picture, I would argue, because the people who are pushing Malthusianism, all the Great Reset crowd, the Davos crowd, Jane Goodall, all those types, Harari, all of those people pushing Great Reset are the same ones that have a face, a veneer of democracy, liberalism, concern, oh, we care about the environment, we care about immigrants. No, they don’t. These are the same people who want the population scaled down 90%. There’s not an actual concern. That’s all for PR. That’s a cloak. And Alex has talked about the liberal cloak all the way back to what Obama deception, right? And yet it still fools people to think that the left cares about humanity. No, the left is a Malthusian cult, a death cult in its inner core. And it controls a giant golem zombie mind control being, this entity of all these people that are in this Borg hive that believe, well, they’re just basically completely controlled androids, right?

I put up a video that humans are becoming robots. I don’t just mean androids in the sense of technology and brain implants. Yeah, that’s true. But people are already androids in the sense of being completely controlled by false narratives and completely worshipping the system. They’re already in a cult. And so they’re all the more going to be susceptible to accepting whatever comes down the pipe when we’re told, as the NATO SIAB document says, there will be pushing back on the system.

all the more gonna be susceptible to accepting whatever comes down the pipe when we’re told, as the NATO SIAB document says, there will be pushed implants and chips. There will be nanotech type injections and so forth that will be pushed. The UK Ministry of Defense document that came out a few years ago, the document about transhumanism, it said that we will have to change global ethics through social engineering, so that people no longer object to having nanotechnology and implementation of various forms of microchipping. It’s not microchips in the classical sense anymore, it’s more like nanotech, so that people accept that.

So you have all of these white paper documents that are coming out, they’re all public, they get declassified or they get released. And yeah, the NATO Cognitive Warfare document is a perfect, it says the exact same thing as the UK Ministry of Defense Transhumanist document. They say the exact same thing. We’re going to have to not just change your mind, but change your genetics.

And there we have Financial Times putting out an article saying, yes, of course the public is the target of PSYOPs. Thank you for finally admitting what we were saying for so long. And by the way, if you don’t like PSYOPs, you’re a bigot. It doesn’t exist, but when it does exist, it’s a great thing. And if you don’t like it, you’re a bigot. It doesn’t exist, but when it does exist, it’s a great thing. And if you don’t like it, you’re a bigot.

If you want to support my work, you can go to my website and get my book, 660 Pages of Geopolitics, the red book, signed copy.