Latest / UK Column Radio / Peter Duke on epistemological warfare and narrative control | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

Peter Duke on epistemological warfare and narrative control | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

0:35
None. Peter Duke of the Duke Report.
0:40
Thank you for joining me in the trenches.
0:43
You're welcome. Glad to be here.
0:46
Thank you. You were just telling me your
0:48
house burned down. Well, my entire town burned down
0:53
on January 7th. There was a fire which I contend
0:59
is an arson fire, and it was allowed to get out of control
1:05
and it burned down 2800 homes in the nicest neighbourhood
1:10
arguably in California and perhaps the world, and the real
1:17
estate was effectively cleared. The 99% of the original
1:23
residents who lived there were homeless on January 8th.
1:28
Do you think it was organic? No, not at all.
1:33
I think because there was another fire that started on
1:35
January 1st in the exact same location.
1:39
And the fire department and the officials, the American ATF,
1:47
they all contend that it was a fire that was allowed to burn
1:50
underground for a week and then it was reconstituted by high
1:56
winds. But if you understand that what
1:59
their argument is, is that the fire was underground and then it
2:03
was affected by wind, then you have, you know, you have
2:07
contravailing ideas there. So no, I, I think that there,
2:12
there was a, and I, I write about this on my sub stack.
2:16
There was a almost 2022 year old battle between Occidental
2:22
Petroleum and the residents of the Pacific Palisades because
2:26
the Pacific Palisade sits on top of a huge oil reserve.
2:30
And I was told by a friend of mine who's in the oil
2:37
exploration business in Houston that the numbers that Occidental
2:41
Petroleum was talking about were off perhaps by a magnitude.
2:44
That is, there's there's 10 times more oil underneath the
2:47
Pacific Palisades than they're even letting onto.
2:50
So I think that that's probably a mitigating circumstance.
2:52
I think that the real estate is really important, and I think
2:55
that the oligarchs that people like Jerry Brown and Gavin
3:00
Newsom represent have an agenda, and they needed to declare that
3:06
land. And most of the residents of the
3:10
Palisades say that they don't actually even understand what
3:12
the stakes are. OK, so if it wasn't organic then
3:17
means that it was artificial. But I mean, how does that work?
3:21
Well, it's pretty simple. There are winds that happen
3:27
every year in California and there's a, there's a, a weather
3:33
pattern called Illinois Nino that has something to do with
3:36
the temperature of of the water I think in the Gulf of
3:39
California or the Gulf of Mexico.
3:42
And it's predictable that you're going to get 70 or 80 mile an
3:47
hour winds whenever that happens.
3:49
And I think that you simply wait.
3:52
I've done some research. There is a, the World Economic
3:55
Forum has a programme called Fire Aid, which has the exact
4:00
same name as the the concerts that took place after to raise
4:07
money. And that's a whole other story
4:09
also. But Fire Aid is an AI programme
4:14
that helps you predict wildfires.
4:17
And I've been in technology long enough to understand that these
4:20
things are all tools. And that's something that can be
4:23
used to predict wildfires, could also be used to plan wildfires.
4:27
And so I don't think that it's a coincidence that the fires were
4:31
started in the exact same location of seven days apart,
4:37
because the fires were started in the exact same location 7
4:40
days apart. So that takes it back to the
4:44
World Economic Forum. And then you have to start
4:47
asking the question, well, who controls California?
4:50
And there's a a billionaire that is has branded himself for a
4:54
while. He's embarrassed by the brand
4:56
now called named Nicholas Berg Ruin.
5:00
And he's trying to build the equivalent of a philosopher
5:04
King's palace on the same in the same mountain range as the
5:09
Pacific Palisade sits. And he put together a, a blue a
5:16
blue ribbon committee over a decade ago to it's called the
5:22
blueprint to reinvent California.
5:24
And all of these people use this Hegelian dialectic of, you know,
5:28
order out of chaos problem reaction solution.
5:33
And so the solution for fixing the broken government in
5:37
California was floated about 12 or 13 years ago.
5:40
It's published, it's on website, and they're just looking for
5:45
ways to demonstrate that the government of California, the
5:50
current government of California, is no longer capable
5:53
of suiting the needs of the people.
5:57
And so there needs to be some new government.
6:00
And the Bergen Institute has got all of these different
6:03
initiatives testing out what all those different governments
6:06
would be. And he's spoken quite openly
6:10
about it at Oxford. It was at the Oxford Union, I
6:13
think, 11 or 12 years ago. There's a video on YouTube and
6:16
you can watch him talking about reinventing California.
6:21
OK, so then if the fires were deliberate?
6:24
No, no, no. I, I think they were waiting for
6:26
the wind and then they started to fire.
6:29
And I don't think, I don't, I don't think that the technology,
6:32
I mean, there's all kinds of counterintelligence stories that
6:35
are going out about directed energy weapons and all of this
6:40
other stuff. I don't think you need the only
6:42
directed energy weapon that you that you need is that you need,
6:46
you know, Ms 13 members on E bikes with torches.
6:51
And there were some people that were arrested and then released
6:56
the next day in different scenarios.
7:00
There were some guys who are on bikes.
7:02
There was a guy who actually drove down from Oregon who had a
7:05
fake fire engine, who had an arrest record for arson and his
7:12
and married to a woman who is a a radical environmentalist.
7:19
So there there are people that got arrested and people who are
7:23
identified, but I don't think that the authorities are going
7:25
to do anything about it. The directed energy weapons
7:30
narrative has come up a few times with regards to some very
7:33
unusual fires. Well, there is one directed
7:36
energy weapon that I believe in wholeheartedly, and that's
7:39
because they have a website and I'm trying to remember the name
7:43
of it. It's on my but basically it's a
7:46
drone that drops sodium permanganate.
7:51
Is that it? Potassium promanganate Ping pong
7:55
balls and it's to start backfires and it's a huge
8:00
industrial sized drone that has this basket of little balls and
8:03
it drops them. And it's got an app that you can
8:05
download and you can programme where you want all of the the
8:09
fireballs to be to be dropped. And so that technology exists.
8:14
Like I said, there's a website you can see videos of this fire
8:17
drone flying around, starting starting fires and and it's a
8:22
big drone. It's not the the there was at
8:26
one point a super scooper, which is a Canadian aircraft that's
8:30
designed to drop water, did hit a drone and was taken out of the
8:37
fight. And the the claim was that it
8:41
was a DJI little little drone. But the, the reason that that
8:45
doesn't really make any sense to me is because I, I had a drone,
8:50
it burned in the fire and the, the distance between where they
8:56
say the drone took off and where it supposedly hit the plane with
9:00
the amount of wind that was going on at the time.
9:04
Doesn't make any sense to me. Because even though those drones
9:07
have about a 2022 minute flight time that's in still air when
9:13
you're in, you know, 50 or 60 mile an hour winds and you're
9:16
going miles away, The, the, the, the amount of time that's
9:21
available on the battery is significantly shorter.
9:24
So I, I, I don't believe, I believe that the plane hit a
9:26
drone. I don't believe the the plane
9:28
hit a DJI drone. OK, so then in that case you
9:32
don't buy Judy Woods 911 argument?
9:36
It's very interesting that you bring that up because I have, I
9:40
had Judy Woods book and I was just, it's brilliant.
9:44
Her book. Her book is insane.
9:46
It is, and the justification argument that she makes, The
9:51
most compelling part of it is the beams that turn into dust in
9:55
the video. Yeah, they they.
9:57
They kind of do this also. Yeah, the the issue that I have
10:01
with that is that I as in my history as a technologist, I was
10:08
a the lead on a team that developed streaming media for
10:13
Microsoft. And so I have a highly technical
10:17
background in what's in video compression, streaming video
10:22
compression, what you and I are using right now in order to have
10:25
this conversation. And there is something in video
10:30
streaming video that's called artefacting.
10:33
And artefacting is real. And it does create all kinds of
10:39
aberrant effects that if you look at videos closely enough,
10:43
you can see these aberrant effects.
10:45
And the problem that I have with Judy Woods analysis is that I
10:48
want to see the original video. Most of the videos that she
10:51
shows are things that have been taken off of the Internet and
10:54
they've been compressed and they've been recompressed.
10:57
And I'm, I'm positive that, you know, the major television
11:01
networks probably have the really high resolution original
11:05
footage of a lot of that stuff. And so I'd like to see the
11:09
original footage so that I could see the justification on the
11:13
original footage and kind of rule out the fact that there is
11:17
artifacting going on because that that's a that's an issue.
11:23
My my gut tells me that about Judy Wood, because I was
11:29
watching, I think it was David Hughes was kind of supporting.
11:33
Judy Wood. Yeah.
11:34
You know my show. Yeah, David Hughes was
11:37
supporting Judy Wood and and he was disparaging Richard Gauge a
11:40
little bit. And I don't like to rule out any
11:46
of those criteria. My specialty is what I call EPI
11:50
war, which is epistemological warfare.
11:53
And what I like to stick to is what the public story is.
11:56
So the public story is that the, the 20 hours were hit by
12:00
aeroplanes and then they magically disappeared.
12:05
The, the big story for me is who are the people who created this
12:11
event and why are they telling the story?
12:13
You know, how is it that we know all of these things?
12:17
And the how becomes important because you've got competing
12:20
stories, you've got Judy Wood, you've got Richard Gauge, and
12:24
then you've got a, you know, a half dozen other people out
12:26
there in the world who are talking about different things.
12:29
And it doesn't really serve the the the purpose of truth.
12:35
I don't think it's my jaded, 1 sided biassed opinion for David
12:39
David Hughes to be going after those people.
12:42
I think that what we should be looking at these things and kind
12:45
of applying A probabilistic metric to them as opposed to
12:51
this is true and this is not true because the fact is, is
12:54
that both things could be true. They they could have pre wired
12:58
the buildings to demolish and there could also have been a
13:02
directed energy weapon. I mean, so for for he is to go
13:07
and kind of like rule out one in favour of the other.
13:10
I I think is not the not the best way to get to the truth.
13:17
Yeah, I I think I agree with you to some degree.
13:19
One of the issues I have is when the the opposition, which is us,
13:26
we are opposing the official narrative, start infighting
13:30
because then we end up getting nowhere.
13:34
I, I totally agree, which is but, but, but there's a signal
13:39
the, I've written four or five posts in the last couple of days
13:44
because somebody who I thought was my friend Matthew Eret
13:49
decided to take a shot at me and another friend of mine, Courtney
13:53
Turner. And, but there's metadata there.
13:57
You know, when somebody goes after you, if you can, if you
14:01
can get away from the direct personal nature of the attack
14:05
and kind of put the thing in a framework of understanding where
14:09
this person fits in the power structure, then it becomes
14:14
important information. It becomes, so the, the metadata
14:19
for me was that he was attacking me on, on, on a semiotic
14:27
analysis that I had made over a year ago where I, I did a
14:30
podcast with Hirobe over at Geopolitics and Empire and it
14:35
was over a year old. It was almost a year old.
14:37
Like it, it wasn't like a new thing.
14:40
And he went after me on these kind of in basketball, they
14:43
would call it a ticky tack foul, right?
14:46
He went after me on this kind of like ticky tack attack on my
14:50
analysis of semiotics and and then at the end he kind of
14:57
alluded to the fact that this had something to do with
15:02
negatively talking about bricks with Hirobe And you know, Matt
15:12
and Cynthia are very pro Russia and China.
15:15
I mean, it's, it's pretty obvious on their show that
15:18
that's where they come from, but they also provide a great
15:22
service and they provide a lot of great information And you
15:24
know, I I'm willing to take what I like and leave the rest.
15:29
But you know, when he came after me and then he came after
15:31
Courtney, it became obvious to me that that wasn't organic.
15:38
That is, I don't think that again, I don't, I'm not trying
15:42
to mind read. I'm just kind of looking at the
15:44
ontology, the, the org chart of things and I'm thinking, well,
15:49
I, I don't think that he woke up 1 morning and said, oh, I'm
15:51
going to go attack my friends Courtney and Peter like there's
15:55
something else happened. I don't know what it is, but
15:58
that tells me that gives me information, right?
16:02
That gives me information that that something that I'm doing is
16:07
bothering somebody, which it might be a good signal.
16:10
You know, it, it means that we're being effective.
16:12
One of the things that I've been doing in the last two or three
16:16
months is taking what I call essential reading and turning it
16:21
into AI. Half an hour podcasts and six
16:26
minute video explainers. So I've got almost 300 books.
16:30
These are the most essential books that you could ever read.
16:32
You know, all of Anthony Sutton's books, all of Carol
16:35
Quigley's books, and I've got them reduced down to podcasts
16:41
for people who are not ever going to read these books,
16:44
right? So if you want to understand
16:46
what the Anglo American Establishment by Carol Quigley
16:49
is about, you can go listen to 1/2 an hour podcast or you can
16:52
watch a 6 minute video on it. And because of the power of
16:57
Notebook LM, which is the Google AI engine, I've been able to
17:01
produce in the last three months about 300 audio, half an hour
17:06
podcasts and almost 106 minute video explainer videos.
17:13
I think that this information is dangerous to the the oligarchy,
17:19
and I think that they're probably starting to notice what
17:22
I'm doing and what Courtney's doing.
17:26
Yeah. So I mean, the undercurrent of
17:28
what you're saying is that if we're using 9/11 now as the as
17:34
the argument, the official story is very obviously bunk.
17:38
So now what's happening is that you have all of these opposing
17:42
views bickering in the public space and it makes them look
17:47
like a circus. Yeah, there's a term in American
17:52
football called Flooding the zone.
17:56
And that's how I refer to it, is that it's epistemological
18:00
warfare and all that mean. It's a big long word, but what
18:04
it means is how do we know what we know?
18:07
And I've, I've, I've, I've, I've branded it EPI war with a little
18:11
trademark because my, the joke is, is that's the the method
18:16
that they use in order to be able to control us.
18:20
And so they fled the zone with as many possible different
18:24
variations of a story as possible in order to defuse the
18:29
truth in order to it's basically, if you want to hide A
18:34
needle in a haystack, the bigger the haystack, the harder it is
18:39
to be to find the needle. And that's why again, getting
18:42
back to the the Judy Wood Richard gauge thing, I don't, I
18:45
don't find it helpful to, to, to say 1 is better than the other.
18:49
When they attack each other, or at least when the followers are,
18:53
you know, in comments sections, just going off to one another, I
18:56
find that so disparaging and very disheartening.
19:00
Yeah, and I, I the, the, the article, the last two, two of
19:04
the last articles that I wrote again, I use.
19:08
So just a quick, I'm looking at the clock to see how much time
19:13
I've got. So I started investigating neuro
19:17
linguistic programming about five years ago, and neuro
19:21
linguistic programming is based on an idea that is the basis for
19:26
epistemological warfare. And it's this Noam Chomsky said
19:29
that we all have something that he called the deep structure of
19:33
memory. And that the way that we take
19:36
this vast amount of knowledge that we all carry around in our
19:41
heads and squeeze it into a sentence or two coming out of
19:44
our mouths is by deleting, distorting and generalising
19:47
things. And it turns out that if you
19:51
analyse language and look, and because we are always, and
19:56
that's a universal quantifier, if we, because we are always
20:00
deleting, distorting and generalising, I am deleting,
20:03
distorting and generalising right now as I'm talking to you,
20:06
then there are always questions that you could ask someone.
20:11
And this is what a good a good interviewer like you understands
20:16
implicitly. Is that there's always questions
20:19
that you can ask someone based on whether or not you've
20:22
discerned that they've deleted, distorted or generalised
20:25
something. And so my approach to dealing
20:32
with the infighting has been, I'm not going to get into the
20:36
weeds of whatever your dumb argument is.
20:39
I'm going to look at the frame of the way that the Arctic the
20:43
argument has been put together and then I'm going to criticise
20:48
the frame in, in NLP that's called chunking up.
20:52
You go meta. And I find that that's a much
20:56
more useful way to deal with derision because you're being
21:02
constructive about it. And I'm, I'm, I, I think that my
21:06
rebuttals to the thing, the attacks that I've had in the
21:09
last couple of days are they're very constructive.
21:12
Like if you go and you read my rebuttals to Matt Erett and to
21:17
the people that I, I think are just sock puppet trolls.
21:20
My wife made a funny joke last night.
21:22
She said, does he hire people on Fiverr to leave comments because
21:28
they're terrible? You know, they're just, they're
21:30
just not very good. And but again, when, when, when
21:35
people come at me, I, I, I, I, I just kind of look at the
21:42
structure of what they're doing and take it apart.
21:45
And I think that if I think if more people learned how to do
21:49
that, then we could nip this in the bud.
21:53
So if I'm following you correctly, you're suggesting
21:54
that you zoom out? Yeah, like when, when, when,
22:01
when Matt attacked me and Courtney my, you know, after I
22:06
got over the immediate feeling of oh, Gee whiz, I thought you
22:09
were my friend. And by the way, he starts off
22:11
the argument by saying I'm your friend and then and then attacks
22:15
me. He's got my phone number.
22:18
Like he could have called me and talked to me about it.
22:20
Like he didn't need to do subset.
22:21
He didn't need to do a sub stack post.
22:23
That's called MIL you control, by the way, So the he chose the
22:28
the he chose the battlefield, right, which was a Substack post
22:32
instead of picking up at the telephone and calling me or, you
22:36
know, sending me Adm. Those are all choices, right?
22:42
And so we all make those. And now that I've I've I've spun
22:45
out and I forgot what your question is, there's plenty of
22:48
people that there's plenty of people that I disagree with that
22:52
I talked Courtney Turner and I disagree on many things.
22:56
OK, But I pick up the phone and we talk about it on the phone.
22:59
We don't, we don't, you know, we don't, we don't.
23:02
I disagree with Courtney and she's got a good friend on on
23:07
sub stack, Christine Jones. And I have I I disagree on the
23:11
definition of the word liberty. I think liberty is a psyop
23:15
because liberty in its essence means freedom that is granted to
23:21
you by someone, right and as opposed to freedom.
23:26
And, and so when the the argument with using the word
23:29
liberty is who are you getting the liberty from, right?
23:33
And so there's an implicit question in the word liberty.
23:36
And so for that reason, I believe that liberty is misused
23:40
in many, in many occurrences. And Courtney and, and Christine
23:46
Jones write about liberty all the time.
23:49
And I, I've talked to them both offline about how I disagree
23:53
with them. But every time they post
23:55
something about liberty, I don't jump into their comments and
23:58
say, you're wrong. You don't understand.
24:00
Like I like it. You're, you're exactly right.
24:03
I mean it doesn't serve any purpose.
24:05
And I mean, not just the 9/11 thing.
24:07
I found the same thing with the no virus thing.
24:10
Now, I'm very sympathetic to the argument against contagion, but
24:15
the way in which that sort of militant.
24:18
Approach. It's came out of no way during
24:22
the COVID era where, I mean, I would have RFK on my show and we
24:28
both would just get trashed on Twitter because he believes in
24:32
viruses and so therefore everything gets derailed because
24:35
he believes in viruses and now nothing else matters.
24:38
Yeah, no, I, I, I agree. And I think that again, looking
24:41
at it on an epistemological level, it's a purity test and
24:45
people who practise purity test rhetoric are it's, it's very
24:53
likely that they've got some kind of an agenda going.
24:56
So I think it's much more valuable to kind of look at life
25:02
or look at me look at messages in media as probabilistic.
25:07
You know, there's a for, for example, George Webb and I have
25:12
hypothesised that there is a virus and it has the impact of a
25:17
cold. And there's another technology
25:20
out there in the world called that almost I haven't heard
25:23
anybody talk about it on any other shows called a VLP virus
25:27
like particle and a VLP is a bioweapon.
25:32
They sell it as a way to give people viruses, but it's
25:36
basically imagine that you had a, a nuclear weapon.
25:41
Now, I think nuclear weapons are fake too, and I can talk about
25:44
that. But imagine that you have a bomb
25:45
and a warhead. OK.
25:47
A The, the, the, the virus has two principal functions.
25:55
Again, this is kind of like the epistemological view of a virus.
25:59
It, it makes you sick and it can replicate itself.
26:03
Those are kind of like the two things, right?
26:05
Well, AVLP can make you sick, but it can't replicate itself.
26:09
But the advantage of it is that it's dry, it's inert and it
26:15
doesn't have to have a cold chain, meaning that you can
26:18
carry it around in a box in your pocket and you can do things
26:22
like you can dope air conditioning philtres with it.
26:26
So that what it has, it has the effect of spreading the, the,
26:31
the dis ease the, the, the, the part that makes you sick, but it
26:37
won't kill you. OK, So if you created a, a, a
26:41
new virus that had the effect efficacy of a, of a cold and
26:47
that it was the most viral thing that had ever been created.
26:51
And then what you went around and and so and you would do that
26:54
in order to get as many people to test positive as possible
26:58
whenever you test them. OK.
27:00
And then you went around and tactically did things like you
27:03
went into a subway system in Wuhan and you doped all the air
27:07
conditioning philtres or you went into a an old age
27:12
retirement home in upstate New York and you doped all the air
27:15
conditioning philtres. You could use different
27:17
diseases, OK, You could use anthrax in one place.
27:22
You could use another disease in another place, Diseases that
27:26
have high mortality, right? But since all of the people are
27:30
only being tested for COVID, they're going to test positive
27:33
for COVID. And then all of these people are
27:36
going to die in Wuhan, and then all these people are going to
27:38
die in upstate New York. How many different places do you
27:42
need to do that doping of air conditioning philtres in order
27:46
to create a worldwide panic? I would argue you don't need
27:49
more than probably like a dozen. And in that case, in that case,
27:54
you've got a tactically controlled SIOP.
27:58
Real people are getting killed, OK, real people are getting
28:02
sick, but they're not dying of COVID.
28:04
They are testing positive for it.
28:07
They're but they're dying of something else.
28:08
So that's that's a thesis that I've been playing around with.
28:12
So you think that there wasn't a pandemic, but there was
28:17
something that was engineered? 100%, yeah, yeah.
28:22
There's nothing organic about COVID.
28:25
He dropped in something there about nukes.
28:29
Yeah, I, yeah. So I, I started playing around
28:33
with this idea about 3 or 4 years ago because somebody told
28:37
me that they thought nuclear weapons were fake.
28:39
And you know, when you get to the point where you think, oh,
28:43
well, the moon landings are fake.
28:45
And I, by the way, I had a career as a photographer.
28:47
I met Buzz Holdren. I shot his picture.
28:49
I have a picture of myself with Buzz Holdren.
28:51
And he was one of the weirdest guys that I ever shot pictures
28:54
of, by the way. But.
28:56
I mean, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.
28:58
Why? Just a weird vibe.
29:00
Like I, I had a patch, I was a kid, I was a moon kid.
29:04
I was like, I don't know, six wait.
29:06
When we landed on the moon, I was 9 and it, it worked.
29:10
It was at 2O clock in the morning and my parents didn't
29:14
want to be up and so I went and I stayed at my grandmother's
29:16
house because she would let me be up at 2O clock in the morning
29:19
to see man land on the man, you know, Neil Armstrong walk on the
29:24
moon. So anyway, I had this patch that
29:26
I had when I was a kid and I showed it was a Apollo 11 patch
29:30
and it was old and it was folded and, you know, I, I kept it in a
29:34
drawer since I was like a kid, you know, And I showed it to
29:36
Buzz Aldrin. And he goes, Oh yeah, a lot of
29:37
people have this. I was, I was like, OK, you know,
29:45
Anyway, so yeah. But he was a weird guy anyway.
29:49
But. But back to nukes.
29:50
I started playing around with the idea, so I started.
29:53
OK so game. So I'm a Rand kid.
29:56
My mother worked at Rand, my aunt worked at Rand as
29:58
librarians. My next door neighbour growing
30:01
up was a mathematician at Rand. When I was struggling with
30:04
algebra in high school, my math tutor was one of my mother's
30:10
friends who worked at Rand. When I was a kid, my mother used
30:13
to take me to Rand picnics every for the ex employee.
30:18
The employees of Rand would have a picnic every year.
30:21
So I, I understand the whole Rand culture and I and I and I
30:26
grew up playing war games by a company called Avalon Hill.
30:31
That was because my next door neighbour, his son was special
30:34
needs and he had all these games that he wanted to play.
30:37
So my brother and I used to go next door and play these war
30:39
games that were ostensibly designed by Rand.
30:42
And so I was kind of immersed in game theory when I was 10 or 11
30:46
years old, like I was understanding it and I started
30:51
thinking, I, I, I know that the TV show Survivor and, and The
30:57
Apprentice are all based on John Nash's non cooperative game
31:01
theory. And I, so I started writing, I
31:04
wrote a few pieces on a thesis that I have that this was a, a
31:08
method to test alternate forms of government on the television
31:14
public in order to determine whether or not or in order to
31:20
pre swayed them into the idea of some kind of a technocratic
31:24
government. And in the case of Survivor,
31:28
you've got kind of the ultimate democracy where all of the
31:31
losers get to pick the winner at the end.
31:34
And in the in the case of The Apprentice, you have kind of a
31:37
totalitarian, A totalitarian government, right where you've
31:41
got Donald Trump at the top. So I start, I was, and I and
31:47
there's a lot of game theory in that.
31:49
There's a lot of John Nash, there's a lot of math and, and
31:52
Mark Burnett seems to be an operator to me.
31:55
He's like a London based MI 6 spook.
32:00
And and so I started applying the same idea to to nuclear
32:06
weapons. And what I came up with was the
32:09
idea that you may be able to create a nuclear explosion in
32:14
something that is in a house sized container in the middle of
32:19
the desert in New Mexico. But whether or not you can
32:23
actually fit that into the Bombay of a of an aeroplane or
32:26
put it on the tip of a missile is a completely different idea.
32:30
And so it occurred to me that the that the idea of a nuclear
32:37
weapon is more important than the nuclear weapon itself,
32:42
because if you're trying to do behaviour modification on human
32:48
beings, the fear is what is important.
32:52
And so I have these kind of rubrics that I use for
32:54
epistemological warfare. And one of them is that the more
32:59
media and attention a fear based idea gets, the more likely it is
33:04
to be false. So when you, when you look at
33:07
the transmedia attack of nuclear weapons, it's in movies, it's in
33:13
television, it's in radio, it's in fiction, it's in nonfiction,
33:17
it's it's in school, it's everywhere, It's ubiquitous,
33:22
right? That when you have this fear
33:24
based messaging that is ubiquitous, there's a good
33:27
chance that it, it, it's not real or that whatever the story
33:31
is that they're telling you is not the whole story.
33:34
And so I, I got into GPT and I started playing around with it
33:41
and it came up with some pretty compelling math that showed that
33:45
it would make, because you could create a dark economy and you
33:49
could create something called an equilibrium.
33:51
And in an equilibrium, everybody who's involved in the game has
33:55
skin in it. So it's in the best, it's in the
33:59
best interest of Boeing and Lockheed and Raytheon and the
34:04
Pentagon and everybody else to go along and the Russians, your
34:09
enemies. It's it's it's in everybody's
34:12
best interest to keep the game going because it allows you to
34:15
create dark budgets. And because of need to know and
34:21
compartmentalization, you can take billions or trillions of
34:25
dollars and then re divert that money to your own needs.
34:30
And all the, all the, and because of compartmentalization,
34:34
you can have entire industries that are working on nuclear
34:36
weapons that aren't actually building nuclear weapons.
34:39
They're building something else. They think that they're building
34:41
nuclear weapons, but because of the need to know and
34:44
compartmentalization might be what might be something else
34:47
that they're building. So I, I, yeah, I don't believe
34:49
in nuclear weapons. I think they're fake.
34:52
Well, it's interesting you say that because Bill Gates, in an
34:55
interview not terribly long ago, said that humanity faces four
34:59
invisible enemies. And immediately that got my
35:01
alarm bells ringing. And he said pandemics, nuclear
35:06
war, AI and what was what was the 4th one I have now
35:13
forgotten. That's OK.
35:14
I'll, I'll, I'll say way back and then you'll remember.
35:17
So this was all started by HG Wells and HG Wells wrote a book
35:22
called The Invisible Man. And again, I read all of these
35:24
things with my kind of epistemological view.
35:27
The, the Invisible Man on the meta level is a story about a
35:31
town that's terrorised by something that they cannot see,
35:35
you know, and HG Wells was the progenitor for a lot of this
35:42
stuff. He was the, the, you know, the
35:44
Walt Disney of, of that Milner, the, the Rhodes Milner group who
35:53
was taking the ideas that they were discussing in their round
35:56
tables and then turning it into popular fiction.
35:59
So the the enemy that you can't see, I mean, think about the
36:04
movies that are the most popular movies.
36:06
You got Jaws and you didn't see the shark for 3/4 of the movie.
36:10
You got Alien. I'm just trying to think of the
36:12
scariest movies, right? But in these movies, like they
36:16
create all of this fear out of out, out of the unknown.
36:22
And, and is, isn't that what happened with COVID?
36:25
Isn't that exactly what happened with Covic?
36:27
People were running around. I, I was at, I was in Northern
36:31
California and I was in a supermarket and there was an
36:33
assistant manager who is screaming at the top of his
36:37
lungs at people who would not stay 6 feet apart from each
36:41
other. He was screaming, don't you
36:43
understand? This is terrible.
36:45
We're going to die if we don't do this.
36:48
He was like, he was so upset. He was so earnestly upset.
36:52
He thought we were all going to die if we, if we got closer to
36:56
each other than six feet. I mean, this is the power of
36:58
this stuff. Climate change is the 4th 1.
37:02
Yeah, climate change is fake. It's it's completely fake.
37:05
It's well. I mean, the climate changes.
37:08
Yeah, the no, no, you're right. The climate changes all the
37:12
time. OK, I I used to make the joke
37:15
George Bush didn't kill the dinosaurs.
37:17
You know, it's stuff. He also said Is our children
37:25
learning. Yes, and again, I was completely
37:29
hypnotised during the entire time that George Bush was
37:31
president. I I didn't wake up.
37:34
I woke up on January 6th, 2021. I was the official photographer,
37:40
First Stop the Steal. So as I was on the steps of the
37:43
Capitol on January 6th, I had Avip pass.
37:47
I was in the pit with, you know, Patrick Byrne and Nick Valentis
37:51
and Benny Johnson and all these other people.
37:54
And, and I realised by the end of the day, I realised this is
37:59
all fake. You know, it's, and the thing
38:03
that really got me going though, was on January 5th, there's a
38:06
building on the, in the, what they call the Federal Triangle
38:10
and called the Mellon Auditorium building.
38:13
And I believe this is kind of like the real secret
38:15
headquarters of the secret societies in, in Washington, DC,
38:20
because on the pediment of the building is the, the, the patron
38:25
goddess of America, Columbia. But it's, it's fully a
38:28
hermaphrodite. It's a it's, it's a dude with
38:31
boobs on the pediment of this building.
38:34
And the the friend of mine who pointed it out, I said, how do
38:38
you know that's hermaphrodite? And he pointed to a pediment on
38:40
this building over here. And he said, that's Hermes and
38:44
I, and I said, yeah. And he goes, and that's
38:45
Aphrodite. And I said yeah.
38:48
And he said, what do you get when you put Hermes and
38:50
Aphrodite together? And I said, what?
38:51
And he goes, you get hermaphrodite.
38:54
So Columbia. So on this building, Columbia,
38:58
who's the patron goddess of the United States, is portrayed as a
39:02
hermaphrodite. And there's an even creepier
39:05
version of the same figure in front of the the US archives.
39:12
But this is the building where NATO was founded.
39:16
This is where they have the 25th, the 50th, and the 75th
39:20
anniversary of NATO is in this building.
39:22
And if you look at the pictures online of the inside of this
39:25
building, it looks like a Masonic temple.
39:28
So it's, it's so that was kind of my wake up call.
39:32
I see this weird temple in the middle of Washington, DC.
39:36
And then the next day everything is fake and gay.
39:39
And I I met my wife on the steps of the Capitol and we both
39:43
unregistered to vote and started trying to figure out how the
39:46
world really works. Well, I mean, just while you're
39:49
on on that topic, something that has always confused me is on the
39:55
US on the back of the US $1.00 bill, you've got that pyramid
39:58
with the all seeing eye and that Latin wording around it.
40:03
Yeah, Anurt Koptus and Anurt Koptus.
40:10
Yeah, out of out of many one of them, it says one of them means
40:14
a new order of the world, and the other one means out of many
40:17
1E Pluribus Unum is out of many one.
40:20
And I I believe that out of many, one means out of many
40:23
oligarchs, out of many oligarchies, 1 oligarchy.
40:26
That's what I think it means. It has nothing to do with
40:29
democracy. It has to do with who governs.
40:33
And I have a whole theory about circles and stars too.
40:38
For a while, again, I was a true believer for a while.
40:42
I have a whole kind of ontology for the way that I think that
40:44
the world works. On the bottom level is what
40:48
Plato referred to as prisoners of The Cave.
40:50
On top of that are the politically active people that I
40:53
refer to as true believers. And I get that from Eric
40:56
Hoffer's book of the same name, The True Believers.
40:59
And then for four years I had a business partner who it turned
41:01
out was intelligence. And the next layers are assets
41:05
handlers and then the power elite are at the top.
41:08
So I think that the bottom of the pyramid, on the bottom of
41:11
the pyramid you have prisoners of The Cave.
41:13
On top of that you have true believers.
41:15
On top of that you have assets. Assets are people who are
41:18
working for the power elite, the oligarchs, but they don't know
41:22
they are OK. And then on top of that are the
41:25
handlers. And the handlers know that
41:28
they're working for the power elite.
41:30
The methods that they use for controlling all of us in this
41:36
rubric are money, ideology, compromise, ego, and bloodline
41:43
family. And so when somebody goes left
41:47
instead of right, when John Roberts, who everybody thinks is
41:51
going to kick Obamacare out of the Supreme Court, not only does
41:55
not kick Obamacare out of the Supreme Court, but rewrites it,
42:00
which is the first time that any Supreme Court Justice has ever
42:03
done that in history, everybody's going, why did he do
42:06
that? Why did he do that?
42:08
He did it because of either money, ideology, compromise,
42:11
ego, or family. One of those five.
42:13
OK, whenever somebody goes in a direction that you don't think
42:16
that they're going to that they that, that you've, that you've
42:20
been presupposed. I'm trying to think of the best
42:24
way to say this. When someone goes in a direction
42:28
that is unexpected, it's always and that's the universal
42:33
quantifier because of either money, ideology, compromise,
42:37
ego, or family. That's it.
42:40
These things make the world simpler to understand when you
42:44
understand these rubrics. And this is what you mean in you
42:50
by the title of your book Stealth Power.
42:53
Stealth, Power and the Illusion of Democracy is a thought
42:57
experiment that I did. Every single critique of The
43:03
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion rests on the idea that
43:09
it's plagiarised. But plagiarism does not, is not
43:14
a measure of veracity, it's a measure of authorship.
43:19
And So what I did is because I in my past have worked for
43:24
Steven Spielberg and I've worked for the show Foundation
43:26
Institute. And at one point the New York
43:29
Times tried to paint me as an anti Semitic neo Nazi.
43:35
It's a it's a hard sell with me because I have, I have a lot of
43:39
background in working with a lot of the people on the, on the
43:43
Zionist left. And, and so I thought that I was
43:46
uniquely positioned to do something interesting, which is
43:49
that I took all of the religious and I took all the religious
43:56
connotations out. I used AII took all the
43:59
religious connotations out of the protocols, the learned
44:03
elders of Zion so that you can't say, oh, this is anti Semitic or
44:07
oh, this is about the Jews. It's just basically instruction
44:10
booklet on how to take over the world.
44:12
And when you compare the methods and practises that are described
44:19
in that book with what's really going on, it's almost a complete
44:24
and total match. And so then the question
44:26
becomes, if it's not the Jews, then who is it right.
44:31
Because it turns out that the the methods and practises that
44:36
are described in that book are exactly what's happening right
44:38
now. And so and so the, the fact that
44:43
an anti Semitism is an epistemological weapon, it, it,
44:46
it, it's a way of painting anybody who gets too close to
44:51
who's really in in control. And it's not the Jews.
44:55
OK it it may be people who some Jews are associated with then
45:03
they can paint you with this brush of being a a hate monger
45:08
or anti Semitic or something. I do find that whole it's the
45:12
Jews narrative to be a bit of a distraction.
45:15
I mean, there are loads of Jews in very high positions, there's
45:19
no doubt about that. And and they have.
45:21
Higher them. Yeah, yeah, they have immense
45:24
control. Larry Fake has a boss, OK?
45:31
But then who is higher? The, the well, this is where
45:37
Katherine Austin Fitz gets it right.
45:38
But she kind of waffled a little bit when she was talking to
45:41
Tucker Carlson. And it's, it is generational
45:43
wealth, but it goes back I I I think it goes back to the
45:47
Phoenicians. There's a great book I talked to
45:51
the. Vatican.
45:52
The Vatican. Are you?
45:54
Are you? Are you?
45:54
Are you pointing in that direction?
45:56
No, I think the Vatican is part of it.
45:58
I, I look, here's the, the, the history of all of these things
46:02
is that they all get permeated. So permeation was a word that
46:06
was coined by Beatrice Webb. I think because she was a
46:10
feminist, they were using the word penetrated and she didn't
46:13
like that. So she changed it to permeated.
46:15
But no, I I think all of these organisations start out as their
46:20
own little power centres, whether or not you're talking
46:22
about foundations like the Carnegie Foundation of the
46:25
Rockefeller Foundation or the Ford Foundation.
46:28
They may start off with some kind of noble goal, but
46:31
eventually they get Co opted and taken over and controlled.
46:34
And I think the same thing happens with the federal
46:38
government in the United States. I think that the United States
46:41
stopped being a sovereign nation on December 23rd, 1913, yeah,
46:47
when the Fed was created and, and it's been permeated ever
46:52
since. I think that Michael Hoffman,
46:55
yeah, Michael Hoffman wrote a book called The Occult
46:57
Renaissance Church of Rome, and my wife is reading it right now.
47:03
And his, I think that his consensus is that the Vatican
47:08
was taken over around 1300. So again, these, they get
47:15
incorporated into this octopus that's in control.
47:19
So and it's the Jews is like saying it's the Vatican or it's
47:24
the Freemasons or it's the Jesuits.
47:27
The the answer to the test is it's all of the above.
47:30
It's all of them because they've all been kind of permeate.
47:34
But Francis Leader, who's been on my show, has some, has
47:37
written some incredible articles on the power of the Black
47:40
Nobility. Yeah, she's, she, she's a
47:46
interesting character, but she kind of, she's a, she's got a
47:51
purity test, you know, and, and she's, again, she's one of these
47:57
people who doesn't have any problem attacking other people
48:00
online. You know, I think that she's
48:05
openly called me stupid. So, and it's interesting because
48:11
there are other researchers out there that have done.
48:14
I'm in, I'm in contact right now with a researcher who approached
48:17
me directly. And she does not want to go
48:20
public with any of the things that that she knows, but she
48:24
shares all of her sources and like Francis leader, like she'll
48:27
write an entire treatise based on a single document that she
48:32
got. And I'm OK with that.
48:34
If you want to float it as a thought experiment, I float.
48:36
Lots of thought experiments. I float bought lots of thesis.
48:40
When you start telling people that this is the objective truth
48:43
and this is exactly what's going on, and you're basing it off of
48:46
1 PDF document that you got off of the web archive, then you
48:51
know, I start to question, you know, the veracity.
48:55
Well, a very good friend of mine, Nick Hudson, who often
48:58
comes into my show, he makes the argument that we're dealing with
49:04
complex systems, and when we attach binary or these false
49:09
dichotomies, it's either one or zero.
49:11
We end up getting ourselves caught up in traps.
49:14
Well, and that's, and that's part of what they do.
49:17
That's the entire dichotomy game.
49:20
And that's part of the reason that I have, you know, migrated
49:25
over to a linguistic approach to looking at things.
49:28
There's something in linguistics called a universal quantifier.
49:31
A universal quantifier is a word that's like any all, always,
49:35
never love, hate these things that take the needle and push it
49:41
all the way over to one side or the other.
49:44
They are almost always a manipulation and I'm using a
49:47
universal quantifier as a joke there.
49:50
But when somebody tweets out, there are two ways to look at
49:55
this, this way or that way. That's mind control.
49:59
OK, That's purely a mind control operation because there aren't
50:04
very many situations where that either or thing is true.
50:09
And and so it, it becomes really important to become disciplined
50:13
to kind of a not do it and be be aware of the fact that other
50:19
people are doing it when it when it impacts you.
50:23
But Peter, you believe in viruses, so therefore you
50:25
control the position. Right, exactly.
50:27
And and again, this is like my problem with I, I, I for the
50:31
most part, I like Sasha Ladapova, but she's she's a a no
50:37
vaccine absolutist. I'm sorry, she's a no virus
50:41
absolutist and my father was a doctor, you know.
50:49
But hold on, hold on. I know the argument, Douglas.
50:52
I've, I've chatted this session a number of times and I and and,
50:55
and, and people in that category.
50:59
And I don't like to put myself into that category because,
51:01
because I don't feel I have the, the confidence to make an
51:06
absolute claim. But I do think that there is a
51:10
foundational logic that makes sense.
51:11
The question is, how do you know?
51:14
Yeah, yeah, I, I just answered 100%, which is an absolute OK,
51:18
yes, I agree that I, I look, I think that terrain has some
51:23
merit, OK, I also think even. Even German new medicine.
51:29
I I don't know German new medicine.
51:32
Well, everything basically is triggered from the brain, from
51:34
the mind. In other words, stress.
51:39
So stress, stress can make you sick.
51:40
Is is is obviously true. 100% and when I was 12 or 13 years
51:47
old, my father read a Scientific American article to me.
51:50
My father was a physician that said that if you took all of the
51:55
cholesterol out of somebody's diet, that you could lower their
51:59
blood serum cholesterol level by about 7:00 or 8%.
52:03
And if you gave them put them into a high stress situation
52:09
like accountants during tax time or students studying for exams,
52:15
their blood serum cholesterol levels would go up 400%.
52:20
So and I said to my dad, I said, well, what does that mean?
52:22
And he said stress kills. So I, I knew that lesson when I
52:28
was like 12 years old. But that said, you know, I also
52:33
had arguments with my father because he said that when people
52:36
came into his office, they wanted him to give them a pill.
52:40
And I said, well, why don't you suggest other things?
52:44
And he goes, because the guy who's got high blood pressure
52:46
because he's got a bad marriage or a shitty job isn't going to
52:49
divorce his wife or quit his job.
52:52
So you got to give him something.
52:55
That was my dad's argument. So what's the moral of the story
52:59
then? I think the moral of the story
53:02
is that we need to pay attention to words and how they impact our
53:07
reality. Because the the method that you
53:09
and I are using right now in order to communicate with each
53:12
other and to the people who are watching this video is all based
53:16
on language. And language ultimately winds up
53:19
becoming the vector that shapes all of our realities.
53:23
And if we don't pay attention to the way that the words are being
53:26
used, then we're going to get manipulated.
53:29
So if we look out for universal quantifiers, if I've written
53:34
many articles on it, if you go to thedukereport.com, you can
53:37
find the articles that I've written on linguistics and what
53:41
I call epiwar. But if we don't pay attention to
53:44
the words that are being used to frame our reality, then we're
53:48
going to be slaves to the words. So we need to wake up to how
53:52
words are being used against us. So in the recent COVID era, we
53:57
heard a lot of safe and effective.
54:00
Safe and effective is a is a deletion of distortion and
54:04
generalisation in All in one. And I've written about that.
54:08
Yes, it's a it, it, it uses a, a particular linguistic form
54:15
called A cause effect complex equivalence, which is where you
54:18
take A cause and effect and you marry it with a a complex
54:22
equivalence is any kind of. And, and again, I, we only have
54:26
a couple minutes. So if you, if you go to my
54:29
website, I can send you a link after this where I actually
54:32
specifically talk about that and maybe you could put it in your
54:35
show notes. But yeah, safe and effective is
54:38
a cause effect, complex equivalence, which is the
54:40
pattern, that is, that is used by tyranny in order to control
54:44
us. Doesn't the UN also use it for
54:47
its sustainable development goals?
54:49
I mean, do you really want a world?
54:52
Yeah. I mean, I mean, they want to
54:53
wipe out worldwide poverty. Why would anybody be against
54:58
that, Peter? But you wouldn't be.
55:01
But that's but but that but there's a deletion going there.
55:05
At what cost? How are you going to do that?
55:08
What's the process that you use for being able to manage that?
55:13
You know, Elon Musk has all these like really clever tweets
55:16
where he's talking about how robots are going to serve
55:18
everyone. And the question is, who's
55:21
everyone? OK.
55:23
You mean the people that that the people that are still alive
55:26
after you do Pandemic 2? Is that the is that, is that the
55:30
everyone that you're talking about?
55:32
The people who have a locker in the bunker, you know, as
55:36
Catherine Austin Fitz might put it.
55:39
What do you make of Elon? I think he's a cut out.
55:42
I think he's a, he's a construct.
55:46
He, I think all these people are constructs.
55:49
I don't, I don't believe in the Horatio Alger myth of somebody
55:53
who pulls themselves up by their bootstraps.
55:56
I think that they're anointed. It doesn't mean that he's not
55:59
smart. It doesn't mean that he's not a
56:01
99 percentile thinker, but he was chosen for this role the
56:06
same way that Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen and you know,
56:11
yadda, yadda, yeah, Mark Zuckerberg, these these guys are
56:15
all chosen and they're, they're chosen out of a, there's a
56:20
process for choosing them. They're certainly not stupid
56:24
people, but they are given Palmer Luckey, who's somebody
56:28
that I've met and, and, and I photographed him.
56:33
You know, these people are tapped.
56:35
They call it at Yale when you get put into Skull and Bones,
56:39
they tap you on the shoulder. These guys get tapped and they
56:42
say, hey, you want to play, you want to be the white richest man
56:44
in the world. Jeff Bezos's grandfather was the
56:49
first financial director of ARPA.
56:52
You know, is that an accident that that he winds up becoming?
56:58
He runs Amazon, which started in New Mexico, by the way, Atomic
57:04
Energy Commission. You know, there's all kinds of
57:07
weird stuff going on there too. So Catherine might have a point
57:11
because she refers to Elon as an operation.
57:15
Yeah, I think that that's correct.
57:17
I think that's it. She's she's correct.
57:20
Like I said, I thought my only criticism ever is I thought she
57:23
waffled a little bit with with Tucker, but.
57:28
But I like with Tucker's heading, I think he's starting
57:30
to open up his mind a bit. Maybe Tucker is a member of the
57:37
Pilgrim Society or or at least was on a roster of Pilgrim
57:42
Society members in in 2009 and his father was a spook.
57:47
And when he when he starts talking about again the whole
57:53
thing, 911 was an inside job. OK, we know that 911 was an
57:57
inside job. That that, that that what what
58:00
none of these Catherine Austin Fitz alludes to, that Tucker
58:04
doesn't allude to, is that there's a super government,
58:08
right? That the United States is not at
58:10
the top of the food chain, that the CIA is a controlled
58:14
operation run out of the City of London.
58:16
Okay, like they don't go to the Super government tranche.
58:24
And so when, when Tucker Carlson wants to come around to the fact
58:28
that World War 2, I I mean the whole argument between Tucker
58:32
Carlson and whoever he was talking to last week about who
58:36
started World War 2. Like it doesn't even talk about
58:40
King Edward the 7th setting up World War One.
58:43
It doesn't talk about the bank, about the City of London and
58:46
Wall Street manufacturing Hitler.
58:49
I don't know if you've had the guys on who wrote the book 2
58:52
World Wars and Hitler, but it's the most besides MES the it's
58:57
the, I think it's the most important book out.
59:00
There's two books right out right now that everybody should
59:03
read, which is the the Predators versus the people by Meese.
59:07
And I can't pronounce his last name.
59:09
He's Belgian. And and then John O'Dowd and and
59:15
Jim McGregor's book 2 World Wars in Hitler like it's a life
59:19
changing. These two books are Life to read
59:21
2 World Wars and Hitler 1st and your life will change.
59:24
How can my audience follow you? Just go to thedukereport.com you
59:29
can find links to articles that I've written. 6 minute video
59:36
explainers on a hundred of the most important books that you
59:39
could read right now. Links to almost 300 half an hour
59:45
podcasts on the most important books that you could read right
59:47
now. And and it also links.
59:50
I have a a book section that you that that you go in link to
59:54
where I've got almost 1015 hundred word summaries of the
1:00:00
most important books that you could read right now.
1:00:02
These are all books that are written by well known authors
1:00:06
and journalists. But they just never made the New
1:00:09
York Times bestseller list. Peter Duke, thank you for
1:00:14
joining me in the trenches. Thanks, Jeremy.
1:00:16
I'll come back anytime you want.