From the Brownstone Institute

By  Josh Stylman  

When Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence, announced during Event 201’s pandemic drill in 2019 that they would “flood the zone with trusted sources,” few understood this preview of coordinated narrative control. Within months, we watched it unfold in real time—unified messaging across all platforms, suppression of dissent, and coordinated narrative control that fooled much of the world.

But not everyone stayed fooled forever. Some saw through it immediately, questioning every aspect from day one. Others thought it was just incompetent government trying to protect us. Many initially accepted the precautionary principle—better safe than sorry. But as each policy failure pointed in the same direction—toward more control and less human agency—the pattern became impossible to ignore. Anyone not completely subsumed by the system eventually had to confront its true purpose: not protecting health or safety, but expanding control.

Once you recognize this pattern of deception, two questions should immediately arise whenever major stories dominate headlines: “What are they lying about?” and “What are they distracting us from?” The pattern of coordinated deception becomes unmistakable. Consider how media outlets spent three years pushing Russiagate conspiracies, driving unprecedented social division while laying the groundwork for what would become the greatest psychological operation in history. Today, while the media floods us with Ukraine coverage, BlackRock positions itself to profit from both the destruction and reconstruction. The pattern becomes unmistakable once you see it—manufactured crises driving pre-planned “solutions” that always expand institutional control.

Mainstream media operates on twin deceptions: misdirection and manipulation. The same anchors who sold us WMDs in Iraq, promoted “Russia collusion,” and insisted Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation” still occupy prime time slots. Just as we see with RFK, Jr.’s HHS nomination, the pattern is consistent: coordinated attacks replace substantive debate, identical talking points appear across networks, and legitimate questions are dismissed through character assassination rather than evidence. Being consistently wrong isn’t a bug—it’s a feature. Their role isn’t to inform but to manufacture consent.

The template is consistent: Saturate media with emotional spectacles while advancing institutional agendas with minimal scrutiny. Like learning to spot a fake smile or hearing a false note in music, you develop an instinct for the timing:

Money and Power:

• While the media fixated on January 6th, BlackRock and Vanguard quietly tightened their grip on the residential real estate market
• While coverage obsessed over Trump’s Twitter ban, Congress passed the largest upward transfer of wealth under cover of “Covid relief“
• While breathless reporting tracked every move of the Johnny Depp trial, the Fed printed more money than in the entire previous century
• While media flooded us with Ukraine coverage, unprecedented restrictions on energy production reshaped the global economy
• While reporters breathlessly tracked Trump indictments, central banks accelerated plans for programmable digital currency

Medical Control:

• While media focused on celebrity vaccine promotion, unprecedented numbers of young athletes collapsed on field
• While networks ran wall-to-wall coverage of school shootings, documents revealed Pfizer knew about hundreds of side effects
• While coverage fixated on anti-vax “misinformation,” insurance data showed alarming excess death rates

Digital Control:

• While media obsessed over Twitter content moderation, digital ID infrastructure was quietly built worldwide
• While coverage focused on TikTok privacy concerns, central banks accelerated digital currency development
• While endless AI chatbot debates dominated headlines, biometric surveillance systems expanded globally

As these deceptions become more obvious, different forms of resistance emerge. The truth-seeking takes different forms. Some become deep experts in specific deceptions—documenting early treatment successes with repurposed drugs, uncovering hospital protocol failures, or exploring the impact of vaccine injuries. Others develop a broader lens for seeing how narratives themselves are engineered.

Walter Kirn’s brilliant pattern recognition cuts to the heart of our manufactured reality. His tweets dissecting the United CEO murder coverage expose how even violent crimes are now packaged as entertainment spectacles, complete with character arcs and narrative twists. Kirn’s insight highlights a critical dimension of media control: by turning every crisis into an entertainment narrative, they divert attention from deeper questions. Instead of asking why institutional safeguards fail or who benefits, audiences become captivated by carefully scripted outrage. This deliberate distraction ensures that institutional agendas move forward without scrutiny.

His insight reveals how entertainment packaging serves the broader control system. While each investigation requires its own expertise, this pattern of narrative manipulation connects to a larger grid of deception. As I’ve explored in “The Information Factory” and “Engineering Reality,” everything from education to medicine to currency itself has been captured by systems designed to shape not just our choices, but our very perception of reality.

Most revealing is what they don’t cover. Notice how quickly stories disappear when they threaten institutional interests. Remember the Epstein client list? The Maui land grab? The mounting vaccine injuries? The silence speaks volumes.

Consider the recent whistleblower testimonies revealing suppressed safety concerns at Boeing, a company long entangled with regulatory agencies and government contracts. Two whistleblowers—both former employees who raised alarms about safety issues—died under suspicious circumstances. Coverage of their deaths disappeared almost overnight, despite the profound implications for public safety and corporate accountability. This pattern repeats in countless cases where accountability would disrupt entrenched power structures, leaving crucial questions unanswered and narratives tightly controlled.

These decisions aren’t accidental—they result from media ownership, advertiser influence, and government pressure, ensuring the narrative remains tightly controlled.

But perhaps most striking isn’t the media’s deception itself, but how thoroughly it shapes its consumers’ reality. Watch how confidently they repeat phrases clearly engineered in think tanks. Listen as they parrot talking points with religious conviction: “January 6th was worse than 9/11,” “Trust The Science™,” “Democracy is on the ballot” and, perhaps the most consequential lie in modern history, “Safe and Effective.”

The professional-managerial class proves especially susceptible to this programming. Their expertise becomes a prison of status—the more they’ve invested in institutional approval, the more fervently they defend institutional narratives. Watch how quickly a doctor who questions vaccine safety loses his license, how swiftly a professor questioning gender ideology faces review, how rapidly a journalist stepping out of line gets blacklisted.

The system ensures compliance through economic capture: your mortgage becomes your leash, your professional status your prison guard. The same lawyers who prides themselves on critical thinking will aggressively shut down any questioning of official narratives. The professor who teaches “questioning power structures” becomes apoplectic when students question pharmaceutical companies.

The circular validation makes the programming nearly impenetrable:

• Media cites “experts”
• Experts cite peer-reviewed studies
• Studies are funded by industry
• Industry shapes media coverage
• “Fact-checkers” cite media consensus
• Academia enforces approved conclusions

This self-reinforcing system forms a perfect closed loop:

Each component validates the others while excluding outside information. Try finding the entry point for actual truth in this closed system. The professional class’s pride in their critical thinking becomes darkly ironic—they’ve simply outsourced their opinions to “authoritative sources.”

Most disturbing is how willingly they’ve surrendered their sovereignty. Watch them defer:

• “I follow the science” (translation: I wait for approved conclusions)
• “According to experts” (translation: I don’t think for myself)
• “Fact-checkers say” (translation: I let others determine truth)
• “The consensus is” (translation: I align with power)

Their empathy becomes a weapon used against them. Question lockdowns? You’re killing grandma. Doubt transition surgery for minors? You’re causing suicides. Resist equity initiatives? You’re perpetuating oppression. The programming works by making resistance feel like cruelty.

Something remarkable is happening beneath the surface noise: a genuine awakening that defies traditional political boundaries. You see it in the subtle exchanges between colleagues when official narratives strain credibility. In the growing silence at dinner parties as propaganda talking points fall flat. In the knowing looks between strangers when public health theatre reaches new heights of absurdity.

This isn’t a movement in the traditional sense—it can’t be, since traditional movement structures are vulnerable to infiltration, subversion, and capture. Instead, it’s more like a spontaneous emergence of pattern recognition. A distributed awakening without central leadership or formal organization. Those who see through the patterns recognize the mass formation for what it is, while its subjects project their own programming onto others, dismissing pattern recognition as “conspiracy theories,” “anti-science,” or other reflexive labels designed to prevent genuine examination.

The hardest truth isn’t recognizing the programming—it’s confronting what it means for human consciousness and society itself. We’re watching real-time evidence that most human minds can be captured and redirected through sophisticated psychological operations. Their thoughts aren’t their own, yet they’d die defending what they’ve been programmed to believe.

This isn’t just media criticism anymore—it’s an existential question about human consciousness and free will. What does it mean when a species’ capacity for independent thought can be so thoroughly hijacked? When natural empathy and moral instincts become weapons of control? When education and expertise actually decrease resistance to programming?

The programming works because it hijacks core human drives:

• The need for social acceptance (e.g., masking as a visible symbol of conformity)
• The desire to be seen as good/moral (e.g., adopting performative stances on social issues without deeper understanding)
• The instinct to trust authority (e.g., faith in public health officials despite repeated policy reversals)
• The fear of ostracism (e.g., avoiding dissent to maintain social harmony)
• The comfort of conformity (e.g., parroting narratives to avoid cognitive dissonance)
• The addiction to status (e.g., signaling compliance to maintain professional or social standing)

Each natural human trait becomes a vulnerability to be exploited. The most educated become the most programmable because their status addiction runs deepest. Their “critical thinking” becomes a script running on corrupted hardware.

This is the core challenge of our time: Can human consciousness evolve faster than the systems designed to hijack it? Can pattern recognition and awareness spread faster than manufactured consensus? Can enough people learn to read between the lies before the programming becomes complete?

The stakes could not be higher. This isn’t just about politics or media literacy—it’s about the future of human consciousness itself. Whether our species maintains the capacity for independent thought may depend on those who can still access it helping others break free from the spell.

The matrix of control deepens daily, but so does the awakening. The question is: Which spreads faster—the programming or the awareness of it? Our future as a species may depend on the answer.

Author

Josh Stylman

Joshua Stylman has been an entrepreneur and investor for over 30 years. For two decades, he focused on building and growing companies in the digital economy, co-founding and successfully exiting three businesses while investing in and mentoring dozens of technology startups. In 2014, seeking to create a meaningful impact in his local community, Stylman founded Threes Brewing, a craft brewery and hospitality company that became a beloved NYC institution. He served as CEO until 2022, stepping down after receiving backlash for speaking out against the city’s vaccine mandates. Today, Stylman lives in the Hudson Valley with his wife and children, where he balances family life with various business ventures and community engagement.

From the Brownstone Institute

By el gato malo 

Somewhere amid the 1,500+ pages of legislative clutter in the latest Continuing Resolution—the bill apparently killed by public exposure alone—lies a provision so audacious, so shameless, I can only assume it was drafted by a cabal of Congressional career criminals. Section 605—a sterile title masking its true intent—amounts to nothing less than a legislative fortress erected to shield Congress from the Justice Department, the FBI, and, most troubling of all, accountability.

At a time when President-elect Trump’s administration prepares to restore integrity and justice, Congress appears to have donned its armor, hiding its secrets behind a wall of bureaucratic legalese. This provision, if left unchallenged, sets a dangerous precedent: members of Congress placing themselves above the law, protected from scrutiny by the very agencies tasked with upholding justice.

Section 605: The House above the Law

Let’s strip away the camouflage. Section 605 does three things with surgical precision:

First, it declares that Congress retains perpetual possession of all “House Data”—a broad, almost limitless category including emails, metadata, and any electronic communication touching official House systems. This means providers like Google or Microsoft, who store or process this data, are mere bystanders, unable to act as custodians for investigators. The House claims total dominion.

Second, courts are ordered to “quash or modify” subpoenas for House Data. Investigators from Trump’s Justice Department, no matter how compelling the evidence, will now face a procedural minefield laid by Congress itself. Compliance with the legal process will be, in essence, denied.

Third—and most chilling—this protection applies retroactively. Any ongoing investigation that hasn’t yet secured House data is now dead on arrival. Existing subpoenas? Nullified. Pending warrants? Quashed. Section 605 doesn’t just safeguard future misconduct; it effectively buries the past.

The Investigations behind the Curtain

This isn’t a hypothetical problem. There are two glaring examples of why Congress is so eager to cement its immunity.

First, let’s talk about Shifty Schiff and Eric Swalwell. For at least three years, the DOJ has been investigating these two California Democrats—Schiff, now a senator, and Swalwell, perpetually ensconced in mediocrity—over illegally leaking classified documents to the media. A courageous Congressional staffer blew the whistle, revealing that both men had routinely fed classified information to friendly reporters to score cheap political points. The Grand Jury concluded that these leaks broke the law, yet the investigation’s smoking gun lies in House communications.

Under Section 605, that investigation would be dead. The DOJ and FBI would find their subpoenas quashed and their warrants denied. Schiff and Swalwell, guilty of weaponizing national security secrets, would escape justice—retroactively.

Second, there’s the case of Liz Cheney—a name that now evokes memories of hubris and betrayal among Republicans. During her star turn on the January 6th Committee, Cheney engaged in witness tampering to shape Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony. By all accounts, Cheney pressured Hutchinson to craft a narrative favorable to the Committee’s political objectives, a flagrant abuse of power that would warrant criminal investigation.

But with Section 605 in place, the DOJ’s efforts to uncover the truth would be paralyzed. Cheney’s communications—the very evidence needed to prove witness tampering—would be walled off. Congress would simply claim that its data is untouchable, its members above reproach.

Historical Parallels: A Republic’s Betrayal

The Romans had a term for this sort of legislative cunning: privilegium—a law that benefits a select few at the expense of justice. Cicero, in his fight against corrupt senators, warned that “the closer a man clings to power, the more strenuously he seeks to avoid the law.” Section 605 is the embodiment of Cicero’s warning. It allows the very lawmakers tasked with overseeing government to shroud themselves in secrecy, impervious to scrutiny from Trump’s incoming Justice Department.

This is not the first time Congress has played such games. During the Watergate era, Richard Nixon famously claimed that “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Nixon’s arrogance, of course, led to his downfall. But now, it appears Congress has adopted the same mantra: when members of Congress write the law, they are beyond its reach.

Undermining Justice in the Age of Trump

Make no mistake: Section 605 is an act of preemptive lawfare. Trump’s Justice Department will soon be tasked with untangling years of corruption, leaks, and abuse of power that have flourished in Washington. The DOJ and FBI, freed from the shackles of political interference, are primed to restore the rule of law.

Yet Congress, fearing exposure, has pulled up the drawbridge. Section 605 would ensure that leakers like Schiff and Swalwell remain untouchable. It would protect Cheney from accountability for witness tampering. It would obstruct investigations, shield misconduct, and shatter public trust.

This is not about protecting Congress from political harassment. It’s about protecting Congress from justice.

The Rule of Law or the Rule of Congress?

The Framers never intended Congress to be a castle immune from oversight. The very idea that lawmakers can exempt themselves from the justice system would have been anathema to Jefferson and Madison, who understood that accountability is the lifeblood of a republic. When one branch of government declares itself untouchable, the balance of power collapses.

Section 605 cannot stand. It must be challenged, overturned, and consigned to the legislative ash heap. For if Congress succeeds in placing itself above the law, then the rule of law itself will become nothing more than a hollow promise.

As President-elect Trump prepares to take office, let this be a rallying cry: the swamp cannot be allowed to protect its own. If justice is to prevail, no one—not Schiff, not Swalwell, not Cheney—can be above the law.

And that includes Congress.

Author

el gato malo

el gato malo is a pseudonym for an account that has been posting on pandemic policies from the outset. AKA a notorious internet feline with strong views on data and liberty.