An Open Letter to an Agent of the Deep State (Sam Harris)

Mr. Harris:

I believe you are a disinformation agent of the state and this essay will lay out some of the more obvious proofs of such. Given that the media (of all descriptions, i.e., Mainstream plus every level of ‘alternative’) is so riddled with moles (I use this word for its clandestine subtext)… the vast majority of whom work for some arm of the powers-that-be (PTB), you may well ask ‘Why me?’ Why have I singled you out?

I recently stumbled across a podcast of yours, titled, simply, ‘Lying – Sam Harris’ – an incredibly apropos title, although I suspect that few see it that way; or rather few see it that way for the right reason.

Yes, some parsing is needed here… For a mainstream gatekeeper to publicly dive deep into the subject of lying in itself carries enough irony to precipitate disorientation in a thoughtful person, but if, in the process, he actively omits lies by omission from his formal list of Lies by Type… well, count actual and physical dysequilibrium as a possible aftereffect, at least for irony-aware types (of which count me one).

The podcast, as it turns out, was a section of an actual book of yours of the same name, which raises the irony level another peg, via the implicit assurance that the… Lying project was ‘well thought out,’ i.e., not an alcohol or drug-induced or casual, off-the-cuff ‘miscalculation.’

But prior to getting down to the nitty gritty (evidence) in this Open Letter, we need to consider just what ‘personality type’ we dealing with here… (Yes, I mean you.)

But even before that, we need dig into my labeling you a ‘mainstream gatekeeper’. Although there will be more to come on this, for our purposes I’ll define the term as ‘Someone whose public function is to support/verify the agenda/world view of the powers-that-be (PTB) in any way possible.’ I have purposefully phrased this definition as broadly as possible. For example, I’ve left undefined the subject’s knowledge/ignorance that this is his/her function. And I use the term ‘world view’ so as to not narrow the issues involved; by ‘world view’ I mean any subject or viewpoint whatsoever that is to the advantage of the PTB in keeping and increasing their power over the rest of us, with ‘truth’ (however narrowly you define it) not an issue or concern (in public pronouncements such as podcasts). In other words, that which is communicated by a gatekeeper may or may not be factual/truthful; when ‘truth’ is told by a gatekeeper, as it fairly often is (not counting lies by omission!), it’s a… coincidence.

My reasoning in considering you a gatekeeper will be implicit in all I write in this Open Letter/essay. That which I am unsure of (meaning not 100% sure) – and consider this essay a sort of ‘thinking out loud’ – is your mental state, i.e., to what extent you are aware of your public function and service to the PTB. Perhaps by the end we’ll all have come to a conclusion on the issue, although I might as well spill it that I’m 95% sure your function is formal/contractual.

In analyzing your mindset, the following possibilities of Who You Are come to mind:

1) A full-blown mind-controlled (via MKULTRA, say) agent of the state who is unaware of his clandestine history, and function as state propagandist. The phrase ‘The lights are on but nobody’s home’ comes to mind. (Many major celebrities are of this type; recall Britney Spears’s breakdown in front of Barbara Walters, and its implications.)

2) A formal and fully aware ‘mole’ of the state; the sort that Cass Sunstein (in his essay titled ‘Conspiracy Theories’) recommends be planted in various cultural niches in order to defend the state against ideas/memes harmful to its agendas. This would presume formal training (in NLP and other methods of mind control/deception). Highly intelligent psychopaths are often of this type. (Yes, I’m 95% sure this possibility is you, leaving aside the psychopath label.)

3) A true ‘unknowing participant’ (a.k.a. a ‘useful idiot’), i.e., one who has simply and completely ‘drunk the kool aid’ via the effects of the cultural and academic brainwashing we are all subject to (involving 1 and 2 above plus much more) and believes all he says, no matter how ridiculous or transparently false — as in Orwell’s ‘doublethink’, he is able to hold mutually conflicting views without noticing the ‘problem’. Frankly, this one doesn’t sound correct in your case, but who knows?

Your state of mind right now as you read would be a wonderful ‘tell’ in deciding which of the above categories are the best fit: Outrage would indicate 1 or 3, whereas ‘a heightened awareness in readying the best perception management defense’ points to #2.

But given that Open Letters are largely for the edification of others (the idea that you’ll ‘see my point’ is laughable), my goal in the remainder of this essay will be to point out objective proof of your usefulness to the PTB’s agendas, and the likelihood that this usefulness is via a formal contract (between you and some level of the PTB), or possibly some less formal ‘agreement’.

In your ‘Lying – Sam Harris’ podcast we have a partial list of the issues of which you are apparently biased in favor of the position the PTB; positions that are — to any critical thinker — obvious in their deceit.

Addendum: Just before posting this essay, Sam Harris had the podcast to which I refer deleted for ‘copyright’ issues. No problem. I’ve linked you to a podcast that will give you the idea — without your having to buy his ugly, irony-rife book.

A great example of this — and one that particularly offends me personally since children are the principal victims of your prevarications — is your blatant untruths (by omission and commission) about Doctor Andrew Wakefield and his work on behalf of autistic kids. About halfway in you set up your deception by saying that ‘public discourse has been permanently riven by conspiracy theories’… (If I only had the time/space to parse this doozy of a statement!)

You then brand Doctor Wakefield’s 1998 autism/vaccine study ‘an elaborate fraud.’ I’m going to provide a link wherein you can hear Doctor Wakefield defend himself against the charges you and others have made against him. But before I do, I have a question: Who is more likely to perpetrate ‘an elaborate fraud’ upon the public, a doctor who put his career on the line for the sake of children — with no possibility of monetary gain — or a multi-national conglomerate (Big Pharma) with hundreds of billions at stake (yes, billions with a ‘b’)? Whaddya think, huh? Here’s the link in case the embed fails. (This one is long, so maybe come back to it.)

For those lacking the patience to dig deeply into the truth about him: Wakefield’s 1998 paper did not link autism and the MMR vaccine. It simply suggested further study, due to a statistical correlation Doctor Wakefield (and others) found. As the above interview shows and the movie Vaxxed details, the CDC is behind the real modern day holocaust, childhood autism. And Andrew Wakefield was the victim of a smear campaign by the PTB, in this case the CDC and Big Pharma. What is obvious from their reaction to Dr. Wakefield, though, is that they couldn’t even put up with someone urging further study.

Mr. Harris, if you are indeed unaware of the CDC whistleblower Dr. Richard Thompson — and you would have to claim ignorance to call Wakefield a fraud — I suggest you view either of the links provided. In short, Thompson’s testimony leaves no doubt whatsoever that the CDC/Big Pharma is behind this holocaust.

If you watch this little video I’ve assembled (embedded below), you will further understand my outrage at your libeling of Andrew Wakefield. I mean, what excuse can you voice that you are ignorant of the Congressional Hearings that disprove your allegations? Again, I consider Wakefield the most important single voice in the vaccine issue; he is a man who sacrificed his career in the interest of spreading the truth about vaccines and autism. That you would besmirch this man tells me that you know very well what you are doing in supporting PTB lies; that you would, in this case, deceive us at the expense of children’s well-being is… let me rephrase: Given your public stance on the issue and your claim of absolute honesty: What excuse do you have that you are unaware of the very public testimony in the above links?

Here’s my video:

This is not the place for a discourse on the vaccine/autism issue, although I have studied it in depth. Since 1998, and partially, maybe largely, due to the integrity, diligence, and self-sacrifice of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the horrific truth of vaccines is available to anyone who digs below the Big Pharma/mainstream lies on the subject. And the lies of disinfo agents like you, Mr. Harris.

Addendum: ‘Vaccination rates have plummeted, especially in well-educated areas.’ Your words, Mr. Harris, from your ‘Lying’ podcast. Has it occurred to you that the reason for this is that people are doing their research and waking up? (Autism has gone from 1 in 10,000 in the 1970s to 1 in 58 currently, i.e., a true holocaust; one you are perpetuating, you utter piece of human garbage. (A compromise….)

Other Podcasts by Sam Harris

Generally you don’t even rise to the level of ‘controlled opposition’, given that this concept presupposes you appear to ‘disagree’ with the PTB’s version of history. Anyone who doubts this should go to your 2013 Joe Rogan interview.

The podcast starts with your stuttering hogwash supporting the absurd notion that ‘Obama killed Osama bin Laden’ in 2011, then goes on to your disingenuous take on 9/11, including your hackneyed bullshit that ‘conspiracies involve too many people.’ Aside from outright lies (like the above two), how many lies by omission can we count in this one podcast? It’s dizzying.

Generally, quoting Youtube comments is worse than useless, given the number of trolls/fanboys/bot-shills/etc. but with the Rogan podcast we have an exception, for its unanimity and  because in principle the following comments are made by your fans. In fact, and in wonderful irony, the podcast was titled by a Harris fanboy, ‘Sam Harris Deflates 9/11 Conspiracies With Pure Reason’. (!) I’m pasting the podcast comments as they appeared when I listened; they were right under the video. I am not cherry-picking. Let’s go with the first ten:

Milpool Vanhouten1 year ago

The US faked the evidence they took to the UN over WMD. Why the hell wouldn’t they lie about other stuff. They lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The gov lies as part of it’s mandate. 9/11 is so incredibly obvious that it was an inside job. Sam Harris is lying.

Dean1105 ??????1 year ago

Sams wrong about 911 because lots of whistleblowers came foreward and were killed

kaymal khan9 months ago (edited)

Sam Harris is a Zionist gate keeper. As 911 has Mossad finger prints all over it. People need to look into the five dancing Israelis.

JustJonas3 months ago

He is trying to protect (((his))) people that actually did it

Brian Wood9 months ago

Uh oh, looks like Sam’s “pure reason” just got “deflated”.

Alex B6 months ago

Total nonsense! Obvious shilling

MyBumpersticker5 months ago

I watched aircraft investigation for years, never seen a airliner bury itself, wings, tail….then cover itself over. [Obvious reference to Fl 93 on 9/11]

Pepe Gomez1 year ago

Stick to religion Sam. Steel framed buildings just don’t free fall because of fire. A passport that survives the blast but blackboxes don’t. Only one camera giving blurry frames in the pentagon and air plane being disintegrated in a hole in Pennsylvania. Why does it have to be an operation carried out by 10000 Americans why not 20 o 30 Mossad agents with advanced explosives. Congratulations a great example of “motivated reasoning”. You are just controlled opposition.

Addendum: Wow! There is more real ‘truth’ in ‘Pepe’s rambling comment than all your podcasts combined. (Ditto ‘Texas Faggot5’ below!)

Texas Faggot5 months ago

Mr. Harris is not intellectually honest here. We made Manhattan-Project with the tune of 500 000 strong staff but yet only 10 -12 dudes really knew what was going on, even Truman was kept out of the loop. 911 event could be done with less than 500 operatives and 3 -5 persons in hard core control center truly knowing order of the coup. Liabilities would be eliminated asap, naturally. Hence “the secret would leak out” -argument is highly invalid and false. [This is re Harris’s ridiculous (and oh-so tired) argument that 1,000s would have had to be in on a ‘conspiracy’. Any ‘intellectual’ who uses this is almost by definition a state asset.]

What the hell. One more:

GodofBigots9 months ago

Sam Harris is way to smart and surrounded by friends who are just as smart. He knows better. He could have declined to decide one way or the other so his career wouldn’t be ruined. What he does is join in on the very conspiracy he argues can’t exist. His logic is total bullshlt. Cheney’s inner circle working with CIA/Mossad contractors, killed 3000 Americans on the morning of 911 and then sent another 8000 GI’s to their death in Iraq and Afghanistan. And here is Harris trying to argue that no one on the inside of that operation would have any reason to fear spilling their guts. Harris expects as he is saying this, his audience is gullible idiots who will believe anything he says. He’s a shill. He knows god dam well the laws of physics are neither conspiracy nor are they theory. He also knows there are thousands of scientists and structural engineers who would destroy his claims if he ever had the guts to debate them.

Wow. The idea that Youtube comments could do my work for me in an Open Letter to a state mole (shill/whatever) boggles the mind, no?

What the fuck, here’s the next two:

Jason T8 months ago

Awesome fuckin comment man. Exactly. It fuckin sickens me. I used to trust him. But this is fucking disgusting. Literally covering for mass murderers. Accessory after the fact. So sick.

Riley Alldredge4 months ago (edited)

Absolutely….this is embarrassing for Sam it’s hard to believe he could be so naive and the title of the video “Sam Harris destroys 9/11 with Logic” is laughable, this is a weakass strawman argument with either a blatant or ignorant disregard for how the intelligence community and compartmentalization actually works you can almost feel a sense of disingenuity every time Joe asks him a question he hesitates and has to quickly think about how to tiptoe around it and reconcile it with the mainstream party line 

Mr. Harris, you are a guy who has the utter balls to write a book titled ‘Lying,’ in which you claim to have had an epiphany that resulted in you never lying, no matter the situation, no matter what. No ‘white lies,’ no ‘harmless’ lies. ‘I never lie,’ you tell us in your book on Lying! Does anyone see why I had to pen this essay?

Addendum: Here is deGrasse Tyson letting slip part of his deal for Gatekeeping. It’s classic.

You talk a lot about science, Mr. Harris, and the ‘scientific method’ and ‘critical thinking’ in your screeds on religion. Why not regard the event that changed the world as ripe for scientific analysis? I’ve deleted from this essay my own 9/11 proofs-of-inside job, realizing that the unanimous Youtube commenters have done my work for me, but I’ll add my summation: Damage near the top of a structure (as in, say, the North Tower’s upper dozen or so floors) cannot by the laws of physics result in the disintegration of the undamaged lower 90 floors. Period! This is science, sir, basic science, of which you appear to be unaware. (But right now, thinking about it: for you to be this stupid and ignorant, you could not simultaneously be as erudite and logical in your rants about, say, religion. You have to be a formal agent of the deep state, don’t you? Verify my logic here, please.)

You’re a major fan boy of Christopher Hitchens, ‘Hitch’ as you so familiarly referred to him, aren’t you, Mr. Harris? Well, I’m going to compare you to him, as so many do. And indeed there are similarities. And yes, I’m accusing that dead hypocrite of being a state asset as well. I’d bet you even had the same handler.

Is it a coincidence that Hitch had the same (statist) view on 9/11 as you?  Here are Hitch’s words regarding 9/11, when asked his opinion on a new investigation on the attacks: ‘I myself am not aware of anything that should be known that isn’t.’ (The below video is short and worth your time, for what it reveals.)

As any language analyst will tell you, his opening reference to himself (‘I myself’) is a redundancy akin to a ‘stalling stutter’, and is a ‘tell’ that deception will follow. But do we even need an analyst to know Hitch is lying, and not the victim of bad information or incompetent research? Not really but it’s nice to know that a professional lie analyst would throw up a red flag here.

Truly, for someone to say that we know all we need to know about 9/11 is either a moron or an agent of state. Do you disagree on this, Mr. Harris? No answer, huh? Well, one thing we can agree on is that Hitchens was not a moron. So…..

Here’s a better one. Truly, this is a quick vid you really must see/hear for yourself, in sussing the possibility of Hitch-as-state-asset. (Hitchens refuses to answer a point made about 9/11).

And Hitchens, like you, rants about the use of critical thinking and following evidence, at least in his religion-bashing. What’s the problem with doing the same with 9/11?

Hitchens wrote a book, too. Yes, he wrote many books, but I refer to the one closest in ironic concept to your book on Lying.

Why Orwell Matters. A title we should all agree with. This one by Hitch came out in 2002, a familiar date, an important one, historically. In April of the following year the United States (again) invaded Iraq. Remember?

And guess who was riding high on that state bandwagon? Yep, good ‘ol Hitch. Hitch was on the road for most of that year, supporting the invasion that was supposed to save the world from Saddam’s WMD’s. His weapons of mass destruction. ‘So what?’ you ask.

‘So what?’ And what does it have to do with you, you and your support for the official fiction of 9/11 and the subsequent ‘war on terror’? Where do I even begin?

Being a fan of Georgie O, I read Why Orwell Matters upon publication around 2003, while in the back ground (so to speak) Hitch droned on and on (on the TV) about how warranted was Bush’s war on Iraq. Are you starting to get a sense of where I’m going with this, Mr. Harris? No? Okay, work with me here.

Reading WOM back in 2003 I kept wondering when Hitch would get to Orwell’s most important work, I mean get to it at all. Yes, I speak of Nineteen-Eighty Four (1984), his last major work, the one wherein we sense that Orwell really let loose, really told us what we had to worry about. You agree, don’t you, Mr. Harris? I mean, if one wanted to sum up ‘why Orwell matters,’ one might very well blurt 1984, mighten one?

Well, guess what? 1984 barely gets a mention in Why Orwell Matters. The following is from an essay I wrote in the late 2000s:

I read the book and understand why Hitchens gave 1984 almost no mention. If he had, his (Hitchens’s) bizarre support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq would not have stood. He would have had to ‘mention’ that the main point of Orwell’s most important work was regarding War: ‘No war is ever fought for the reasons given.’ And ‘War as the excuse for the ruling elite to stay in power.’ And so forth and so on. Read Orwell’s book. Hitchens’s hypocrisy is over the top… Just when he became an obvious and utter stooge of the powers that be is the only question. (Or did Hitchens merely forget that Orwell wrote 1984 and that its main tenet was the deceit of the PTB when war is waged?)

From 1984 itself:

In some ways she [Julia] was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connexion to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, ‘just to keep people frightened’. This was an idea that had literally never occurred to him.

Sound familiar, Mr. Harris? Does the term ‘false flag’ ring any bells? And do you see why Hitchens would ‘neglect’ to mention the central tenet of Orwell’s most important work? I mean, considering 9/11 and the ‘war on terror’; all that messy stuff…

But the ‘I myself’ giveaway belies the idea that Hitchens’s problem is one of stupidity, ‘bad research’, or forgetfulness. No. Hitchens didn’t ‘accidentally’ leave out mention of 1984 in his paean to Georgie O. He did so because even bringing up Orwell’s real message would open the proverbial worm can, and Hitch could not have that, not given the deal he was living under. The deal wherein he would support the illegal/immoral/etc. invasion of Iraq by the United States.

Anyone who doesn’t believe Hitchens was an agent of the state must then assume he was bereft of any real critical thinking, and we can’t have that, can we, Mr. Harris? And Hitchens was your hero, wasn’t he? You’re just like him, aren’t you?

But let’s look at how you came to be the well-loved pundit (and government disinformation agent) that you are.

After a half an hour I could not get to the end of a Youtube video search for ‘Sam Harris + Islam’. I’m serious. Your Youtube excoriation of Muslims is all but endless. Hundreds! (Youtube no longer puts a number to searches so I can’t quote one.) Ditto for Hitch. Although you both love to shoot the various religious fish in their various barrels, you outdo yourselves with the Muslims. And here is where you do manage to mention 9/11, if only indirectly, As in ‘the 19 hijackers’ and how the Muslim religion caused ‘two planes to hit the towers’ and on and on. Meanwhile, any thinking human who has done even a minimal amount of research knows very well that ’19 hijackers’ and a sick towel-head (who died in 2001) in a cave had nothing to do with the attacks.

You are supposed to have it both ways, aren’t you? Meaning cater to the elite critical thinkers of the planet while somehow supporting the most transparent of the PTB lies. It’s a dicey dance you do in your attempt at carrying this out.

But wait. There is actually a triple whammy in the irony of Sam Harris and the subject of lying: Sam, you also had the balls to title your weekly podcast ‘Waking Up’! Waking up? Waking up is a term people use when they make the commitment to ‘follow the evidence wherever it leads,’ which is the opposite of what a Gatekeeper in the employ of the PTB does. You don’t follow evidence at all, not on matters of real import ! (The podcast title is now ‘Making Sense,’ as if the title-irony became too much to bear. Was it you or your handler who noticed this? I’d bet the latter, given the other ironies you are apparently unaware of.)

As I say, when you tell the truth about something, it’s because that’s what works in your controlled opposition Gatekeeping. And anyway, nothing you say is really the truth, because it’s all steeped in… in what? In lies by omission! Which is why you forgot to include the subject in your book titled Lying. (Doncha love it when ideas circle back?)

Let’s take a look at your ‘Waking Up’ (‘Making Sense’/whatever) podcast titled ‘The Best Podcast Ever,’ an interview with Omer Aziz. The Best Podcast Ever? Whoa! Well, Sam, I have to admit it is a doozy.

Addendum: What follows is just for example. All Harris’s podcasts are steeped in lies by omission. I just don’t have the space (or patience) to cover more than one.

For those who have never heard of Omer Aziz, hang in, because in terms of lies by omission, ‘The Best Podcast Ever’ actually may be correctly titled. Here’s a quick bio to skim, from Omer’s website:

Omer Aziz was born to working-class Pakistani-Canadian parents in Toronto and with the help of scholarships was educated at Queen’s University, the Paris Institute of Political Studies, Cambridge University, and Yale Law School. His writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, The New Republic, and The Globe and Mail, among others. He previously worked for the United Nations Special Envoy for Syria, for a start-up in Shanghai, and most recently served as a policy adviser to the Foreign Minister of Canada. He is currently working on a book. [This is a cv that veritably screams ‘controlled opposition’, plus a bit of limited hangout/disinformation agent!]

 

Here’s a comment I made under that podcast, and which remained unanswered, by you or even by any of your fanboys:

Allan Weisbecker1 second ago

What bothers me most is that no one (especially Aziz) has brought up Western Intel’s use of (and support of) radical Islam — from the original Afghan Mujahadeens. to al qaeda to Isis, not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood, which was taken over from Hitler by the Brits then to the CIA; all were encouraged in their extremism and used to foment dissent, divisiveness and ‘the clash of civilizations’. Oh, and how about 9/11? Does anyone here not understand that Osama and Islam had nothing to do with it? How could this not come up in a discussion like this? Point being that this ‘debate’ has the ring of a Intel controlled opposition set up. [And, believe it or not, the U.S.’s horrendous destruction of Libya was not mentioned (remember that Aziz is supposed to be a Muslim apologist!), nor were the 500,000 Iraqi children who died directly due to economic sanctions, nor were about a score of other clear atrocities. A list of lies by omission in this podcast could fill a book.]

My point being that the podcast itself  is a pure disinformation (via both parties), mostly via lies by omission (although there were plenty by commission as well). If you disagree, Mr. Harris, please respond to my comment.

Your Views on Artificial Intelligence

You’ve come out very publicly on the ‘dangers’ of Artificial Intelligence, another interest of mine, and, like vaccines, a subject I have looked into very deeply. About a year ago I published on my blog an Open Letter to Professor Nick Bostrom on the subject. All I wrote in that essay applies to you, so I’ll quote a bit of it here, with only minor changes.

What I found most interesting about public AI ‘experts’ like you is not what they say but what they do not say [i.e., lies by omission]; the subjects they avoid are clear indications of what we really need fear. Now.

WHO IS IN CONTROL?

Who controls the developing Super AI was for me the most important question, and it went completely unanswered in all the papers and podcasts and videos (including yours, Mr. Harris, your TED talks, essays, blog posts and so forth) I took in. I even plugged this question in as a search term and came up empty, notwithstanding that one Youtube video was titled ‘THE GREAT DEBATE: Artificial Intelligence: Who Is In Control?’

That the ‘debate’ was moderated by your buddy (and another gatekeeper/agent of the PTB) Lawrence Krauss should have told me what was to come, which was this: Not a word about ‘who controls AI’ was spoken in an hour and a half, notwithstanding Krauss’s opening words to his high-powered panel: ‘The great debate on Artificial Intelligence… who is in control… is a question many of you have been asking…’

Not a word. (One means of misdirection is to brazenly title your video/paper/whatever as a question that is never answered, or even dealt with; a version of Hitler’s Big Lie philosophy.) But perhaps I should define my terms before accusations are made. ‘Control’ means, more than anything, ‘Whose money (plus other assets) is behind the R&D?’

Would you agree that this is an important question? Yes? I’ll assume you agree here, for to not agree would certainly sound… odd.

Before I go further I will tell you who is in control of AI development and how I deduced this. Go here for a quick glimpse of part of the team that controls AI. And here it is below (it’s less than 30 seconds).

James Clapper has held various posts with the Intelligence Community, but at the time of his congressional testimony he was Director of National Intelligence, meaning he oversaw all the various agencies that collect data on U.S. citizens and then make use of that data; I believe the number of spy agencies is 16 but this doesn’t count groups/organizations that are not formally admitted to. In the above clip, Clapper is of course lying, under oath. Perjury. A felony. The same category of crime as B&E, dealing heroin by the kilo, assault, manslaughter, murder…

Nothing happened to him. He wasn’t arrested; no repercussions at all. Not even a slap on the wrist, whatever that might mean to a spook of his magnitude. Just one of the agencies Clapper oversaw was the good old NSA, the group Snowden (and many others before and since him) outed as collectors/analyzers of every bit of data you and I put out on the Net (or via cell phones), with no warrant, which is not only a(nother) felony but a breakage of the Supreme Law of the Land (the 4^th Amendment of the U.S Constitution).

You want to know why nothing happened to Clapper, given his felonious testimony? It’s really simple: Everyone who could have done something to Clapper is scared shitless of him. Why? Because of the data he controls, and can falsify if he needs to. Anyone who doesn’t understand this is a fool.

Do you agree that this was almost certainly the reason he walked on this crime? Yes? No? Okay, if No, please give an alternative. If yes, why have you never mentioned it? 

Addendum:Although it is very occasionally mentioned that massive amounts of data is absolutely necessary for the development of AI, and especially SAI (Super AI), it is never mentioned who it is that controls Big Data – the Intelligence Community/Google (etc.). As we all (should) know, we are living in a military/industrial/corporate state. Revolving doors aside, there is no line dividing Government from the Corporate State. Speaking of revolving doors, this is from theNafeez Ahmed article:

‘A year after this briefing with the NSA chief, Michele Weslander Quaid… joined Google to become chief technology officer, leaving her senior role in the Pentagon advising the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. ‘ [For lazy folks: The title is ‘How the CIA Made Google.’ It’s inarguably well citationed.]

He who controls the data controls the future of AI. This is never said, except in very deep subtext.

Why is it that neither you nor even one of your colleagues has ever mentioned that the NSA alone has so much data on U.S. citizens that it had to divert a river (in Utah) to keep the storage facility from overheating? One storage facility among many. (The newest facility in Fort Meade is so large that it covers a former 36 hole golf course.) It’s well known now that there is no practical limit to how much data can be stored, so, as several whistle-blowers have said, ‘They store it all, everything.’ Every keystroke and every word spoken not only on but in the vicinity of electronic devices.

But my point is this: In the hundred or so hours of AI ‘debates’ and ‘symposia’ and so forth that I sat through, why is it that not one person mentioned anything about the Intelligence Community being in control of the development of Artificial Intelligence, via their control of Big Data and the funding? But we’re talking about you here, aren’t we?

Why is it, Mr. Harris, that you have never mentioned the main reason we have to fear AI: Its abuse by those who control the data and the money?

If we consider this a lie by omission (a whopper at that) — which all of your pundit colleagues are likewise guilty of perpetrating — we have still more evidence, aside from your statist view of 9/11, vaccines, the ‘war on terror,’ climate change, fossil fuels (which are not what we’ve been told) and so forth — that you are guilty as charged – you are a disinformation agent of the deep state, the PTB, however you label them. It’s either that or you are profoundly stupid, plus blatantly ignorant of facts/history, which seems unlikely.

Addendum: And then of course there is the little matter of cosmology and mainstream physics, which, on the surface, you cheerlead as heartily as anyone (like your buddies Larry Krause, DeGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll, etc.), while simultaneously ignoring Newtonian mechanics when it puts the lie to one of  your deceits — like disintegrating skyscrapers on 9/11. But even on the simple level of basic logic – which you tout to no end — you and your gatekeeper cohorts fail so obviously. Although you are not mentioned by name, this little video of mine is you: 

Your podcast on climate change was nothing short of nauseating. Anyone paying the slightest attention and wanting to know the truth on the matter need only go to the government’s own data on sea level trends, to see that sea level has been rising on average world-wide a mere quarter inch per year, a rate that has not changed since the 1800s. 

If human-injected CO2 were the cause of global warming (which is the supposed issue), how do you explain that? 

But it’s endless, the lies you perpetrate. And your credibility re your ‘target audience’ (those who consider themselves the educated, secular elite) is all based on your ‘scientism’ (materialism) religion-bashing. Talk about fish in a barrel!

‘Fanatical religions that kill innocent people and suppress and disfigure women and blah blah blah in God’s name are bad!’ Repeat this enough times and heads are bound to nod in the peanut gallery. Then say whatever you want and the nodding will continue. This is how it works, right?

You were meant to replace (and/or re-enforce) Christopher Hitchens, weren’t you? Well, how’s it going? Come on, own up! 

Okay, enough! Thinking and writing about you has left me tired and disgusted. Let’s wrap this up.

If you disagree with me, I assume you will respond to this essay in a point by point, factual manner, i.e., an avoidance of ad hominem/straw men like ‘conspiracy theorist’ and/or cherry-picking of details.

Allan Weisbecker

Final addendum: I came across the below image of Sean Carroll at a presentation about ‘The Big Picture’ and for a beat put myself in the audience yelling out a question as he shows the famous ‘Pale Blue Dot’ photo. (Supposedly inspired by Carl Sagan who had NASA turn the Voyager space probe around to do an earth ‘selfie’): ‘Hey, Sean, where are the stars?’ would be my question and I cannot imagine his answer, given that the earth’s luminosity at that distance (four billion miles) would have made it the faintest speck in the sky (in the camera’s ‘star field,’ but there was none).

The implications here are nothing short of staggering. As I’ve shown in several videos, the ‘star visibility’ issue is ‘hidden in plain sight,’ as are many major ‘tells’ that we are being lied to about virtually everything. Truly, what explanation do you have for the blatant cosmological contradictions exposed in this video. Or this one. Or in my series on the Spacex frauds, this one being only the latest?

Implications. Do you think Carl Sagan was unaware that the photo he endlessly touted was a fraud? Just because no one has exposed it until now, do you assume none of Gatekeepers like Sagan were in on the fraud? Think. 

The levels of deceit go on and on. But you already know this, don’t you, Mr. Harris? Just as does Neil deGrasse Tyson, as shown in this motor mouth blurt on the Joe Rogan podcast (I repeat myself but I couldn’t resist). How about you? Do you have a ticket to survival when the Big Event goes down? (If not, I’d speak to my handler if I were you.)

I gave a government shill (mole) who comments on my blog a full post of his own, with no interference from me, if he’d explain why no stars are visible in the photograph. This guy, ‘Sean’, who could not keep his trap shut in his misdirection on other subjects (over 2,000 words of NLP blabbing on the previous post), suddenly disappeared. Poof! I suspect something like this would happen with you, Mr. Harris, in a similar situation, i.e., if you were truly ‘cornered’ on a matter of vital interest to the PTB. The reason this doesn’t happen, though, is that you are careful in your choosing of speaking venues — they are all deep state sponsored media or alt media.