Elon Musk: Tech Genius! Green Warrior! Biz King! Good Oligarch?

Re: Elon Musk

Today SOTT carries an article by Dana Hull (Hamilton Spectator, originally via Bloomberg) announcing a major speech from Elon Musk for tomorrow (September 27) on the stage of the 67th International Astronautical Congress in Guadalajara, Mexico:


i worked at esa. i see ZERO interest of sending humans to mars with rockets. i find that the first priority should be to understand ufo propulsion physics and understand free energy openly.
 
When you've got the money, the sky is no longer the limit. And billionaire Elon Musk's plans for colonizing Mars show how far wealth and ambition can take you when you get bored of things on Earth. Now add to the equation some rivalling competition from the second most profitable arms trader in the world, and it sounds like a script from Star Wars.

Star Wars: Arms Trade Giant Boeing to Rival Musk's SpaceX Race to Mars (Video)
(3:05 min.)

And if war in outer space was ever on the cards, the last person you'd want to be facing is the CEO of Boeing, Dennis Muilenburg. According to media reports, he spoke about the future plans of the company at the "What's Next" tech conference in Chicago, and developing the supersonic rocket technology to reach the Red Planet ranked high on his company's ambitions list.

It comes as no surprise however, as Boeing have been involved in the commercial space industry for decades and were also the company contracted by NASA during the first missions to the Moon.

Mr. Muilenburg believes it will once again be rocket technology developed by Boeing that will take the first humans to Mars and based on their current Space Launch System partnership with NASA, it's quite likely this is the project he is referring to.

If an egotistical Star Wars style rivalry was to ensue between Space X and Boeing, it could certainly be seen as healthy corporate competition. After all, both company CEOs are well-versed on the dynamics of commercial competition, breeding excellence on the ground, thus something similar in outer space simply makes it that much more exciting for everyone else watching.

So who will be Darth Vader and who is Luke Skywalker?

Well Boeing is certainly closer to the archetype father figure of space exploration alongside their partnership with NASA's billion dollar plus funding pot. This leaves Elon Musk's SpaceX as the new maverick on the block and so equivalent to the self-made, estranged son, much like the Luke Skywalker of space commerce.

SpaceX will be likely to welcome any healthy competition to their recently unveiled plans and it may make Elon Musk's revelations on Twitter that much more exciting too.

Whatever happens, with such heavyweight commercial competition focused on the next frontier of space travel, it's sure to make the strides to Mars that much more greater for mankind.

propulsion by chemical rockets is a dead end. if ufo technology has been back engineered, it must be brought into the open. if not, it must be researched first.
 

Scott Ritter is Back on Twitter

"It could just be a coincidence, but Scott was finally given access to his Twitter account today:"
And now Scott Ritter has been kicked off Twitter permanently (again)
From his April 24th, 2023 substack:

On March 29, 2022, I appeared as a guest on the Alex Jones Show, where I discussed the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and the need for a renewed push for arms control between the US and Russia. I posted the link to this interview to my Twitter account the same day, so that my nearly 115,000 followers could watch and take in what I had to say.

I was permanently banned from Twitter the same day. No mention was made of any specific tweet, just a notification that I had violated some unmentioned “Twitter Rule” and, as such, would never be permitted to post on Twitter again.

I appealed this arbitrary decision, to no avail - Twitter simply ignored me, and the ban remains in effect.

This is the third time Twitter has “permanently” banned me. The first was for daring to observe there was overwhelming evidence that it was Ukraine, not Russia, who perpetrated the slaughter of unarmed civilians in the northern Kiev suburb of Bucha on or around April 1, 2022.

The second was for re-tweeting that same message.

And now this ban.

The cause-effect relationship between my posting the link to the Alex Jones interview and my Twitter ban could be written off as a simple coincidence, if it weren’t for the fact that Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter, has singled out Alex Jones as someone he does not want on Twitter because of his stance on the December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting where 26 people were killed, including twenty children between the ages of six and seven. Alex Jones had called the Sandy Hook shooting a hoax, claiming it was “staged” by the government so they could “go after our guns” and “start a civil war.” Jones also accused the parents of the murdered children of being “crisis actors” who faked their sorrow to turn the public against defenders of the Second Amendment.

In October 2022 a Connecticut court ordered Alex Jones to pay the families of the Sandy Hook victims $965 million in damages for the pain and suffering caused by his words. This ruling was on top of an almost $50 million judgement against Jones in a similar case in Texas.

The Alex Jones-related court decisions present numerous challenges to the notion of free speech protections under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, such as distinguishing the fine line between defamation and the right to express an opinion, regardless of how fact-challenged and odious it might be, and whether free speech can be limited in the so-called interest of the administration of justice. So far, the courts have sided against Mr. Jones and free speech, something that should disturb every American regardless of where one stands on the issue of Sandy Hook.

For the record, I vehemently disagree with Alex Jones on Sandy Hook. The victims of that horrible incident were real, as was the pain and suffering of their family members. By the way, Alex Jones now agrees, having apologized for his past statements and acknowledging that the murders in Sandy Hook were “100% real.”

Subsequent apologies aside, I do believe Mr. Jones has the unfettered right to express himself on this issue, and any issue, as he sees fit, and I find his prosecution/persecution for exercising his right to free speech far more disturbing than his stance on Sandy Hook. One can always go on the record as to why Alex Jones is wrong about Sandy Hook. By punishing Alex Jones for articulating his point of view, the courts have set a chilling precedent which opens the door for similar prosecutions of persons expressing points of view that diverge from the mainstream narrative. If you’re an American citizen and you don’t see that, you are blind.

But it is not just the courts that have put a damper on free speech when it comes to Alex Jones. The foremost advocate for so-called “free speech absolutism”—billionaire Elon Musk—has decided that there are, in fact, limits on what constitutes “absolutism,” and one of those limits is Alex Jones. When queried by author Sam Harris on whether Musk would be lifting the ban on Alex Jones imposed under Twitter’s previous ownership as part of his much-touted “amnesty” program that brought silenced persons such as Donald Trump, Kanye West, and yours truly in from Twitter banishment, Musk declared that the ban would remain in place.

“My firstborn child died in my arms,” Musk tweeted. “I felt his last heartbeat. I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame.”

Getting past whether or not what Musk tweeted was itself factually correct (his ex-wife takes umbrage over his words, declaring that the child, who passed away from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), died in her arms), the hypocrisy of Elon Musk’s statement is mind-boggling.

Let’s start with the case of Petro Poroshenko (@poroshenko, a still-active, unbanned account). In November 14, 2014, then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko delivered a speech to the citizens of Odessa, in which he spoke about how Ukraine was going to win the war in the Donbas. In a rambling address, the Ukrainian leader spoke about the situation faced by the citizens of the Donbas, comparing their lot to that of normal Ukrainians. “Because we have jobs, and they have not. We have pensions, and they have not. We have support of children and pensioners, they have not. Our children would go to kindergartens and schools, theirs would be sitting in cellars.”

On April 14, 2014, Petro Poroshenko declared war on the people of the Donbas, establishing an “Anti-terrorist operation” (ATO) which unleashed the Ukrainian military against those Ukrainian citizens who objected to the illegal, US-backed coup that ousted the constitutionally elected government of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Through June 30, 2021, 3,390 civilians were killed as a result—including more than 150 children.

There is a monument to these slain children in Donetsk, listing the names of the dead and the date they were killed because of Petro Poroshenko’s war against his own people.

Read each name, Elon. You chose to support baby killers. And you continue to provide them with unfettered access to your Twitter platform.

F**k you, Elon.

But it gets worse for the so-called poster child of internet free speech. Elon Musk can pontificate all he wants about the sanctity of the lives of children. But the fact is he has not just sided with baby killers—the company Musk owns actively facilitates the ongoing murder of children in the Donbas. Starlink is a system of satellite terminals provided to Ukraine by SpaceX, a company owned and operated by Elon Musk. While SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell has declared that Starlink technology was “never meant to be weaponized,” she openly acknowledges that SpaceX has found it acceptable practice by the Ukrainian government to use Starlink to support military communications. When SpaceX discovered that Starlink was being used by the Ukrainian military to direct drone strikes against Russia, the company claims it took unspecified measures to prevent this from happening.

Elon Musk himself has acknowledged the dilemma that exists in providing Ukraine with the Starlink technology. “SpaceX Starlink has become the connectivity backbone of Ukraine all the way up to the front lines,” Musk noted. “This is the damned if you do part. However,” he added, “we are not allowing Starlink to be used for long-range drone strikes. This is the damned if you don’t part.”

But Musk remains silent about the role played by Starlink in facilitating attacks on civilian infrastructure in the Donbas by Ukraine using HIMARS artillery rocket systems. Vadym Skibitsky, Ukraine’s deputy head of military intelligence and principal spokesperson for the intelligence service, has openly acknowledged the role played by western satellites in obtaining intelligence on targets to be struck using HIMARS, and how these targets are transmitted “in real time” using Starlink.

In July 2022, the Ukrainian army used HIMARS rockets to attack the Donetsk village of Makiivka, striking a playground where young children were playing at the time. Two boys were killed on the spot, and an 8-year-old girl later died in intensive care.

Their deaths are on you, Elon. Alex Jones did not help pull the trigger of the Sandy Hook murderer’s weapon. Can you say the same thing about those who fire the HIMARS rockets at civilian targets in the Donbas?

No.

F**k you, Elon.

I was banned by Twitter, it seems, because I had the audacity to appear on the Alex Jones Show, and then post evidence of this on my Twitter account.

My appearance was focused solely on the issue of nuclear disarmament and the need for effective arms control between the US and Russia. I couldn’t think of a more compelling and important issue for someone who claims, as Elon Musk does, to be a defender of children.

Tens of thousands of Japanese children died as a result of the dropping of atomic bombs by the US on two Japanese cities—Hiroshima and Nagasaki—in August 1945. Tens of thousands more suffered from radiation poisoning and other consequences of the attacks. Tens of thousands of others were stillborn or born with serious birth defects that ended up costing them their lives.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in comments made in Japan earlier this week, acknowledged the attacks as representing “the most powerful reminder of the unprecedented devastation and immense human suffering that the people of Japan experienced as a result of the atomic bombings in 1945.” Blinken, however, failed to make mention of the fact that it was the United States who perpetrated them.

I’d think that a man who goes out of his way to rewrite history in a way that obviates US complicity in the deaths of tens of thousands of children maybe should have—if we are invoking the “Alex Jones” standard—his Twitter account suspended. But “nuclear holocaust” denier Antony Blinken still tweets using his @SecBlinken handle.

Double standard? Hypocrisy?

You better believe it.

F**k you, Elon.

I’m appearing on the Alex Jones Show today at 2 pm EDT. We will discuss disarmament, Russophobia, and my upcoming trip to Russia, among other topics. We will discuss how we can motivate people to become more engaged about the critical issues of the day, issues that impact the lives of many millions of Americans, including children.

While Alex Jones’ millions of viewers and listeners will be able to avail themselves of the insights and information that will be generated by this appearance, my nearly 115,000 followers on Twitter, along with the potentially millions of others who might have engaged through the Twitter platform, will not.

Elon Musk is not the solution to free speech he claims to be.

He is very much the problem, as is Twitter itself.

F**k you, Elon.
 
Elon Musk announced his decision to step down as CEO of the social media platform, reportedly choosing to hand the helm to Linda Yaccarino, in a move that signifies a significant change in leadership at Twitter.

Yaccarino has had a remarkable amount of success during his time as chairman of Global Advertising and Partnerships at NBC Universal. She oversaw strategies that led to over $100 billion in ad sales and was instrumental in the network’s streaming service Peacock’s launch. It is likely that Musk is hoping she can fix Twitter’s massive loss of advertising revenue during his tenure.

She also chaired the taskforce on the future of work at the WEF, where she contributed to discussions and policies that shaped the global employment landscape in the wake of rapid technological advancements.

Although conservatives are concerned about her WEF ties, others point to her appointment by President Donald Trump to serve a two-year term on his council of Sports Fitness and Nutrition in 2018.

 
An interview by Dr Mercola with James Corbett (Corbet Report) released on the 14th of May
discussing Elon Musk and AI, among other things


Transcribed interview:

STORY AT-A-GLANCE​

  • Rather than squabbling about controlled opposition, we would be better served by spending our time productively engaged in research, verifying and triangulating information to discern what is true and what is false
  • “Divide and conquer” is the primary way the control network maintains control, and all that’s needed to divide a previously unified front is insinuation and the seeding of doubt
  • As AI-equipped chatbots are getting more sophisticated and start to monopolize online searches and virtual assistants, state-endorsed propaganda may become the only information available
  • Narrative is the ultimate weapon; with a convincing-enough narrative, you can motivate entire populations to go to war or anything else that you want them to do
  • One of the most important strategies you can implement to prepare yourself for the likelihood of what they plan on throwing at us next lies with community, meeting like-minded people that share your views and complement your skills. It will also be wise to relocate from high density urban areas
In this video, I interview investigative journalist James Corbett about false narratives, the global takeover by technocracy, controlled opposition and the dangers of artificial intelligence, as well as the solutions to these and other challenges.
Corbett’s journalism career began in the aftermath of 9/11, when he became “overwhelmed to discover that we are constantly lied to through the mainstream media.” 9/11 was his “red pill” moment, and he hasn’t stopped digging for the truth since.
“The discrepancy between the things that I was finding online versus what was being reported on the evening news just started getting wider and wider,” he says, “to the point where I felt that ... I had to insert myself in that conversation. So that's the reason we're talking today.”
In 2007, Corbett launched his website, CorbettReport.com. One of his hallmarks, both in his documentaries and regular reports, is impeccable citations of sources.
“I always put up the transcript with the hyperlinks to the source documents for every single quotation, every video clip, everything that I'm playing,” he says. “I want to direct people back to the source material so that they can research it for themselves.
I know, as a researcher myself who does this for a living, that's incredibly valuable. I very much appreciate it when other people do it, so I'm trying to set that example in the alternative media.”

Can the Global Takeover Be Derailed?​

Corbett is also featured on “Good Morning CHD” with Dr. Meryl Nass once a month, an online news show by Children’s Health Defense.
“It's a valuable way, for both of us, to continue keeping our eye on the ball of the World Health Organization and its latest machinations ... of the global pandemic treaty and the international health regulations (IHR) amendments that they're working on right now, which really could be the hardwiring of the biosurveillance infrastructure,” Corbett says.
When asked whether he believes the pandemic treaty and/or the IHR amendments can be stopped, Corbett replies:
“Well, they are planning on unleashing the global pandemic treaty on the world at the World Health Assembly (WHA) next year, May of 2024. And preparatory to that, they're going to be holding a World Health Assembly this month, at which they'll be talking about the draft of the treaty and the draft of the IHR amendments and other such developments.
So, we're looking at about a one-year timeline before whatever it is they're cooking up will be foisted upon the world, unless there is some dramatic movement to stop that.
In the short run, it seems unlikely that the incredible institutional momentum is going to be derailed, but having said that, we could look at things that have happened in the past that have completely derailed agendas that seemed inevitable, including the 2009 edition of the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
In 2009, the UNFCCC was being promoted and hyped — even by the then-president of the EU — as the potential for world government through a new climate accord that would completely rewrite the international rule books.
That was completely derailed by a couple of interesting incidents, one of which was Climategate ... Squabbles between some of the developing nations versus the developed world ... [also] helped to derail that 2009 conference.
There's potentially a similar thing happening [now] with the WHO trying to foist regulations and restrictions on developing countries that can't afford them. As we saw over the course of the past few years, it was the African countries that held out against the biosecurity state agenda, to a large degree.
And I think people who are interested in invoking a global biosecurity surveillance net probably are most concerned about how developing countries will or will not participate in this. So, there may be a similar sort of geo-economic squabbling or something else that might derail this, so I don't think we should simply consign ourselves to the inevitability of it before it happens.”

Is Elon Musk Controlled Opposition?​

Determining the trustworthiness of people within the alternative news space is a challenge everyone is faced with these days. Accusations of people being controlled opposition are common. The same goes for high-profile individuals in general. For example, some people, including Corbett and investigative journalist Whitney Webb, believe Elon Musk is likely controlled opposition. What led them to that conclusion?
“It's a question that a lot of people have, so let's dig into it,” Corbett says. On the one side you have people who believe Musk is exposing and undermining the military industrial intelligence complex. On the other are those who think he’s just playing a “good guy” role while surreptitiously furthering Deep State goals. As noted by Corbett, it’s hard to overlook the massive support Musk has received from the military industrial intelligence complex over the course of his career.
“We don't have to speculate about that,” Corbett says. “That is a matter of public record. We can point to the half a billion dollars or so that the Department of Defense has awarded SpaceX in a series of contracts over the past few years to send satellites up into orbit of classified nature on unregistered, unreported missions that presumably have something to do with the DOD’s declared intention to make space into a war-fighting domain.
There's the $3 billion in NASA contracts that SpaceX was awarded in 2021 to develop the human lander for the Artemis Mission, and the never-going-to-happen constantly delayed moon trip that the public is being promised. There’s the $750 million that was awarded to Solar City in 2016 by the state of New York to build a solar cell production facility.
This, again, is another aspect of the business opportunities that Musk is involved in that I think shrieks of grift — a boondoggle at the very least, constantly promising a technology that not only doesn't deliver but actually is actively harmful to the environment. I think that's something that needs to be stressed.
Then, there’s the $1.3 billion that Tesla got from the State of Nevada in 2014 to build the Gigafactory, etc., etc., etc. We could go through the list of such help, but perhaps more to the point was the fact that before Elon Musk got to launch SpaceX, he was part of a trip to Russia ... to purchase old Soviet ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles]. That trip ultimately resulted in the starting of SpaceX.
Who was accompanying Elon Musk on that trip? Someone named Mike Griffin, who just happened to be the chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, which is the CIA's investment capital arm ...
Griffin went on to become the administrator of NASA, who then chose SpaceX as the one company out of the 20 that was applying for it at the time, for this $400 million contract to start development of the new ISS resupply rocket in 2005, which basically launched SpaceX ... and again awarded SpaceX $3.5 Billion in 2008 with a contract that Musk himself credits with saving the company.
So, there you go, the literal deep state connections couldn't get much clearer. At every stage of Musk's business career, he has been saved as need be with the deus ex machina of deep state agents like Mike Griffin swooping in with billions of dollars of contracts at just the right time.”
That’s why Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover and the release of the Twitter Files may seem to be a move against the military-industrial complex, but given Musk’s documentable ties to that very same military-industrial complex, we must be wary of placing faith in these developments.
After all, Twitter is a centralized platform that lends itself to censorship, algorithmic manipulation and information suppression, and Musk has openly stated that he wants to create a “WeChat”-like app capable of handling every aspect of its users’ digital life.

Download this Article Before it Disappears​

Download PDF

Why Did Musk Release the Twitter Files?​

Corbett suggests that the best way to evaluate Musk’s ideas and contributions is to assess their outcomes.
“Is what Elon Musk advocating good or bad? Do we agree with it or do we disagree with it? Is it right or wrong? And why do we think so? That has to be the heart that we keep coming back to. So, we have to evaluate Musk's ideas on that basis,” he says.
“For example, there are ideas that Musk promotes that I am 100% onboard with. He has talked about the overpopulation myth and the under-population crisis that humanity is facing. I very much agree with him on that assessment. When he talks about the ill effects of lockdowns ... absolutely, I think he's right about that.
However, when he talks about the imposition of a carbon tax in line with Bill Gates and Mark Carney and the like, I think he's pushing a bad idea that is part of a plan for centralization of control in globalist hands.
When he gets on the stage of the World Government Summit and argues for universal basic income, again in line with any number of globalist operatives, I think he is promoting an idea that will be used for centralization of economic control in fewer hands.
When he talks about the ... Neuralink brain chip ... [he’s] exactly in line with what [World Economic Forum founder] Klaus Schwab has been arguing ... I think that is a bad idea that is going to be used for control of the masses by a technocratic elite.”
As for Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and subsequent release of the Twitter Files, Corbett doesn’t think it’s a great surprise to find that the military industrial intelligence complex has been using it to monitor and manipulate people. He believes Musk’s job may well be to make the platform trustworthy again so that government agencies can continue using it for surveillance and control.
There’s other evidence pointing in this direction as well. Musk has said he wants Twitter to become the WeChat app of America. And what is WeChat? It’s a Chinese government-controlled app that monitors every aspect citizens' lives, including their financial transactions, social transactions, communications, whereabouts and more.
It’s basically the foundation for the communist social credit system. So, while Musk claims to be a defender of free speech, he’s also talking about turning Twitter into THE central hub for the technocratic surveillance and control network.

Stop Looking for a Savior​

As noted by Corbett, what we need to do is “take responsibility for our own lives rather than looking for saviors like Elon Musk to swoop in and save the day.” We can’t lay that burden on any given individual or group of individuals. We must all do our part.
“I think the conversation can get stuck on stupid because even though I tend to believe that Musk is some form of collaborator with the deep state that he pretends to oppose, I don't have proof of that and I do not know that for a fact, in the same way that his defenders do not know for a fact that he is not part of that controlled opposition,” Corbett says.
“We can spend all our time and energy talking about this person and what we think their part is in all of this, or we could spend that time productively engaged in research, actually verifying, triangulating information, discerning what is true and what is not true.
When we take information down to that level, then it does not matter who is the person out there conveying that information to us. The important part is the information.”
It’s also important to understand that “divide and conquer” is the primary way the control network maintains control, and all that’s needed to divide a previously unified front is insinuation and the seeding of doubt. In the short-term, the globalist takeover seems to have an unstoppable momentum behind it, but seemingly inevitable moves toward tyranny have been derailed at the last minute in the past and we must not give up hope or stop resisting. As explained by Corbett:
“The term cognitive infiltration goes back to Cass Sunstein, the person who became Obama's information czar ... He co-wrote a paper about cognitive infiltration in which he openly stated:
‘The government maybe should send people into conspiracy spaces, conspiracy groups, with cognitive infiltrators who will go in there and conceal their identity as being affiliated with the government, but will try to insert facts that will break the narrative of the conspiracy theorists.’
And what was the result of that paper? Rather than anyone having been exposed as being that cognitive infiltrator on the payroll of the U.S. government, what it effectively did was give people ammunition to speculate endlessly.
‘This person is a cognitive infiltrator, that person is a cognitive infiltrator,’ to the point where, ultimately, I think Sunstein wins without even necessarily having to implement that system at all, because ... the group fractures once the idea of pointing fingers at everyone becomes the norm ...
That is, in fact, precisely how the FBI's COINTELPRO program worked back in the 1950s and '60s ... One of the tactics they used was to put people into meetings in various spaces, the Black Panthers and others, in order to start spreading rumors and calling other people government agents.
The government agents were generally the ones that we're calling other people government agents in order to disrupt the groups, so I think we have to keep that in mind and keep our eye on the real prize here, which is discerning fact from fiction, truth from falsity, productive ways forward from unproductive ways forward.”

ChatGPT and the Future of Propaganda​


I’ve often marveled at the effectiveness of modern propaganda. Part of what makes it so effective is the availability of technology, from social media and search engines to large language model artificial intelligence. OpenAI’s ChatGPT has taken the world by storm and companies across a range of industries are already talking about replacing large numbers of white collar workers with AI.
This, even though there are serious problems with this technology. For example, we’re finding chatbots have a tendency to lie and fantasize. Researchers are calling these instances “hallucinations.” Basically, the AI is concocting a fantasy based on the information available and reciting it as fact. And that’s in addition to the bias that can be built in by programmers. So, while it’s an incredibly exciting technology, we cannot be naïve about its risks.
One obvious risk is that state-endorsed propaganda can become the only information available to people, as this technology starts monopolizing online searches and virtual assistants.
There won’t be a multitude of answers anymore. There will only be one, and he who controls the AI will have the power to control the beliefs of the entire world. Of course, yet another risk is that no one will be able to control it and the AI will control itself. I don’t know which might be worse. Corbett comments:
“You introduced this topic with the concept of propaganda and potential uses of large language models for propagandistic purposes. We should go back to the man who wrote the book on propaganda called ‘Propaganda,’ Edward Bernays, who [said]:
‘The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country.’
That was Edward Bernays in 1928. His words are as true today as they were then, perhaps even more so. And the true ruling power of the country, of the world at this point perhaps, are those who can most effectively, consciously and intelligently manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses.
And I don't think enough people have really stopped to cogitate on the fact that these large language models already starting to produce material that really cannot be distinguished from human-written material ...
You don't have to be a crystal ball prognosticator to see how this will extend out in the foreseeable future ... [to] the point where you can have entire conversations, entire fields of interest and study that will be completely populated by artificial-created conversation ...
A large language model that is able to accurately and without much prompting be able to populate botnets to flood social media and other places will essentially be able to dominate that conversation, [and] will consciously and intelligently manipulate the habits and opinions of the masses. At that point, you are talking about the ultimate weapon.
The ultimate weapon is narrative, because with a convincing-enough narrative, you can get entire populations motivated to war or to anything else that you seek to get them to do, like say lock down the entire productive global economy on the back of a scare that was absolutely not warranted.
So, I think once we start getting these completely synthetically-generated narratives, that will start creating these entire events that are not happening in the real world. [These events] will be deep-faked through video and audio and everything else, to convince you of an entire reality that doesn't exist.
We are really moving into some truly world historical changing times and I don't know if enough people are really cognizant of ... how this technology could be used for good or for ill ...
I think there is a real threat, and it is probably underappreciated by a large section of the public that are not keeping abreast of the daily torrent of information on this subject ... Some of the testing notes for ChatGPT-4 that were released showed there was a team that was tasking the chatbot with a certain task that would require it to do things that it was not programmed to do, or even authorized to do, including solving a CAPTCHA ...
[The chatbot] actually went on Fiverr or one of those types of platforms and recruited a human being to do it for it, to the point where the human said, ‘Why are you recruiting me to do a CAPTCHA? How do I know you're not a bot? Ha-ha-ha.’ To which it responded, ‘I'm blind, I'm visually impaired, I can't do it myself.’ Ultimately, it ended up getting that CAPTCHA solved.
It does not take a great degree of imagination to see where that can go. I don't know what kind of safeguards you can program into a technology like that, other than to completely keep it firewalled off from the internet and from any other computer system that it may be able to commandeer.”

Solutions Watch​

On his website, Corbett has a section called The Solutions Watch, where he proposes action steps that you can take to address a given problem, both big and small. For example, on the smaller scale, he’s discussed the importance of filtering your water, and testing your water to ensure it’s being filtered properly.
“One thing that I think is sort of the foundation upon which we will have to build any thoroughgoing answer to the problems we're facing is creating conscious community with others,” Corbett says.
“Of course, that can take the form of online and virtual community. I'm not going to pooh-pooh or disdain that. I think it is important to know like-minded people online. But increasingly, how can we trust what we are reading, seeing or interacting with online?
I think the real point is to try to build real community with real people in the real world. That could take the form of intentional communities that are created from the ground up as a physical location that people will relocate to ... but I think it is extremely difficult to do that.
But at the very least, people can and should be finding like-minded people within their geographical proximity that they can meet up with, who will be there in emergencies, hopefully. But also that they can start forming small groups, that they can start teaching each other about various things that they may know and bringing solutions to the table.
I think that can be the core basis upon which we start erecting other things, because one thing that I've looked at over the years are some of these big, huge issues that seem utterly overwhelming and completely impenetrable to the average person, like the fundamental fraud that underlies the economy itself is the monetary system, which for people who haven't looked into it, the money supply itself is very much controlled, and the creation of money is a tool that is used for enslavement.
It could be used for human flourishing, but is not in our current economy. How do we possibly combat a problem as thoroughgoing as that? [Many people] I encounter online have ideas about the perfect alternative currency ... but [they] haven't convinced anyone to use it. To me, that speaks to the fundamental problem.”

Build Community and Get Out of Metropolitan Areas​

At the top of Corbett’s solutions list is building parallel communities. That’s really a foundational strategy because without it, many other solutions can’t work. To that, I would add the recommendation to move out of crime-ridden urban and metropolitan areas and into areas where this kind of community-building is more likely to succeed. As noted by Corbett:
“Until you have a community of people who are going to be working together on projects like an alternative or supplemental currency system, how are you going to launch something like that in a thoroughgoing manner?
I think the core of the solutions that we're looking for lies with community, meeting like-minded people ... I'm not into this Pollyanna thinking that it's all going to be easy. It’s an incredibly, incredibly difficult task to start creating an alternate currency, an alternate power grid and the alternate society that we need to protect ourselves, to buffer ourselves from this encroaching biosecurity, technocratic enslavement grid.
That's a pretty tall order, and I can't offer any assurances that it's going to turn out all right. But I do know that if we just lay down and continue on the course that we're on, we are hurtling towards a brick wall of extinction, essentially. I really see this as a fundamental existential question that we are facing not just on the artificial intelligence front, but also on the genomic manipulation front, on the manipulation of the food supply.
If you are what you eat, then what does it mean that they're going to start feeding us insects and other such unpalatable items?
It is absolutely a war that is taking place on every front, all at once, and we're not going to get through this by ourselves. Unless you are the type of person that can go out in the woods and live by yourself for decades ... I don't think you're going to escape this all by yourself, so I think creating community is sort of the core of all solutions.”

More Information​

Corbett’s reports, Solution Watch and documentaries can all be found on his website, CorbettReport.com. He also does a weekly news update series with James Evan Pilato of mediamonarchy.com, in which they examine three news stories that are either trending or have slipped beneath the radar. “We try to draw attention to them and put them in the right context,” Corbett says.
Corbett’s work can also be found on BitChute, Odyssee, Rumble, Rokfin and Substack. Other trustworthy news sources that Corbett recommends include but are not limited to:
 
Another article on Elon Musk.

https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F06dfcbf3-0e88-4ae5-828c-1aaae1a44941_998x998.jpeg


 
Elon Musk announced his decision to step down as CEO of the social media platform, reportedly choosing to hand the helm to Linda Yaccarino, in a move that signifies a significant change in leadership at Twitter.

Yaccarino has had a remarkable amount of success during his time as chairman of Global Advertising and Partnerships at NBC Universal. She oversaw strategies that led to over $100 billion in ad sales and was instrumental in the network’s streaming service Peacock’s launch. It is likely that Musk is hoping she can fix Twitter’s massive loss of advertising revenue during his tenure.

She also chaired the taskforce on the future of work at the WEF, where she contributed to discussions and policies that shaped the global employment landscape in the wake of rapid technological advancements.

Although conservatives are concerned about her WEF ties, others point to her appointment by President Donald Trump to serve a two-year term on his council of Sports Fitness and Nutrition in 2018.


Echoes of how the AI infrastructure he has been building can be easily co-opted and hacked too. Perhaps PTB need a hard-working man from the conservative side of things (unlike the liberal version where lots of the engineers lived privileged/lazy lives, causing Twitter to lose a lot of money before Musk took over) to build the Twitter infrastructure, to then just take over and make key decisions.

One of the major pushes Musk is adding is monetization, which investors will see as an opportunity to build from, therefore opening the possibility of manipulation from corporate interests, which may not be benign.

Musk has his heart in the right place, but his level of knowledge may leave him open to other influences. Who knows, the story ain't over yet!
 
Musk has his heart in the right place, but his level of knowledge may leave him open to other influences. Who knows, the story ain't over yet!
I agree, the story must go on.. but also, he has to make that platform profitable somehow, otherwise he's got no reason or way to keep it open. So I am of the mind to give Twitter the benefit of the doubt for the time being and seeing what direction it goes.

And I do think we have a great way to test it with Tucker's resent announcement, the way he's treated will be a decent sign of where things are headed.
 
I agree, the story must go on.. but also, he has to make that platform profitable somehow, otherwise he's got no reason or way to keep it open. So I am of the mind to give Twitter the benefit of the doubt for the time being and seeing what direction it goes.

And I do think we have a great way to test it with Tucker's resent announcement, the way he's treated will be a decent sign of where things are headed.

It's a catch 22, he must do it, but he has battles ahead of him indeed.. The last point is a good one too—all eyes on the feedback.

One of interviews here by the Babylon Bee (but is more of a serious nature) is also a good sign and does make me hopeful!

 
It reminded me of what Jordan Peterson said once about remaining compliant with the Covid/woke diktats, someone argued that for some, or maybe most?, speaking their minds at work and be fired or quit their jobs would put them in a bad position financially. For which he responded that while some measure can be taken to avoid income loss, there comes a time where you have to just take a stand.

I think Musk is doing that. During that question he tried to look for an answer, perhaps a "reasonable" one, but I saw him struggling with his words. I guess he just dropped the narratives and went for the true reason, the authentic one.
 
It reminded me of what Jordan Peterson said once about remaining compliant with the Covid/woke diktats, someone argued that for some, or maybe most?, speaking their minds at work and be fired or quit their jobs would put them in a bad position financially. For which he responded that while some measure can be taken to avoid income loss, there comes a time where you have to just take a stand.

I think Musk is doing that. During that question he tried to look for an answer, perhaps a "reasonable" one, but I saw him struggling with his words. I guess he just dropped the narratives and went for the true reason, the authentic one.

I agree that for overall net positive and beneficial outcomes, we would have to learn when to remain silent in any given situation and when to speak out publicly. Putting information out anonymously is one avenue, and so is remaining silent at work (within limits).

However, it is also important in some cases (for some people in the spotlight or some people who OUGHT to be in the spotlight) to publicly take a stand, but IMO it should be done strategically. That means having all the bases covered in relation to knowledge of how to counter attacks, how to deal with petty tyrants and other portals of attacks, etc., before taking a stand publicly. No need to be a perfectionist, because attacks come from so many directions and there are seemingly endless blind spots we aren't aware of from a 3d sts pov, but taking some reasonable measures before putting yourself out there is probably a good idea.

With all that being said, I think it's best for most people to remain as anonymous as possible when sharing vital knowledge and information, while playing a role for the most part publicly. By playing a role, I mean remaining silent at work and social media, but creating a blog or website completely anonymously with all the computer security protocols, etc. It's possible this might be the only option left in the future.
 
Back
Top Bottom