The Hardening of Spheres of Influence: US Border as Data Pipeline

So Trump's new regulations about, visitors and about tourists entering The United States, needing them to submit, five years of their social media history, I think it is, and ten years, of their email addresses and so forth. Yeah. There's there's there's some things that need to be talked about with regards to this. I think some of it is obvious, and I think some of it is, I think, deliberately, covered up. Some of the ramifications of this are covered up, and they're covered up by the things that are obvious.

So you need to know that sometimes this is actually the function of the obvious. You understand? They put the obvious things right in front of you. They put the obvious things right in front of you so that you never look any further, so that you never look behind, you never look beyond what is obvious. So you think that you are dealing with one thing and you are actually dealing with something else.

There is something else that is really going on. The obvious thing is sometimes just a tactic for misdirection, so that while you are busy dealing with the obvious thing, that's how the thing that you don't notice is dealing with you. You understand? So let's start with the policy itself, so everyone is actually clear about what's going on. First of all, foreign visitors from 42 countries are going to be affected by this policy.

It's those countries that have a visa waiver upon entry to The United States. So basically all of Europe, France, including Germany and The UK, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, you know, Italy, Belgium, and so on. Australia too, Japan also, Qatar, and even Israel, interestingly. So people from all of these countries and several others are gonna have to submit their five year history on social media, every email address that they have used for the last ten years, every IP address, every phone number that they've used in the last five years, the metadata from their photographs that they submit, the names of all their family members, and the phone numbers of their family members for the last five years, their addresses. You're gonna have to submit your biometrics, including a face, including fingerprints, including an iris scan, and a sample of your DNA.

And you're gonna have to have your picture taken on a government app, that they'll use facial recognition software and put it in their database. Now, they said that this is gonna be phased in, it's not gonna be implemented all at once, but the social media history, that's supposed to start right away, which I think mostly or most likely means that you're gonna have to provide at least your usernames, all the usernames on all your accounts. But who knows? Maybe it also means your post, maybe it also means your content. Anyway, once you give them the usernames, it doesn't really matter because once you give them the usernames, they'll be able to access the content on that account.

So, of course, right, the thing that is getting all the attention is this issue, the social media issue, providing your social media history. That's what's getting all the attention, not the fact that most of this data that you're providing is the kind of thing that intelligence agencies, wish that they could get without a warrant. They wish they could get that information without a warrant. No one's talking about the fact that this policy means that they can collect all of that information without coercion. All they have to do is make it a trade off to entry.

You know, literally getting people to voluntarily hand over, to the US government, what the US government data that the US government would not be legally allowed to get without a court order. You understand? They wouldn't be able to get it without reasonable cause, without reasonable suspicion. Not to mention their own governments wouldn't be able to get it. But the issue that everyone is talking about is the, you know, free speech issue.

I won't be able to enter The United States, I won't be allowed in America if I've ever said anything online against Trump, or if I've ever said anything online against America, or Israel, or capitalism, or what have you. If I ever said Allahu Akbar online, then I'm gonna be banned from entering the the The US. If I've ever said anything that the ultra nationalist right wing might deem anti American, so it becomes potentially a prompt for self censorship. Okay. This is among the obvious things.

That's what I mean. The obvious things are the things that the people are generally going to talk about, and that usually means, or that often means, that that's why the obvious things are there in the first place. So that those will be the things that you talk about. Like, okay, what are the obvious things about this policy? The obvious ramifications of this policy.

Self censorship, on the one hand, and on the other hand, for anyone who does not accept to, you know, muzzle themselves online just so they can get inside The United States, well, obviously, it will potentially mean a drastic decrease in tourism to The United States. It also means the normalization of sort of ideological compliance as a condition for entering The United States, and by extension, anywhere else. So far as this is going to create a precedent that other countries might follow. And like I say, it's normalization of this whole approach or using this as a criteria. And by ideology, it means a particularly partisan interpretation of the ideology.

Meaning, in this particular case, you have to be a right wing American ultra nationalist no matter where you come from. Even if you come from Latvia, you have to be an ultra nationalist American patriot, you know, an American patriot or whatever partisan ideology is espoused by any particular state that might choose to adopt this sort of a policy because, as I say, it's becoming a precedent. So the result of that is going to be intensified American isolation, generally a promotion of that kind of paranoid nationalism globally, which is always going to be a precursor to political persecution against anyone who holds ideas and who holds perspectives that are not sanctioned by power, that are not sanctioned by the state. Basically, dissent. This is intertwined with political persecution, this policy, and that's obvious.

Another obvious thing about it is the sort of slippery slope aspect of it. In other words, this is being applied now to tourists from the visa waiver countries, but then it will be required on every visa application from every country around the world. Then you can see that may maybe it's gonna be required to renew your green card if you're in America. It's gonna be required on your citizenship citizenship application. Then it's gonna become a part of a job application, part of a rental agreement, a bank loan, a mortgage, a driver's license, and so on.

You're gonna have to prove your political alignment with the the ruling party, whoever that ruling party is. Right? So these are some of the obvious. What else? There's gonna be maybe people removing videos, unfollowing accounts that they've been following, maybe deleting their own accounts, increasing their own use of anonymity, even though that's not going to protect you, actually.

You might see an exodus of people off of social media, which is where most people get their news, most young people get their news from social media. So that's going to end up being a boost for legacy media and a move to sort of consolidate narrative control. And, of course, a good deal of organizing, political organizing, takes place via social media platforms, so that will be hobbled by this, if that happens. I mean, why do you think that there's so much that there's such massive ridiculously massive investment in AI right now, while it's not even turning a profit? Because it's gonna be an instrument of the state.

It's gonna be an instrument of state management and state enforcement. The government is gonna be the customer, private sector AI companies, and the government is the customer. It's part of the military industrial complex two point o. So what else? What else is the obvious things about this policy?

Well, if you go on with the probability of decreased tourism, then obviously that's gonna mean a blow to the airlines, blow to the hospitality sector, to hotels, Airbnb, whatever, the tourism sector, the economy as a whole, not to mention the World Cup. So all of this is obvious. These are all ramifications of that policy that I think are quite easy to predict, and that's part of why I think these are the types of issues that will dominate and are dominating the public discourse about the policy. These are the pins that are being set up to be knocked down. You understand?

You implement this first on foreign visitors to The United States because that's an easy launchpad, just like launching, you know, masked marauders abducting people from the streets and disappearing them into camps. You do that by first targeting immigrants, and then, of course, the the intention is to expand it. I think there's anything complicated to understand about this. It's it's pretty straightforward. This part is quite straightforward with regards to that policy.

But, okay, there are a couple of other things to say here. First of all, there are a few things to say about, things that you need to keep in mind. You always need to keep, uppermost in your mind that, in America, the state has been thoroughly captured by the private sector. You need to never forget this. So you can always assume, you can assume from the outstart that overwhelmingly, the policies that are initiated by the government have been dictated to the government by business, by investors, by asset managers, and so forth for the purposes of their own interest, the private sector interest.

Their interests, the private sector interest, broadly speaking, is profit facilitating or improving the conditions for profitability, protection against profit loss, consolidation or monopolization of market dominance, immunity from accountability for the private sector, insulation against competition, and so forth. These are all the things that the private sector is interested in. And when the government launches a new policy, or they launch some new program, some new initiative, or what have you, you should understand that it is an opening move in a longer gambit. In other words, the objective of the policy the objective of the policy, most likely, has to do with sort of seeding the ground for the planned rollout of solutions that business will provide for the problems and the challenges that the new policy is intended to create. You understand?

The policy is not there to provide solutions, it's there to provide problems that business can solve. You should understand it as an opening move. It's an opening move, it's not the primary objective. Usually that will be the case, not always, but usually. And then the other thing we need to talk about is, well, I would say the ramifications of Noam Chomsky's, I guess what you can call his his double life, in terms of what's been disclosed recently with relation to, Jeffrey Epstein.

Because it turns out that Chomsky was quite close to Epstein, was friends with him, praised him, and basically plugged himself into Epstein's network of elites, where he apparently had no issue whatsoever rubbing elbows with people in private whom he vehemently criticized in public. I know this might seem like a non sequitur, like this isn't related to what we're talking about, but it is. I mean, you have Chomsky's wife, emailing Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of Chomsky to see if Chomsky could be invited to meet with the Trump administration, Trump administration officials, or with Trump himself during his first term, so that he could potentially consult with him or or or give him counsel. Meanwhile, he cut off his relations with Glenn Greenwald, who was sort of his protege, because Glenn Greenwald was taking a more balanced position in how he appraised Trump's presidency in the first time. But meanwhile, he himself, Chomsky himself, is trying to jockey for a meeting.

You know, he's publicly lambasting Trump and Steve Bannon and the ultra nationalists publicly, and privately, he's getting his picture taken with Bannon laughing and smiling and so forth at Epstein's place, you know, having meals with Ehud Barak along with Epstein. Now, it'd be different, it would be different. If Chomsky was a journalist, or if he, you know, if he had some sort of state position, he was an official, where he has to, you know, it's part of his job to meet with people that he agrees with and disagrees with, with friends and foes alike, you know, because either he's investigating, he's doing investigations, or he's doing some sort of diplomatic work, so, you know, you have to meet with all different kinds of people. But that's not the case with Chomsky. Right?

Officially, Chomsky is supposedly the quintessential American dissident, The quintessential radical intellectual, the anarchist, you know, the voice of the leftist conscience and so on. You know, he was literally condemning the ideologies, condemning the tactics, condemning the agendas, condemning the systems, and condemning the people that he was himself actively embedding himself with, which makes it appear anyway that Chomsky was not in fact a dissenter, was not in fact an opponent of the system, but an instrument of the system. And that in fact his function was to train people to be dissidents and to be in the opposition, in a in a sort of opposition that stayed within the allowable boundaries. You understand? So for anyone who was influenced by his political work, by his writings, by his books, by his talks and so forth, or was influenced by those who were influenced by him, because he gave birth to literally generations of leftists, of activists, so called intellectuals and so forth, who were basically resellers of his narrative about The US and about the power structure and so forth.

So you're gonna have to reevaluate all of that. You have to reevaluate all of that. You have to reevaluate, you have to reexamine it, you have to reexamine his work through the lens of him being an asset of power, not an enemy of power, an asset of power. And when you do that, I think you will see that, yes, very much a great deal of Chomsky's work is actually just a camouflage way of inflating American power and inflating American capabilities. And the truth of the matter is that the most common emotional reaction to his work has always been a sense of hopelessness, a sense of helplessness.

That's what he inspires in his readers. Chomsky will always tell you what the empire is doing, what the power structure is doing, he'll always deconstruct the propaganda and so forth, and tell you what their real motives are and so on, he does all of that. And it turns out that he knows all of this because he's sitting at the table with them. He's sitting at the table with them the whole time. Sitting at the the table of the elites the whole time.

I mean, the the first clue was that he worked at MIT, which is completely integrated into the Pentagon, it's part of the military industrial complex. And then the next clue, of course, is that all the censorship and all the narrative control that he talks about, all of that has apparently never been used against him. Right? He doesn't get he doesn't stop getting books published. And on the backs of all of his books, it it always trumpets this claim that, Noam Chomsky is the most cited academic in the English language.

He was never silenced. Chomsky was never silenced. Even his absence from mainstream media has been by his own admission, has been mostly by his own choice because he dislikes the short form, format. He doesn't wanna know, he doesn't like the sound bite, culture of mainstream media. But no, Chomsky has not been marginalized, not at all.

He was hobnobbing with the elite throughout his career. Again, the very elites that he publicly criticized. Which means, as I say, you have to relook at everything from the man. You you have to re examine everything from the man. And I'm saying all of this, I'm bringing all of this up, not to make it about Chomsky per se, but because Noam Chomsky was one of the most prolific, and one of the most influential people on the thinking and on the instincts, the trained instincts of activists and opposition commentators for the last fifty years.

And the way people are reacting to this new border entry policy, in my opinion, sort of reflects the training that people like Chomsky inculcated into that segment of people, you know, focusing on free speech, censorship, ideological enforcement and so on. These are the issues that they're focusing on. Those are the issues that Chomsky would focus on. Like I said, focusing on the obvious things. Chomsky's school of thought trained people to react to the obvious things.

Not just the obvious things, but the things that are connected to, say, America's moral mythology, you know, democracy, liberalism, freedom, protest, what have you. You know, due process, rule of law, etcetera etcetera. The sort of western shopping cart of principles and the shopping cart of values that they've never, you know, proceeded to check out with. And of course, these are all the the exact same principles, the exact same values that are used to justify the things that Chomsky criticized. You understand?

So the ones he attacked called on the principles, those same principles. And he attacked them by calling on those principles. Both sides are pretending that they believe in these things purely for the purpose of managing the people who believe in these things, who actually believe in these things. So the the one he's criticizing, he's criticizing on the basis of these values, and the one he's criticizing is justifying their actions on the basis of those same values. So like I said, you're supposed to be worried, right, about defending your right to post your opinions on social media without being punished, or without being stigmatized, or without being denied entry to this or that country, in this case The United States, but again, it will probably spread.

See, so you're supposed to only see the the aspect of this that's like the criminalization of speech, that aspect of this policy. Never mind that it's converting the the the border of a country, basically, into a a data intake pipeline. The policy is just the front end justification, for making your whole identity, your whole life, nothing but a dataset to be input into a system that creates a whole social graph. A whole social graph around you to be analyzed, to be manipulated, to be controlled, and to be interpreted in all sorts of ways, whatever ways they want. They can infer about you and about your, acquaintances, whatever they want.

Once they've got all that data, you don't know what they're gonna do with it. You know how they talk about the so called social credit system that supposedly in China, even though no Chinese person has ever heard of it? America is endlessly talking about the Chinese social credit system. Well, this is the system that they're building. They're the ones who are building that, and it's gonna be controlled by the private sector.

And we don't have to guess whether or not this this this ecosystem already exists, it exists. In 2025, ICE expanded their work with Palantir through a contract that it calls, I think, immigration OS, operating system, that's intended to fuse data and track immigration enforcement workflows end to end. So they're using immigration enforcement, to expand the reliance of the state or by the state on, data analytics and social media surveillance capacity. So when I say that The US state, the American state, is captured by the private sector, this is exactly what that looks like in practice. Policy that is is justified as, on the basis of national security, but is designed in a way that makes private data fusion more indispensable, which means it's just for the interest of the private sector.

The policy doesn't just use those systems, it creates a demand for those systems. You understand? For the same reasons that I just mentioned. For profit, for creating conditions for profitability, for market share, and so on. For protection against retaliation by the public.

Because the state is the security subcontractor to enforce compliance. Private sector subjugation of the population, that's what this is. And this is completely connected to the dividing up of the world into spheres of influence that I've talked about so many times, with the Western Hemisphere, America, Central, South America, and Europe being assigned to The United States, or more accurately being assigned to the nationalistic OCGFC, making basically, as I say, America itself, Central And South America, and Europe, at least Atlantic Europe, Western And Central Europe, being the sort of designated dominion of that faction of power, that faction of the OCGFC, it's theirs to subjugate and exploit. Like, okay, go go back and look at the Miran report. The Miran report from about a year ago.

It was in November 2024. It was called something like a user's guide to restructuring the global economy or restructuring the the global trading system or something like this. Stephen Merrin. The idea was his idea was Merrin's idea was that The US should treat the dollar system along with The US security umbrella system as a single package that could be conditionalized and weaponized. Right?

This is what we see Trump doing. Now, explicitly frames it as burden sharing. But burden sharing is just a face saving code word for withdrawing, America's withdrawing. In other words, make other states pay more for access to the reserve system and to the security system, the defense umbrella and so forth. Intertwining trade policy with security policy.

Basically turning the defense policy or the security policy, whatever, into a subscription service. And it's a scam. And so it's a setup. It's a setup. Because, obviously, these are the two things that enabled Europe's modern prosperity.

Europe has depended upon this. You've been getting it for free. Okay? So now what you what you have been getting for free, now you're gonna have to pay for it. Now you have to subscribe.

And we know that you don't have the money for that. So what are you gonna do for me? Right? You can't pay for it. So what are you gonna do for me?

It's a complete scam. It's a complete scam because the real reason that they're doing it is because they are desperate themselves. America, The US, they're desperate themselves. They don't have the money either. That's why they're withdrawing.

They can't sustain it. But they're framing it as conditionalizing the relationship in order to save face and in order to secure the deal. So Mirren says that The US needs to have a coordinated currency arrangement, like a modern day or, you know, a two point o version of the Plaza Accord. And that's only gonna work with the partners who have dollars to sell. If you're not familiar with the Plaza Accord, it's basically back in 1985.

The US dollar was jacked up really high. It's too high for them, and it was choking US industry. It was too valuable. So The US got the g five. It was the g five back then, not the g seven or the g 20.

They got them all into a room, and got them to agree to push the dollar down in an orderly way so that America could, sell more abroad, could export more and import less. And the result was exactly that, they worked. The dollar fell, the yen and the Deutsche Mark rose. Japan ended up dealing with a a major knock on effect on its economy because their currency surged, which undermined their own economic planning, but whatever. So Marin is basically saying we need to do that again.

He's advocating for a modern, plaza accord style deal where Washington uses different forms of leverage, like tariffs, like security relationships, financial incentives, to try to get major partners and big reserve holders to cooperate in weakening the dollar on purpose, as what they're calling a managed reset of the system. But that's just the way it's being framed. That's the way it's being packaged by Miran. He's with the Hudson Institute. And again, remember the role of think tanks here.

Have to remember the role of think tanks. Their role is to translate the goals of power into acceptable policy language. So in instead of demolition, you call it reset. But it's it's a demolition. Now, the issue is, again, it only works with partners who have dollars to sell.

But in 2025, those dollar reserves are not mainly in Europe, they're not in in the West. They're sitting overwhelmingly in China, in Japan, in India, in Taiwan, in Saudi Arabia, in Korea, in Singapore. Mirren himself says that most of the dollars available to be sold by governments, are in the hands of, Middle Eastern and East Asian governments, not Europe, not Westerners. Understand, he's not describing just who has the dollars. He's acknowledging the reality of a new hierarchy.

The dollars that matter are sitting in The Gulf and sitting in East Asia. So, okay, when the reserve stockpiles sit with the GCC and sit with China and Japan and so forth, those become the actors who can stabilize, who can destabilize, and who can demand concessions, and who can refuse to make any concessions. That's because they're the one they're in a position to say, we'll help you but on our terms. That's, you know, RPI. That's decision authority.

That's immunity from retaliation. Weakening the dollar, okay? You have to understand, everyone is tangled up. Everyone is tangled up in the American system. It's been the world order, you know?

It's been the global order since World War two. So, the controlled demolition, the whole transition, out of that twentieth century world order, that's risky for everybody. That's dangerous and hard for everybody. East Asia and The Gulf, hold the most dollars, so weakening the dollar represents a financial loss for them. You understand?

That means that they wanna steer, this process very carefully. And because they hold all of those dollars, they get to do that. They get to steer it, which is at least part of why you're seeing all of those massive pledges of investment, by the GCC into America. This is part of it. This is part of the reason for that.

They're converting those dollars into profitable assets to reduce their exposure, to the laws that will happen, during the whole process of weakening the dollar, weakening the currency. And and again, because they have all of that money, because they have all of that cash, the membership approach, the subscription approach that The US is taking, that's easy for them to navigate. It's much easier for them than it is for Europe. Because what you can't gain in access by means of money, you you can only gain it by means of concessions and by means of compliance and obedience. And East Asia and The Gulf have the cash to bypass the need for compliance and concessions and obedience.

Europe doesn't. And again, look at the sectors that the that the GCC is investing in. It's investing in AI, data collection, energy, and so forth. These are exactly the same sectors that are gonna be involved, in the new model of hemispheric, management that I'm talking about. These fears of influence, the control over Europe, etcetera.

Because again, if you hold hundreds of billions in dollar assets, you don't want an uncontrolled weakening of the dollar to devalue your own stockpiles. You want a managed diversification, building new settlement corridors for yourself, building new payment systems, new swap relationships, more like Yuan Durham, Yuan Dinar settlement systems and so forth, more local currency clearing. While you're still trying to move your dollars into investments that are plugged into the architecture that are going to basically be the new management system. You understand? Everyone is trying to build the ability to live without the dollar.

And over the last twelve months, just over the last twelve months, you've seen what they're building. They're building that ability. You've got Africa's non dollar payments, that's becoming operational across the continent. I think it was reported in Reuters that the PAPS, p a p s s, system is expanding to 15 countries, a 150 commercial banks, is letting buyers and sellers settle in local currencies across borders. You've got The United States openly threatening punitive action.

Right? This is watch this. Punitive action against BRICS countries over any move that challenges dollar dominance. Okay? Think about that.

The the the language sounds like a deterrent, but it acts like a sales pitch for alternatives. That's what's actually happening. Because again, this is in the Meiran plan. They're actively promoting de dollarization. They're actively pushing the global South countries into alternative trade relationships.

You've got The US and the EU reaching a tariff deal that explicitly includes more EU energy purchases and more defense purchases. Plus, you've got massive EU investment commitments into The US, just like with The Gulf. Europe is being locked into dependence, energy dependence, defense procurement dependence, and so forth. And they're disguising capital flight, which is what it is, as investment partnership, but it's capital flight. You've got ASEAN, you've got China and the GCC meeting in Kuala Lumpur, explicitly talking about trade coordination, resilience of trade between them.

This is just one more sign that a South South economic order is being strengthened, it's being built, it's being developed and strengthened. And you've got China's Central Bank explicitly calling for a more multipolar currency environment, meaning, you know, moving away from the dollar. This is all coordinated. They want to expand the international footprint of the digital yuan. And again, this is coordinated with the OCGFC.

This is part of deliberately weakening the dollar, the plan to deliberately weaken the dollar. You know, you've got the development strengthening, maturing of cross border CBDC infrastructure. You've got the Trump administration banning development of a US Central Bank digital currency, which is basically America voluntarily declining to set the rules for the next era of settlement tech, settlement technology. While the other blocks, the global south, they press ahead with it. You put all of this together and the pattern looks exactly like what Middle Nation has been saying all along.

The United States is narrowing the gates for itself, hardening the borders, they're closing up, they're withdrawing, they're receding. Right? This is this is the mechanics of withdrawal, what you're seeing. This is the mechanics of withdrawal and isolation. The partitioning of the world into spheres of influence.

That's what's happening. And then that brings us back to the tourism policy, where we started. Europeans, you should know that you're being walked into a cage. Europe is being relegated into a managed province of the American empire, the private sector American empire, with state enforcement. You know, one day you're gonna look up and realize that you can't move.

You can't move. You can't make any decisions. You can't decide anything. You have no choices. You can't speak freely, at least not without calculating how that's gonna affect your mobility, your access.

Like I said, look at what's going on. Because of the whole Ukraine, situation, the Ukraine, pretext, Europe is rearming. Okay? They don't have the capacity to do that. So your rearmament is mostly gonna be buying American systems.

And that's not defending yourself. That's renting your defense. That's renting security. It's a subscription service, like I said. Because when you buy American weapons, obviously, you're not just buying weapons.

It's not like you're buying a toaster. No. You're buying a relationship. You're buying a dependency. You know?

The the with the spare parts, the updates, the ammunition, the training, you know, the technical support system and everything. The whole system is designed for you to be dependent. You're locked into their supply chain. You're locked into their permission structure. Europe's fear and fear mongering becomes America's revenue.

And Europe's, you know, security plan, becomes America's remote control. That's what that is. And just like when they sell weapons anywhere else, you are expected to use them. You're expected to use them so that you can buy more. That means conflict.

That means generating conflict. That means conflict manufacture. This is part of the bargain. This is part of the deal. Then add the energy dependency as well.

Europe used to have its own energy deal. Whatever you think about it, it was a deal. They had a they had that situation sorted out. Then the post Ukraine world completely broke that deal, broke that situation, and and Europe ended up now relying heavily upon America, American LNG, American shipments, American pricing influence. I mean, this isn't energy is how you're heating your homes, energy is the price of everything.

Energy means the competitiveness of your factories, or whether that your factories can even operate. Volkswagen just closed their first factory in Germany in eighty years. They never closed the factory in Germany. Volkswagen, energy contributes to inflation, you know. Energy determines whether or not your people can tolerate your higher military spending without rioting.

Energy is whether your government can survive at all. So when your energy lifeline is coming from a power that sees you, sees your country as a territory to manage, you're not sovereign anymore. You're not sovereign, you're supervised. And then, like I say, there's the Meiren plan, the the plan to weaken the dollar, the plan of so called burden sharing, reframing withdrawal as burden sharing. Europe is asked to spend more on defense, pay more for energy, maintain alignment ideologically with Washington, absorb economic shocks no matter what, without holding the bargaining chips that the big reserve holders have, like China, like East Asia, and The Gulf.

So Europe can't negotiate. They're stuck. They can't negotiate. They can only surrender. Then you have this new this new border entry policy, like I say, this we have to hand over your personal data to America's database, giving Palantir more information about the population of Europe than Europe's own intelligence agencies have.

You understand? That translates to the American nationalistic OCGFC basically becoming the overseers of Europe. They have everything in their hands. And your government and your intelligence agencies are gonna be their subcontractors. So you put it all together, Europe buys America American weapons that locks them into dependence and it guarantees conflict.

Europe buys American energy, which locks them into economic vulnerability, energy dependence. Europe doesn't have the reserve leverage that they have in The Gulf or China and so forth, so it has to concede. They concede more and negotiate less. Europe accepts US mobility rules, so Washington can gain a quiet lever over Europe's elites, over their industries, over their culture. Europe hands over very invasive personal data about their own citizens.

Though CGFC now knows everything about you, they know everything about you. And they're normalizing a system that can grant or deny you access to anything and everything based upon your compliance and based upon your subservience. That's how domination works in the modern era, in the modern world. Meanwhile, BRICS, BRICS and the GCC, they're building a global south order that's gonna be able to exist and it's gonna be able to thrive outside the American system. Like I said, they sit on huge pools of capital.

They sit on strategic geography. They sit on energy. They sit on the resources. They have options. But Europe is becoming irrelevant.

It's becoming irrelevant, but it's also becoming expensive. It's becoming very paradoxically expensive and irrelevant. It's becoming obedient, and it's gonna be permanently controlled. That's the future. That's the future for you if you're in Europe.

And yes, it's also the same for Americans. It's it's not different for Americans. The US, Europe, and unfortunately Central And South America, like I said, the Western Hemisphere, the European Continent, and the Western Hemisphere, all the way down, are gonna be the dominion of the nationalistic OCGFC. And the new border entry requirements that we're talking about, that just reflects this whole trend. Reflects the whole trajectory that we've been talking about.

I mean, you look at this in isolation, if you look at that policy in isolation, it's like trying to react to a single individual snowflake inside of an avalanche. It's like talking about a single raindrop in a torrential downpour. That's why when I talk about geopolitics, I'm basically telling you what the weather is gonna be. That's what I'm doing. I'm basically telling you, it's going to rain.

I'm not telling you, this drop is gonna land here and that drop is gonna land there. It's gonna rain. This is what you need to know. So when the raindrops start falling, when the raindrops start landing, you won't be surprised. When that happens, when they start landing, don't need to ask me, what does this particular raindrop mean?

Or what have you. That's like that's what it's like when you look at the border entry requirement in isolation. When you look at any of these things in isolation, then you react to it as if it is not a component of a much larger, much longer term, much more comprehensive gambit that's taking place. A gambit that is also taking place within an irreversible global trend, an irreversible global trajectory. When you put it in context, yes, all of those obvious things that we talked about are true.

The censorship, the ideological enforcement, the normalization of basically a social credit system. There's gonna be tried, a trial test is on tourists, but obviously the intention of it is to use it for the domestic population. The obvious thing about the walling off of America, the isolation. All of the obvious stuff is true. Yes.

But the policy is not the why. The why is because this is how the West is gonna look post global transition. The transition is the why behind the policy. I hope you understand me. You can protest the policy all you want, but you're just protesting a raindrop in a downpour if you do that.

And if that's your strategy, you're gonna drown in the flood. Now, you know, I mentioned the Chomsky's Chomsky's approach almost universally inculcated a sense of hopelessness and a sense of helplessness in people. So let me just clarify, because I'm not I know that what I'm saying might sound like I'm saying that things are hopeless, because I'm saying that this transition is happening, that there's nothing that can be done to to stop it from happening. I'm saying that the trend and the trajectory are irreversible. I'm saying that you cannot do anything about that global shift, and that's true.

You can't do anything about that. But that's not the same thing as saying that things are hopeless. And it's not the same thing as saying that you're helpless. First of all, with regards to hopelessness, you have to understand that for most of the world, this is the most hopeful era that we have experienced in centuries. Wallahi.

The West and America specifically, receding and withdrawing from global power is something that generations upon generations upon generations of people have prayed for. Most of the world is finally feeling optimistic for the first time in anyone's memory. So consider that. Secondly, with regards to hope, what most Americans define as hopeful is actually the ability to maintain the plausibility of their delusions about America's great noble values being actualized for them. When the truth of the matter is that those, so called noble values were never actualized neither at home nor abroad, then that never happened.

Your system did not get corrupted, it has always been a corrupt system that originated in a corrupt culture. You have always viciously policed speech, policed thought and ideology. So I'm telling you, there's no hope when you frame your struggle as a struggle in which you have to defend what you never had, Where you have to correct the system that has never been right in the first place. When you have to preserve what never existed. To fight for values that you don't understand, that you don't even understand, comprehend, much less believe in, much less have internalized as a nation.

You see, they wanna get you all riled up to fight for your freedom, to defend your democracy, to protect your free speech and so on. As if you have any of those things to begin with. You don't have those things, you never did. They got you thinking that you're defending your castle meanwhile you don't have a castle. You know, thinking that you're protecting your home when you're homeless.

It's a mirage. It's a phantom battle. And the whole point, in my opinion, the whole point is to keep you in that state of hallucination. They wanna keep you speaking in the language of morals and values while the power structure operates in the language of money. They wanna keep your head in the clouds while they create facts on the ground.

So you will see for example, a Chomsky telling you all about the nefarious things that the power structure is doing, and telling you about how outmatched you are, how outmanned you are. And whenever anyone would ask Chomsky what they're supposed to do about it, his answer was usually just well, organize. And he says that the only way to confront the power structure is with mass mobilization, you know, like an army of people, an army of the working class facing off against the army of capital. And yes, this is so unrealistic that it does create hopelessness and a sense of helplessness. And anyway, someone like Chomsky is again actually part of the elite.

This is important to to understand and remember. He's part of the elite educationally, financially, and socially. The poor and the working class, in fact, are abstractions for someone like Chomsky. I think the last time he was poor was maybe during the great depression. He can no more talk about the realities of the poor and the realities of the working class, than he could talk about what life was like in Mesopotamia.

My point is the false framing. The false framing is the source of the hopelessness. Because what the framing tells you to hope for is unachievable. That's the problem. As long as you don't understand what's going on or you misunderstand what's going on, hope is just a neutralizing delay tactic by the power structure itself.

But for most actual poor and working class people, for most struggling people, we just wanna know what the real situation is. That's all we wanna know. We wanna know what the real situation is. We wanna know what our real options are. We want the facts.

We want a clear picture of how things are gonna go down so that we can plan for that. That's all we want. We don't have delusions of grandeur. We're not thinking about, you know, dramatic revolutions and what have you, we're thinking about survival. That's what most people are thinking about.

We are very intimately aware of our place in the socioeconomic order that we live in and we're very familiar with our relationship with the power structure that's hammered into our heads every single day. So if it's gonna rain, we're not looking for someone to give us hope in the possibility that we can actually stop that rain from falling. We just wanna know how bad is it gonna be. How much rain is that gonna be? Am I gonna need a raincoat or am I gonna need a raft?