"Psychological and Cognitive Warfare on Citizens"

My Speech at the International Crisis Summit-5 in Washington DC

Click to play video over on Substack

"Psychological and Cognitive Warfare on Citizens"

Transcript as follows:

Thank you so much for coming on behalf of the organizers and the whole ICS initiative, which continues to grow. Thank you for your courage and commitment in all that you've done by just being here. It's clear that you're one of those that are committed to freedom and personal autonomy and sovereignty. I'd like to tell you about the thing that bothers me the most right now.

The truth is, it's not medical freedom. It's not even the problem of the lies that we've been told about the COVIDcrisis or the gross mismanagement of the COVIDcrisis. It's the willingness of governments to deploy modern cognitive and psychological warfare tools and technologies against their own citizenry in combination and particular with the power of modern big tech.

We're all perplexed by what has happened over the last four years, and I think we've all had this gradual series of small awakenings. We have the privilege, as a friend of mine put it to me the other day, of being able right now to go down these various rabbit holes, these various journeys in fact discovery, and discuss them among ourselves. We all find these little tiny factoids of truth in a sea of lies, and we carefully gather those little bits of truth and share them with each other and talk about their deep inner meaning and the implications. We don't think that in five years we may not even be able to do that.

We may look back and say, "Good heavens, we were so free back then in 2024." Just like we look back from today at 2020 and say, "We were so naive." I know I feel that way. I'm now to the point where I look back at my whole life and all the things that I believed.

I love America. I love the land. I love the people. I love the diversity of cultures. I love the commitment to freedom and personal success and the ability of individuals to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and property. But I have had this growing concern in the back of my mind, particularly over the last six to nine months, that maybe we're not the good guys. Maybe some of the things that the government has been doing has been what has led us to this point. Maybe what we're seeing is the maturation of a series of decisions and activities and policies and practices and infrastructure that have been built over my entire lifespan. As I look back and read about Operation Mockingbird, the birth of the CIA, information warfare, psychological warfare.

What I see is that even since the Second World War, really since the founding of the CIA from OSS (Office of Strategic Services), there's been a longstanding policy of the United States government acting in ways particularly offshore, that support their own interests and the interests of large financial organizations, but don't really respect the values that I believed we were all about here in the United States.

Freedom, sovereignty, personal autonomy, the rights of the individual to succeed in society. A resistance to the logic of Marxism and socialism and communism. These things I thought were fundamental American principles. That is, a commitment to self-governance. A belief in the social contract that the citizens of a nation-state, the citizens of the United States, the citizens of Canada, the citizens of Europe, of Romania grant - through an election process. In which we give rights to government in exchange for the government committing to respecting the autonomy, sovereignty and will of the people.

This has been referred to as the social contract. Now what I've come to learn over the last four years, and it seems to be accelerating, this awareness, is that there's a suite of technologies and capabilities that have been developed over decades that are able to influence everything that we think and feel and hear and believe. These technologies have been developed and deployed specifically to advance American interests through State Department and intelligence community and DoD, offshore. They have been outwardly facing. And the same is true in all the Five Eyes nations including Canada, UK, Australia, United States, and New Zealand. This alliance has taken the position that it's acceptable to deploy this kind of propaganda and dirty tricks to do things that we thought were necessary in a very difficult world, very challenging world.

Let me give you an example. Right after World War II, Italy faced an election and the election was on the edge, looked like it might well go towards a political party that would bring Italy into the sphere of influence of the USSR, the Soviet Union. The United States State Department and intelligence communities, thought it was justified to intervene using any dirty tricks they could to influence that election to favor a pro-Western outcome.

They formed an alliance with the Mafia and they succeeded. Now, was that a good thing or a bad thing? Was it ethical? Probably not. Was it a good outcome that Italy ended up in a Western sphere and European Union instead of in a Soviet sphere? We can argue that in reverse, but I think many people would say, "Yeah, that was a relatively good outcome, could have been worse." So there's one example that has been used subsequently to justify the increasing development of a dirty tricks capability involving psychological manipulation, information manipulation, media manipulation, and cognitive manipulation. And like many things in government that has turned into a slippery slope. "Well, it's okay there. Maybe it should be okay here. Maybe we need to influence this government. We need to overturn that government."

The capability gradually built and built, but the consensus in the United States from both parties, hence we refer to the uniparty, was that so long as this remained an outwardly directed tool of foreign affairs and foreign influence, advancing the overall... I'm sorry, imperial interest of the United States and the corporations that were associated with that, that was acceptable so long as they didn't turn it back towards the American citizenry. That was the agreement from both Democrats and Republicans, a general consensus on foreign policy and the willingness of state, DoD and intelligence to cooperate, to influence global affairs, and particularly to influence Europe. We treated Europe almost as our garden, our protectorate.

We chose to act, to ensure that European parties were aligned with American political and economic interests. Then the internet developed. And as the internet developed and became a mature system, truly free, Then there became an awareness that the learning of modern psychology, the teaching, could be integrated with the tools of the internet to profoundly influence the outcome of elections. I think it's in 2015, there was a key paper, peer-reviewed and published that demonstrated that Google by just manipulating the information that a viewer sees on an individual basis in a transitory way, could swing an election by 20 points. Peer-reviewed, carefully validated information, and that data has gotten even stronger since then. Robert Epstein is one of the leaders in this initiative. Google by cooperating with a nation-state or American nation-state and acting in foreign affairs can swing elections by up to 20 points.

That's a fact. And the way they do it is by controlling what you hear, what you think, what you feel, what you are allowed to discuss. And what's not to like? Suddenly the United States had an incredible tool that could be deployed to influence things like, let's say, elections in the Middle East. We could engineer tools, social media tools like Twitter. As I've written before, Twitter was engineered as a weapon, not as a business. It is a intentional social media psychological manipulation weapon is how it was built. I don't have enough time to go into the details. It maps everything about you. This is part of this amazing database infrastructure that's been created to intend to basically know everything about every single person in the globe and manipulate that to whatever end. The United States government deployed Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and the other tools during Arab Spring and had enormous success in overturning regimes throughout the Middle East. It was incredibly powerful, like nothing they had ever seen. This was greased lightning.

And then two things happened. Talk about blowback, Brexit and Donald Trump, and suddenly the intelligence censorship industrial complex, State Department, DoD network and in the United States this has now been placed in the Department of Homeland Security, realized they had a risk. The tech and capabilities they'd built that they had deployed offshore were suddenly creating risk. The risk was that Europe would fragment and if Europe fragmented NATO would fall. We were facing Brexit, Frexit, et cetera. It was looking like much of Europe (the EU) would fall because of the ability of social media to distribute populist messages and disrupt elections, and they had to do something. They had to do something domestically. They had to do something in Canada. They had to do something in the UK. Suddenly we had the formation of organizations like the Trusted News Initiative. They were designed to resist the ability of populist and alternative media to create this kind of sudden abrupt change.

As that developed, there was a decision that this could be a consensus among these core allies. That it was going to be necessary to preserve democracy, much like the decision that it was believed necessary to intervene in the Italian elections right after World War II, for “the good of all of us”. There was a decision that it was going to be necessary “to save democracy”. Democracy defined as basically the idea that large established interests should be the ones able to define who the acceptable candidates are, and then the rest of us could vote among that portfolio. That was the concept. That's the concept that's being promoted now when they talk about saving democracy. In order to save democracy we had to deploy this enormously powerful technology that was designed for largely offshore combat and advancing the interests of the United States government and its allies globally.

It was going to be necessary to deploy that technology against the citizenry. I argue, and I think this is probably one of the most important thing that's come out of me thinking about all this and trying to make sense out of censorship and listening to so many experts that have taught me about psychological manipulation, neuro-linguistic programming and everything else, is that when a government is willing to deploy this technology with its power against its own citizenry, then the concept of sovereignty and personal autonomy becomes completely obsolete. You think you're able to resist this, but the data show that actually it's often the most educated, that are the most susceptible. We are all susceptible to the power of the modern psychological warfare and cognitive warfare technologies. Cognitive warfare being those suites of capabilities that are designed to get into your subconscious. There has been a decision, a consensus, that this is acceptable in order to avoid the effects of these populous movements.

That's where we're at right now. As this was initially justified based on the thesis of Russian bot farms and the threat of Russian election interference, which is why the TNI, “the Trusted News Initiative” was set up and so many of these other entities were built. It was decided that that capability designed to resist Russian intrusion was now going to be necessary to be deployed domestically. And, in particular, there arose a specific example that was going to be necessary to use this technology, the rise of the anti-vaxxer movement. The unwillingness of persons, increasing uneasiness of individuals and parents to accept vaccines for their children. Shortly after this decision was made, this Trusted News Initiative pivoted and was reformulated to address the “anti-vaxxer”. Then suddenly we had this event in late 2019 of the entrance of an engineered coronavirus into the human population in Wuhan, and its rapid spread.

It was deemed necessary to employ this technology, this psychological and cognitive warfare technology on the general population because of the threat of SARS‑CoV‑2, a virus which was by modeling, we now know it highly flawed modeling, going to lead to a 3.4% case fatality rate" or infection fatality rate. That's what we were told. Happens to be exactly the same number that they had, quote, "modeled" during Event 201 in the fall of 2019. We were told, and governments were told, and propagandized all over the world, particularly in the West, that this highly lethal virus was going to pose such an enormous threat that it was acceptable just like it was believed acceptable to interfere in the Italian elections after World War II, it was acceptable and necessary to deploy this kind of technology in order to advance the public good. To ensure that we would have full compliance for the measures that the government prescribed for all of us under the advice of the World Health Organization.

Mr. Tedros now insists that he'd never told anybody they had to lock down or social distance or accept vaccines. That this is all the governments that did this. That was the justification. And now we've seen the explosive growth and maturation of a whole industry, this censorship industrial complex.

What we have now is functionally akin to a series of mercenary armies or mercenary organizations, and they compete with each other. They almost all have academic links at places like Harvard-MIT, and Stanford. These organizations are actively competing with each other to censor and propagandize all of us, and to deploy the most advanced psychological manipulation tools that they can come up with “all for the common good”, all to “preserve democracy”, all to ensure that we have full compliance with vaccines. Now I'm going to close with another insight, I think, that might be helpful to you.

Here's a key question. Why is censorship wrong? We can say it's morally wrong. Well, some might say that's kind of squishy. In a functional way if we were to go up to Javier Milei right now and say, "Why shouldn't we do censorship? What is the argument against it?" Because there's all kinds of arguments that are being made for it by the administrative state in various powers that be in the World Economic Forum and the UN. They all like it. They want to be able to control the message. Think about what that means. Think of it from the standpoint of innovation. What it means is that those powers and forces, governments, economic units, large investment funds, et cetera, that are able to control the narrative, “The Great Narrative”, as Klaus Schwab puts it. What they can do is to lock in consensus around the current solution set, the current state of affairs.

The reason to deploy censorship and psychological technology on the population is to maintain the status quo, which is favorable to some group, some elite group - the oligarchs, we could call them. They want to maintain the current status and they want to do it through possession of this kind of technology. What that does is it creates a situation, particularly in times of change, such as we're in right now, where the difference between the current situation and an optimal solution gets larger and larger and larger. Does that make sense? You're locking in one set of solutions. You're not allowing the culture, the environment, the economies, the governments to adapt to change. You're forcing them to stay in this current situation. The populace observes that their situation relative to what could be becomes worse and worse and worse. There's a larger and larger gap between an optimal solution and the current solution.

Eventually that gap gets so big that it can only be resolved in one way. And we know what that way is. We call it revolution, major social disruption. Now, if you allow free speech and interaction in exchange of ideas in a decentralized environment, what you have is incremental improvements. You never get to that point where the population is so frustrated because they've been locked into a bad set of solutions. You don't have those major disruptions. You have gradual incremental evolutionary change in a society towards a better and better set of solutions for whatever the problem sets are. But by allowing propaganda - “PSYOPs”, what we're doing is we're locking, certainly, the Western population, and increasingly the global population, into a suboptimal set of solutions. Now, one of the other things that happens when you have one of those major disruptions is the population at that point is looking...

Think of the French Revolution.

Think of any revolution.

Populations in general, the average person sees this as a mess. "It's not serving my interests. I'm being pushed just like the Argentines did into worse and worse economic situation. I'm going to revolt. We're going to have some major change." And what do they do? They will take some solution off the shelf, such as Marxism, that's never really been tested. Never worked when it has been tested, but it's sold to them as a solution set. And they'll go ahead and grab that. Not only do we have these sudden disruption events that we call revolutions and the failure to incrementally allow for evolution in society and economics, but we have the willingness of a population to accept and assimilate some solution that's pushed to them, something that's marketed to them that's never been tested before. That's how we end up with these messy situations.

I don't have time to go into all the nitty-gritties and the wiring diagrams and the relationship between CISA and the State Department and all that. We can see that, and I recommend to you the recent Mike Benz interview with Tucker Carlson as a real eye-opener for the whole arc of history about how this is developed. In these brief remarks, I wanted to make the point that if we allow this to happen, we immediately lose sovereignty, autonomy. Any concept of election integrity goes right out the window.

Remember, peer-reviewed, validated paper shows a 20 point difference. All Google has to do is twizzle some knobs and they can basically choose whoever is going to win and whatever party is going to win and what the policies are going to be in pretty much any nation-state in the world right now. But furthermore, if we allow this censorship propaganda, industrial complex to continue to grow and develop, we're going to be in a situation in which we lock the world into a set of suboptimal solutions and prevent it from evolving to give rise to a better world for all of us. With that, I'm going to conclude and thank you for your interest. Again, thank you for being here.