Human emotions, beliefs and behaviors can be scientifically manipulated.

As a prominent British Lord, Bertrand Russell acquired a deep understanding of how the process works. Nearly 100 years ago, he warned that experts in “the art of scientific manipulation” would use psychological and biological techniques to brainwash and control humanity. As Russell put it, neither the public nor the politicians would be aware of the tactics used against them.

Fast forward to January 2020; historian Yuval Harari delivered a chilling message at the World Economic Forum. Standing before an audience of billionaires, heads of state, Wall Street and Silicon Valley giants, he announced that human sovereignty is an illusion.

Harari’s speech focused on the convergence of biological knowledge and computing power. His core message amounted to this: The beliefs, desires and choices of human beings are no longer a mystery. Forget about the idea of a “soul” or “free will.” Human beings, according to Harari, are nothing more than “hackable animals” at the mercy of the government institutions and corporations that will capture and control their minds. Taking it further, he stated that those who control the system will direct the “intelligent design” that replaces natural selection. Elsewhere, Harari has explained that this will split humanity into different biological castes.[1]

Though the research and technology were still in their infancy a century ago, Lord Russell knew this was coming. He stated that the difference between the “experts” (the ruling class) and the “manual workers” (you and me) would become so great that we’d become “almost different species.” [2] He warned that the experts would use diet, injections and psychological interventions “to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable.” He concluded that, through this process, “any serious criticism of the powers that be” would become “psychologically impossible.” A revolt of the masses would become “as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep.”[3]

Essentially, Harari publicly announced the arrival of Lord Russell’s dystopian future. He even boiled it down to a mathematical equation: Biological knowledge multiplied by Computing power multiplied by Data equals the “Ability to Hack Humans.” B x C x D = AHH. However, this raises a couple of important questions.

The level of knowledge and technology that Harari bases his equation on has only been acquired recently. It is new, and that suggests that the “ability to hack humans” is also new. But if that’s the case, we must ask: First, how could a man in the early 1900’s have so accurately “predicted” what was coming? And second, if Russell saw the threat a century before the technology existed, doesn’t that imply something is missing from Harari’s equation?

To answer the first question: Lord Russell wasn’t really predicting, he was reporting. He personally knew and interacted with the powerful men who, despite controlling a sprawling empire, wanted to control the entire world. He observed their insatiable lust for power, and the “manipulations” they concocted to increase it. Of these men, he wrote: “The leaders of the modern world are drunk with power … [In a man who seeks] power for its own sake there is something dusty: when he has it, he wants only more … [He] must be perpetually engaged in some fresh manipulation [to avoid suffering] from a sense of emptiness.” [4]

To answer the second question: Yes, there is something extremely important missing from Harari’s equation. That something is intent. More specifically, the intent of those who set out to hack and control humanity long ago. This new threat isn’t new, and it didn’t appear by accident. It was intentionally built and refined over generations.

Harari claims that his announcement at the World Economic Forum in 2020 was a warning. However, those who compete for power over human beings almost certainly interpreted his “warning” much differently than you or I would. A world filled with hackable animals suits them just fine. Their history proves that they have only one concern: beat their potential competitors to the role of shepherd.

In short: Modern “democratic rulers” have not only sought to manipulate and control us for more than a century, they’ve intentionally created and captured the instruments necessary for them to do so. Our problem isn’t that we could be hacked. Our problem is that we already have been on a level that’s nearly unimaginable. And the new instruments they’ve developed (to collect mountains of biological and psychological information, then weaponize it using AI) will only magnify their power.

A Democratic Costume — To Rule the World

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea ... Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. [5]

It is increasingly clear that, in the twentieth century, the expert will replace [the] democratic voter in control of the political system... Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may [choose] between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have [their] policy established by the experts) […] In general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives. [6]

It’s impossible to discuss the system we’re currently living under without discussing the “Network”[7] of powerful individuals who built it. And for that discussion, I’ve found no better source of information than the author of the two quotes you just read.

Before sharing his name and credentials, take a moment to consider his words. He is declaring, in no uncertain terms, that the democratic system is a deliberate deception. Regardless of who the citizens elect to office, government policies, which are set by the experts, will move forward.

Where Lord Russell was born among the experts seeking to control “all habitable portions of the world,” and where Harari announced their ability to do so a century later, Carroll Quigley documented their project from the inside.

I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments... my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known. [8]

I’ve written a separate book on Carroll Quigley’s revelations entitled Tragedy and Hope 101, so I won’t spend much time on the topic here.

Suffice to say, Carroll Quigley was a highly respected Ivy-League-educated historian. He taught at Georgetown University in Washington DC for 35 years. He advised the U.S. Department of Defense. He lectured at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute, and the National War College. He taught the future leaders of the State Department, CIA, and the broader national-security apparatus.

In other words, Quigley not only documented this secret Network’s activities from the inside, he spent 35 years advising/teaching the “experts” required to achieve its stated goal of global domination.[9] And then, seemingly out of nowhere, he betrayed their trust by exposing the Network’s members and its instruments. For our purposes, the instruments are what matter today.

Thanks to Carroll Quigley, we know that the Network created the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR was then used to create the CIA. In Britain, Network members created MI6. Additionally, the Network created the Federal Reserve System, the League of Nations and eventually the United Nations. It created the EU, the WHO, the IMF, the World Bank, and the Bank for International Settlements. Those instruments still exist today, and they still serve the Network that created them. Beyond that, the Network has created and/or captured other instruments of power. It has shaped everything from modern medicine and media to modern education and “scientific consensus.” [10]

This Network and its experts currently operate in a costume that they call democracy. It’s an effective costume; a “hack” that creates inaccurate assumptions about the nature of our reality. It has enabled them to extract so much wealth and power over the past century that it would make a mere king or dictator blush.

Edward Bernays, known as the father of propaganda, pointed to the hack when he wrote:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. [11]

A decade prior to the quote above, Bernays helped the Network stir public support for U.S. involvement in World War 1. The justification? To “make the world safe for democracy.” …Makes sense. Using US blood and treasure, the Network destroyed four competing empires and, with one exception, reorganized their vast territories under democratic structures that were easier to control. [12]

It Doesn’t Require a Massive Conspiracy

When faced with this evidence, it’s natural to believe that millions of people would need to be in on the secret. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how power operates. A centralized system doesn’t require millions of insiders. It only requires a small network of individuals that determine policy, and meaningful incentives that ensure compliance. (Rewards or punishments that are handed out based on obedience or resistance.)

Regardless of the stated goal, centralized systems always concentrate power into fewer and fewer hands. The individual “instruments” within our global centralized system might appear separate, but they’re not. They were created or captured by the same interlocking Network. That small Network decides the policies, then decides which narratives will be used to sell them.

The COVID 19 pandemic, which we’ll cover in a later chapter, provides a perfect example of how this works. It took fewer than 100 people at the top to establish policies that affected billions of human beings.[13] Once the policies were established, everyone in the legacy media knew which narratives to support or attack. Every politician knew the safe course of action. The social media platforms knew exactly whose voice to suppress and whose to amplify. Doctors, scientists, business owners; everyone received the same message: Accept, repeat, and do as you’re told… or else.

In a system like this, the credentialed class is especially vulnerable to the “or else” option. Imagine that you’ve worked a decade or more before landing your dream job at a prestigious institution like the WHO, CDC, NIH, or FDA. If you want to keep that job, let alone advance your career, you know better than to challenge the policies and narratives handed down by your superiors.

People mistakenly believed that widespread silence during COVID proved consensus. All it actually proved is that everyone knew what to expect if they challenged the chain of command.

Committed to Deception

A system of permanent deception requires psychopaths to run it. The kind of people who lie without shame, and become hostile if you question what they’ve told you to believe. In their eyes, we are inferior animals to be hacked, managed, or culled as they see fit. We are expected to be gullible or, at the very least, obedient. We are not authorized to notice what they are doing.

If the term psychopath seems needlessly derogatory, I assure you it’s not. The level of deception they’re willing to employ, and the suffering they’re willing to inflict, can only be described as psychopathic.

To illustrate, consider the difference between a normal liar and the type of liar we’re dealing with. A normal liar does something wrong, gets caught, and lies to avoid consequences. “Did you steal that bicycle?” the parent asks. “No,” the child responds. That kind of lying is defensive. It indicates a moral weakness (stealing another child’s bike), but the crime and the lie aren’t in the same universe as the crimes and lies our “experts” engage in.

The people who run our system are not defensive liars. Yes, they will lie defensively if they’re caught doing something horrible, but that type of lying is expected from any organized criminal network. It’s secondary. The primary form of lying that our experts in scientific manipulation rely on is preemptive and systemic. From childhood, they begin leading us into a false reality that’s so far from the truth, it makes the truth sound crazy. To understand how deep the deception and betrayals go, consider the following:

After completing his work at Nuremberg, Dr. Ewen Cameron came away convinced that the German people were driven by fear and pathological ideas. [14] He publicly denounced the atrocities committed by Nazi doctors during the war. [15]

In the years following Hitler’s defeat, Cameron became one of the most respected and highly credentialed psychiatrists in the world. He directed the world-renowned Allan Memorial Institute, served as president of the World Psychiatric Association, and was president of both the American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations. If you wanted a superstar psychiatrist, he was at the top of the list.

By 1957, the Nuremberg Code was already a decade old. Its core tenets were clear: do not act without informed consent, do not deny a patient’s right to discontinue treatment, and do not inflict unnecessary physical or mental suffering. It was against this backdrop that a successful businessman named Louis Weinstein walked into one of the most prestigious psychiatric institutes in the world, to be treated for anxiety by Dr. Ewen Cameron.

Louis Weinstein had no knowledge of Cameron’s connection to the CIA. He also had no idea that the life he’d known was about to be deliberately erased from his mind.

The treatment protocol began with a powerful cocktail of drugs. From there, for nearly two months, Cameron kept him either unconscious or in a helpless, drug-induced state. While unconscious, Cameron administered electroconvulsive shocks (he electrocuted Weinstein’s brain) multiple times daily at an intensity that far exceeded accepted medical standards. The extreme electrical overload enabled Cameron to create what he called a “regressive state.” In simple terms, it enabled him to reduce adults to an infantile state; unable to speak, walk, feed themselves, or control their bowels. [16] [17]

Once that was done, Cameron moved on to the “psychic driving” part of his protocol.

The process involved complete visual sensory deprivation while being subjected to 16 hours a day of looped mind-control messaging. Cameron experimented with different states of consciousness for this part of his protocol, but he ran into trouble with people who weren’t sufficiently sedated: many of them tried to resist. To solve that problem, he began injecting them with curare, a powerful paralytic drug.[18] Now, his victims were conscious but couldn’t move. Problem solved, he resumed the mind-control messaging.

To be clear, the CIA wasn’t funding Weinstein’s torture to cure his or anyone else’s anxiety. They wanted to know what it took to break a human mind, and what could be done to control that mind after it was broken.

Allow yourself to imagine the horror of this betrayal. You’ve entered one of the most prestigious mental health facilities in the world with absolute trust. You’ve selected one of the most prominent psychiatrists in the world to help you with anxiety. He administers a sedative to help you rest and recover. That sedative is the first and last thing you consented to.

At some point your brain comes back online during a programming session. Disoriented and terrified, you try to escape, but are subdued by staff and injected with a drug that paralyzes you. Now you’re awake, but can’t move. The torture continues for 16 hours per day. You can’t stop it. You have no idea what’s going on. You don’t know if or when it will end. Cameron didn’t do this once or twice. He experimented on hundreds of patients who walked into his clinic expecting “safe and effective” therapy. Perhaps more disturbing, he didn’t do this in secret.

Dr. Cameron published his experiments in the most prestigious journals of his day. His colleagues knew what he was doing, but they chose to look the other way. Who in their right mind would dare challenge the President of the American, Canadian, and World Psychiatric Associations? In a system that’s immoral enough to pay and protect an expert like Cameron, it’s easy to predict what dissent will earn you.

“They were trained and credentialed by the system. They depend on it for their reputation, income, and retirement. Many have worked decades to squeeze their way into very thin cracks of opportunity and prestige. When they inevitably see corruption, they have a choice: They can do what’s right and lose everything, or they can look the other way. Very few will find the courage to honestly question, let alone denounce, the consensus [of silence] that emerges under these circumstances. And that’s exactly why the system is dangerous, and why nobody should thoughtlessly defer to the curated ‘experts’ who are put forward to represent it.” [19]

It wasn’t just that Cameron personally violated the core tenets of the Nuremberg Code. It wasn’t just that his prominent colleagues knew what he was doing and looked the other way. The most important thing to consider is that people assume “the authorities” would stop something like this, yet they were unwilling to do so.

The World Health Organization, charged with protecting global health and human rights, didn’t condemn Cameron when his work was published; it kept him on its Expert Advisory Panel on Mental Health. The U.S. government didn’t denounce his work; they funded it. The Canadian government didn’t denounce his work; they funded it too. Even medical licensing boards stayed silent. Those with the power to expose Cameron and protect his patients did nothing.

This story demonstrates how easy it is for a centralized system to hack our perception of reality.

If you had stood in front of the Allan Memorial Institute and declared that Dr. Ewen Cameron (the director of the facility and president of the World Psychiatric Association) was conducting mind-control experiments for the CIA, you would have been dismissed as a lunatic conspiracy theorist. You might have even received some unwanted “treatment” of your own. Louis Weinstein wouldn’t have believed you. Nobody would have believed you.

And how could they? Their perception of reality was designed to make it sound ridiculous. Doctors, nurses, bureaucrats, local and global regulatory agencies, the US government; all of them in on it? If it were true, somebody would’ve talked. It would be all over the news! “Dr. Cameron arrested for forcing patients to endure horrific torture at Allan Memorial!” It’s a criminal conspiracy that seems too insane to be true, and that’s part of the hack.

As mentioned earlier, it only requires a tiny handful of people at the top to set the policy in a centralized system. From there, incentives explain the outcome. You can blow the whistle if you want, but the Network will use its power to destroy you. If you’re lucky, they’ll only destroy your reputation, your income, your career and everything that depends on it.

Every one of Cameron’s victims lived in a false reality. They walked into Allan Memorial believing they were in good hands and would receive the best care available. If any of them had been given the truth – a detailed description of the “treatment” they’d receive as lab rats in a CIA mind-control experiment – it’s likely that every one of them would have turned and run while they still could. But they were victims of mind control before the treatments even began. (Everyone knows that reputable institutions and psychiatrists would never do such a thing.)

This chapter opened with Lord Russell’s warning about the art of scientific manipulation. Everything else up to this point has aimed at conveying the gravity of that warning: To the extent we remain deceived, we remain under a proven form of mind control. We can be predictably manipulated into accepting and doing things that empower a centralized network of psychopaths.

Simply put: If the masses are hacked and don’t realize it, it’s because the system they live in (from cradle to grave) was created, and is controlled by, hackers. It was built to produce “the sort of beliefs” that the hackers desire. It is designed to render meaningful resistance “as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep.” It is a mind-control system. That is its greatest power. However, it’s also its greatest weakness, because it’s built on something that we control.

That “something” is our trust.

Our ability to grant or withhold trust acts as a security system for our minds. As an analogy, think about how your smartphone works. By default, you are the only person who’s authorized to access its applications. However, that doesn’t mean a hacker can’t open your banking app on your phone and empty your account. In order to steal your money, the hacker only needs to gain your smartphone’s trust. Once the phone thinks the hacker is you, its security features are meaningless.

A human mind can be hacked in a similar way. Rather than use force to access and manipulate your mental apps, the hackers simply need to gain your trust. And assuming you were raised like most kids, that’s easy for them to do. Everyone around you already trusted their system, so you likely trusted it without a second thought. Until you recognize and correct that mistake, they will manipulate your emotions, beliefs, and behaviors whenever possible. But if you do recognize the mistake – if you revoke your misplaced trust – their power over your mind will evaporate.

In theory, this seems like a simple problem to solve: Psychopathic liars gained your trust and, by extension, they gained access to your mind. They use that access to manipulate your emotions, beliefs, and behaviors. Revoke that misplaced trust, evict them from your mind, and their mind-control operation dies. Easy, right? Well, yes and no.

Yes, the concept is easy to understand, but so is the concept of eating healthy or working out. Understanding the value of doing something is not the same as developing the ability to recognize and resist temptations that derail you.

Remember, we’re dealing with experts in “the art” of scientific manipulation. Once they’re in, they use their extensive knowledge of human psychology to stay in. And to achieve the ultimate hack, they have another trick up their sleeve. They make their mind control feel good, and make accepting the truth too painful to bear.

Egoic Seduction

Our rational mind wants to know the truth, but rulers learned long ago how to get around that problem. To bypass our truth-seeking mind, they simply need to drive us into lower states of consciousness. Egoic vulnerabilities like pride, fear, and anger are their favorite targets. If they can trigger any one of these, we become much easier to manipulate and control. If they can trigger all three, it’s amazing what they can do. The basic hack never changes; once you know what to look for, it’s easy to see.

First, they induce as much psychological suffering as possible. After they’ve driven you nearly insane with fear and / or anger, they offer a solution. If it’s safety you want, they’ve got it. If you’re screaming for vengeance, they’re ready to deliver. They will ease your suffering and send you back into a happy life, provided that you meet the following terms: you must accept, repeat, and do what you’re told. Anyone who refuses those terms – anyone who rejects the program and points out holes in the narratives that justify it – will be labeled a dangerous idiot at best.

In a nutshell, that describes one of their most powerful mind-control hacks. They write narratives and stage events that provoke a predictable, unthinking reaction. The purpose is to bypass your rational mind by driving you immediately into a deeply emotional, high-stress state.[20] That state, along with the certainty that produces and sustains it, makes it extremely difficult for you to reason your way back out.[21] This is a well‑documented vulnerability in human psychology, and the hackers use it well.

By first creating intense fear or anger, they trigger an amygdala response that disrupts your ability to process conflicting information. The longer they keep you in that state of mind, the deeper and more entrenched your certainty becomes. Your mind “wires” a durable connection between the emotion and its cause. The ego stands guard. It’s defensive. It doesn’t want to hear anything that suggests it could be wrong.

But ego isn’t the only barrier. While it’s busy dismissing evidence that contradicts what they led you to believe, your mind’s capacity to evaluate that evidence has already been diminished. (Higher‑order reasoning weakens under extreme mental stress.) [22] And that’s still not the end of it.

Once they’ve broken you down as much as possible, they deploy the greatest seduction of all. To encourage your continued acceptance of their narrative, they tempt your ego with its most base desire: superiority.

Specifically, they offer you moral and intellectual superiority over those who have concluded differently. Your fear, your rage, and ultimately your obedience are all converted into badges of honor. They signal your rank above “the others.”

It can take years for those who embrace that final offer to escape the cage they walked into. Some never escape, and it’s not hard to understand why. First, the hackers lured them in with effortless certainty and status. From there, the cage practically locks itself. Nobody wants to trade effortless certainty for the hard work of uncovering censored truth. Nobody wants to surrender their “superiority” for something far less flattering. It goes something like this:

The experts announce: “Nobody knows better than us. There is no debate, and you’re smart for realizing that. Be proud! You’re doing the right thing.” Then, they follow that announcement with: “Only liars and idiots reject what we say is true. They’re selfish and dangerous. They don’t care about right and wrong.”

You don’t need to be an expert in psychological manipulation to recognize the hack. Given a choice between “awesome, upstanding, intelligent human being” and “selfish, dishonest, dangerous idiot,” most people would rather be seen as the former. So, it’s not only easier and more rewarding to continue believing, it also avoids the heavy egoic cost of rejecting the narrative.

Once the ego has accepted low-effort superiority, it has no incentive to do the difficult and time-consuming work required to challenge its beliefs. Unlike the rational mind, which values truth, a triggered ego will defend false beliefs like it’s defending life itself. And the more it feeds on a sense of superiority, the more immune to truth it becomes. By the time it reaches the cruelty phase, where the ego enjoys attacking and dehumanizing the “inferior others,” the mind-control narrative is nearly untouchable.

At that point, the barrier separating ego from truth is strongest. It’s no longer just an issue of doing the work required to discover it was wrong. It’s no longer just an issue of surrendering the self-righteous contempt felt for the “immoral idiots” who refused to fall in line. Both of those barriers are very difficult to overcome, but for a well-meaning human (as most are), they pale in comparison to the one that remains.

Few are psychologically secure enough to face evidence that they were actually the immoral idiot in the equation. To admit they were wrong risks turning all of the hatred and ridicule they directed outward back on themselves. The more they dehumanized and vilified the others, the more painful it becomes to accept the truth. Many won’t leave the cage they walked into because it’s the only thing protecting them from that pain.

Now, let’s return to the solution.

This entire system of manipulation hinges on one thing: Your trust. When the hackers tell you who to hate, it only works if you trust them. When they tell you what to be terrified of and what you must do to be safe, it only works if you trust them. When talking heads appear on screen with a focus-group tested, guilt-maximizing narrative, the manipulation only works if you trust them.

Always remember, they cannot capture your mind without your cooperation. And even if they do capture it initially, trust remains the lynchpin. Remove that trust, and their mind control falls apart. For proof, look no further than COVID.

Testing the System

In January of 2020, Yuval Harari made a bold claim: Human beings are nothing more than hackable animals. Biological science, coupled with massive amounts of data and computational power, has made it so.

A century earlier, men “drunk with power” began building their global mind-control system. According to Harari, that system was now fully operational, and its current owners wasted no time before deciding to see how much it could do. Within two months of his announcement, they launched a global psychological operation unlike any other.

As stated, we’ll cover the COVID psyop thoroughly in a later chapter, but for now we only need to focus on a couple of key points. The first is most important: You don’t test the limits of mind control by convincing people to believe or do things that are reasonable. Instead, you test your power over their minds by convincing them to believe and do things that, in a non-manipulated reality, are objectively unreasonable.

In this regard, our experts in scientific manipulation met the requirement with their first manufactured belief. They convinced billions of human beings that COVID posed a threat so great, that it justified turning the economies of the world upside down, expanding government power, and violating the most basic human rights. To understand the enormity of that initial deception, we need some context.

Prior to COVID 19, our fear of death was based on our lived experience. Nearly all of us had lost family members, close friends, and neighbors along the way, but it wasn’t a common occurrence. Even including friends of friends, and the family members of friends, our annual exposure to death was rare.

We weren’t living in terror because we had no reason to be. Decade in and decade out, less than 1% of the earth’s population died annually, and that meant over 99% of humanity made another trip around the sun. There was no apocalypse, and we all knew it. But then COVID came along in 2020 and changed everything.

Suddenly, our perceived risk of death was no longer based on our lived experience. There was still no apocalypse, but almost nobody knew it. In fact, a large percentage of the population believed that a COVID infection dramatically increased their risk of death. Not double or triple the normal risk, but more like ten times or even higher. [23] How did that happen? Something obviously changed. But before we get to what changed, let’s address what didn’t.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Contrary to what many were misled to believe, global deaths in 2020 didn’t jump to ten times normal. They didn’t jump to 7, or 5, or even 3 times normal. They didn’t even reach anything near double. And to clarify, when I say deaths didn’t increase to anything near double, I’m including deaths among the most vulnerable population (people 70 years of age and older).

Here is the context you weren’t given. If the hackers did their job, these numbers will seem impossible.

In a normal year, less than 1% of the global population dies. In 2020, despite COVID, that didn’t change. The official “died of COVID” numbers amounted to only ¼ of ⅒ of 1% of the global population.[24] That number is so small, you have to move into the 4^th decimal place to measure it. If this shocks you, wait until you hear the number for seniors.

In a normal year, approximately 5.5% of those over the age of 70 die. In 2020, we were led to believe that seniors faced all but certain death. In reality, confirmed COVID deaths added only ⅓ of 1% to their annual baseline.[25]

Stated another way: 99.67% of seniors did not die of COVID in 2020, despite the fact that nearly all of them were unvaccinated. [26]

The enormous distance between reality and what people were led to believe proves the power of the hack. One minute, humanity was assessing its risk of death as it always had, the next minute, billions were convinced that death was imminent. In order to survive, we had to give the hackers everything they wanted. In exchange, they would consider restoring some of what they’d taken… All of it was driven by a false perception of risk that they created, maintained, and exploited.

So now, back to the earlier questions. How did this happen? What changed?

Harari gave the short answer when he stated that biological knowledge multiplied by computing power multiplied by data equals the “ability to hack humans.” But if that’s a bit too vague, here is a summary of what it means.

For decades, they harvested our data; every click, search, ‘like,’ and comment. This created an extensive psychological profile of the population that never existed before. [27] When 2020 arrived, the owners of the system knew which buttons to push for maximum fear and obedience. More importantly, they had a powerful new way to push those buttons.

By 2020, smartphones were in billions of pockets around the world. Unlike TV and radio, smartphones are on 24/7 and can deliver messages that are algorithmically optimized for each individual. [28] During COVID, algorithms could easily measure which headlines, images, and videos triggered the strongest response, while social media platforms tracked posts to maintain narrative control. (Posts that led to the “right” conclusions were everywhere. Posts that led to the “wrong” conclusions, even when based on accurate information, were flagged, suppressed and/or removed.) [29]

Simply stated, the hackers sent fear and death messages to every screen 24/7, while simultaneously suppressing anything that weakened their apocalyptic narrative. This enabled them to hijack amygdalas around the world and, for a couple of years, it looked like Harari might have been right. “Reality” became whatever the screen said it was, and the “hackable animals” behaved as if it were true. It worked… until it didn’t.

Back to Reality

It should go without saying that a truly apocalyptic increase in deaths would be self-evident. Jumping from a couple of deaths per year (counted among family, friends, family of friends and neighbors), to dozens of deaths per year would be impossible to miss. Multiple funerals per month wouldn’t require any talking heads on a screen to get your attention.

But the reverse is also true. How would the average person have noticed a ¼ of 1/10^th of 1% increase in global mortality? That is only one additional death per 4,000 human beings. Most of us don’t know anywhere near that many people, and even if we did, the increase wouldn’t be obvious. It certainly wouldn’t be enough to create panic.

The same question applies to the over-70 population. In 2019, 5.5% of seniors were expected to die, which means 94.5% of them were expected to survive. During 2020, confirmed COVID deaths pushed their expected survival rate of 94.5% down to 94.17%. In a world without screens, is it reasonable to assume the average person would have noticed, let alone been terrified of, that ⅓ of 1% change?

By mid 2020, I had concluded two things: 1) If not for the media coverage, the average person wouldn’t have noticed the pandemic and society would have continued functioning as normal. 2) The psychological operation (narratives and policies) would collapse when enough people realized how badly they’d been misled.

It’s not possible to run a no-media version of reality to test the first conclusion. However, the second conclusion lines up well with what we lived through. Let’s focus on the exact period when it all fell apart.

In December 2021, the president of the United States warned the unvaccinated that they and their families faced a “winter of severe illness and death.” Following his warning, as expected, the media continued to subject us to 24/7 terror. We were nearly two years into the madness at that point. Then, just two months later, in February 2022, the apocalyptic messaging all but vanished and our lives suddenly returned to normal. [30]

Some might assume that our return to normal corresponded with COVID deaths falling to an established “safe” level. That wasn’t the case. They were still much higher than deaths in March of 2020 when lockdowns, social distancing, and “non-essential” business closures were imposed.[31] They were also higher than when the president gave his winter-of-death speech two months earlier.[32]

So, if it wasn’t a reduction in the threat of death that drove the sudden reversal, what did?

Was it out of the kindness of their hearts? Did they decide that two years of 24/7 algorithmically optimized terror, censorship, smear campaigns, mandates, threats and punishments had been enough? Did they decide it wasn’t right to “hack the animals” after all?

Or, did they stop because the psychological operation began producing the opposite of the desired effect?

By the time of the pivot, public-health officials had suffered a significant drop in positive ratings, and the majority of Americans wondered if officials were withholding important information.[33] Despite the continued fearmongering, a full 70% of Americans were ready to move on.[34] The hackers weren’t just losing support for their policies; they were losing the one thing that their entire system of manipulation depends on: trust.

Initially, it’s easy to believe the hackers because they’ve conditioned us to trust them. Verifying their claims is hard work, and that burden falls on us. Why bother?

But when trust is betrayed, disbelief becomes easy. Now the hackers have to prove their claims; that burden falls on them. And when the betrayal is sufficiently egregious, no amount of work will suffice. It’s hard to imagine that anyone, after learning what Dr. Cameron had done, would choose him to provide their psychiatric care.

COVID represents the most easily proven and egregious betrayal of public trust in recent history. The hackers overplayed their hand and, in the process, diminished their most powerful resource.

If there is anything good that came from COVID, it’s this: For millions of people, a lifetime of misplaced trust collapsed within a couple of years. They stopped believing the system-curated version of reality they were conditioned to accept. It has led to a genuine awakening that reaches far beyond COVID.

Many of those millions of people are now reexamining the entire system. They’re asking how it came to be, who built it, and what it was actually built to do. They’re digging into the true history of their education system, their media, their government, their money, their medicine, and their intelligence agencies. The hackers spent a century constructing instruments of control that almost nobody questioned, and now the questions won’t stop coming.

Revoking Trust

We’ve covered a lot of ground, and that was intentional. I know many readers won’t make it past the first chapter of a book like this. I hope you’re not one of them, but just in case, I wanted to provide enough information to guard against those seeking to manipulate and control us all.

I’ll wrap this up with a simple yet extremely effective mental maneuver. If anything approaching 25% of the population begins applying it regularly, the hackers will have a very difficult time maintaining the false reality that props up their instruments.

It boils down to asking a single question: Who should I not trust? Those who ask and accurately answer that question immediately begin the process of untangling a lifetime of the hackers’ handiwork. By identifying the liars and their instruments, you also identify a list of beliefs they led you to accept. On closer examination, you’ll find that those beliefs are often untrue.

When you ask, “Who should I not trust?” a few answers are obvious:

1. You should not trust people or institutions that believe they have the right to “hack” and manipulate you.

2. You should not trust people or institutions that have intentionally misled you.

3. You should not trust people or institutions that use intimidation, whether psychological, physical, or monetary, to silence your dissent and compel your obedience.

If a person or institution fails any one of those tests, that should be enough to conclude that they’re seeking illegitimate power over you and cannot be trusted. As you’ve probably guessed by now, every piece of the system we’ll cover in the chapters that follow was created or captured by people you should not trust.