All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 13, 2022 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas
01:04:10
What Is The Transnational Military Industrial Complex?

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more https://rumble.com/c/c-1647952 https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas https://theinfowarrior.podbean.com/ https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior https://twitter.com/JasonBermas PayPal [email protected] #BermasBrigade Show less

|

Time Text
Academic Insights on Globalism 00:03:47
Hey everybody, Jason Burmes here and I am very excited to have my next guest on yet again.
He comes at this from a very academic perspective and that's what we like here.
We like people that are not only looking at current events, but looking at them in relation to historical events and globalism.
And that's why this should be a mind-blowing conversation on the transnational military industrial complex.
And to help me discuss that is a young gentleman by the name of Stuart J. Hooper.
You can go check him out over at YouTube, highly censored there as well.
If you don't think the algorithm works for Jason Burmese, I can guarantee you it does not work for Stuart very well either.
And that's why we are blessed to have him here today.
Stuart, for my audience that may not be familiar with your work, you've been doing this for some time across various organizations.
Tell my audience about that.
Yeah, well, thanks again for having me back, Jason.
Really appreciate it.
And yeah, I've been kind of dipping in and out of this alternative media world for quite a few years, probably the best part of a decade.
But as you alluded to, I ultimately went the academic path in life.
Honestly, taking inspiration from some people that you could have found in the alternative media spheres a good few years ago, people like Dr. Webster Tarpley.
And I thought it would be useful to look at this alternative way of viewing the world through an academic lens, if, of course, that was possible.
Now, a lot of people will say that no, it is not.
And academia is part of the problem, which I would agree to a certain extent that, yes, you'd be correct.
But throughout time, there have been segments of academia that have been extremely critical of things like globalization.
They have looked at the idea of elites within society, and they have done so in a way that is not only legitimate and helps to legitimize critiques of globalism, of the military industrial oral complex, of elites.
But it's also helped to, I think, better understand the world in some ways as well.
So yeah, I come at this from that academic perspective.
I'm finishing up my PhD right now, which is going to be called the modern military industrial complex.
So that's really the focus of it.
And I've gone through, like I said, years now, best part of a decade of following people like you, other people in this sphere, the small group of academics that are also in this realm of thinking more critically about the world and the real power structures that exist.
If you go into a mainstream political science department, for instance, and you talk to a bunch of professors concerned with American politics, the only thing that they're really going to focus upon researching are things like voting.
Who can vote?
Who can't vote?
Who is represented?
How are they represented?
Does it matter if you have a black candidate versus a white candidate?
What sort of representation does that give people?
Do they feel like their voice is heard better or worse because of who represents them?
When ultimately, what I'm saying, and this small group of academics with a very legitimate academic background that really goes back to people like Machiavelli, look at political systems and instead say, well, yeah, voting might matter, but does it matter as much as if you own a Fortune 500 corporation?
Voting Rights and Representation 00:10:37
Does it matter as much if you are a major player in the military-industrial complex?
Do these other forces in society have perhaps a little bit more weight behind them than you and your vote?
So that's ultimately the perspective that I come at all of this from.
So let's talk about the term military industrial complex.
If people saw the thumbnail, obviously I put Dwight D. Eisenhower in it because he is the originator of that terminology in his farewell speech.
And I often cite him not only because of the fact that he is calling out this industry and this organization, I guess you could call it,
that is really coming up post-World War II that he has a first-hand look at, but he talks about things like this also being a spiritual warfare and the fact that a group of scientific elite could use this in order to take control of societies and policies.
And I was wondering what your perspective on his viewpoints were now that that has evolved over 50 plus years.
And I was wondering if you could tell me if there is another president outside of Donald Trump that has ever even used that terminology.
You know, I was quite surprised when he discussed the military industrial complex on Fox News, confirming that it is a reality and in essence saying that he would have quite some battles with them, especially when it came to the war on terror, Afghanistan, Iraq, and our positioning there.
Yeah, so in terms of other presidents using that specific term, I'm not sure off the top of my head, but someone out there watching this video, if you want to go and research that and drop a comment, we would love to get an answer.
But in terms of Eisenhower's speech, and remember it's his farewell address, which is important, because he goes through his presidency and he's actually quite supportive of this growth in military industry, of this idea to put the United States into a position of supremacy.
Because what has he just done, remember?
This is why context is so important in everything that we talk about with politics.
Eisenhower was the supreme allied commander in Europe during World War II.
He saw what it meant to go through a world war.
And I think he was coming at this from a good position initially.
So he thought, well, if we build up the United States, if we go along with what all of our analysts are saying, these big predictions about what the Soviet Union is going to be, how it's going to threaten us, well, maybe if we build ourselves up against it, we will offer a system of government and a really model for the world that could avoid another world war because we'll be so big, so powerful.
By the end of his presidency, he looks back over the course of everything that's happened and he starts to realize that this may have been somewhat of a mistake.
A mistake in the fact that, as he says in the quote, that we've created this military-industrial complex that was necessary, and it was necessary.
If you want to win World War II, you needed the military-industrial complex.
But the point he's trying to get at in that speech is, well, maybe we've gone a little too far.
Is this still necessary?
Do we want to go all the way in this direction?
Because if we do, as you said, he mentions that a scientific, technocratic elite may end up coming to power through this military-industrial system and essentially taking everything that you know and think about democracy, tearing it up and throwing it away.
That this is the degree of influence that Eisenhower believed that these forces would have on American society.
And yes, it's ebbed and flowed over the years, over the decades, the amount of influence that they do have, but they've actively worked to ensure that they have influence.
What does that mean?
Well, it means that whenever there has been a threat, you've had to ask the question, well, is this real or is this imagined or is this inflated?
Because you had a segment of American society that was actively interested in the continuation of war and violence.
And that's kind of one of the bottom line comments to also really get across.
When we talk about the military-industrial complex, why do we talk about it with such seriousness and such dedication and attention?
Because ultimately, this is a group that is concerned with killing human beings.
And you've mentioned this in some of your other clips when you talk about people like Elon Musk and these technologies.
And we'll talk a lot about that when we get into some of my other stuff here.
But yeah, we're talking about killing people, destroying countries, destroying lives.
And that's why we should pay attention to this and why I've dedicated all of my real research, focus, and efforts on this issue.
So one of the other reasons that I bring up Eisenhower, and I actually mentioned this in my latest presentation over at the Reawaken America Tour, is that he was essentially introduced to the elitists in this country through the Bohemian Growth.
Just around the time after, as he was running for president, they decided that they were going to bring in the Manhattan Project and the idea of compartmentalization.
That's where the idea came from.
And I would argue that a lot of the military-industrial complex structure was within that group.
What are your feelings on that?
And, you know, again, going back to the modern day military-industrial complex, do you feel that Trump, for instance, was genuine when he was talking about them, or at the same time, maybe a little bit naive on how they controlled his policies?
The best academic approach to this is a guy called C. Wright Mills, and he wrote the power elite.
He wrote it back in 1956.
And what he does is he strings together groups of elites in three segments of American society.
The military, the economic, and the political.
And he makes the case that post-World War II, people that were at the very tip top of those hierarchies, the political, the economic, and the military, had more power than any other human being had ever had on earth before.
What did that do?
Well, it incentivized them to work together to maintain their position of power.
So there is absolutely nothing conspiratorial about this idea.
The point is, people had power.
They had an interest in keeping that power.
So what did they do?
They worked actively to do that.
How did they do that?
That's what your question is really getting at.
They did it through these sorts of organizations like your bohemian groves, like your Bilderberg groups, like NATO, which will eventually emerge and we can talk about.
Because what do those institutions do?
Well, they gather all the different elites from all the different segments that are in society.
And you could broaden it out beyond the political, economic, and military to media elites, ideological elites.
You might even, in some countries, include religious elites and people like this as well, depending on the system.
Not as relevant in the U.S. example.
But those clubs, those institutions, bring these people together and then allow them to do what?
Talk to one another, communicate, know one another, form relationships, and then work together, realize that they have shared interests.
So, hey, let's work together.
Let's maintain our position of power in American society.
And for C-Right Meals in the power elite, it goes far beyond just these Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove sorts of organizations.
He makes the argument that it goes all the way down to your schooling.
So, where did you go to school?
Did you go to one of these big, rich private schools that costs tens of thousands of dollars a year to attend?
Did you go to one of the Ivy League universities?
Well, if you did, doors are going to open for you, which did not open for you and I. You're going to be in a position of what he calls social wealth.
Which, again, does any of this sound conspiratorial, or does it, in fact, actually sound rational?
Isn't this what you'd expect a group of people in a position of power to do?
Probably.
So, yeah, this is how I come at this.
And this, I think, helps to explain these organizations and what they do and why they exist.
And interestingly enough, I won't go too far into this because I don't know how much I can say on it, but I've just started to be a peer reviewer for an academic journal.
And let's just say there are more academics that are starting to think about the roles of these organizations, like your Bohemian Groves.
Well, when you talked about universities, probably some of the most well-known where you have these type of connections would be places like Harvard.
I know that Johnny Vedmore has done some really good work via Harvard and the World Economic Forum.
Others would be Yale and then across the pond, Oxford, where not only are they in these schools, but then they join fraternal organizations, which are further compartmentalized.
Probably one of the most notorious would be Yale Skull and Bones.
But at that very same school, you'll find people that have come to certain positions of power at places like Skroll and Key and elsewhere.
So you really are penetrating not only the youth, but really the generational youth of a nepotistic system where people's sons, grandsons, and granddaughters really take the reins of power and allow a consolidation of that power.
Council on Foreign Relations Influence 00:04:46
Yeah, and Mills says this exactly.
But what those schools do is they transfer the traditions and interests of prior generations onto the new generations.
So instead of going in a different direction, what the sons and daughters of the current elites do is actually just continue on the path that their forefathers had left for them.
So yeah, this is absolutely what happens.
So let's talk about some of the more visual organizations and how they play into this global system.
You mentioned NATO and that alliance, which has expanded greatly over the decades in both membership and importance.
Another one of these type of groups, which is much broader and not a government organization, but really a pseudo-government organization, would be the Council on Foreign Relations, which is born out of Cecil Rhodes and his idea of roundtable groups.
Grab your book and tell us all about it.
This is the Council on Foreign Relations, the Imperial Brain Trust.
In other words, it's the place where the methods, ideas, and goals of empire are created.
And they were created by a guy called Elihu Root.
He's the founding father of the Council on Foreign Relations.
And yeah, this is today.
It's kind of a broader church of ideas.
If you go, for example, through Foreign Affairs, the publication of the CFR, they do publish quite a lot of different opinions.
For the most part, they're going to be in favor of the continuation of this transnational empire, but they do open the door, at least occasionally, to these different ideas and these different thinkers.
But it absolutely started off as something that was a place to consolidate power and the ideas of power and to nurture the ideas of power and to take them out into society, into the political world, and entrust leaders with these thoughts and ideas, which were dedicated to the creation and then maintenance of an empire.
Ultimately, what would be the replacement of the British Empire after World War II?
And in my PhD stuff, I've gone through, I think, how many years?
Over 20 years of American secretaries of defense.
So quite a number of people, NATO secretary generals, NATO military leadership.
Most of them are members of the CFR and other organizations like the Atlantic Council is another big one, which doesn't get enough attention paid to it.
That's something that hopefully I want to write a book on one day because the Atlantic Council is really NATO's brain.
So it's sort of a CFR, but specifically for NATO.
So how do we maintain this transatlantic alliance and position?
But yeah, so even today, these people is basically, unless you are a member of the CFR, you're not going to be an American Secretary of Defense.
I think there was maybe one or two of them out of a list of about 15 to 20 people that were not CFR members.
So let's go beyond even these organizations into the supposed private sector.
The more and more you peel back the layers of quote-unquote the private sector and what I would call the technopoly that we are now witnessing with organizations like Google, for instance, you find that they're seed-funded by intelligence organizations, aka InQTEL, the CIA funding arm of not only technology, but other entrepreneurships.
But then they also partner with organizations such as NASA in important realms such as AI and quantum computing.
And I often cite Eric Schmidt's book with Jared Cohen, CFR member, by the way, The New Digital Age, Reshaping the Future of People, Nations, and Businesses.
And if you look on the back, you have quotes from Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Tony Blair, and Michael Bloomberg, who are all a part of this system.
And what I like to point out is that Google itself goes well beyond just United States or Anglo-American policy and procedure.
Yemen's Proxy War 00:14:51
And for instance, was kind of caught up in a semi-scandal back in 2017, 2018, when it was found out they were developing the censored version of the internet for China, Dragonfly.
And you often hear about quote-unquote Chinese style censorship.
Well, that's over.
It's just censorship.
That model has made its way into the United States via platforms like Google, like YouTube, and beyond.
Yeah, absolutely.
And are we good to go for the best part of an hour here?
Just okay, cool.
Yeah, so this would be maybe a good jumping off point to shift into some of my more detailed stuff in terms of how I'm trying to think of this modern military industrial complex.
Traditionally, we know that militaries and military forces are considered to be really nationalistic forces.
They're tied to individual countries.
They wave their flags.
They play their national anthems.
They do big displays of force.
They do parades.
They do flyovers at sporting events.
And they are drowning almost in this environment of nationalism.
My conception of the modern military-industrial complex and modern military force is trying to break military force out of its national boundaries, which I believe it absolutely has done.
It's no longer just limited to these individual places.
And one big key reason for that is because, well, where do these military forces get all of their stuff from?
Does it just appear out of thin air?
Does the government own factories that produce this stuff?
No and no.
So where does it come from?
It comes from transnational corporations, like the ones that you were just mentioning.
What is a transnational corporation?
Well, it's an entity that is so large and so powerful that it can go anywhere it wants in the world because it can essentially bend that government wherever it goes to its own will, to its own interests, because it has that much political and economic might that it's going to bring.
Well, that then means that the military industries should not really be considered as national forces.
They should be considered as transnational forces because they really are transnational corporations.
So they're going above and beyond the nation state in terms of their power and where they could place their power if they so wished.
So we probably shouldn't consider military force as just coming from one nation anymore.
So it might be waving an American flag, but it might not necessarily be an American military anymore in the technologies that it uses and also the goals and objectives that it seeks to achieve.
So can we say anything in, let's just, let's be fair, since the war on terror, can we say any of those conflicts have genuinely done anything for the national benefit of the United States?
Probably not.
And if that's the case, well, then who have they benefited?
And I would make the case that's transnational elites and transnational military organizations like NATO.
Well, let's talk about that because, you know, that extends beyond just proxy wars, which we're actually seeing in real time via the Ukrainian and Russia conflict, which I certainly want to get into.
But I would say that a glaring example of what you just talked about would be the situation in Yemen that most people do not discuss.
We're not at war with Yemen, but there has been a genocide going on based on our military-industrial complex and policy of arming them with our weaponry, our drones, our surveillance, and our data points.
Speak to that.
Yeah, absolutely.
So this is exactly what I'm talking about.
And that really is one of the best cases that we could look at there.
And the British military-industrial complex, also intimately involved with this.
But again, I think we can just drop the labels British America.
And this is beyond that.
This is something above and beyond the state, far beyond the reigns of control of the state.
It's really pushing countries around.
And here, well, it's got a perfect outlet to get more economic and political power.
A small Middle Eastern nation, which is under constant attack from Saudi Arabia.
Yes, there were some internal things that were going on there, which maybe you could say, okay, well, maybe Saudi Arabia feels threatened by having this revolutionary uprising on its border.
Maybe it had some legitimate concern.
Okay, but does that concern need to drag on for years and years and years and years?
Because that's what we're talking about with Yemen.
We're talking about a bombing campaign from Saudi Arabia waged with Western military industrial complex weapons for years that has completely eviscerated that country to the degree where people have not even necessarily been blown to death, but starved to death or cannot get clean drinking water because the infrastructure of the country is completely annihilated.
So as, yeah, we sit back and think, yeah, surely we must be only supporting democracies and fights for freedom around the world.
Well, maybe not.
Well, I would also argue that that is a glaring failure of the Trump administration and Donald Trump himself, who came in running on not only love the WikiLeaks, got to do the WikiLeaks, can't wait for the WikiLeaks and abandoning Assange, but also talking tough about Saudi Arabia.
And within, I believe it was his first six months or a year, cutting a $400 plus billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia that would eventually lead to that support in Yemen, which went far beyond.
And I love that you made the point that it's not just death and destruction from above and being blown up through these drones.
It's the actual infrastructure that is being destroyed.
And more and more, we're seeing Western infrastructures being destroyed by design without the use of drones, without the use of traditional weaponry.
And we are entering this asymmetrical warfare on a global level that most thought was not possible.
Yeah, definitely.
I think Trump is a really interesting case to look at when it comes to foreign policy and the military industrial complex.
Yes, he said it, right?
He said, kind of like in Harry Potter, you don't say Voldemort, but he said the military-industrial complex.
And he alluded to this thing existing and having power that was beyond his control.
Well, great.
But what did he actually do?
Not really too much different.
He talked a very great game on the campaign trail about a lot of foreign policy issues, a lot of foreign policy issues.
That he said, well, why are we in the Middle East?
Why are we doing this?
What have we achieved?
All this money we're wasting, lives we're wasting.
Okay, we're in agreement.
But what did he actually do?
Well, not a whole lot to actually reverse that.
And there are some studies that have looked at Trump specifically and came to this same conclusion, but not just in the military realm, but in economic and political sense as well.
He made lots of big promises on the campaign trail.
And yes, they did sound very, very different, but he ended up not really delivering on a lot of that, which I think was really disappointing.
And I would say that that disappointment hit a crescendo point when, during his presidency, I would say about a year and a half, two years in, he started talking about getting out of Syria rather openly.
And many of us did not want Syria to be a part of the war on terror at all.
Almost a decade had passed before we officially went in there.
Although it did seem like our central intelligence agency was behind a lot of the conflict, you could go to, again, more of these transnational global organizations such as the UN and the White Helmets.
There have been documentaries about that.
And within, I believe, a week of him saying that twice, all of the sudden, you had this Duma attack, the chemical weapons attack that was proved to be completely false internally by the UN's only investigation in which they tried to censor, and it only came out through emails via what?
The WikiLeaks, which he abandoned.
And the results were that we are still actively partaking in the destruction of Syria and going against Assad today.
Yeah, Syria is one of the big moments, probably actually really Libya before that, where I really just started to look at the world through this far more critical lens, right?
Iraq and Afghanistan, that wasn't enough.
That wasn't enough.
Death and destruction.
We need to go to Libya and Syria as well.
I mean, did we really have a track record even 10 years ago of success in bombing campaigns in the Middle East?
I don't really think so.
But yes, Syria, one nation that managed to deflect this transnational military-industrial complex, primarily with the help of the Russian military, which is interesting to just think about: well, why was the Russian military successful in Syria, but not in Ukraine?
Well, I think it's pretty easy to get to an answer in that question.
It's far easier to bomb and attack and destroy people that can't really fight back against your technological power than those that do have a similar degree of technological power.
So, asymmetrical warfare versus a really weak, completely lacking any technological power, a force like that, like an ISIS, extremely easy to destroy for a technological, a modern military.
But when you match up two modern militaries, you don't get anything good.
Nothing good comes out of this.
All you get is two forces that collide together, and the destruction that is left behind, you've all seen it now in Ukraine, and it's immense.
And I think Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the symmetrical warfare that that created, that is exactly what it would have looked like if the US had invaded Iran.
You would have had two technologically similar forces colliding head-on, and it would have been absolutely brutal.
And so you're seeing the outcomes of that.
Thousands, tens of thousands of dead, complete loss of massive amounts of equipment and yeah, disaster.
So ultimately, as a species, we need to get away from war.
We need to find a new way to solve our problems because this isn't doing it for us.
In your opinion, is that why we never really went beyond the rhetoric and some small events, such as the one where you had a bombing at sea with Iran and never went into full spectrum warfare because the losses may have been too great?
Or was it that possibly you would have seen Russia come in and you would have yet another proxy war where the technologies, like you stated, would butt heads so greatly that it would demonstrate in a manner that we haven't seen in our lifetimes that maybe the United States isn't the number one dog when it comes to warfare.
Yeah, I think so.
And I haven't looked at this in immense detail, but yeah, that's usually how I think that issue through because we all know Iran was on the table for a very long time.
It was definitely in Dick Cheney's crosshairs and the neocons.
But yeah, it's possible that, let's say, cooler heads prevailed on that one.
There may have been some analysis that came to the conclusion that the Iranians are probably going to be able to put up a pretty significant fight.
Why couldn't Iraq?
Well, because Iraq, since the first Gulf War, was under a decade of economic sanctions.
They couldn't get anything to improve their military.
And their military had been destroyed in the first Gulf War.
The highway of death, which is another interesting story.
The Iraqis moving out of Kuwait, leaving after being ejected by the international forces.
But the decision was made, well, let's go ahead and destroy these retreating forces.
So Iraq's military devastated Iran's, that's ready to rock and roll, which is the Americans would probably end up winning that.
NATO would end up winning that ultimately, but it would be such a huge cost in blood and treasure that you're talking mass domestic opposition.
As soon as you start rolling up numbers of dead that high, domestic opposition is going to go crazy.
You know, before we get into the fourth industrial revolution and some of the organizations that are pushing that, I do want to talk about the Ukrainian conflict in the sense of NATO.
Because personally, obviously, I don't see Putin and the Russians as a hero per se.
But at the same time, I do see how they were pushed into this conflict by the ever encroachment of NATO trying to get more and more nation states into their organization.
Obviously, Georgia being one of the big ones.
And then talking about Crimea and the Ukraine.
Speak to that.
What are your viewpoints on the conflict that we're seeing now?
And how much involvement does the U.S. really have?
Because you have reporters like Michael Tracy essentially saying that the United States are directing the forces on the ground.
We know that Elon Musk has sent up over 12,000 Starlink satellites that are being utilized in drone warfare with ghost and sidewinder drones.
And there are numerous dead Americans now that are being portrayed as mercenaries that may in fact be actual U.S. forces under that guise.
Easier To Justify NATO 00:03:45
Yeah, so I come at from the same initial approach that you did.
You can't see Russia as a positive force anymore as a result of this.
Prior to this, you could have made the argument that what Russia represented was an international opposition to the military-industrial complex.
Something that could stand up to it and stop it from really throwing its weight around everywhere.
Why would that be useful?
Well, because do we in the Western world as voters and citizens, do we have any influence over the military-industrial complex in stopping it from doing these things?
Not really.
So if you could find some international force that could push back against that, that would probably have been useful.
Maybe that would stop another Syria or Libya.
With this invasion of Ukraine, Russia took any goodwill that it may have built up in that sense and essentially screwed it up and tossed it away.
Because it decided, well, let's say Putin decided to do his best George W. Bush impersonation.
So we're going to solve our problems by going to war.
Bad idea.
Bad idea on a lot of levels.
Generally because we want to stay away from war and conflict.
But also, if your problem in the world is NATO, which, okay, we could say that's legitimate, right?
And the growth of NATO, probably not fantastic.
But if that was your issue, starting a military conflict with your neighbor was not the solution to that.
What did you think that was going to do except push more countries into NATO?
Because you've just invaded a non-NATO member.
You've claimed that this encroachment is the reason you've done it.
Well, what do you think other countries are going to do?
And look what other countries now have done, Sweden and Finland.
NATO has now grown.
It has now enlarged.
So now we're left, and this is interesting for us in this alternative sphere to think about.
We're actually almost left with a situation where it's hard to attack NATO or it's harder to attack NATO and the military industrial complex.
If you have forces like a Russia and a China going around invading neighbors, it's far easier to justify NATO.
It's far easier to justify throwing money into the military industrial complex.
So ultimately for us in this world, I think we need to figure out a critique and a position that can still offer opposition to the military-industrial complex while acknowledging that what Russia and perhaps China and Taiwan are doing is bad.
And just on a final note there, just imagine what a different situation this would be if for the past 20 years, the Western world had not been going around the Middle East invading countries at will, claiming somewhat similar reasons for doing so as Russia is, right?
Well, this is just a special forces operation in Somalia.
This is just a NATO airstrike situation in Libya.
Well, just imagine the moral high ground that we could now be sitting on if our leaders had not done that.
But that's not the world we live in.
It's not even closer to the world that we live in.
So I want to move on to the fourth industrial revolution and where you think it's going.
Technologies For National Security 00:10:17
But I want to highlight this conference that I recently came across from 2016, because a lot of people talk about the World Economic Forum and Klaus Nutschwab and how he's openly talking about the internet of bodies and human brain interfaces.
But in my research on from transgender to transhuman, I came across this Transformers conference where you had speakers from everybody I seem to talk about, whether it be DARPA or NASA in an event put on by the Washington Post.
And you mentioned the media earlier.
Obviously, Jeff Bezos also has his own space program outside of Elon Musk, Blue Sky Origin, or Blue Origin.
And on top of that, it's sponsored by Samsung and Lockheed Martin.
And not only are they talking about the topics of space travel, etc., but in the second part, they're also talking about misinformation and disinformation with the CEOs and founders of both Twitch and Reddit.
And this also speaks to the asymmetrical warfare aspect, the mind control and narrative aspect of bringing these technologies to the forefront without letting the people of these nation states and countries having a democratic say in these events.
Yeah, so this is also where my PhD is heading down the road of these fourth industrial revolution technologies, because not only are the future, not only are they the future, but they help to break the military out of these traditional state-level bounds.
Why is that?
Well, because they're all coming from these big transnational companies.
Today's military technologies come from transnational corporations and they come from some which your audience is going to be familiar with and others which maybe they won't be or perhaps not initially on the surface.
And then how are these technologies used?
How are they operationalized in the world?
Well, I argue that it's no longer state to state, country to country.
It's done through these transnational institutions like NATO, like Five Eyes, the five nation English-speaking consortium of international surveillance.
This is where these technologies are actually used and deployed from.
And what do they do then?
Well, they create not only this global web of total surveillance, but they also create a global web of rapid response forces that are based upon these super high tech advances that we've seen in recent years.
So yeah, overall, that's probably where we should take the discussion.
But I'll just end on these couple of points.
So the traditional military industrial complex is the big five.
So there's five big corporations that you'd look at here.
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.
And just quick side note, the current Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, he's an alumnus of Raytheon.
Well, okay, there are traditional big five.
But what do they create?
They create the big tanks, the armed personnel carriers, the attack helicopters, the jets, the bombs, the missiles, the nuclear ICBMs.
They create all this big stuff.
Is that how we fight wars anymore?
Kind of, but we're moving away from it.
We're moving into this fourth industrial revolution where we have this hyper-technological shift into the realm of robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, quantum computing, biotechnology, all of this sort of stuff.
Well, where does that come from?
And who are the big players there?
So in my PhD, I'm trying to create this modern military industrial complex.
So I have the big five and I've added four new players into this modern military industrial complex.
You could go beyond this, but as my advisor keeps telling me, a PhD is limited and you need to limit yourself.
And what you're trying to do, or you're going to be there forever.
Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and your favorite, SpaceX.
So I don't think you can conceive of the military-industrial complex without these four transnational corporations.
And we can go through the reasons why that is.
Yeah, I definitely want to do that.
And I'm glad that you brought up the Five Eyes Alliance because that's an alliance kind of born out of World War II, but was strengthened over the years.
And most people did not understand how far it had gone until we had the Snowden leaks.
And you got to get an internal look at X-Key score, which I would argue was just an extension of what we were doing here at home with Norris Insight Systems and others even pre-9-11 in surveillance and sharing.
So when you do get to that level, like you said, of Microsoft and you get into SpaceX, obviously you get into cults of personality.
Now, Bill Gates is no longer with Microsoft, but for a very, very long time, he was the face of that organization.
And now we have the face of SpaceX being Elon Musk.
And most people look at him as someone who's going to take us to the moon and Mars.
And he's fighting for free speech.
But anything could be further from, or nothing could be further from the truth.
The truth of the matter is those contracts are there so that you can put in highly classified military industrial complex technologies through these pseudo-government organizations and really not only create a realm of plausible deniability, but potentially a positive narrative in regards to what they're doing.
Yeah, and they do this on their official websites.
So let's go through some of these.
And what do they say?
Microsoft.
Microsoft claims on its official website that, quote, defense and intelligence agencies advance their missions to promote stability and security for residents, nations, and multinational alliances with the help of Microsoft Cloud Solutions.
So without Microsoft Cloud Solutions, we cannot get the stability and security that apparently we now find in the Middle East.
Oh, wait a second.
Maybe not.
Let's shift on to Amazon.
AWS, Amazon Web Services.
Well, what does this do?
Well, Amazon, again, proudly boasts on its website.
AWS provides secure, scalable, and cost-efficient solutions that help agencies meet mandates, drive efficiencies, increase innovation, and secure mission-critical workloads across the U.S. Department of Defense.
And they go on to say, our nation's warfighters deserve the most innovative and secure solutions at the tactical edge, whether that's on land, in air, or at sea.
So we can see that just in these two examples, Microsoft and Amazon, they have kind of entered into this pool of national security, right?
We're doing this for national security and we're bringing strength and stability and we're increasing efficiency.
It all sounds so good.
What does it really mean?
Means they're helping to kill people more efficiently.
That's the bottom line of this.
And we can go into that's a great segue into Elon Musk himself, who has openly discussed that number one, the you know, he's talked about we will coup who we want to coup.
And then he gets on his Twitter and he gets into fights with members of the Russian parliament and heads of their space program.
And as I mentioned before, the Starlink satellites, which have their highest concentration, let me repeat that: 12,000 in Ukraine are being used not just for communication systems, but to kill people.
Elon Musk helps kill people.
He might have a smile and a great publicist, but I assure you, that is something that I never want to take part in firsthand.
And people like Elon Musk, people like Jeff Bezos, people like Bill Gates know damn well what they're doing when they make these deals and associations.
Yeah, and the military is very interested in Elon Musk and specifically SpaceX.
So, of course, for all these reasons that we're currently seeing playing out in Ukraine with the Starlink systems being used to help wage that war.
Well, what is also going on with Musk?
Well, at the very start of this year, he received a $102 million contract to provide point-to-point space-based cargo delivery for the Pentagon.
So the Pentagon has hired SpaceX to use its rockets to put cargo anywhere on Earth whenever it wants it there.
And the Pentagon said, quote, that it is very interested in the ability to deliver the cargo anywhere on Earth.
Why?
Well, quote, to support humanitarian aid and disaster relief.
So, of course, this is not going to be used to support tanks around the world at a moment's notice.
This is not going to be used to deliver troops somewhere overseas.
Relief Course 00:03:16
This is not going to be used to kill anyone.
This is all for humanitarian aid and disaster relief.
Well, of course, that's what it says on the tin, but what you find in the tin is very different.
Absolutely.
And one of those things, although we haven't discussed it yet, is that there is a classified project, a weapon system developed by Lockheed Martin that is essentially the twin system to Starlink known as Blackjack.
And that is actually one of the things that is discussed via this conference, Transformers, again, all the way back in 2016, as building a global artificial skin that has these nano sensors throughout the world and really creates an entirely new, let me repeat this, an entirely new system of surveillance in which you won't need the type of camera systems that are already available.
Yeah, and this stuff used to be the realm of science fiction.
It's now absolutely science fact.
This is what people really need to consider.
There are now systems that can detect who you are based upon the temperature of your body, based upon your heartbeat, all of this sort of stuff.
This is now real.
This is no longer the stuff of fiction.
This is now coming to a military and then maybe a police department near you.
And God only knows how it's going to be used.
I want to hone in on what you just said about your heartbeat because one of the things we featured here is that the World Economic Forum during the COVID-19 44 nightmare literally ran one of their little ads, you know, just like the you will own nothing and be happy about technologies that could be utilized through further pandemics.
And one of them was a NASA, a NASA-based technology where they hone in on your heartbeat, which is just as unique as your facial recognition.
And they said, hey, don't worry, you're going to get to keep the mask.
We don't need the facial recognition.
We'll just use this NASA tech to literally hone in on your heartbeat.
And that's without any internals.
In other words, that's without their smart devices, their interfaces, or their injectables.
Speak to that.
Yeah, so this is the future of going through an airport, probably, right?
This is where we tend to see these technologies are initially implemented and then they find their way into wider society.
Perhaps you'll no longer need a passport to go through an airport.
The airport will just recognize your heart's rhythm, which will be in some transnational database linked across the world.
And then if the countries of the world don't want you entering, well, they won't let you in.
And Google, of course, also central to a lot of these technologies.
Just to briefly touch on them as well, we want to make sure we throw shade with all of the new members of the Transnational Military Industrial Complex.
We had over 3,000 employees signing a letter at Google, and it said Google should not be in the business of war.
What was Google doing?
Tech's Role in Homeland Security 00:02:53
It was creating an AI system for the Pentagon's Project Maven, which was analyzing video data and doing so in a way that's far beyond what the human eye can do.
And it was believed that it would be used eventually in conducting drone strikes.
So there is a little bit of pushback here from within the tech sector.
But what are you going to do if your boss tells you to do something?
Most people are going to comply.
But of course, the AI will eventually be able to program itself.
So we won't have the problem of human resistance because we'll just be in the total technological control grid.
And I want to point out that there were politicians, some of whom are really looked up to by the quote-unquote all alt-right or the MAGA Republicans that were directly attacking those employees for having a conscience, one of which was Matt Gates.
And when you watched him talk about these things, I was completely repulsed because, yeah, you don't get it.
Those drones are coming home too.
These people understand that that technology is not just going to be utilized against some foreign enemy.
And now people are starting to get that when the Department of Homeland Security seems to be directed at the American populace and their own extremists.
And it's not just for terrorism.
I did an article for the anniversary of 9-11, the five steps of tyranny enacted after 9-11.
And essentially, we went down the line from the Patriot Act to Homeland Security to Five Eyes, like you said, to signature reduction.
And of course, the fusion centers that most people are unaware even exist.
And those reports, all the way a decade plus ago, were already saying, hey, look at these people at Cop Watch.
Hey, let's look at the Black Block.
Hey, let's look at the militia movement.
Essentially, anybody that would push back against the power structure.
And not in the very near future.
Now, we have openly become the enemy, no matter what side of the political spectrum you might be on.
Yeah, absolutely.
And I teach American government, right?
I teach this as a class.
And I spend quite a bit of time on the history that leads up to it and the sort of tyrannical situation that the colonists, many of them, were trying to escape from.
And you look back at that and the sort of system that the British had in place and what that eventually evolved into over the course of the British Empire, you're talking concentration camps, secret police forces, attacks on indigenous populations, imperialism completely unleashed.
Well, the founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves right now.
Acknowledging Subscribers' Support 00:09:27
Let's put it that way.
And were they all perfect?
No, right?
But they did bring some very interesting and useful ideas to the table, which appear to now have been shredded.
And of course, that all of you could even remove this technological stuff from the equation.
And then you could just spend all day talking about stuff like I know you do, continuity of government and these political programs that are in place that seemingly throw the constitution down the drain and just, well, we must protect the state.
We must protect the government.
And well, we're going to do it at all costs.
So yeah, this is this is from a lot of different angles.
Well, that's why I encourage people to check into signature reduction, something that has not been focused on enough because you have players that are in real person, are part of the military, are part of private companies.
And that's what we're talking about, that partnership that goes beyond government and beyond the nation state, but also are online.
And when you have the World Economic Forum essentially being a mouthpiece for this agenda of total and complete command and control, a new system of stakeholder capitalism and a social credit score and a carbon credit system, it is not one that is just being pushed by one entity, but many entities, both in government and outside.
As we approach the hour, what would you like to leave my audience with?
What should they be looking into?
What should they be focusing on?
And how can they themselves try to avoid the pitfalls that a lot of this technology is leading us towards?
Yeah, great question.
In terms of things to do on an individual level, first is you need to break yourself out of any ideological prison that you may find yourself in.
As Jason says, this is not about left or right.
It's right or wrong.
And there's clearly a lot of stuff going on in the world right now that is wrong.
This technological dictatorship, which you could say is emerging before us, is immensely important.
And there are other things going on in the world right now.
The energy crisis.
I just wrote a big article on the energy crisis in Europe.
And the key takeaway from that article is that you can look at the current world situation and you can be critical of it without putting yourself into a box.
So you don't need to say that, well, I'm a socialist or I'm for the free market.
Well, let's just maybe put those labels aside and just say, wait a second, is what we currently have, is this helping us in any way?
Is this benefiting anyone but a small tiny group of elites within our world?
I think the answer to that clearly is no.
So we need to think then, well, what are some pragmatic solutions?
Not what is your ideological solution that you're just going to jump to.
I must support this because I wave the Republican banner.
Or I must support that because I think I'm a Democrat.
We've got to leave that stuff behind.
That's the past.
The future is going beyond that.
And it's going beyond these elite groups.
In terms of other things, just to briefly mention, really appreciate the time to talk through all this stuff.
And yeah, I have a YouTube channel here as well.
Would appreciate as many new subscribers as you guys would like to come on board with the channel.
It would be great.
I think any sort of pop to help the algorithm would be useful at this point.
But yeah, otherwise, the other big thing that I guess I can kind of announce here, I was just able to write and get accepted for publication a big academic article on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
The point I make in that article is that the U.S. government is not pursuing Assange for any national security concern.
They are pursuing Assange because the revelations, right, what has been exposed to the world, it undermines the whole system of imperial ideas that is relied upon for this military-industrial complex system to work.
So that is currently awaiting publication with the journal International Politics.
And I would love to come back and present the findings of that article to you and your audience when that is published.
Well, even before it's published, we got to get together within the next month.
And we should do an entire broadcast on not only Julian Assange, but the espionage act in which they have wrongly tried to extradite him to the United States.
And even the irony, and we'll see where the situation goes, of that being utilized against a former president, a president that had the opportunity to pardon Assange, had the opportunity to actually extract him from the Ecuadorian embassy and not allow what has happened to him at Belmarsh and beyond.
Tell my audience one more time how they can support you even outside of subscribing over at YouTube.
And again, you want to do that.
That's Stuart J. Hooper, somebody who is extremely knowledgeable and very well spoken.
And I think coming at this the correct way through an academic perspective to bring other people into the fold.
Take it away.
Yeah, thank you very much for the kind words, Jason.
Really appreciate it.
I give as much support to Jason as you guys possibly can as well.
I know he's doing this full time and this is his job.
So give him the support that he can.
But otherwise, you can find me on Twitter and Facebook at StuartJ Hooper, all one word, just the same as the YouTube channel.
I tweet out occasional faults on the current goings on in the world, but also there you can find some articles that I occasionally write.
They tend to be quite long and lengthy.
Like I said, I just put out this one on the energy crisis.
That's published over at Geopolitics and Empire.
And I have another article coming out probably in the next couple of weeks that I wrote with my PhD supervisor.
And that is looking at American military power since the end of the Cold War, which again is another one that we could discuss at some point and very relevant to all the discussions that we've had here today.
Well, you hit me up in the DMs.
When's good for you next week?
And we will definitely do that Julian Assange broadcast.
I thank you for your time, sir, and it is always a pleasure.
Yep, thanks a lot, Jason.
Absolutely.
Stuart J. Hooper, everybody.
He's kicking ass.
He's taking names.
And I really love him as a recurring guest on this program.
I'm going to encourage you to also check out all my documentary films, Loose Change, Final Cut, and Fabled Enemies, my 9-11 pictures.
We just did the watch-along on the 21st anniversary.
And my bigger picture films, Invisible Empire, A New World Order to Find, and Shade the Motion Picture.
They are all free.
I want you to share them.
I want to remind you that we are often censored here on YouTube, even though we have 68,000 plus subscribers.
I need you to thumbs it up, subscribe, share, let people know about the channel.
But if you want me uncensored, you can find me over at Rockfin $9.99 for a premium subscription a month or $99.99 for the year.
That helps support the broadcast so much.
Plus, you hit subscribe here on a desktop for me, and you get everybody else's premium content.
Newsflash, we don't do premium content here because, hey, we want it to get out to as many people as possible.
And even though I have a show coming out this Friday on Red Voice Media, I think we're going to call it Reality Voice or the Reality View with Jason Burmes.
We're going to have a whole new set for it.
That will be premium for a couple weeks, but then we're going to get that information out for free.
And I also want to thank Rumble for allowing me to speak unfettered and uncensored.
We've hit 10,000 subscribers over there in a very, very short period of time.
If you want to directly donate, you can do so via my email.
See, this is what my outstanding balance is.
Actually, 100 of that's already gone by buying me a coffee, buy me a coffee slash Jason Burmes.
That's how much I'm raking in, guys.
I'm big money hustling.
You know what I'm saying?
You know, we're doing what we can here, and I want to thank everybody who has donated via that mechanism.
Direct donations via PayPal at JasonIsVoid.
Or I'm sorry, JasonIsVoid at yahoo.com.
That's my PayPal.
Guys, thank you so much.
And just like Stuart said, this is not a left or right issue.
It is a right and wrong issue.
And we have to continue to acknowledge that.
I did get a couple of Rockfin tips that came up.
So I want to talk about this really quick.
A.REM was asking me about an island in the Philippines that lies under the control of the Philippines that is completely isolated from the modern world and is reportedly inhabited by the same people from thousands of years.
I'm not familiar for that, with that whatsoever.
But I also want to thank people like Melissa Kelly, Scott Free, Diane Morris, David Roberts, Patrick S., and Chad Lee for supporting the broadcast via Rockfin as well.
Export Selection