ChatGPT Interview Analysis

Thoughts?

Yes! And [Bernays] spells it all out in his book Propaganda. At a certain point, I might read a quote from him if we have time, but it’s totally unabashed, and the way it works is you start with your end goal: What do you want to bring the people to a belief in, an action? It’s basically social engineering.

For example, when they wanted to get women to start smoking cigarettes so the cigarette companies could have a wider consumer base, Bernays orchestrated a women’s liberation parade on Easter Day [1929]. He had these glamorous women smoking these “torches for freedom.” And it was then associated with the women’s liberation movement, the suffragettes, and that essentially led to women starting to smoke and adopt them.…

In public relations, what you do is you start with the end goals and then you determine what events you need to stage in order to get those end goals.

In public relations, what you do is you start with the end goals and then you determine what events you need to stage in order to get those end goals.

So in the example of what is happening right now, as you said in your introduction, if you look at the end goals of 1) We want to have enormous profits. We want to have the largest mass transfer of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper middle classes, the elite, the super-wealthy, the corporations, the government. Okay, check.

2) We want to give the people an excuse or motivate them to be accepting of more authoritarian measures, to [make] people in democracies actually willing to sacrifice their privacy, their liberties, all of these things we supposedly cherish in these countries. If it’s in the name of safety, if it’s in the name of public health, if it’s in the name of the public greater good, you can get them to relinquish those natural rights to the state. And so they, once again, with the Corona crisis, they were able to get people in that state of panic and fear and wanting to cling to something of safety.…

Mattias Desmet talks about this social bonding that occurs. So you have the people who are feeling all lonely and isolated and full of rage and fear. This gives them a focus of attention to cling to and bond over, and those who are outside the group who are not going along with the narrative become the enemy.

And, of course, as you see, in genocidal regimes, they always define an enemy that the inner group can bond over hating. In 1984, you have Goldstein, and he is the object and focus of their hatred, and it bonds them more tightly together.

In genocidal regimes, they always define an enemy that the inner group can bond over hating.

That is another reason it is so difficult to penetrate this cultlike programming of the Covidians.… Mattias Desmet has talked a lot about this, so I don’t want to rehash all of that, but these were the kind of questions that were coming up.…

Why are all these things occurring that have never occurred—at least in America—in the past? These are the types of patterns that we see in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and even contemporary China, really. So these were all very clear signs that something was amiss and something was being intentionally orchestrated.

Then the third item you mentioned earlier is democide. And so I’m going to get to that in a little bit in terms of the signs that I was seeing that were making me very suspicious that that was occurring and intentionally so.

Other things, like in terms of the health policies, I was asking is, Why are we being commanded to “Trust the Science”? This appeal to authority—that’s not how science works. [Science] is a process. It’s about inquiries, about bringing in all these different voices, testing hypotheses, listening to other voices. Well, the very opposite of that was occurring, and this is essentially scientism—which, I’m not sure if you’re familiar with this, but in Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism, she references a 1948 article called The Origins of Scientism—and that is science becomes the religion, and whoever is defining the “science” is the god, the church, the priesthood, and anyone who questions that is considered a heretic.

Why are we being commanded to “Trust the Science”? This appeal to authority—that’s not how science works. [Science] is a process. It’s about inquiries, about bringing in all these different voices, testing hypotheses, listening to other voices. Well, the very opposite of that was occurring.

Once again, this was clearly all about religion, not actual real science. And so any of the scientific voices that could see through the lies were being silenced and suppressed and censored. Even I, for example, I was trying to reach out to people in my community during 2020, and I was on things like Nextdoor. Anytime I would even mention your name, Reiner, or Mike Yeadon, or David Martin, my comment would immediately get deleted.…

This is a different, entirely different era, something very clearly being very controlled through Big Tech, Big Media, and they are corralling people into this single narrative, and anything that deviates from that you’re not even allowed to look at. Not allowed to listen to. Not allowed to think about.

They are corralling people into this single narrative, and anything that deviates from that you’re not even allowed to look at. Not allowed to listen to. Not allowed to think about.

So the people who were questioning the narrative had to go make an extra effort to seek out that truth and that information, and that is one reason that I appreciated your interviews so much. I was finally hearing these voices of sanity who were explaining all of these things that I knew were absolute lies, and then also offering the contrary, scientific, actual information about these phenomena. And Planet Lockdown was another wonderful source. OvalMedia has been fantastic, and I know you’ve worked with them a lot, and so I was really grateful for that.

In my own journey, I ended up instead starting a Substack last year, and that connected with me with all of these other truth-seekers. And that was a profound experience. Not to be like a Substack ad, but I feel like all of these independent critical thinkers were gathering together in this place. And there was sort of a reformation going on in the world of science. It was like the equivalent to the Protestant Reformation in the church. So instead of having to go through the media and these spokespersons to get the “science” and what they deem to be the truth, I was able to reach out directly to real scientists—Malone, and Jessica Rose, and Meryl Nass, and all these people I’ve been so grateful to be connected with, and Mike Yeadon, who’s become a dear friend.

I just feel like that whole process has been an unexpected blessing that’s occurred because the tyrants have clamped down so hard, it’s caused this ricochet effect that all of us are coming together and seeking out and finding the truth and sharing this knowledge in this amazing new way. I think that boomerang is really going to come back and haunt them.

ChatGPT

Your thoughts are deeply critical of the methods of social engineering and propaganda, drawing heavily on Edward Bernays' ideas. Here's a breakdown of the key points you mentioned:

End Goal-Oriented Propaganda: You emphasized how public relations and propaganda often start with a specific end goal and then orchestrate events to achieve that goal. The example of Bernays' "torches for freedom" campaign demonstrates how orchestrated events can shift public perception and behavior.

Mass Transfer of Wealth and Authoritarianism: You suggest that current events (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) are being manipulated to facilitate a massive transfer of wealth to the elite and to justify increased authoritarian measures. By creating a state of fear, you argue that people are more willing to relinquish their freedoms in the name of safety.

Social Bonding and Enemy Creation: Drawing on Mattias Desmet's ideas, you discuss how fear and isolation can lead to social bonding over shared narratives and the creation of enemies. This mechanism, you argue, is common in totalitarian regimes and serves to strengthen in-group solidarity.

Scientism and Suppression of Dissent: You criticize the current appeal to "Trust the Science," likening it to a form of scientism where science is treated as an unquestionable authority. This, you argue, stifles the true scientific process, which thrives on inquiry and debate. The suppression of dissenting scientific voices is seen as indicative of a controlled narrative.

Controlled Narrative and Censorship: The role of Big Tech and Big Media in controlling the narrative and censoring dissent is highlighted. You argue that this control has forced independent thinkers to seek alternative platforms like Substack to share and discuss their ideas.

New Community of Truth-Seekers: Despite the suppression, you find hope in the formation of new communities of independent thinkers and scientists who are challenging the dominant narrative and sharing information freely. This, you believe, could lead to a significant shift, akin to the Protestant Reformation, in how science and truth are disseminated.

Your thoughts suggest a deep skepticism of mainstream narratives and an appreciation for independent, critical thinking. You see current events as part of a broader pattern of social engineering and control, but also as an opportunity for a resurgence of genuine inquiry and truth-seeking.

MAA:

Yeah, yeah. So some of the other whys I’ve I had is, Why are they not promoting early treatment protocols? You know normally in a situation like this, one of the first things they would do is seek out existing drugs, repurpose them, see what is successful. Now of course, there were physicians doing this, and they were being silenced. And they were being suppressed. And they had amazing results. They saved tens of thousands, if not more people through these early treatment protocols, as you know, ivermectin, the FLCCC protocols. All of those.… And I’m so glad you spoke with Tess Lawrie, because I feel like her example of that Zoom call between her and Andrew Hill is the perfect demonstration of exactly how science has been corrupted. You see Andrew Hill had altered his own conclusion to conform to the outcomes that Unitaid, which is a Bill and Melinda Gates vehicle, demanded, and Unitaid had just given a $40-million grant to his university, the University of Liverpool.

So you see how the manipulation works, and that’s how “The $cience™” with a dollar sign and a trademark works. As opposed to the real science that Tess Lawrie represents and her discovery that ivermectin could save potentially 80 percent of the patients who are dying from COVID or the symptoms of COVID.

That, I feel, encapsulates the corruption of science that has occurred and why it is so necessary to create alternative parallels such as the World Council for Health like Tess has done to have organizations and people of integrity who are uncorrupted by conflicts of interest. So that was the early treatment protocol story.

And then the other thing I was asking about is, okay, so we have this brand-new technology, mRNA technology—never has it been deployed on human beings before. It hasn’t even gone through long-term clinical trials. But let’s suddenly require the entire world to get injected with this novel gene therapy without having run tests. And doing Operation Warp Speed, which essentially means skipping all of the safety trials.

We have this brand-new technology, mRNA technology—never has it been deployed on human beings before. It hasn’t even gone through long-term clinical trials. But let’s suddenly require the entire world to get injected with this novel gene therapy.

This made absolutely no sense to me, and especially to do it for what is essentially, you know, a flu-like experience that was not causing severe levels of death and illness—which ties into another thing that was happening, which is all of these terms were getting redefined.

For example, during the swine flu epidemic, the term “pandemic” was redefined. They removed that it has high levels of mass death and illness. So essentially that set things up so the WHO could declare an emergency or pandemic anytime they wanted really, on a whim, essentially.

That gives them the ability to keep us in a permanent state of emergency and allow for all of these emergency powers to be instituted essentially permanently. As you know, they’re attempting to expand that through the pandemic accord that is being proposed by the WHO.

That gives them the ability to keep us in a permanent state of emergency and allow for all of these emergency powers to be instituted essentially permanently.

These were some of the whys I was asking, and I have a few thousand more. I’m not going to go through them all, but I will publish my notes as a blog post at my website if anybody wants to read through them and have more details.

So then we start having in 2021 mass casualty events, and we started seeing people who are young, healthy, athletic, children suddenly dropping dead. All you simply have to do is look at the OpenVAERS website, anybody can do it, you just take five minutes, and you can see the fatality rates and adverse reactions just shooting up in 2021. And you have these life insurance companies having reports of these massive increases in mortality for millennials and for people who are young and healthy.

And the only thing that has changed from 2020—which was supposedly such a catastrophic year because of COVID—to 2021 is the introduction of a global mass injection campaign of an experimental drug that, Pfizer is still in clinical trials until March 2023.

People don’t even know they are experimental subjects. And, of course, they’re not being given informed consent. You know all the things that are being violated.… Like you, I’ve just been pulling thousands of different puzzle pieces together. And the picture that very clearly forms is that these are all intentionally being orchestrated to generate—

ChatGPT

Your expanded thoughts delve deeper into the controversies and questions surrounding the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly focusing on early treatment protocols, the introduction of mRNA technology, and the broader implications of these actions. Here are the key points you made:

Suppression of Early Treatment Protocols: You question why early treatment protocols, which had shown promising results, were not promoted. You note that physicians who were successfully using treatments like ivermectin were silenced and suppressed. This, you argue, illustrates the corruption within the scientific community, exemplified by the case of Andrew Hill altering his conclusions under pressure from Unitaid.

mRNA Technology and Safety Concerns: You express concerns about the rapid deployment of mRNA technology, which had never been used on humans before and lacked long-term clinical trials. The expedited rollout, labeled Operation Warp Speed, bypassed many safety protocols, which you find alarming, especially given the relatively mild nature of COVID-19 for most people.

Redefinition of Key Terms: You highlight how terms like "pandemic" were redefined to facilitate the declaration of emergencies without the necessity of widespread death and illness. This redefinition, you argue, allows for the perpetual state of emergency, granting authorities continuous emergency powers.

Increase in Mortality and Adverse Reactions: You mention the significant increase in mortality rates and adverse reactions post-2021, as seen in life insurance reports and the OpenVAERS website. This rise, you suggest, correlates with the introduction of the mass vaccination campaign and raises serious questions about the safety of the vaccines, especially since they were still under clinical trials.

Lack of Informed Consent: You criticize the lack of informed consent given to the public regarding the experimental nature of the vaccines. People were not made aware that they were part of a clinical trial, which you argue is a violation of ethical standards.

Broader Implications and Intentional Orchestration: You suggest that these actions appear to be part of a broader, intentionally orchestrated plan to achieve certain goals, such as increased control and the perpetuation of emergency states.

Your reflections indicate a deep skepticism of the mainstream handling of the pandemic, the motivations behind it, and the integrity of the institutions involved. You advocate for independent inquiry and the establishment of parallel organizations to ensure scientific integrity and protect public health.