Tucker Carlson recently interviewed retired Green Beret Lt. Col. Tony Aguilar, a West Point graduate who worked as a contractor distributing aid for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in May and June of this year. Aguilar described the chaotic, cruel process for feeding the captive Palestinian population that limits distribution to only four centers, excluding many starving people. In addition, the distribution centers are near active Israeli combat zones and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) fires on the desperate Palestinians routinely.
According to Wikipedia, since May 27, 2025, amid the famine in Gaza caused by the Israeli blockade, more than 1,373 Palestinian civilians seeking aid have been killed and thousands more have been wounded in the Gaza Strip when being fired upon by the Israel Defense Forces, armed gangs, and contractors hired by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
Aguilar exposed the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as an opaque organization led by individuals with little to no humanitarian expertise, including a Christian Zionist leader with political ambitions. The foundation’s refusal to disclose funding sources, operational details, or allow independent inspections raises serious concerns over the misuse of funds and efficacy. The departure of key personnel citing unethical practices further signals systemic dysfunction and corruption, undermining the legitimacy of the aid mission.
.
Full interview:
Summary by the Greanville Post:
Colonel Aguilar, a retired U.S. Army Green Beret with 25 years of combat experience and multiple deployments, recently worked with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) from May to June 2025 to help distribute humanitarian aid in Gaza. (GHF is a business!) His firsthand experience reveals a grim and harrowing reality of the Gaza Strip, describing it as a post-apocalyptic war zone devastated by relentless violence and severe deprivation. Aguilar highlights the failure and mismanagement of the current humanitarian aid system in Gaza, which replaced the United Nations’ aid delivery after a blockade shut off the enclave. The GHF operates only four aid distribution sites, all located dangerously close to active Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) combat zones, far from the majority of Gaza’s population concentrated in the north and central areas.
Aguilar exposes systemic issues including inadequate aid delivery, starvation, and the dehumanizing treatment of Palestinian civilians by the IDF, which includes shooting at unarmed crowds to control them during aid distributions. He provides a poignant account of a young boy named Amir, who was emaciated and killed by IDF gunfire after attempting to get food. Aguilar accuses the GHF leadership, particularly its director Johnny Moore, of lacking transparency, humanitarian expertise, and accountability. He warns that the foundation’s operation exacerbates suffering and starvation, while U.S. taxpayers unknowingly fund an ineffective and potentially criminal system.
Throughout the interview, Aguilar condemns violations of international humanitarian laws and Geneva Conventions by both the IDF and the aid distribution mechanisms. He stresses the moral and legal obligation of the United States to cease funding GHF, reinstate the UN aid system, and demand accountability. Aguilar also appeals to Israel and the IDF to uphold human dignity despite the trauma caused by Hamas attacks, emphasizing that dehumanizing the civilian population violates both law and shared human values. His testimony serves as a call to action for greater transparency, ethical leadership, and compliance with international law in the delivery of aid and conduct of warfare in Gaza.
Key Insights
Credibility through Combat Experience: Aguilar’s 25 years in the U.S. Army, including deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and other conflict zones, lend significant credibility to his observations in Gaza. His ability to interpret chaotic combat environments provides a rare, expert perspective on the humanitarian crisis, distinguishing his testimony from politically motivated narratives. This background allows him to identify violations of the laws of armed conflict with precision and authority.
Gaza’s Devastation Exceeds Other War Zones: Aguilar compares Gaza’s destruction to a post-apocalyptic scene, surpassing even the ravaged landscapes he witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This highlights the unprecedented scale of violence and infrastructure collapse, which complicates the delivery of humanitarian aid and exacerbates civilian suffering. The physical devastation is not just collateral damage but reflects a systematic and severe assault on civilian life and dignity.
Inadequate and Misplaced Aid Distribution: The GHF’s operation of only four aid sites — three clustered in the southern Gaza combat zones and one in central Gaza near Israeli tanks — is grossly insufficient. Before the blockade, there were 400 aid sites serving the population. This drastic reduction means the majority of Gaza’s population, especially in the north, remains isolated and starving. This tactical misplacement of aid centers within active combat zones not only endangers civilians but violates international humanitarian principles that protect aid distribution from military use and proximity to fighting.
Indiscriminate Use of Force by IDF Against Civilians: The IDF’s use of machine guns, mortars, tank rounds, and shooting at the feet or over the heads of civilians to control crowds at aid sites constitutes excessive and indiscriminate force. The chaotic scenes Aguilar describes — thousands of starving civilians walking up to 12 kilometers to reach aid, then being shot at during distribution — illustrate a fundamental disregard for civilian protection under the Geneva Conventions. This behavior results in preventable civilian casualties and reflects a breakdown of discipline and leadership within IDF reserve forces.
Human Cost Personified by Amir’s Story: The story of Amir, a young boy emaciated and killed after seeking food at a distribution site, personalizes the broader humanitarian crisis. Aguilar’s direct interaction with Amir — including the boy’s gesture of respect and his ultimate death — underscores the human tragedy behind the statistics. This narrative challenges political denials and propaganda, emphasizing the tangible consequences of military and aid distribution failures on innocent civilians, especially children.
Scientists from Western Michigan University are pushing a plan to supposedly “fight climate change” that involves deliberately spreading a dangerous tick-borne disease that can trigger a lifelong fatal allergy to red meat.
As part of a plan to ensure that the United States complies with the globalist “Net Zero” agenda, the scientists argue that the public must be prevented from eating meat to dramatically reduce America’s cattle numbers.
They argue that cattle for the meat industry are causing “global warming” and must be eliminated.
To forcibly block the American people from eating meat, they propose using ticks to spread a disease among the public, which means people will die if they consume it.
The shocking academic paper outlining the plan was published in the peer-reviewed journal Bioethics.
The paper was authored by Western Michigan University medical ethics professors Parker Crutchfield and Blake Hereth.
Crutchfield and Hereth claim it may be “morally obligatory” to proliferate the lone star tick across the United States.
The bite of this tick can inject a sugar molecule called alpha-gal into the human body, triggering Alpha-Gal Syndrome (AGS).
AGS is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that can cause allergic reactions to beef, pork, lamb, dairy products, gelatin, and even certain medications.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), AGS has affected nearly 450,000 Americans between 2010 and 2022.
Cases have been rising as the lone star tick’s habitat expands northward.
Symptoms can include hives, stomach pain, dangerously low blood pressure, and in severe cases, anaphylaxis — a potentially fatal allergic reaction.
There have been at least 10 documented deaths linked to alpha-gal reactions from medical products such as the cancer drug cetuximab and the widely used blood thinner heparin.
Despite the seriousness of the condition and the fact that there is no cure or vaccine, the authors argue that spreading AGS could be considered a “moral bioenhancer.”
They claim it will “save the planet” from “global boiling” because it would reduce meat consumption and thus help achieve “Net Zero” climate goals.
“If we are right, then today we have the obligation to research and develop the capacity to proliferate tickborne AGS and, tomorrow, carry out that proliferation,” the paper states.
The proposal openly suggests using genetic engineering to increase the tick’s disease-spreading potential.
Once bitten, victims could develop an allergy not only to meat and dairy but also to foods containing carrageenan, a seaweed-derived thickener, and a variety of processed goods and medicines.
This could severely limit dietary freedom and access to certain treatments.
Critics warn that the idea amounts to weaponizing a public health threat against the population under the guise of environmental responsibility.
The lone star tick is already on the rise in the U.S., with its range expanding from the Southeast and Midwest into states like New York and Pennsylvania.
The CDC currently advises preventing bites through repellents and protective clothing, not encouraging tick proliferation.
While the authors frame their proposal as an ethical duty, opponents see it as an alarming example of how “climate change” policy can be used to justify extreme measures that risk human health and personal freedom.
If such ideas gain traction in policymaking circles, it could mark a dangerous step toward using environmental goals as a pretext for controlling the food supply.
Whale songs are far removed from the singing that humans are used to. Unlike our musical sounds, those produced by whales are a complex range of vocalisations that include groans, clicks and whistles and that can sound like anything from the mooing of a cow to the twitter of a bird. These vocalisations can be so powerful that they can be heard as far as 10km (6 miles) away, and can last for half an hour at a time.
But while they may not be exactly dancing material, whale songs are critical for communication: between males and females during mating, or among a school of whales migrating
For researchers, these complex sounds are a window into whale behaviour, even if humans don’t yet know exactly how to decode them.
The frequency of songs and their intensity can signal various things: an abundance of food, for example. In recent studies, however, researchers have been alarmed to find that blue whales, the largest whales and, indeed, the largest mammals on Earth, have stopped singing at specific times.
Their eerie quietness, scientists say, is a signal that ocean life is changing fundamentally. The most recent study, conducted by scientists from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California in the US and published in February, examined three types of whales. Researchers found that blue whales, in particular, have become more vulnerable to this change.
What have researchers found, and where?
At least two studies between 2016 and 2025 have found similar behaviour: blue whales have reduced their singing for stretches of time.
The first study, conducted in the sea waters between the islands of New Zealand between 2016 and 2018, was led by scientists from the Marine Mammal Institute at Oregon State University in the US. Over that period of time, researchers tracked specific blue whale vocalisations linked to feeding (called D-calls) and mating (called patterned songs).
Researchers used continuous recordings from underwater devices called hydrophones, which can log sounds over thousands of kilometres, and which were placed in the South Taranaki Bight – a known foraging spot for blue whales off the west coast of New Zealand.
They discovered that during some periods, particularly in the warmer months of spring and summer when whales usually fatten up, the frequency and intensity of sounds related to feeding activity dropped – suggesting a reduction in food sources. That decline was followed by reduced occurrences of patterned songs, signalling a dip in reproductive activity.
“When there are fewer feeding opportunities, they put less effort into reproduction,” lead researcher Dawn Barlow told reporters. The results of that study were published in the journal Ecology and Evolution in 2023.
Then, in a study published in the scientific journal PLOS One in February this year, researchers tracked baleen whale sounds in the California Current Ecosystem, the area in the North Pacific Ocean stretching from British Columbia to Baja California. Blue whales are a type of baleen whale, and the study focused on them, alongside their cousins, humpback whales and fin whales.
Over six years starting in 2015, the scientists found distinct patterns. Over the first two years, “times were tough for whales”, lead researcher John Ryan, of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California, noted in a press statement, as the whales, particularly blue whales, were found to be singing less. Over the next three years, however, all three whale species were back to singing more frequently, the study noted.
A blue whale swims in the waters of Long Beach, California, the US [Nick Ut/AP]
Why are blue whales singing less?
Both studies found one main reason for the reduction of whale song: food or, in this case, the lack of it.
It turns out that the research, conducted between 2015 and 2020, captured periods of extreme marine heatwave events that killed off krill, the small shrimp-like animals that blue whales feed on.
Those heatwaves are part of a looming environmental catastrophe scientists have been warning about: ongoing global warming marked by increases in global average temperatures, and caused by high-emission human activities, chief among them being the burning of fossil fuels.
Scientists say the world could soon reach a tipping point at which there will be irreversible change to the planet. Already, 2016, 2023 and 2024 have been recorded as the warmest years ever.
Why are food sources disappearing for whales?
Krill, which blue whales primarily feed on, are highly sensitive to heat and can all but vanish during heatwaves, the studies found. Their movement patterns also change drastically: instead of staying together, as they usually do, krill disperse when it is hot, making them harder for predators like blue whales to find.
Typically, when foraging, blue whales sing to others to signal that they have found swarms of krill. If there is no food to sing about, it makes sense that there will be no singing.
Heatwaves can also trigger harmful chemical changes in the oceans that encourage the growth of toxic algae, which causes poisoning and death to mammals in the oceans and sea birds, researchers have previously found, suggesting that blue whales are also at risk of being poisoned.
In the more recent study in California, researchers found that in the first two years when whales were singing less frequently, there was also a reduction in other fish populations.
Are blue whales more vulnerable than other whales?
The second period of three years witnessed a resurgence of krill and the other fish, along with more whale singing. When krill again declined, blue whales again sang less frequently, while singing from humpback whales continued, the study noted.
“Compared to humpback whales, blue whales in the eastern North Pacific may be more vulnerable due to not only a smaller population size but also a less flexible foraging strategy,” Ryan, the lead author of the California study said in a statement.
“These findings can help scientists and resource managers predict how marine ecosystems and species will respond to climate change,” he added.
It is likely, both studies say, that blue whales need to spend more time and energy finding food when it is scarce, instead of singing.
A mass of krill in the sea [Shutterstock]
Are other animals changing their sounds?
Studies have found that climate change is altering the sounds of several other species as well. Nature-related sounds, such as birdsong from certain species, could disappear altogether in some places as warming temperatures alter animal behaviour. For example, some animals might move permanently away from their traditional habitats.
In New York, scientists found that over a century (1900-1999), four frog species changed their calling patterns, which males use to attract females for mating, and which are usually tied to the warming of spring and early summer. Over time, some frogs were calling about two weeks earlier than usual, researchers found, adding that it signified summer was arriving earlier.
“If you want long-term success in business, relationships and life, you have to get better at accepting uncomfortable truths as fast as possible. When you refuse to accept an uncomfortable truth, you’re choosing to accept an uncomfortable future.”
~ Steven Bartlett, The Diary of a CEO
By Catherine Austin Fitts
Plunder is an ancient story. The promise of plunder brought Attila and the Huns over the Alps to raid the Roman Empire in northern Italy. It inspired the conquistadors of Spain to hunt for silver in Mexico and South America, where they wiped out the Aztec and Incan Empires. Protected by court intrigue and secrecy, pirates have teamed up for centuries with royalty whose reign depended on rich spoils to pay back their bank loans. When the leaders of the British Empire could not maintain a trade surplus, they flooded the Chinese with opium, conquering with addiction and gunboats what could not be secured with manufacturing and diplomacy.
The founding of the Bank of Amsterdam, the Bank of Sweden, and the Bank of England in the 1600s launched the beginning of the economic paradigm I call the “central banking-warfare model”—but we could just as easily call the dominant economic model the “central banking-plunder model.” Plunder in its many forms has been essential to the rich accumulation of capital that helped to build the Western world. You can grow wealth, or you can take it—and in many cases, taking it is the preferred method. Alibaba founder Jack Ma once said, “When trade stops, war starts.”
The long history of Western plunder inspired the formation of the intergovernmental organization known as BRICS (whose current membership includes founding members Brazil, Russia, India, and China in 2009, followed by South Africa in 2010, and Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates in 2024-2025)1 and the BRICS nations’ ongoing efforts to achieve financial and military independence. More recent history helps explain Russia’s fierce resistance to NATO encroachment—the Russian people have not forgotten the “Rape of Russia”2 after the Soviet Union collapsed. As Samuel Huntington observed in his 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations:
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”
As technological innovation grows, so do the applications of plunder—along with its profitability. As David A. Hughes explained in our recent Omniwar report,3 “Omniwar” involves “the weaponization of everything.” Thus, instead of killing their prey physically in open combat, plunderers now can simply empty victims’ bank accounts while distracting them with propaganda and pornography. Plunder leaves students, who spend years getting an education that is not relevant to generating an income, with enormous student loan debt that they cannot retire. Frauds like the Madoff Ponzi scheme4 steal a mother’s savings, and when she commits suicide, her children’s inheritance can scarcely cover funeral expenses, much less finance their education and future. Plunder also encompasses the politically engineered health, food, and education policies that poison children. Moreover, the poisoning has a profitable postscript: the medical establishment claims that the children are sick (instead of poisoned),5 and parents liquidate their savings to try to heal their children in a manner that generates significant revenues for medical enterprises and pharmaceutical businesses.6
A key reason why the Solari team focuses on financial freedom7 is out of a desire to protect ourselves and our subscribers from being plundered. Because so much of the art of plunder involves management and manipulation of the financial system and the train tracks of transactions, we place great emphasis on having a good map of the world in which we live and understanding how to recognize the difference between “official reality” and reality. That is why the second of the six pillars of our Building Wealth curriculum8 is “Navigation Tools.”9 With the ability to develop and maintain a good map of reality, you can navigate. You can invest your time and resources to serve your purpose and achieve your goals, rather than find yourself plundered by someone trying to take the wealth—both the living and financial equity—that you have worked so hard to accumulate.
At Solari, our intention is not to depress you by dwelling on the unpleasant topic of plunder, but rather to help you build a strong immune system against being plundered. Ideally, you should also build networks and communities that help members do the same. Now is the time to do so, because technological innovation is powering the plunder game in new and challenging ways.
The 21st-Century Panopticon
We are in the midst of a quantum leap in the technology of surveillance and control. Let’s start with the metaphor of the “panopticon”—reintroduced in recent years by Ian Davis, Whitney Webb, and Mark Goodwin in their writings for Unlimited Hangout. English philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham originated the term panopticon in the 18th century, Wikipedia explains, to convey the idea of “a design of institutional building with an inbuilt system of control…. The concept is to allow all prisoners of an institution to be observed by a single prison officer, without the inmates knowing whether or not they are being watched.”10 Davis, Webb, and Goodwin use “panopticon” to describe U.S. and Israeli surveillance, assassination, and warfare systems—including those supported by Palantir—as well as the public distributed ledger systems, including blockchain, being used to shift the financial system into a control grid.
In 1975, French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926–1984) described a panopticon as follows:
“The Panopticon is a machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen…. The ideal point of penality today would be an indefinite discipline: an interrogation without end, an investigation that would be extended without limit to a meticulous and ever more analytical observation, a judgement that would at the same time be the constitution of a file that was never closed, the calculated leniency of a penalty that would be interlaced with the ruthless curiosity of an examination, a procedure that would be at the same time the permanent measure of a gap in relation to an inaccessible norm and the asymptotic movement that strives to meet in infinity.”11
As governments and militaries around the world use satellite constellations, telecommunications, digital technology, and invisible weaponry to build a planetary panopticon, the U.S. administration and its allies are demonstrating the unique features of this new model. For example, on June 13, 2025, financed by the United States, Israel launched its war on Iran by assassinating 11 of Iran’s top military leaders and nuclear scientists. Some were reportedly targeted at home, resulting in the death of their families and neighbors. Describing the events, Ron Unz wrote, “I cannot recall any previous case in which a major country had ever had so large a fraction of its top military, political, and scientific leadership eliminated in that sort of illegal sneak attack.”12
In short, war has been converted to a high-powered manhunt with assassination as the end point. This is possible because, according to technology entrepreneur and economist Dr. Pippa Malmgren, U.S. and Israeli systems now can track all 92 million Iranians and identify each of them by their unique biometrics:
“The key to understanding all this is that Iran is now a digital Panopticon prison, now that the US and Israel, and probably some other regional allies of these two, can detect a person’s location, communications, conversations, and state of mind at any time, anywhere. The Iranian leadership is effectively already in a digital prison. A person can now be tracked based on their walking gait, unique heartbeat, voice, the network of people in their circle, and their own behavioral patterns. There is no place to hide in a digital Panopticon prison.”13
Moreover, as The Economist commented last year with respect to the legality of assassinations in Gaza, it is possible no military officer can be found guilty of an international war crime because it is software that is now choosing the targets. As we discussed in our interview and report on AI with Whitney Webb,14 AI has been positioned to assume responsibility and take the blame. This is why, in my introduction to the AI report, I warned, “the people who are using AI as a scapegoat are dangerous.”15
Anyone, Anywhere
It was immediately obvious that the Iranian assassinations had planetary implications. If software can identify each person in Iran, then, as long as Starlink or other U.S. satellite constellations are operating overhead, those who control the panopticon can identify pretty much anyone, anywhere. Whether with drones, invisible weaponry, or missiles, parties who are remote and unaccountable can influence targets’ thoughts and health or end their life—all on a highly economic basis.
In two important Solari Report interviews, “Control & Freedom Happen One Person at a Time”16 and “The Economy of the Energy Body,”17 Ulrike Granögger and I described how an automated and cost-effective control system has been built that is customized for each unique human. Thus, it did not surprise me when, following the deaths of the Iranian leaders and their families and neighbors, most European leaders fell right in line with increasing their country’s NATO contributions to 5% and agreeing to new tariff conditions. Add to this the financial controls of the sanction systems, or the Epstein-type files that surveillance and kickbacks create, and you start to see how the overriding of global treaties and laws and the extraction of tariffs from countries as well as corporations is working, as the control grid assembles and integrates into a global panopticon.
Although each one of us can be surveilled, tracked, and eliminated, the system doing the observation and pulling the trigger is invisible. No one is accountable. In fact, this opaqueness is an essential feature of control. In his 1984 classic, The Evolution of Cooperation, political scientist Robert Axelrod demonstrated in economic gaming scenarios the general population’s willingness to shun dirty players. This type of shunning is a powerful strategy that can advantage the players who cooperate and are willing to enforce against those who engage in dirty tactics. It only works, however, when the general population can see who’s who. In other words, transparency is essential to identify the dirty players.
Unfortunately, the panopticon has taken secrecy to a whole new level. It is no accident that alongside the descent of Western civilization into the panopticon, we have witnessed the growing success of media propaganda in making sure dirty players either remain invisible or (as an equally effective strategy) are portrayed as successful, rich, famous, and worthy of admiration.
Israel has played a significant leadership role in building the technology that powers the emerging planetary panopticon, and nothing demonstrates the plunder that these technological systems enable better than the genocide currently underway in Gaza. Antony Loewenstein’s The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World is an excellent source on the history of the prototyping of control technologies in Palestine.18
Israel’s crypto community has also played a leading role in developing and prototyping the distributed ledger technology essential to building financial transaction control systems. However, the systems—and the AI and databases that make the control grid go—are extremely energy-intensive. Building and operating the necessary data centers requires land, energy, and water. Now that the panopticon systems have matured, the Palestinian population is no longer useful, whereas their resources are seen as a valuable component of a profitable control grid infrastructure. Israel has, therefore, increasingly laid claim to Palestinians’ offshore oil and gas, land, and aquifers, while attempting to move the population out of Palestine, but—despite systematic destruction of Palestinians’ civilian, farming, and transportation infrastructure—the transfer of Palestinians to Egypt and neighboring countries has not succeeded. Consequently, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is now exterminating the population through bombings, sniper assassinations, and mass famine. Some reports indicate that the Palestinian population has dropped from 2.2 million—including 1.1 million children—to 1.6 million. Given the effort to force mass famine, a rapid die-off appears imminent.
Nothing has visually communicated plunder’s powerful potential better then a short AI-generated video retweeted by the U.S. President celebrating a redeveloped Gaza Riviera.19 Video scenes show a Trump golden statue and resort, and Elon Musk (let’s not forget his role as leader of the Starlink satellite network) enjoying a bowl of hummus while Trump and Netanyahu sip cocktails by a swimming pool. This video followed the publication of Netanyahu’s vision for Gaza, “Gaza 2035,”20 which in turn led to reports indicating that various neighboring Arab states have been cut in on the potential development deals. This public visioning process appears to have been used to syndicate potential plunder profits and build political constituencies for escalating the genocide. Gaza is a method,21 and we dare not forget it.
Understanding the Panopticon Threat
As control becomes more centralized and automated in the planetary panopticon, fewer human hierarchies are needed to maintain control. For example, why continue to spend billions on soft-power bureaucracies such as those fielded and funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)? Who needs thousands of federal civil service workers to implement and enforce complex federal regulations? All of this can be done much more economically by controlling people’s money with programmable stablecoins, credit cards, and bank accounts. While many people cheered the firing of well-paid bureaucrats and nongovernmental organization (NGO) personnel, they seem not to appreciate the fact that the automated replacements will be far worse. I would much prefer to try to reason with a government bureaucrat than with an AI software bot that has no contact or support function and may have the power to cut off my bank account or electricity or send in a drone.
We face several challenges in understanding the panopticon. The first is understanding the point of view of the people who are building it. I just finished reading The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West by Palantir CEO Alexander Karp and his general counsel, Nicholas W. Zamiska. Karp and Zamiska make the case that the West must maintain a superior capability in national security if it is to protect our way of life. This may sound like common sense, but the argument breaks down when you understand the relationship between Palantir’s U.S. government contracts and the U.S. build-out of a financial transaction control grid.
Look at Palantir’s role in building the Lavender system for the Israeli military—an AI targeting system used to direct Israel’s bombing in Gaza.22 Palantir is helping to build the planetary panopticon, paid for with our tax dollars but operating on behalf of a transnational crime syndicate. There is a difference between national security and digital concentration camps. There is a difference between national security and genocide with plunder. The line of who is protected and who is plundered is far more fluid than Karp and Zamiska describe. As Colombian President Gustavo Petro said in a July speech to the Hague Group:
“Gaza is simply an experiment of the mega-rich trying to show all the peoples of the world how they will respond to a rebellion of humanity. They plan to bomb us all.”23
The builders of the panopticon have sent a message: You are being watched and, at any time, you may be killed. This has nothing to do with national security—this is about the engineering of a coup d’état in the Western world. When the chief operating officer of Palantir claims that Palantir’s goal is to be the operating system of the U.S. government, he is stating that they intend the end of U.S. government sovereignty.
A second challenge is that plunder in the panopticon is facilitated with invisible weaponry that we do not understand. Do we think the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004 was natural? Nope. Do we think the fires in Northern California in 2017 or in Lahaina in 2023 were natural? Nope. Do we think Hurricane Helene and the floods in East Tennessee and Western North Carolina in 2024 were natural? Nope. That said, how do we know who is responsible? How do we see them? How do we figure out how they did it? How do we hold them accountable? That is the nature of the panopticon—we are seen, but they are unseen. And it is hard to pull the plug on or shut down the unseen.
A third challenge is the extent to which the financial panopticon diminishes market price discovery and financial disclosure. Private equity and credit are moving far more businesses out of the public market and into privately controlled hands. The federal government’s long-standing refusal to comply with federal audit and disclosure laws or to account for over $21 trillion of undocumentable adjustments—and the adoption of FASAB Statement 56 in combination with the existing national security and classification laws—have rendered large parts of the financial disclosure in the U.S. government as well as the U.S. stock and bond markets essentially meaningless.24
While these challenges are significant, they are also inspiring a backlash by those who understand that such assaults on fundamental productivity threaten to shrink the pie for one and all. If we can face the panopticon and understand that no one is as smart as all of us, we can work together to unleash the global hearts and minds of millions so that people come to see who is doing this and how their technology works.
In 2023, Peter Gabriel wrote a song along those lines called “Panopticom.” Wikipedia describes the song as follows:
“The song’s title references the panopticon, a prison structure designed by Jeremy Bentham that enabled prison guards to observe the actions of all of [sic] prisoners without being detected. Gabriel’s concept of the panopticom was to invert this model by enabling ‘ordinary people’ to observe the actions of authority figures. The ‘com’ in the panopticom refers to the ability for people to ‘communicate both to the globe and what’s going on in the globe. It’s turning surveillance on its head.’”25
In the air
The smoke cloud takes its form
All the phones
Take pictures while it’s warm
Panopticom, let’s find out what’s going on
Panopticom, let’s see where clues are leading
Panopticom, won’t you show us what’s going on?
Panopticom, show how much is real
And we pour the medicine down
While we watch the world around us
We got witness on the ground
Takin’ in the evidence
And we reach across the globe
Got all the information flowing
You face the motherload
Tentacles around you, around you
From above
And deep below the ground
It was in Berlin
That all the evidence was found
Look from the street
And we look down from the skies
See through the barriers
We can see through all those lies
Panopticom, let’s find out what’s going on
Panopticom, let’s see where clues are leading
Panopticom, won’t you show us what’s going on?
Panopticom, show how much is real
Again, plunder is an ancient story. On the other hand, the effort to understand and map it and create systems to prevent it at scale by millions of people collaborating openly throughout the world is a very new story. This is the story in which the Solari team wishes to play a part. With this report dedicated to unpacking plunder, we invite you to build and protect your own wealth and to join us, in cooperation with others, in shifting the state of play entirely.
Scientists Detect Unusual Airborne Toxin in the US for the First Time
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Scientists detected airborne medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs) in rural Oklahoma for the first time, showing these toxic chemicals are not limited to industrial zones
MCCPs are chemically similar to PFAS “forever chemicals,” building up in your fat, disrupting hormones, and increasing the risk of chronic illness
Levels of MCCPs in the air peaked during hot daylight hours, revealing that daily temperature swings directly control how much you breathe in
The study linked local farmland and biosolid fertilizer use to high MCCP levels, raising concerns about conventional produce and outdoor exposure near agricultural areas
Even small lifestyle changes — like switching to organic food, avoiding PVC products, using an indoor air purifier, and improving mitochondrial health — help your body reduce and resist toxic buildup
You’re surrounded by chemicals you’ve never heard of — and some of the most harmful ones are completely invisible. Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins, or MCCPs, are one of them. These compounds are used in industrial products like lubricants, sealants, and flame retardants, but they don’t stay put. They escape into the environment and hang in the air, where you inhale them without even realizing it.
What makes MCCPs especially concerning is how long they last. They resist breakdown, accumulate in your fat tissues, and interfere with systems that regulate hormones, metabolism, and brain health. Despite their widespread use, they’ve remained largely overlooked in public health conversations and unregulated by federal authorities.
Now, research has revealed that MCCPs are not only persistent but also mobile. They don’t just sit in products or soil — they move with the weather, rise with the heat, and follow air currents across rural and urban areas alike. If you’re breathing, you’re likely exposed. That’s why this matters. To protect your health and lower your risk, you need to know where these toxins come from, how they behave in the environment, and what to do to limit your exposure.
Scientists Track Dangerous Airborne Chemicals for the First Time
A study published in ACS Environmental AU used cutting-edge technology to monitor MCCPs as they floated through the air over farmland in Oklahoma.1 These chemicals are used in industrial products like lubricants and plasticizers, but they don’t stay in one place. Unlike older testing methods that took weeks or months to collect data, this tool allowed researchers to track MCCPs minute by minute, revealing how they rise, fall, and shift depending on the time of day.
•Researchers found MCCPs in the air almost every day, at levels as high as polluted cities — The study ran for about a month and found MCCPs nearly every day, even in a rural area far from big factories. On average, levels hit 3,100 picograms per cubic meter, similar to what’s been found in major cities in China. That means even places that seem “clean” carry dangerous chemicals in the air without anyone realizing it.
•Air levels rose with daytime heat and dropped off again overnight — These chemicals became more airborne as temperatures rose during the day and settled back into the ground or dust when it cooled at night. So, if you’re outdoors in the middle of the day — working, exercising, or even just walking — your exposure is likely much higher than at night.
•The most common MCCPs were lighter-weight types more likely to turn into gas — The six main forms scientists found all had 14 or 15 carbon atoms and six or seven chlorine atoms. These versions are more likely to evaporate into the air, which means they’re the ones you’re most likely to breathe in. Knowing which versions are most common helps health experts focus on which ones pose the biggest risk.
•Nearby sources like farming and waste sites likely fed the pollution — MCCP levels went up on hot days with winds from the southwest, suggesting they were coming from local sources, including sludge-treated farm fields, wastewater, or industrial runoff. When the wind changed or temperatures dropped, the levels fell, pointing to short-range movement rather than distant pollution blowing in.
MCCPs are chemically similar to PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” which build up in your body over time and resist breakdown. In fact, their similarity led Oklahoma lawmakers to recently ban biosolid fertilizer statewide.
Heat Drives How Much MCCP You Breathe in Each Day
The study showed a direct link between temperature and MCCP levels. As the air got hotter, the chemicals quickly evaporated off surfaces like soil and dust. This happened in as little as five minutes, meaning you could suddenly be exposed just by being outside on a hot afternoon.
•Pollution peaked midday and dropped fast in the evening — MCCP levels spiked in the late morning and fell again by sunset. This pattern wasn’t caused by slow-moving weather or breakdown of the chemical — it was driven by heat. So, even spending one hour outside during that peak time raises how much of the toxin gets into your lungs and bloodstream.
•Lighter MCCPs evaporated and disappeared faster than heavier ones — Shorter-chain versions of the chemical rose faster during the day and dropped quicker at night. But the heavier forms hung around in soil and dust longer. That means you breathe in the lighter ones more easily, but the heavier ones may stick to your clothes, enter your home, and get into your food over time.
•Not all MCCPs react to heat in the same way — Some forms jumped sharply when temperatures rose while others barely moved. That difference matters, because it shows some forms are more likely to become airborne while others stay in the environment longer.
•Heavier forms stay longer in soil and dust, which raises different risks — The chemicals with more carbon and chlorine atoms don’t float into the air as easily, but they also don’t go away quickly. These build up in places like your carpets, furniture, or garden soil, creating long-term risks, especially for children and pets who come into contact with surfaces more often.
•MCCPs shift between air and surfaces all day long — These chemicals don’t just rise and fall once — they constantly move back and forth based on heat, humidity, and air particles. You could be exposed during your lunch break outside and not again that night, even if you’re in the same spot. That makes it hard to track exposure and even harder to regulate these chemicals without monitoring them constantly.
Sunlight and Air Pollution Turn MCCPs Into New, More Toxic Forms
The study also picked up MCCPs that had reacted with oxygen in the air, forming new versions called “oxidized MCCPs.” These changes likely happened because of sunlight, ozone, or other molecules floating in the atmosphere. Some of these byproducts are called hydroperoxides, which are known to damage cells once they get inside your body.
•Other MCCPs bonded with nitrogen, hinting at even more complex risks — Scientists also detected MCCPs with nitrogen in their structure. These probably formed by reacting with nitrogen-based pollution, like car exhaust or fertilizer runoff. The health effects of these altered forms aren’t well studied, but their presence means MCCPs don’t stay the same after release — they change, and those changes could make them more reactive or dangerous.
•These altered forms followed the same daily cycle as the originals — Like regular MCCPs, the altered ones spiked during hot daylight hours and dropped off at night. So, whatever your exposure is during the day, you’re not just inhaling the original chemicals — you’re also breathing in the altered versions created by sunlight and air pollution.
How to Lower Your Exposure to Airborne MCCPs and Protect Your Health
If you haven’t heard of MCCPs before now, you’re not alone. These chemicals don’t show up on ingredient labels, but they’re likely in your environment, especially if you live near agriculture, oil drilling, or industrial zones. Once they’re in the air, they’re hard to avoid completely. But you do have control over how much of them gets into your body and how well your body handles the exposure.
Your best protection starts with understanding where MCCPs come from and how to block the main ways they enter your system — mostly through your lungs, skin, and food. If you’re already dealing with hormone issues, chronic fatigue, or inflammatory conditions, lowering your chemical burden is even more important. Here’s how to help reduce your exposure and protect your health:
1.Avoid biosolid-contaminated food and soil — MCCPs are chemically similar to PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” which build up in your body and resist breakdown. They’re commonly used in PVC plastics, flame retardants, and metalworking fluids — and often wind up in wastewater. That wastewater gets turned into biosolid fertilizer and sprayed on conventional farms.
Once in the soil, MCCPs rise into the air during hot weather or end up in your food. Choosing certified organic produce helps you avoid this exposure, since organic standards ban biosolids. If you garden, live near fields, or buy from local markets, ask how the soil was treated and try to stay upwind of sprayed areas during the day, when airborne levels spike.
2.Run a high-quality indoor air filter that targets gas-phase pollutants — Most air purifiers only filter out particles, not gases. But MCCPs enter the air in gas form during the day. You want a system with activated carbon or other gas-phase filtration, especially if your windows are open or you live downwind from farmland or factories.
3.Shower immediately after outdoor exposure to reduce skin absorption — MCCPs are lipophilic, meaning they love fat. That makes your skin, scalp, and oils a prime target. If you’re working outside, walking in farmland areas, or commuting during the heat of the day, shower as soon as you get home. Use warm — not hot — water and a natural cleanser. Skip anything with “fragrance,” which often contains the same class of hormone-disrupting chemicals.
4.Reduce indoor exposure from plastics, furniture, and flame-retardant materials — MCCPs don’t just come from farmland — they’re also in household items like vinyl flooring, cables, older mattresses, and synthetic upholstery treated with flame retardants.
These materials slowly release MCCPs into indoor air and dust. If you’re renovating or replacing furniture, skip items made with PVC and synthetic foam. Choose solid wood, organic cotton, or wool. And vacuum with a HEPA filter weekly to reduce MCCP-laced dust that settles on floors and surfaces.
5.Support your mitochondria to better handle chemical stress — Airborne toxins like MCCPs increase oxidative stress, which puts pressure on your mitochondria, the tiny engines inside your cells that produce energy and regulate detoxification. The stronger and more resilient your mitochondria are, the better your body neutralizes and processes these exposures.
You can support mitochondrial health by getting daily sun exposure (avoid peak hours between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. until you’ve eliminated vegetable oils from your diet for at least six months), moving your body regularly, and making sure you’re eating enough healthy carbs to fuel energy production.
Every small change adds up. Even if MCCPs are in the air around you, you can take real steps to protect your health, especially if you focus on supporting your body’s ability to handle the load and reduce exposure where it counts most.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved hundreds of drugs without proof that they work—and in some cases, despite evidence that they cause harm.
That’s the finding of a blistering two-year investigation by medical journalists Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee, published by The Lever.
Reviewing more than 400 drug approvals between 2013 and 2022, the authors found the agency repeatedly ignored its own scientific standards.
One expert put it bluntly—the FDA’s threshold for evidence “can’t go any lower because it’s already in the dirt.”
A System Built on Weak Evidence
The findings were damning—73% of drugs approved by the FDA during the study period failed to meet all four basic criteria for demonstrating “substantial evidence” of effectiveness.
Those four criteria—presence of a control group, replication in two well-conducted trials, blinding of participants and investigators, and the use of clinical endpoints like symptom relief or extended survival—are supposed to be the bedrock of drug evaluation.
Yet only 28% of drugs met all four criteria—40 drugs met none.
These aren’t obscure technicalities—they are the most basic safeguards to protect patients from ineffective or dangerous treatments.
But under political and industry pressure, the FDA has increasingly abandoned them in favour of speed and so-called “regulatory flexibility.”
Since the early 1990s, the agency has relied heavily on expedited pathways that fast-track drugs to market.
In theory, this balances urgency with scientific rigour. In practice, it has flipped the process. Companies can now get drugs approved before proving that they work, with the promise of follow-up trials later.
But, as Lenzer and Brownlee revealed, “Nearly half of the required follow-up studies are never completed—and those that are often fail to show the drugs work, even while they remain on the market.”
“This represents a seismic shift in FDA regulation that has been quietly accomplished with virtually no awareness by doctors or the public,” they added.
More than half the approvals examined relied on preliminary data—not solid evidence that patients lived longer, felt better, or functioned more effectively.
And even when follow-up studies are conducted, many rely on the same flawed surrogate measures rather than hard clinical outcomes.
The result: a regulatory system where the FDA no longer acts as a gatekeeper—but as a passive observer.
Cancer Drugs: High Stakes, Low Standards
Nowhere is this failure more visible than in oncology.
Only 3 out of 123 cancer drugs approved between 2013 and 2022 met all four of the FDA’s basic scientific standards.
Most—81%—were approved based on surrogate endpoints like tumour shrinkage, without any evidence that they improved survival or quality of life.
Take Copiktra, for example—a drug approved in 2018 for blood cancers. The FDA gave it the green light based on improved “progression-free survival,” a measure of how long a tumour stays stable.
But a review of post-marketing data showed that patients taking Copiktra died 11 months earlier than those on a comparator drug.
It took six years after those studies showed the drug reduced patients’ survival for the FDA to warn the public that Copiktra should not be used as a first- or second-line treatment for certain types of leukaemia and lymphoma, citing “an increased risk of treatment-related mortality.”
Elmiron: Ineffective, Dangerous—And Still on the Market
Another striking case is Elmiron, approved in 1996 for interstitial cystitis—a painful bladder condition.
The FDA authorised it based on “close to zero data,” on the condition that the company conduct a follow-up study to determine whether it actually worked.
That study wasn’t completed for 18 years—and when it was, it showed Elmiron was no better than placebo.
In the meantime, hundreds of patients suffered vision loss or blindness. Others were hospitalised with colitis. Some died.
Yet Elmiron is still on the market today. Doctors continue to prescribe it.
“Hundreds of thousands of patients have been exposed to the drug, and the American Urological Association lists it as the only FDA-approved medication for interstitial cystitis,” Lenzer and Brownlee reported.
“Dangling Approvals” and Regulatory Paralysis
The FDA even has a term—”dangling approvals”—for drugs that remain on the market despite failed or missing follow-up trials.
One notorious case is Avastin, approved in 2008 for metastatic breast cancer.
It was fast-tracked, again, based on ‘progression-free survival.’ But after five clinical trials showed no improvement in overall survival—and raised serious safety concerns—the FDA moved to revoke its approval for metastatic breast cancer.
The backlash was intense.
Drug companies and patient advocacy groups launched a campaign to keep Avastin on the market. FDA staff received violent threats. Police were posted outside the agency’s building.
The fallout was so severe that for more than two decades afterwards, the FDA did not initiate another involuntary drug withdrawal in the face of industry opposition.
Billions Wasted, Thousands Harmed
Between 2018 and 2021, US taxpayers—through Medicare and Medicaid—paid $18 billion for drugs approved under the condition that follow-up studies would be conducted. Many never were.
The cost in lives is even higher.
A 2015 study found that 86% of cancer drugs approved between 2008 and 2012 based on surrogate outcomes showed no evidence that they helped patients live longer.
An estimated 128,000 Americans die each year from the effects of properly prescribed medications—excluding opioid overdoses. That’s more than all deaths from illegal drugs combined.
A 2024 analysis by Danish physician Peter Gøtzsche found that adverse effects from prescription medicines now rank among the top three causes of death globally.
Doctors Misled by the Drug Labels
Despite the scale of the problem, most patients—and most doctors—have no idea.
A 2016 survey published in JAMA asked practising physicians a simple question—what does FDA approval actually mean?
Only 6% got it right.
The rest assumed that it meant the drug had shown clear, clinically meaningful benefits—such as helping patients live longer or feel better—and that the data was statistically sound.
But the FDA requires none of that.
Drugs can be approved based on a single small study, a surrogate endpoint, or marginal statistical findings. Labels are often based on limited data, yet many doctors take them at face value.
Harvard researcher Aaron Kesselheim, who led the survey, said the results were “disappointing, but not entirely surprising,” noting that few doctors are taught about how the FDA’s regulatory process actually works.
Instead, physicians often rely on labels, marketing, or assumptions—believing that if the FDA has authorised a drug, it must be both safe and effective.
But as The Lever investigation shows, that is not a safe assumption.
And without that knowledge, even well-meaning physicians may prescribe drugs that do little good—and cause real harm.
Who Is the FDA Working for?
In interviews with more than 100 experts, patients, and former regulators, Lenzer and Brownlee found widespread concern that the FDA has lost its way.
Many pointed to the agency’s dependence on industry money. A BMJinvestigation in 2022 found that user fees now fund two-thirds of the FDA’s drug review budget—raising serious questions about independence.
Yale physician and regulatory expert Reshma Ramachandran said the system is in urgent need of reform.
“We need an agency that’s independent from the industry it regulates and that uses high-quality science to assess the safety and efficacy of new drugs,” she told The Lever. “Without that, we might as well go back to the days of snake oil and patent medicines.”
For now, patients remain unwitting participants in a vast, unspoken experiment—taking drugs that may never have been properly tested, trusting a regulator that too often fails to protect them.
And as Lenzer and Brownlee conclude, that trust is increasingly misplaced.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed in public comments that his goal for Israel’s next military offensive in Gaza is the takeover and full Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory. Netanyahu’s plan has faced resistance from the military since heavy Israeli troop casualties are expected, and the Israeli captives in Gaza will likely be harmed or killed during the offensive.Israel’s offensive would end quickly if the US stopped supporting it. However, President Trump, when asked about Israel’s full occupation of Gaza, said, “I really can’t say. It is going to be pretty much up to Israel.”
There have been numerous images and reports about starvation and famine in Gaza. When asked, “To what extent are you personally troubled or not troubled by the reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza?”, 79% of Israeli Jews responded that they were “not so troubled” or “not troubled at all.”
Israeli officials previously announced a plan to build a concentration camp in a tiny area of southern Gaza with the goal of forcing the entire civilian population into it. Netanyahu’s ultimate goal ios the removal of the Palestinian people from Gaza, which they. now call the Trump plan. No regional countries have stepped forward to take in the Palestinians who are being pushed out.
Jimmy Dore explained that no matter what Hamas does, Israel is pursuing land grabs for ‘Greater Israel’, which has been planned for years. He said that the war was used as a pretext to clear Gaza and take the land.
.
From The Jewish Independent:
Most Israeli Jews untroubled by reports of Gaza famine, survey finds
A new Israeli public opinion survey has revealed a sharp divide between Jewish and Arab citizens regarding the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the credibility of the IDF’s reports, settler violence in the West Bank, and concerns over rising antisemitism abroad.
Conducted by the Viterbi Family Centre for Public Opinion and Policy Research at the Israel Democracy Institute, the survey followed increasing reports and images pointing to a severe humanitarian disaster in Gaza, including widespread famine.
When asked, “To what extent are you personally troubled or not troubled by the reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza?”, 79% of Israeli Jews responded that they were “not so troubled” or “not troubled at all.” In contrast, 86% of Arab Israelis said they were either “very troubled” or “somewhat troubled” by the situation.
These findings align with coverage in the Israeli mainstream media, which for months largely denied or downplayed the scale of hunger in Gaza. However, according to Ruth Margalit in The New Yorker, a shift may be underway. “Even for (Israeli) politicians and journalists who are sympathetic to Netanyahu, it has become permissible to acknowledge that [the hunger crisis] is real,” she wrote. Whether this softening in tone will influence public opinion remains to be seen.
A video trending on social media this week shows a woman breaking down over her student loans:
This isn’t a failure of personal responsibility. This is the designed outcome of a system built to drain your wallet.
After I published my previous essay, readers shared their own moments of realization. Mine came years ago at a car dealership when I tried to pay cash and they looked horrified. I was proud I’d saved enough to pay in full, but that pride turned to confusion when they treated my cash like a problem to be solved. The salesman spent ten minutes trying to convince me to finance at some absurd rate, and I left confused. That’s when I understood – they don’t want transactions anymore, they want relationships. Permanent, extractive relationships.
The woman in the video – her 17% student loans and my confused car dealer are the same system – built to keep us paying forever. Both scenarios reveal the same truth: the economy has been restructured to prefer debt over ownership, subscription over purchase, permanent extraction over finite transactions. She’s paying $1,500 monthly on loans that only grow. She’s not failing the system – the system is rigged against her.
Not that long ago, I genuinely believed fractional ownership could democratize access to assets. Coming from tech, I was naive about who would control these systems and how they’d be weaponized. What I documented in The Boomer Mirage (which showed how ownership was systematically priced out of reach) was just the setup. Today I want to show you the punchline: how the people promising “you’ll own nothing and be happy” engineered a world where they own everything and get rich.
The American Dream wasn’t killed – it was privatized.
The New Paradigm Revealed
The goal was never a secret. It became the defining mantra of the era, famously captured by tech analyst Tom Goodwin in 2015: “Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. Facebook, the world’s most popular media owner, creates no content. [Amazon], the most valuable retailer, has no inventory. And Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate. Something interesting is happening.”
What was ‘interesting’ was a sophisticated money grab disguised as innovation.
The Bait and Switch
It took me years to realize they hadn’t just priced us out – they’d rebranded exclusion as lifestyle choice. Cultural institutions aided the switch. Magazines, TED Talks, influencers all praised “freedom from stuff.” Suddenly ownership became materialist while minimalism evolved.
The pitch was seductive. “What if you could share your city?” Airbnb’s founder asked at a 2016 TED Talk. They sold the idea of belonging and overcoming stranger-danger bias. But the financial model wasn’t about sharing – it was about creating a global platform to monetize spare rooms and, eventually, entire homes, turning community assets into revenue streams for distant shareholders, one 15% service fee at a time.
People were taught to think “Why would I want to be tied down to a mortgage?” without realizing they were choosing permanent rent instead. The pitch felt liberating on the surface, but step back and the timing reveals everything. This wasn’t accidental messaging. The rebranding happened precisely as ownership became mathematically impossible.
The Generational Handoff
When I mapped the timeline from my previous analysis, the coordination became obvious. As rates fell during the Boomer era, many in my parents’ generation built wealth through ownership – buying homes, owning cars outright, financing that decreased over time. Gen X caught the tail end of that system. Millennials and Gen Z were offered ‘access’ instead.
The generational trends are stark. While Boomers participated in systems that built wealth, younger generations largely participate in systems built to extract wealth – renting everything, subscriptions forever, financing that never ends.
A few years ago, I did an audit of my finances and realized I was paying $400 monthly for software I used to own. Adobe Creative Suite, which I’d bought once for $600, was now costing me $240 annually forever. That’s when the pattern became undeniable. This wasn’t market evolution – it was coordinated replacement of an economy they deliberately broke. The same institutions that killed homeownership now profit from the rental economy that replaced it.
The $3,000 Nowhere
My younger cousin makes $65,000 a year – decent money by most standards. He showed me where his money goes each month: $1,800 rent, $600 car lease, $400 in subscriptions, $200 in various app fees. That’s $3,000 monthly going purely to access and subscriptions – with zero assets to show for it.
His grandfather’s $3,000 monthly would have bought a house, built equity, created generational wealth – even adjusting for inflation. His $3,000 disappears into other people’s portfolios every month. This isn’t coincidence – it’s wealth extraction disguised as convenience.
When Fractional Ownership Works
I’ve seen fractional ownership work – when the community controls it. Community investment pools where local capital stays local. Cooperative models where members build actual equity stakes. Tool libraries with ownership shares. Community land trusts where members gain wealth while preventing speculation.
I became fascinated with DAOs and liquidity pools in 2020-21 because they seemed to offer genuine community ownership. But governance turned out to be the killer app – who controls the system determines whether it builds wealth for participants or extracts it.
The difference isn’t the technology – it’s who captures the value. These models work because participants gain equity, not just access.
When It Becomes Systematic Extraction
The math is simple and brutal. I tracked Airbnb’s money flow: host gets $100 per night, platform gets ~$15, community loses significant housing stock value. My car research showed leasing versus buying over ten years: $60,000 in payments versus $35,000 purchase with $15,000 residual value. I realized I’d paid Adobe $2,400 over ten years for what used to cost $600 once.
That car dealership epiphany became my lens. I started seeing the same financing-over-ownership push everywhere – local wealth flowing to distant platform owners. Every industry had flipped the same way. The “sharing economy” didn’t emerge randomly. It launched precisely as ownership became unaffordable. The founders weren’t hiding their extraction model – they were celebrating it.
The vision was laid bare in public filings like WeWork’s. Their mission wasn’t just to rent desks, but to create a “new ecosystem for how we work, live and grow.” They sold “access” to “community” and “inspiring spaces” – all intangible concepts – while capturing hard financial value from long-term leases. It was the perfect model: take on long-term assets, slice them up, and rent them back to a generation that could no longer afford them.
The Rent Is Watching You
But there’s another benefit of this model for those who oversee it: unprecedented data extraction. Rental relationships generate surveillance that ownership never did. Every transaction becomes trackable, every behavior monetizable. Car leases track where you drive, software subscriptions monitor usage, streaming services record preferences.
The pattern is clear from digital surveillance systems – rental often means monitoring. The data extraction isn’t accidental – it’s the business model. Your information becomes another revenue stream while you get poorer. Total visibility is the hidden cost of never owning anything.
The Debt Trap Amplifier
But the problem is deeper than cash flow. It’s about the systemic preclusion from building equity. The psychological weight of this system is crushing – watching your payments build someone else’s equity while you stay trapped. Student loans plus housing costs lock entire generations into permanent renter status.
This isn’t accidental. The debt trap feeds the rental economy perfectly: Can’t buy → must rent → wealth flows up → even less able to buy. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle designed to convert ownership into access, assets into subscriptions.
The Exit Strategy
The system may be rigged, but alternatives exist. Here’s what people can actually do:
Join existing community programs – Community land trusts, cooperative housing projects, local investment pools that keep wealth in the neighborhood.
Start cooperative buying groups – Pool resources with neighbors to purchase tools, equipment, even vehicles collectively with shared ownership stakes.
Investigate equity-building alternatives – Community-supported agriculture with ownership components, local time banks that build relationships and shared value.
Support platform cooperatives – Driver-owned alternatives to Uber, host-owned alternatives to Airbnb, cooperative alternatives to extraction platforms.
These aren’t utopian theories – they’re working models already building real wealth for participants instead of distant shareholders.
The Choice
Understanding the extraction machine is the first step toward starving it. The technology isn’t the problem – who controls it is. The same urgency from my previous analysis applies here: the outcome isn’t predetermined, it’s being decided right now.
Every “sharing economy” innovation should face one question: Who actually gets rich? We can build alternatives or keep enriching the extractors.
They’ve designed a system where they’ll own everything and be rich while you own nothing. But we can design something better.
The changes crept in so gradually that most people didn’t notice. Your freedom to travel now depends on having the right QR code. Your bank monitors your purchases and reports suspicious patterns to government agencies, all under the banner of safety and security. Social media platforms flag your posts as ‘misinformation’ if they question official policies, while your children learn in school that ‘individual rights’ must always be ‘balanced’ against ‘collective responsibility’. When you visit your doctor, everything you say gets entered into databases shared across agencies and institutions you’ve never heard of.
These aren’t separate policies responding to different problems. They’re connected pieces of a single framework that treats you not as a free human being, but as a data point to be monitored, measured, and managed for the stability of a larger system. The framework has a name, a structure, and a timeline that was laid out in remarkable detail nearly eight decades ago.
The 1947 Blueprint
IIn 1947, Alice Bailey published The Externalisation of the Hierarchy1, a book that most readers readily dismissed as fringe esoteric speculation. But Bailey wasn’t making predictions — she was documenting a plan. Writing with the clinical precision of someone with inside knowledge, she described exactly how human civilisation would be reshaped over the following decades. Her book reads less like prophecy and more like a project timeline — complete with phases, methods, target dates, and operational structures.
Bailey laid out a systematic approach to planetary transformation that would unfold over roughly 78 years. The plan wasn’t to destroy existing institutions, but to infiltrate and repurpose them from within, keeping their familiar names and symbols while redirecting their fundamental purpose toward global control. She described the construction of ‘triangular networks’ that would later link government, business, and civil society into unified command systems — precisely the public-private partnerships, multi-stakeholder governance structures, and UN coordination bodies that now dominate global decision-making. Global crises would serve as accelerators, creating the psychological conditions necessary for populations to accept rapid changes that would normally take decades to implement.
Writing with remarkable specificity about the timeline, Bailey stated:
Thus a great and new movement is proceeding and a tremendously increased interplay and interaction is taking place. This will go on until A.D. 2025. During the years intervening between now and then very great changes will be seen taking place, and at the great General Assembly of the Hierarchy—held as usual every century—in 2025 the date in all probability will be set for the first stage of the externalisation of the Hierarchy. The present cycle (from now until that date) is called technically ‘The Stage of the Forerunner’.
Her esoteric terminology masked what was essentially the same systems management architecture that would later emerge through McNamara’s Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems and evolve into today’s global governance framework — the difference being that she understood it as spiritual hierarchy while technocrats would frame it as systems theory for scientific administration.
The ultimate goal was a planetary management system where unelected experts would make decisions for everyone, justified by appeals to collective good and scientific necessity. Advanced technology, data systems, and psychological techniques would monitor and shape human behavior on a global scale. Bailey wrote that a ‘decisive first stage’ of this transformation would be completed by 2025, marking the moment when this hidden network would stop working behind the scenes and begin openly directing world affairs.
In 2025, 194 nations agreed on the final wording of the core aspects of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, establishing a framework that is expected to give international health officials binding legal authority to override national governments during declared emergencies. Crucially, these ‘emergencies’ are not limited to actual disease outbreaks, but include computer-modeled hypothetical scenarios based on potential pandemic drivers — which, under the One Health framework, encompasses climate change, biodiversity loss, and virtually any environmental condition that algorithms determine might theoretically contribute to future health risks. For the first time in human history, unelected global bureaucrats gained the power to suspend individual rights based on predictive models rather than actual events.
The 78-year timeline was complete, right on schedule.
The Three-Step Transformation
The transformation required a fundamental shift in how human beings understand themselves and their relationship to authority. This shift happened in three overlapping phases, each building on the previous one to create the philosophical and practical foundations for global management.
The first phase involved removing higher truth from human consciousness. As long as people believed in God, natural rights, or moral absolutes, they would resist accepting human authority as final. The solution was a decades-long cultural campaign to convince populations that nothing exists beyond what can be measured and managed by experts. Science was transformed from a method of discovery into the ultimate moral authority, while education systems taught children that ethics were subjective opinions rather than universal truths. Once people stopped believing in transcendent sources of meaning, concepts like ‘human dignity’ became negotiable — defined by whoever controlled the institutional apparatus.
The second phase established official institutions as the only valid source of information about reality. Even without belief in higher truth, people might still think for themselves and reach different conclusions about policy or governance. The solution was to position dissent itself as a form of ignorance or extremism. Questioning official narratives became synonymous with spreading ‘dangerous misinformation’ or ‘endangering our democracy’. Media organisations, technology platforms, and academic institutions coordinated to ensure that populations heard a single, unified story on every major issue. The shift was subtle but decisive: asking questions about policy stopped being called ‘healthy skepticism’ and started being labeled immoral ‘anti-science’.
The third phase deployed the technological and legal infrastructure necessary to enforce compliance without appearing overtly totalitarian. Surveillance systems monitor behavior in real time, algorithms predict and prevent dissent before it can organise, and the eventual social credit systems reward compliance while punishing resistance. Emergency powers bypass normal democratic processes, allowing rapid implementation of restrictions that would be impossible under normal legislative procedures. People become components — cogs in the machine — designed for nothing short of maximum system efficiency.
The Timeline of Implementation
The transformation didn’t happen overnight. It followed a carefully planned sequence that can be traced through public documents, policy changes, and institutional developments over the past six decades.
The foundation was laid between 1961 and 1965 when Defense Secretary Robert McNamara introduced Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems to the military, then President Johnson expanded this systems-based management approach across the entire federal government. This marked the moment when government stopped being primarily about serving people and started being about managing data flows and optimising systemic outcomes.
The concept of planetary management emerged between 1968 and 1972 through a series of international conferences and agreements. The UNESCO Biosphere Conference established the framework for treating Earth as a managed ecosystem requiring centralised administration. The Club of Rome formed during this period and soon published warnings of planetary collapse without coordinated global control. In a remarkable development, the United States and Soviet Union — supposedly locked in existential conflict — collaborated to create the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, who ultimately became responsible for ‘black box’ global modelling. This demonstrated that Cold War enemies could unite around planetary management objectives, later to become ‘Planetary Boundaries’, while the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm cemented the idea that Earth needed centralised administration to prevent ecological collapse.
The 1980s and 1990s saw the conversion of ethics itself into a tool of global governance. ‘Rights and responsibilities’ frameworks began replacing absolute human rights in international law and academic discourse, with Leonard Swidler positioning these as the middle principles leading to Global Ethics. The Earth Summit embedded ‘sustainable development’ as a moral duty that could override traditional notions of sovereignty, while installing ‘soft law’ controls on carbon emission and sequestration through the UNFCCC and Convention on Biological Diversity. Global business ethics codes aligned corporate behavior with planetary goals rather than local communities or shareholders, an initiative later turbocharged as Enron collapsed in late 2001. Universities established degree programs in ‘global governance’, training the future expert class that would eventually run these systems.
Between 2001 and 2015, the philosophical groundwork was translated into operational policy. WHO ethics papers redefined ‘human dignity’ from an inherent right to something earned through compliance with collective objectives. The ‘One Health’ framework merged human, animal, and environmental governance into a single administrative domain while academic conferences and think tanks normalised the idea that individual rights could be suspended during emergencies for ‘the greater good’. By 2015, international organisations had official ethical frameworks that explicitly authorised overriding personal freedoms when experts determined it was necessary — with no realistic possibility of appeal.
The infrastructure was completed between 2015 and 2019 as surveillance systems, digital identity platforms, and emergency response protocols moved from pilot programs to operational readiness. International emergency protocols were harmonised across countries, though the details remained buried in technical annexes and working group reports that few people read. Everything was in place for activation when the right crisis presented itself.
COVID-19 provided that crisis in 2020, serving as the first global test of the new system. Emergency powers bypassed normal legislative processes, digital health passes demonstrated that populations would accept compliance-based freedoms, and government agencies, media organisations, and technology platforms operated with unprecedented coordination, seeking to censor any divergent point of view with strategic decision. The system worked exactly as designed — at least for a while, though a compliant police force was militarised against the people who objected.
Between 2021 and 2024, ‘temporary’ emergency measures became permanent features of governance. Legislative changes quietly extended emergency powers to cover climate change, artificial intelligence risks, and other global issues. International treaties and public-private partnerships fused health, finance, and environmental control into an integrated global management architecture. The pattern was established: each crisis expands the system’s reach, with climate emergencies, AI safety threats, and cybersecurity incidents already positioned as the next triggers for expanded global coordination.
The WHO Pandemic Treaty signed in 2025 represents the completion of this 78-year process. At present trajectory, international officials will eventually come to possess binding authority over national governments during declared emergencies — exactly as Bailey had outlined. The ‘externalisation’ is complete — global governance operates openly rather than behind the scenes.
The Choice Before Us
Understanding this history clarifies the choice we face. We are not heading toward this system of global management — we are already living within it, though it hasn’t yet had time to fully set. The question is whether we will accept it as inevitable and beneficial, or whether we will work to restore governance based democratic accountability while we still can.
Accepting the system means embracing a future where rights depend on compliance scores, where algorithms make decisions once reserved for human judgment, and where global bureaucrats can override local representatives whenever they declare an emergency that cannot be challenged. It means raising children who understand freedom as permission granted by authorities rather than an inherent birthright.
Rejecting the system requires rebuilding institutions based on different principles — transparency in emergency powers, genuine democratic consent for international agreements, full transparency and genuine accountability for public officials committing crimes, and recognition that human dignity cannot be conditional on compliance with expert recommendations. It means supporting alternatives that prioritise humanity over system efficiency, and teaching the next generation that rights do not derive from being well-behaved.
This is not a partisan political issue. People across the traditional political spectrum should recognise the difference between governance that serves the people and management that treats people as data points to be optimised. The system transcends conventional politics because it operates at the level of fundamental assumptions about human nature and the proper relationship between individuals and institutions.
The transformation succeeded because it happened gradually, then suddenly. For decades, each change seemed reasonable in isolation. But the cumulative effect has been to create a system where human agency is increasingly replaced by algorithmic authority, where local control gives way to global management, and where individual rights become conditional privileges.
The people who designed this transformation understood that change happens through accumulated precedents rather than dramatic reversals. They also understood that systems depend on participation. The global management apparatus requires local compliance to function effectively. This creates opportunities for resistance that don’t depend on controlling national governments or international organisations.
Every individual choice to resist redefinitions of basic concepts like freedom and dignity contributes to a larger cultural shift. Supporting businesses and organisations that operate according to human-centered rather than data-centered principles creates alternative networks. Engaging in local governance where human relationships still matter more than algorithmic optimisation builds foundations for different kinds of institutions.
The next crisis will undoubtedly be used to expand control further, just as previous crises have been. But understanding the pattern makes it possible to resist the psychological manipulation that accompanies emergency declarations. Knowing your rights before they’re suspended ‘temporarily’ — even if this is promised to be for only ‘two weeks’ — creates space for a response rather than mere reactiongloba
The 78-year plan succeeded because most people didn’t know it existed.
Now that it’s visible, the choice is ours: participate in our own management, or remember what it means to govern ourselves.
Same Self Replicating Nanotechnology Spheres Seen In C19 Unvaccinated Living Blood As In Deceased Embalmed C19 Vaccinated Blood With Rubbery Clots – What Will Humanity Do About This?
Image: Deceased blood with self replicating nanotechnology
I have shown my microscopy of embalmed blood of an individual who had died 8 months earlier with the long rubbery clots everyone that should be familiar with by now. They were featured in the documentary “Died Suddenly”.
The spheres that I filmed continue to replicate – and in the above image you can see how the spheres continue to develop. In the below video, I looked at the spheres at 4000x magnification. Clearly light emitting micro robots are seen. Considering the size of the surrounding red blood cells they are estimated to be several hundred nano meters in size.
I had shown how the spheres contain nano and micro robots that are emitting light in different frequencies and colors, as Quantum Dot polymer coated bidirectional biosensors would do – and have previously photographed them in C19 unvaccinated blood. I have also shown how these spheres construct the filaments we see in the blood.
Image: C19 unvaccinated blood sphere filled with Nano technology
Image: C19 unvaccinated blood sphere filled with Nano technology building hydrogel filaments
I have a lot of conversations with people. Still many are in denial. Doctors do not believe in nanotechnology and deny its existence. Supposedly people are still not ready to hear about nanotechnology that has self disseminated via shedding worldwide and is now causing the rubbery clots. We have proven that. They are made of rubber like material, a polymer that has self assembled.
Image: Rubbery Clot Development In C19 Unvaccinated Individual With Previous Deep Vein Thrombosis and Massive Pulmonary Emboli – While On Eliquis, Nattokinase, Lumbrokinase and Serreptase
My question is when will the denying doctors, scientists, politicians, attorneys and media decide people will be ready to know about this and start discussing it? When they are dead?
This is a live blood analysis of an individual who after air travel started having upper respiratory tract symptoms suggestive of “Covid”. I have in previous posts shown that acute Covid symptoms correlated with significant replication of the hydrogel filaments and excessive rouleaux formation. Therapeutic dose Ivermectin quickly resolved the symptoms. In live blood analysis one can see that Ivermectin helps resolve the rouleaux, but does not diminish micro bots or hydrogel production. The individual now had a follow up live blood analysis a week later.
I filmed how the blood was being transformed by the same spheres filled with nanotechnology. The blood was loaded with these spheres. You can see the movement and the optical light emission. Red blood cells surrounding this are in severe oxidative stress – they are dying. This is the same magnification as the deceased C19 vaccinated blood above – Oil Objective 4000x. While the nano robots are tiny, you can see them emitting light and moving.
Here is another view:
Here is the same blood with many of these small spheres that are between 5-10 micron in size but can become much larger. The blood is transformed into a polymer mesh network.
Image: C19 unvaccinated blood 200x magnification
These spheres in the blood are not air bubbles. They are hydrogel nanotechnology construction sites. You can see in the video below many spheres that are perfectly round interconnecting and extracting the life out of the red blood cells.
The blood cells that clearly show oxidative stress, are being transformed under the coordinated effort of micro robots. These can be recognized by its blinking lights coordinating smaller nano robots. If you think that one red blood cell is about 5-7 micrometers, some of the very small swarming nano bots are estimated around 500 nanometers. Watch the blinking lights, those are robots.
Summary:
I talk to people, give interviews, work on legal strategies as much as I can, and give of my time freely in the hopes the world will become aware of this threat. The response after all of these many months of writing hundreds of substacks is still remarkably apathetic. I seriously am asking the below question to those who do not want to bring this knowledge to the forefront.
Addressed are all the colleagues, organizations and legal representatives that are presumably fighting on the same side of history as I am in the “freedom movement” – and whose antidotes I look at under the microscope and find no effect on the nanotechnology:
With all consideration for the future of humanity in mind, when do you think people are ready to hear about this?
The answer – when they are dead – is a bit late in my opinion.
I invite all to take another look at the evidence, and consider the ramification of these findings.
