search icon
Live chat

Dr. Robert Malone: The New Battlefield Is Your Mind—Twitter Files, Fifth Generation Warfare, and the COVID Vaccine Psyops Campaign

“Is it 10 billion or 13 billion, in the United States alone, that was employed in this—what else can you call it—psyops campaign?… The government felt that it was acceptable to deploy these military-grade technologies against all of us to coerce, compel, and mandate that we accept an unlicensed product that turns out to not be safe nor effective,” says mRNA vaccine pioneer Dr. Robert Malone, author of the new book, “Lies My Gov’t Told Me: And the Better Future Coming.”

In this episode, we dive into the Twitter Files, information warfare, psychological operations, and how we can make sense of the bewildering series of events we’ve witnessed in the last three years.

“We’re now seeing the documentation on a daily basis released to us by Twitter of this intense collusion between the US government, tech, and corporate media,” says Dr. Malone.

Some describe it as fifth-generation warfare, “or fifth-generation warfare gradient is a better way to think about it,” says Dr. Malone. “This new battleground in which your mind and your thoughts, your very emotions are the battleground. It is not about territory. It’s about what you believe. It’s what you think.”

*** FOLLOWING the premiere of this episode, our senior editor Jan Jekielek hosted Dr. Robert Malone in a Twitter Space, doing a live Q&A with several other esteemed doctors and scientists. 👉 You can catch the LIVE STREAM of the Twitter Space (viewable on EpochTV!) here 👈

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:

Dr. Robert Malone, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Dr. Robert Malone:

Jan, it’s been my enduring pleasure to have these chats with you from time to time. It always forces me to think more about things before I walk into your studio.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s talk about something that seems to be on everybody’s mind right now, which is Twitter, of course. You’ve said that Twitter isn’t a business, it’s a weapon. What does that mean?

Dr. Malone:

This is an essay we put out a couple of months ago, before Elon transformed the company in the way that he has. Twitter is one embodiment, as we all know now, of multiple social media platforms, in which ostensibly what you interact with, you believe to be free. As has been pointed out repeatedly, if you don’t know who’s paying for it, you’re the product, and the information that you provide is the value that’s being extracted.

All of these social media platforms are actively employed by the intelligence community to shape opinion, to truly shape thought, and to shape emotion. And Twitter, it’s clear now, has become the premium platform for shaping emerging global consensus about the topics of the day. In the case of Twitter, what triggered me to write this article was an analysis that had been done where the author speculated that Twitter was deployed during Arab Spring.

As I was reading that section, it triggered me because I knew that Twitter had been deployed during Arab Spring as a weapon. It’s often the case in our military industrial intelligence complex world, here in the United States, that we have a history of piloting weapons platforms during peripheral skirmishes that are occurring in our imperial world that we operate here out of Washington DC. In the case of Arab Spring, you’ll recall that we had a lot of young crowds moving and acting in ways that were very disruptive.

We’ll just say disruptive, then we’re not placing value on this person versus that person, they were just disruptive. I knew that Twitter was deployed then because I had a client at the time that was deeply, deeply involved in both non-classified and classified research into being able to map the emotional content of language being used by individuals on social media platforms.

It’s a multilingual program that analyzes the emotional content of language. It’s a form of language processing, based on well-established psychological parameters. So, it’s all statistically grounded. I was also working for a company, TASC, as a beltway bandit here, in a senior position having to do with business development. They had their own platforms that also were being developed for defense and intelligence communities to perform similar functions.

What I’m referring to here is that with modern social media platforms one is able to extensively map relationship clouds and also to map the consensus within a relationship cloud about a given topic—where that consensus is moving, who’s driving it, and who’s at the fringes of that cloud, meaning the influencers dragging it in this direction or that direction. With the social media platforms, the technology that we’re all familiar with as individuals, we use this language like, “I’ve been shadowbanned, I’ve been deplatformed, I can’t get the reach that I thought I could get.”

Or, “Oh, suddenly that tweet went really viral and a whole bunch of people saw it and oh, that’s so great, they all agree with me.” It is grossly naive to think that way. The way that these tools, these weapons, information warfare weapons work is that those controlling them can modulate the messaging that’s occurring within these influencer clouds that can be readily mapped.

In fact, all the members of that influencer cloud can be physically mapped in space, particularly if they’re using a cellular device in an urban center, because you have multiple cell towers that can triangulate them. And then, that maps into what’s called Gorgon Stare, which is this incredible high resolution imaging capability that we now have in spy satellites. Your current state of mind, based on the language that you’re using and the topics that you’re talking about can be mapped very precisely psychologically.

It can be tied into a web of influence relationships, it can be identified in geospatial environments, it can be tied to physical images, so that can then be tied the vehicle you’re driving, who do you get into that vehicle with, who are you traveling with, and who are you associating with. All these things can now be totally integrated and mapped.

By using these tools of manipulating what information, what tweets you put out, what messages you put out to your influencer cloud, they can modulate how those people behave. You can actually very actively control what individuals are thinking, the information that they’re gathering, and what they’re being influenced to do. A crowd that is in a plaza protesting against some action that’s happened during Arab Spring, can very readily be modulated to go to this or that direction physically or intellectually or psychologically, using these tools.

Mr. Jekielek:

I’ll just jump in, without realizing that there’s any manipulation actually happening.

Dr. Malone:

Precisely. And that is the essence of this information warfare, this psychological operation. One word that’s coming, one phrase that’s coming to fore and more and more is fifth generation warfare. Actually, fifth generation warfare gradient, is a better way to think about it. It’s a new battleground in which your mind, your thoughts, and your very emotions are the battleground. It’s not about territory, it’s about what you believe and what you think.

It’s done with these tools, that can be actively crafted, modified, manipulated in a very sophisticated way, and then propagated within the domain of those that you are influencing. Which is why there’s so much importance in targeting those that are hyper-influential within a cloud of connectivity.

Mr. Jekielek:

In your mind, what is the significance of Elon Musk taking over Twitter, given everything you’ve just told me?

Dr. Malone:

Early on before the acquisition, when there was still all this discussion about how many of the Twitter users were actually bots or synthetic users, not true individuals, there was much discussion about the business model that was driving the acquisition. This relates to the envisioned Company X, a name that apparently Elon has bought back from PayPal.

To illustrate an angle to this, you recall that Elon recently discussed in some of his tweets—I don’t know how his board is letting him get away with it, by the way, he must have total control— that they’re building a new alternative to PayPal. What he indicated early on was the intended business model was more akin to WeChat, in which Twitter or whatever Twitter becomes, let’s call it X for the sake of argument, becomes one ring to rule them all, the universal application.

It’s a universal application through which you’ll do your banking, your commercial transactions, buy your groceries, have your social media transactions, everything. Purportedly, that’s the logic that was underlying the acquisition. So from that, the importance of understanding the true user base becomes crucial, because that is something that is a commodity. You or me being on Twitter represents a potential node that has commercial transactions that could be monetized.

So, what do we have here? I’m not sure, and I think a lot of people are on the fence. Certainly, we can all celebrate Elon’s willingness to be transparent and demonstrate integrity in disclosing the intense, almost casual routine interaction with the intelligence community, particularly the FBI and Twitter. In these recent Twitter files that have come out, that clearly demonstrates how closely integrated Twitter was as a weapon for forming public opinion and manipulating public opinion and reinforcing the intended public opinion and consensus.

But what’s behind that and where is he really going with this, this gentleman that is one of the major defense contractors to the United States with SpaceX, among other platforms, and is advancing this clearly transhumanist technology that we call Neuralink. What is really behind Elon Musk’s business decisions?

A lot of people get caught up in the enthusiasm of Elon Musk being a savior of democracy and free speech, and that may be one of his motivations. I can’t get in his head, and I don’t know what he’s thinking, but I do know that he is a business person. I do know that he’s been a very successful business person, as well as a very successful technologist. It’s hard for me to imagine that he could have invested, what’s the number, 40 billion?

Mr. Jekielek:

44, yes.

Dr. Malone:

Yes, 44 billion, of which a substantial fraction is clearly not his capital. Somebody out there has decided to deploy a major chunk of change, and invest a lot of treasure in acquiring this thing. Intentionally or not, this puts Elon in a position where he’s functionally able to blackmail the United States government.

Now, that’s a big word, and it has a lot of impact. But I’m reminded of J. Edgar Hoover, who used to keep his little black book where he had dirt on a lot of people here in DC. And then of course, we had this honey trap operation that we call Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell, that was clearly an intelligence honey trap operation to compromise people.

And now Elon is in the position where he has access to incredibly damaging information about the willingness of the U.S. government to collude with industry and compromise the First Amendment. Remember, this is a court case being brought by the two attorneys general, and they have just been given a huge gift, it basically makes their case.

I found it fascinating that Janet Yellen, a few weeks ago, was talking about the need to evaluate the potential antitrust implications of Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. Elon doesn’t have any other social media platforms, so Janet Yellen basically starts saber rattling. A week later, Elon Musk starts deploying intelligence about collusion between the U.S. government and Twitter to censor people on a routine basis.

I’m trying to make the point that there are wheels within wheels within wheels here. I can’t ferret them out, and I don’t think you can either. We’re left here on the sidelines observing the passion play, observing the Kabuki theater and trying to discern meaning out of these little fragments of information which are being selectively released and deployed. We also know now that a major democratic operative lawyer was busy filtering all that information until fairly recently, unbeknownst to Elon Musk.

Like I’m saying, there are wheels within wheels within wheels on this, and Elon doesn’t call me up. He contacted Jay Bhattacharya two Sundays ago, to go into Twitter HQ and start reviewing COVID files. I’m not talking to him, nobody in my close circle has direct personal communication on a routine basis with him, and I don’t know what he’s thinking. But I do know that he is a very intelligent individual, and I know that he is very strategic.

If he’s doing things in this space to advance free speech and essentially to protect democracy or protect the integrity of the American experiment, I applaud that. I thank him for it from the bottom of my heart. Whatever his intentions are, if that’s one of the outcomes, it’s a win. But I don’t think any of us should be so naive as to assume that that is his only objective.

Mr. Jekielek:

One of the things that struck me, and I’ve written about this, is the gift that Elon has given everyone is that he has a substantial following. There’s a lot of people that love Elon.

Dr. Malone:

And a bunch of haters.

Mr. Jekielek:

And certainly a bunch of haters. But here’s the thing, this corporate media ecosystem has all of a sudden started hating Elon, when before they were either neutral or very positive to him for the majority of the time.

Dr. Malone:

Tesla stock tanked.

Mr. Jekielek:

Tesla stock tanked. My point is that all these people are now watching how this whole ecosystem has shifted on this guy and wondering to themselves, “Wait a second, maybe this has happened before.” It’s like this giant red pill, that’s what I think.

Dr. Malone:

I have a friend that corresponds with me that makes a case. It’s actually Alex Marinos, a key opinion leader in this social media space, and just a shout-out. I’m grateful because he endorsed that the data do support my thesis that I was the original inciting event inventor for this technology platform.

That aside, Alex makes the case that Elon goes through these love-hate cycles about every two to three years and has been doing so for quite a long time. And his thesis, among others, is that he repeatedly battered and bruised Bill Gates, and basically outmaneuvered him on Tesla stock and also with SpaceX and beat the expectations.

There is this long history of him going through these hero-villain cycles in corporate media. That appears to reflect underlying tensions within this cast that I like to call the overlords, this tiny, tiny fraction of elites that we can increasingly see that control a lot of global events. What we may be really observing are the artifacts of competition, technological and financial, between these heavy, heavy hitters that are so far above the world that you and I exist in, that we only have a vague kind of cloud awareness that they’re up there doing something.

Mr. Jekielek:

But you’re not entirely a stranger to this whole defense space here in Washington DC. You’ve got secret clearance, and you’ve worked with all sorts of contractors. We talked about this a little bit earlier. You’ve sat on a number of these boards in these three letter health agencies. Why don’t we start with how you got from doing the work that you did 3, 4, 5 years ago, into what you’re talking about today?

Dr. Malone:

To comprehend my world, it’s important to go back to the root of those events, that cascade of events that happened when I was 28 and 29. I was working for this leader in American biotechnology who was trained by David Baltimore, characterized reverse transcriptase for him, for which he got the Nobel Prize, David Baltimore being one of the most influential molecular biologists in the history of the world. I’m referring to Inder Verma, who eventually got run out of the Salk Institute because of me too.

Basically, he finally got outed after decades of sexual harassment. Inder gave me an ultimatum, if I left his lab. You’ll recall from my personal story, I left it at a time when I’d had a nervous breakdown and was diagnosed by physicians at UC San Diego, as having post-traumatic stress disorder based on what I had experienced at the Salk Institute.

But Inder told me that I would never get an NIH grant if I left. And by God, he was right. I was forced to find another way to proceed. Then, as if that wasn’t bad enough, I destroyed my career as a gene therapist by being a whistleblower about the Jesse Gelsinger death, this UPenn adenoviral vector overdosing situation that Jim Wilson got into, that collapsed the entire gene therapy industry. At the time, I was taking training with the bioethicist at U Maryland, who is also Jill’s PhD mentor by the way.

I told him what I knew about what had taken place, and he said, “Robert, you have an ethical obligation to disclose what you know to the press.” The press at that time included Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and that became the basis for an article that really catapulted her career in the New York Times. It eventually resulted in the collapse of the entire gene therapy enterprise really, as funded by NIH.

So, I was persona non grata times two, and I had to find a way forward. This is 1991, is that right? Yes, it’s like ’91, ’92, I had literally obtained a million dollar contract award by having good connections and knowing that there was an opportunity. It was actually when Bob Redfield got in trouble for ethics with the AIDS vaccine. Suddenly, a bunch of money became available for AIDS vaccine development. I had the connections and I managed to capture little over a million dollars to build a DNA vaccine for AIDS, which was a radical idea at the time.

This was a Navy operation. I knew the DOD system, and I knew that it operated in parallel autonomously from the NIH system. So basically, I sought refuge within the DOD space and have a long history of working closely with those people, both being funded, and as a facilitator and problem solver.

Over time, because of my connections and who I’d grown up with, people that had grown up within the Defense Threat Reduction Agency came to me again and again for advice and assistance in building teams to solve complicated problems. A notable example was when I basically spearheaded the development of the Ebola vaccine and got Merck to buy it.

The Merck Ebola vaccine was a project that I took on in this surreptitious, at the fringes space between DOD and business. I have long operated in this gray zone between beltway bandits and service providers, contractors and Department of Defense, of necessity, because I couldn’t really operate within the traditional NIH academic space.

And yet, NIH would come to me because I had this deep, deep experience in taking products all the way through from discovery, through licensure, regulatory affairs, clinical development, project management, all this stuff I’d had to master over decades.

And so, NIH would come to me and ask me to serve as study section chair, particularly for these very large contracts, 80 million, 100 million, 150 million. I grew to specialize in assembling teams to solve complicated problems and capturing the money to get them funded to do this stuff that the govies wanted to have done. So, that’s been my business.

And again, of necessity, I was forced into this space. The way that works for me as a consultant just trying to pay my bills, is that these clients want to take credit for what gets done. To operate a business like what I was doing, as essentially a small consulting shop, you have to operate behind the scenes. You have to keep quiet, let the client take the win—enable them, facilitate them, coach them.

And that’s how I’ve gone along in my career now for decades, until this cascade of events, which is unlike any other. I’ve been doing this through multiple, multiple outbreaks. I mentioned Ebola, Zika, many rounds of flu. I’m a bonafide expert in flu vaccine development, used to be clinical head of Salve for their $330 million influenza vaccine, cell-based influenza vaccine contract. I know all of this area really well.

But when this thing broke, this COVID crisis, it was unlike anything I or my peers had ever experienced. And as usual, I get this phone call from this character, Michael Callahan, that I was under the impression was at Wuhan at the time. He says that he wasn’t. He went to Wuhan shortly thereafter and then left with the quarantine is his story. And then he went to the Diamond Princess and managed that.

But when I got this call, as I usually do, I made a threat assessment and I said, “What’s it going to take to build a vaccine? What’s the timeline? What’s the timeline for new drugs? What’s the timeline for repurposed drugs?” And with my team I threw myself into identifying repurposed drugs back in January of 2020.

And once again, that’s a whole area and block of time that I really can’t disclose what happened. I was working as a government contractor for Defense Threat Reduction Agency. There was a period of time when we were interacting closely with Johnson & Johnson, because of some of the drugs that we had identified and wanted to move forward clinically. I was working under contract for Leidos. I worked for a long time on a big contract that I helped facilitate getting the money for, that we ran through the MIT Lincoln Lab, and this is all semi-classified government space.

I’m not at liberty to discuss what I did then and what we did, if I had been able to. You can see the artifacts in some of the publications, both published and submitted to preprint servers. But we could never get published the interaction of Celecoxib and Famotidine or the interaction of Celecoxib, Famotidine and Ivermectin that we tried to get through the FDA to do clinical trials on. None of that stuff is really transparent to the average person. So, there’s this block of time where I was working my can off seven days a week, trying to advance repurposed drugs. And then, this cascade of events happens where I get to the point where I face a dilemma.

Do I break my longstanding strategy that many here in DC use, “Keep your head down, if they can’t see you, that they can’t shoot you,” or do I come out and speak publicly and say, “This is not right.” And of course, history shows what my decision was. Yet now I’m being attacked by many because of this long history of deep connectivity within the government, that people are inferring that somehow I’m compromised because I have this long history.

I can assure you and the viewers, I stopped receiving any capital from Leidos, I think it was January of last year, at the time when I resigned from the Active Drug Development Committee and disclosed some of the things that were going on there, and they were pretty insistent that I resign at that time. The problem with this whole thesis of j’accuse that’s been deployed against so many people, that we accuse you of being controlled opposition, is that it’s very difficult to refute this thesis.

Because as a colleague of mine put it, it’s akin to a witch trial. Anything that you say is interpreted as confirming that you are in fact a witch. In terms of this whole thesis of how did I get from here to there, and to the wonderful woke journalist from the Atlantic Monthly who put out his hit piece, “How come you’re doing this? You must have some financial angle. You must have some conflict of interest,” my response to him was, “No, it was the right thing to do.”

And he just couldn’t process that, that somebody would do something because it was the right and ethical thing to do, as opposed to having some ulterior motive or financial angle or conflict of interest. I’ve been through,I don’t know how many cycles now of people hypothesizing this, that, or the other conflict of interest.

But I have the benefit of basically having an open heart, and when I get hit with these things, I know in my soul that I have been very conscious of potential conflicts of interest all the way through this. I’ve been trained on COI for years and years and years, and I’m very aware of what it is, and how insidious it can be.

My wife, Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone, and I have supported each other by talking on a daily basis, “What about this, and what about that.” One can take this level of social influence that I now have been given and exploit it to extract wealth in some way. There’s a whole lot of different ways you can do it. We have tried really, really hard to avoid any of those things, knowing that if we did that there would be blowback.

Hence, the substack is all free. Jill and I made a conscious decision when we launched that substack after Steve Kirsch had advocated for it, due to the fact we could make so much money, that we would make it all entirely free. The only restriction is that we would restrict comments within the substack comment section to people that are subscribers. This has the lovely side effect that it keeps most of the trolls out because they don’t want to spend five bucks a month. But in terms of the content and the information, which was our intention to get out, it’s all free. That’s because in large part, we have been very, very wary of the trap of, as biblical scholars would call it, the trap of mammon, the trap of money that can distort things so readily.

Having been in the consulting business for decades, I’m very aware that the influence of a major client paying me on a routine basis will distort how I view the world. I’m human, as are we all. Jill and I have tried super, super hard to maintain a stance that protects us from the pressures that would cause us to bias our opinions and our actions. That said, we do have a bias. Our bias is to the truth, to data, to facts, and trying really hard to avoid going into the speculative realms of what is Tony Fauci thinking?

I don’t know what Tony Fauci is thinking, I can’t get into Tony Fauci’s head. I don’t know what Klaus Schwab is thinking. I don’t know what Harari is thinking. I only know what they say and what they write. We can evaluate those things objectively, and so that’s why I’ve tried so hard to stay on the side of the line of documentable fact-based information.

As you know, because you’ve experienced it here at Epoch Times, and NTD News, consequent to some of the things that I’ve said that were out on the edge, yet still fact-based, but were far from the accepted consensus of the time. I still took plenty of hits from that, as did both the Epoch Times and you personally. But by forcing this rigor of not allowing ourselves to cross that line and speculate about intent, speculate about somebody’s strategy, it’s allowed both of us to come through these three years with our integrity intact, and to a significant extent, with our reputations intact.

Mr. Jekielek:

There’s so many things to bounce off of here. There’s one specific thing coming to mind from your book, Lies My Government Told Me, which has been incredible for me to read. Let start with this. My first thought is truth seeking is a very difficult business, I’ve come to learn over the last 20 years, and especially when you try to tackle things that are very, very difficult for people to accept. For example, having done some of the original reporting on this murder for organs industry in China back in 2006, so many people just simply won’t accept this as a concept.

It took me a while to grasp the evidence that was presented. I feel like in this space right now, we’re faced with these kinds of unbelievable realities. I’m very concerned in part that actually given this fifth generation warfare, 5GW architecture that you’ve been describing, that this could actually itself be intentional. You don’t know what’s up, what’s down, what’s real, what’s not. And so the only thing that I know is to try to get at the truth as much as possible and hope that that will act as the North star, and that will get us through to the other side.

Okay, first thought. Second thought, I want to talk about your wife, Jill, and this is something a lot of people don’t know about, and this comes through in your book, that she actually plays a major role in your writing, and in your thought. It’s a very close relationship, both personally, but also academically and in terms of your work. There’s this moment in the book where it’s the thing that actually made you reevaluate a great many things at the beginning. I want you to tell me about that, please tell me the story.

Dr. Malone:

It goes back to this fateful call that we got in the beginning in January of 2020, with Michael Callahan saying, “You need to get your team spun up. We have a problem with this novel coronavirus,” which at the time had no name. In retrospect, none of us can disambiguate whether that was a genuine alert or whether it was yet another manipulation, because the timeline and the involvement of the intelligence community in the United States with this novel coronavirus keeps getting pushed back in time more and more and more.

But from our lived experience, Jill and myself, I get this call and Jill and I talk about, ‘What does this mean?” I go through this process of threat assessment and she says, “Okay, what I can do in this situation is put together a text, a book, a paperback, and self-publish on Amazon.” She was a real fan of Amazon self-publishing, she likes to read self-published novels and things like that.

She’s an avid reader and very much the intellectual, wonky woman that seems to have come to the fore in so many ways during the last three years. One of the key stories that’s not readily discussed is the voice of these intellectual women leaders coming to fore, like Whitney Webb, Mary Harrington, my wife, and many others, that are voices that we haven’t heard before, maybe because they’ve been drowned out by others that are more endorsed, the Blue Check crowd, let’s say.

She says, “Okay, the one thing I can do is I can write and self-publish on Amazon, a paperback that would speak to the people, the kind of people that we have in our lives, the folks at the feed store, the 18-year-old that helps take care of our horses, friends and family, average people, and alert them to the underlying meaning of what has just been disclosed to us by Callahan.” And so, she gets going on building it up, and it turns out to be a little over 100 pages, a highly referenced academic type work, but written for the layperson.

Mr. Jekielek:

Common people.

Dr. Malone:

Yes, written for the layperson, to help them to prepare and protect themselves from the novel coronavirus, which doesn’t even have a name yet. She works her can off. We’re both sitting there on opposite couches. I’m working on the computational stuff on my laptop, and she’s working on the book. I edit her stuff, and I read a chapter about the virus. And she just busts her can and gets it out in the first week in February, which some detractors cite as evidence that I am deep state, because I must have known about this months and months before, in order to put out a book in the first week of February.

But the fact is, as the world now knows, she’s a prolific writer and she did this thing, and her intention was by doing it as an ebook in particular, we would have the option of updating it every few weeks, as more information comes out, so that the ebook subscriber could buy the one version. Once again, we weren’t doing this to make money.

She puts it out and she goes through revision one and two, and then revision three in March, and suddenly she can’t get revision three to go live. She’s like, “What’s going on? I don’t understand it.” And so, she writes to Amazon again and again and again, “What’s happening here?” Finally, they come back and they say, “Well, we can’t publish this. We’re going to have to take it down.”

Their policy has always been that if they do that, you’re slandering somebody or using inappropriate language or publishing porn or whatever the thing is. Whatever the offense is, they will tell you what it is and you can then modify your book and they’ll allow it, that’s always been their policy. But they won’t tell us what’s going on.

Then finally, we get a message that has these words that we’ve all come to know and love, that we have violated community standards. Yet, there’s nothing in the Amazon community standards for publication that has anything to do with COVID or viruses or anything that we’ve said. People have gone over that book, which is now dated because it was written before Trump officially, in theory, even knew what was going on. It’s hard for me to believe that to be the case, but that’s the party line, that government didn’t really wake up until March.

Suddenly, this thing that she has thrown her heart and soul into has been deleted for violating community standards, with no appeal and no opportunity to rectify anything and no details. And she’s heartbroken. Think about if you’ve spent a month breaking your back, writing a highly detailed 100 page document just to help people, and then suddenly you’re told, “You cannot publish this. It cannot be in circulation. Nobody can obtain this.”

Think about the psychological impact, this is her first book. And so, she digs in and documents this trail of publication in the New York Times, the Washington Post and others about the collusion, I think is the best word, between the World Health Organization, Amazon, the social media giants, and the White House. And of course, this is all in Trump time, as Peter Navarro would put it. All of these relationships were established then.

What we now know, I didn’t know then. I was as influenced by the CCP propaganda as anyone. I believed that people dying in the streets and all of that, the rapid building of the hospitals, all that propaganda that got pushed into the U.S. government to justify the China solution that they then employed in all of us. It was really hard to come to terms with the fact that this had all been deployed, and then we learned that it had all been anticipated during Event 201.

This was pre-planned, this whole propaganda censorship, I don’t know how else to say it, information warfare, psychological operations strategy that we’ve all been subjected to for the last three years. And Jill, in the frame of when this happened, was able to grab these stories that have been posted in these various organs that we now call corporate media or state controlled media, like the Washington Post and the New York Times.

They clearly demonstrated that this was highly coordinated, and what we had just experienced was at the absolute front end, the tip of the spear, or as they like to say, the bleeding edge of the events and the strategy that would then be deployed against the entire world in a harmonized fashion. We have all been subjected, over the last three years, to military grade psychological operations that were using technology developed for offshore conflicts, and they have been deployed against the citizens of virtually the entire western world.

And as Epoch Times is exquisitely sensitive to, these are the technologies and strategies that are central to the ability of the Chinese Communist Party to maintain control in its information battle space. We’ve now had this deployed against us, and we are now seeing the documentation on a daily basis, released to us by Twitter, of this intense collusion between the U.S. government, Big Tech, and corporate media.

But for sure the first kind of radicalization event for Jill and I in our stepwise progression of becoming increasingly disenchanted with the government was what was being done to the citizens. We became increasingly attuned to the fact that they are breaching guardrail after guardrail in terms of ethics and the norms of drug development, bioethics, biodefense, and pharmaceutical development.

All of that has been disregarded in a rush to advance a technology platform that just serendipitously happens to be the one that I played this key role in back in 1989, but has now been perceived as supporting multiple agendas, including convincing a skeptical population that historically has been very wary of genetically modified organisms, to allow themselves to become genetically modified organisms.

In a way, you have to admire the technical prowess that has been on display in a global way in this deployment. Was it $10 billion or $13 billion in the United States alone that was employed in this, what else can you call it, psyops campaign to get people to accept products which are neither safe nor effective? They have not met traditional standards, are not licensed, fully licensed, yet they’re available under this special clause of emergency use authorization. And yet, the government felt that it was acceptable to deploy these military grade technologies against all of us, to coerce, compel and mandate that we accept an unlicensed product that turned out to not be safe nor effective.

Mr. Jekielek:

You can imagine something like this happening on a national scale, but for a lot of people it’s very hard to imagine something like this happening on this global scale—everybody speaking with the same talking points, the same vision, and oblivious to the many, many questions around the lockdown policy early on and the genetic vaccines and the harms associated with them. It can be hard to fathom.

Dr. Malone:

Let me respond to that, because I want to loop back to something you said earlier in your history, your personal story, having to do with your difficulty in coming to grips with the fundamental evil of live organ harvesting by the CCP and the meaning of that. As I’ve tried to wrestle with this and with people’s reflexive revulsion and unwillingness to even allow these discordant thoughts to come into their mind, the possibility that these things might be happening in this way, whether it’s organ harvesting or it’s the darkness of what appears to be the emergence of a pharmaceutical, corporatist, global, centralized state, I think it is a testimony to people’s intrinsic goodness. It demonstrates that most people really believe in these fundamental ethics that we could call Judeo-Christian, or there’s a number of other words that we could use around this, but the belief system that there actually is right and wrong, that there are ways that civilized people should behave.

And to confront the possibility of something so evil where people willingly go along, like government officials. Who really is the puppet master, I have no idea, or is this just a swarm emergent phenomena, I just don’t have enough data to disambiguate that. But I do know that this reflexive reaction of people like yourself, in which it’s hard for you to even grapple with the possibility of such darkness as a globally coordinated propaganda campaign. As one example, I just learned from my trip to Austria that I came back from yesterday, that massive amounts of capital are being deployed to essentially buy off artist influencers across the world in a harmonized, simultaneous fashion.

My friends in Vienna, when I was there, were complaining that all of the musicians and the artists and influencers in the arts in Vienna, one of the world’s capitals of the arts, were functionally all bought off. They all received money at the outset in order to compel them, coerce them, whatever language we want to use, to endorse these narratives.

Mr. Jekielek:

Encourage them, encourage them.

Dr. Malone:

Encourage, whatever the language. This is another point I want to make. Language really matters, as Orwell so clearly pointed out in his writing. Not only have we been subjected to this barrage of coordinated propaganda, we’ve been subjected to a barrage of intentional manipulation of our very language to support this initiative and this agenda.

How do we recover from this? How do we recover our innocence? How do we move to a world in which we can trust one another, in an environment in which every single person doesn’t need to second think whether or not this person or that person is controlled opposition, where there’s always that doubt placed into your mind, where you have to approach every transaction with a modicum of suspicion.

How can we form community? How can we form trust? Because in my experience with decades with clients, you have to give trust in order to get trust. People will not trust you if you don’t trust them. It’s a reciprocal relationship. It’s very subtle in human interactions. If we’re now forced into this environment by these chaos agents, let’s call them, these entities that are exploiting this psychological information warfare battlefield towards whatever their objectives are. I don’t think either of us really know what the endpoint is.

Mr. Jekielek:

There’s domestic actors, there’s foreign actors, it’s just this whole miasma, and they’re not all necessarily on the same page, so it’s very difficult to see through it.

Dr. Malone:

And some of it is emergent in the environment of modern social media, in that battlefield landscape, because that’s really what it is, in my opinion. That is the best metaphor to use, it is battlefield and your mind is the territory that’s being fought over. All of the psychopathology that exists in the human species comes out. It’s all there, it’s all raw—people’s agendas having to do with their own insecurities, their own desires for power and influence, and their need for independent validation.

All of these come out and interact in a very complex way with these other forcing functions, these other agendas that are being pushed into the social environment. And it’s very, very difficult to disambiguate intentional, from emergent phenomena, from just normal human dysfunctional interactions—bullying, and all these behaviors that we all know from our schoolyard days.

They’re all there on display on a daily basis in this amazing stream of human interactions that we call social media. And they all interact, as Mary Harrington said. In her lovely unheard essays, she speaks of this swarm emergent phenomena of consensus that Twitter has been so good at enabling and crafting and shaping, but that’s our new world and it’s different.

Mr. Jekielek:

There’s something particularly disturbing that Mary Harrington notes when talking about this swarmsim, so to speak. There’s no locus of responsibility, it’s diffuse. And I believe it. I’m even getting shivers up my spine as I say this right now, it fundamentally turns our whole way of dealing with responsibility and accountability on its head.

Dr. Malone:

Completely. And it’s a very DC thing, as I pointed out in that one essay where I speak about this. It has long been the practice here in DC to set up an elite commission on, fill in the blank. If you’ve got a problem, you set up a commission, the members come up with their own assessment and their own recommendations, and they file some study report that people ignore. Then, the decision makers can say, “Oh, well we gave it to this commission.”

And the commission can say, “Well, this was a consensus opinion. No one of us is really responsible for this.” You can’t hold anybody on that commission accountable. You can’t hold the people that commissioned the commission accountable. It is the perfect Kabuki strategy and it has absolutely been refined to a fine edge here in the imperial capital.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to reference your book here.

Dr. Malone:

Thank you.

Mr. Jekielek:

No, my pleasure. It’s quite the tome. It includes a series of essays, a number of them have been on the American Thought Leaders program here with me, on various topics. You divided into three parts. Please remind me of what you started with.

Dr. Malone:

I use the metaphor of how a physician approaches a patient.

Mr. Jekielek:

Yes.

Dr. Malone:

The first thing is to take the history of the physical, which is what I try to give the reader. It is a kind of front line, front row seat in vicariously experiencing what some of the people out on the front edge have experienced, Pierre Kory, being a great example, and Paul Marick. Then the middle part is sense making, in the physician metaphor, that’s akin to the diagnosis. How do we make sense out of what’s happened here?

The book is a realtime journey. Jill and I could not have written this if we just sat down to write it right now, because we use this process of serialization using the sub stack tool, each of these chapters derives from a real time assessment of events that were occurring. It benefits from that because a lot of the citations are increasingly getting memory holed, and they’re hard to find. One of the things we’re talking about with the publisher is to grab all those citations and put them on a website that’s going to be protected, so they can’t be memory holed and deleted.

Then the third part is this better future coming, basically in the metaphor of a physician treating a patient, and the patient in this case being the entire Western world. What can we do about it? What is the treatment plan? Now that we take this journey of seeing this is what people have experienced, this is making sense about what the heck happened that led to those experiences. And then the third part, what do we do about it? That’s the treatment. And that was the hardest of all to write—what is this better future?

Mr. Jekielek:

You described your purpose being that wanted to open up people’s Overton window. That was quite a good way of explaining things. Going through these last three-plus years, there have been many moments where I’ve been forced to challenge my assumptions about a whole series of things and really honestly look at the data, the information. Inherently being a very skeptical person, it’s been a very difficult journey in a lot of ways. So, when you look at these things, you don’t need to accept them wholesale, right?

Dr. Malone:

True. Don’t accept what I’m saying as truth. I don’t want to be the leader, that is not my goal. I believe that the best gift I could give to the world at this point in time, as I’m starting to age out, at the end of my career, as is Jill, the best gift that we could give to the world is to open people’s eyes and to help them learn how to find information and how to interpret information themselves.

If I can help people, and this is a shared mission with Epoch Times, if we can help people to get access to information and learn to make their own interpretation and decisions, I think this is our best tool to counter, I’ll just say it, totalitarian propaganda that’s coming at us from every direction.

Mr. Jekielek:

Why don’t you give me a flavor of what is in this third section, something that you think is particularly important?

Dr. Malone:

There are the sections that have to do with the technical side of our U.S. government. This is the role of the administrative state, and the role of what Steve Bannon has given as a good metaphor, the role of the Praetorian Guard, his metaphor for the intelligence community that acts to protect the interests of the administrative state and the established political elite here in the United States, and very much operates in a similar way in the European Union, in Brussels, as I’ve learned over the last three years of travel.

And what allows that, what in part significantly enables it is what many consider to be an abrogation of authority by the legislature in the United States. We’re supposed to have three co-equal branches and they each have segregated duties. One of the key sections discusses some very tangible actions that could be taken by a new administration that was committed to returning the American experiment back to something more akin to the original vision, as opposed to this expansionist, federalist monster that’s been created, that is basically consuming the world.

This has to do with things like the legal underpinning that enables the existence of this permanent cadre that we call the senior executive service, these thousands of people that cannot be fired, that functionally run the government. Whatever you think of Mr. Trump, there’s obviously a diversity of opinion on this, but I don’t want to get into it.

Part of my personal journey has been to come from that place of a stereotype version of Mr. Trump that was promoted in corporate media, which I bought, just like so many others did, to realizing that a lot of that was propaganda and that a lot of things that were done during that administration were dead on. One of those is Schedule F, this very clever effort to administratively reassign the employment classification of all these federal workers that surround us here in DC, in the beltway and throughout the country.

Mr. Jekielek:

In fact, the most influential ones are the ones that it inadvertently targeted. It was a very interesting.

Dr. Malone:

Yes, and no surprise that this was the thing that he managed to finally get through all of the court obstacles that are thrown at anybody that tries to change employment law having to do with these key federal employees. Schedule F finally overcame the last legal hurdles and then the election happened. The very first action that Mr. Biden took was to rescind the executive order about Schedule F, which I take as example of how powerful these entrenched administrative state interests are.

There’s a bunch of technical things about the revolving door, about the problems with all of these federal agencies that have dual mandates, for instance. To take it out of the context of COVID, remember the 737 MAX? That turns out to be a great example of administrative capture by Boeing of the FAA. We have abundant examples of capture of the USDA by Monsanto. The head of the USDA for years has had close ties with Monsanto.

All of these federal agencies that have dual purpose, they both regulate the industry and they promote the industry. We have to separate that, that cannot continue, it’s at the root of the corruption. Now, my colleague, Peter McCullough likes to point out the FDA under emergency use authorization acts as both the sponsor and the regulator of these medical products. That can’t happen.

Anybody that has had accounting 101 knows that is wrong. You have to separate those kinds of functions or you get corruption, it will happen. Humans are humans, they behave in certain ways particularly in response to money. The corruption of the FDA and the CDC is at such a stage now that it is so self-evident that only the most hypnotized will deny it.

There’s the technical stuff about the administrative state and what we can do about it. I put it there because we need to have discreet action items that could be taken up by another administration, that was the intention. Do I think that that’s going to resolve the problem? I’m afraid that the loss of integrity throughout our government is so deep and profound, and we see it on a daily basis.

We see it with, and I’m sorry to pick on him, but Dr. Fauci is a skilled liar, as is typical of people that have been through the training in our intelligence community. It’s interesting that Tony Fauci, just to digress slightly, Tony Fauci’s appointed new stand-in during this time where he’s resigned, has all the hallmarks of intelligence community. He has worked in the biodefense sector and stood on all the main committees as Tony’s right hand for well over a decade. He is deeply embedded in the intelligence community and the biodefense enterprise.

Another thing that I speak about is ARPA-H, this new division of NIH that is modeled after DARPA, functionally the developmental arm of the CIA. That’s what DARPA is, they created the SR-71 spy plane and they created the internet, among many other things. We now have an entity of similar structure led by a former DARPA program officer now, that has a line item budget for the first year of $1 billion with no detail for what appears to be advancement of transhumanism and biometric identification and all of that agenda, within NIH. It’s basically the intelligence community moving into NIH.

We talk about this, but we also talk about the better future that people can enable on a personal level. One example that I love is this group in Italy called Ippocrate, which is the Italian spelling for Hippocrates, that have now created their own medical school. They are running into all kinds of obstacles to enable their intentional community network of alternative medical care and physician training programs and public training programs, but I think that they really offer some hope and some vision there.

We also talk about victory gardens, empowering people in this landscape in which we are globally facing major risks of food shortages. This has been a theme of Jill and I for many years, and it was part of the original book that she put out. Actually that chapter is derived from the chapter that was in that original book, of how effective victory gardens were during World War II.

They produced a huge amount of food. They set up victory gardens in Central Park, in Manhattan. Can you imagine that now? But they did. They were enormously productive. It’s something that people can do themselves to change their own trajectory and to enable them to be more autonomous, and to maintain personal sovereignty.

The last part is this kind of mix of technical things that need to be fixed within the government—can we fix them, I don’t know—through very pragmatic things about how to enable a decentralized future for all of us, as opposed to this very dark fourth industrial revolution, transhumanism, central command economy world that these transnational organizations and really globalist organizations like the World Health Organization and the United Nations seem to be so actively, to use their own words, shaping for us. And this gets to the carbon credits and all those things.

We don’t have to live in their world. Our opportunity now is to help build a vision and a way of interacting that can better capture the potential of humanity in a decentralized way that celebrates our diversity, without needing to try to enforce some centralized diktat of how we are to live our lives. That’s the opportunity with the persuadable middle, let’s all take a little time to think about what the world we would like to live in looks like.

That’s the other part of that last section of the book, trying to lay out how do we start to get there. I want to say clearly and explicitly, I don’t know the answer. I can help contribute some ideas about process, but I’m really wary of people who think they know the answer and want to tell us what it is. I’ve come to really mistrust those people.

We can all agree on enabling this better future of decentralization, where we all have our own little version of an Amish community and we’re all matrixed together. Let’s create a think tank to figure out how to do that, which loops us right back into the same problems that we currently have. How do you envision a future that has never existed? How do you envision a way of organizing humanity that’s different from anything that’s been tried before? Because what keeps coming back at us is a 19th and 20th century version of somebody else’s utopia, whether it’s Marxist or whatever.

And I’m sorry, that’s yesterday. How do we get to 21st and 22nd century thinking about how to organize ourselves in a world of these vast social networks and virtual interactions that have all kinds of emergent properties? I don’t know, and I don’t think any of us know, but I think it’s a journey we’re taking.

Mr. Jekielek:

No, absolutely. And this is a journey we’ll be taking together. Dr. Robert Malone, it’s such a pleasure to have you on.

Dr. Malone:

Thanks, Jan.

Mr. Jekielek:

Thanks for joining us for this episode of American Thought Leaders with Dr. Robert Malone. We’re going to head over to Twitter Spaces right now to do a live Q&A. We have a short link for it, that’s ept.ms/malonespace. Again, ept.ms/malonespace. See you there.

Read More
Popular
Related Videos