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