Cultural Assimilation and False Flags - Brian Davidson
|
Time
Text
Welcome back, everyone, to False Flags and Conspiracies Con 2025.
Our next speaker is Brian Davidson.
Brian is a private investigator, but he's more than that.
He has been around exposing conspiracies for a long, long time now.
And I believe, Brian, aren't you kind of a regular guest with Jim on one of his shows?
Is that correct?
Yeah, I do a Monday show with Joachim Hagopian that's two hours long.
And then I do a show that Carl Herman and I record on Saturdays.
That is about an hour to an hour and a half.
It's all current event analysis and cultural commentary type stuff.
Wonderful.
Many people know me from those things.
But I've done, I've been busting false flags now for, well, since I think my first false flag was about 2016.
And I went on air with Jim somewhere around 20, maybe 2018 or 2019.
So I've been around for a while.
So you're a veteran of the false flag wars as I am.
I am.
I don't do as much work busting them out as I used to just because it's old hat to me.
And I could tear these events inside out all day long, but such a waste of time.
I think the more important thing is figuring out why they're taking place, which is what leads to the presentation today.
Yes, wonderful.
And how to stop them, hopefully.
We'll have some kind of antidote in there, I hope.
Okay.
Well, I think there's a solution to the problem, but I don't think we're going to stop it.
But I'll get to that.
Yes, great.
Wonderful.
This presentation.
Well, you go right ahead and try to end it about five minutes till, and I'll give you a little warning.
And here we go with Brian Davidson, folks.
So strap in.
Okay.
Well, folks, as many of you know that have been listening to me, I'm a rather serious Christian.
I do, I've written a commentary on the Bible.
I made it through from the beginning all the way through Psalm 119.
I read it pretty carefully.
Back in July, I was writing a book on Daniel in the Bible, and something occurred to me that had never really been driven home with me before.
And that was when Daniel, when the southern kingdom was absorbed by Babylon as part of Israel's judgment, Daniel and his three friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were absorbed into the Babylonian culture.
They went over to Babylon where their names were changed.
They were re-educated.
And basically, the key word is they were assimilated into Babylonian culture.
And I thought, well, that's very, very interesting.
This is a cultural assimilation technique that Babylon used to use.
What are the benefits of doing that?
And that's when it began to dawn upon me that this is exactly this ancient Babylonian technique is what's being used to help reprogram us here today.
And so as I began to study the patterns, I was able to put this presentation together.
So let's just go ahead and get started.
This presentation is not about chaos.
It's about a pattern.
And I don't believe that America is collapsing as much as I believe that something much more subtle and more dangerous is taking place.
Most people generally believe that nations fall all at once.
I'm going to say that historically they don't.
They are reshaped internally.
Collapse is a very loud event and a very loud word.
Whereas reprogramming is very quiet.
Identity changes before behavior changes.
And people generally don't notice because the changes that they're going through feel moral, compassionate, and modern.
So, what may look like random crisis after crisis actually follows a very identifiable pattern.
I call it an emotional arc.
Now, I don't believe that that's chaos.
This emotional arc that we're being put through is not chaos.
I think it's by design.
And the techniques that are being used on us, they're not new, they're ancient.
Babylon used this exact method that's being used on America thousands of years ago.
They change identity first, and then allegiance follows shortly thereafter.
Now, the next slide is on cultural assimilation: how empires rewrite identity to prevent rebellion.
The most effective control never feels like control.
It feels like belief.
Realize that empires don't want rebels, they want participants.
But if they use too much force, that's going to create resistance.
So instead, they focus on belief, changing beliefs, because that creates alignment with the empire's goals.
So if people believe that the system is good, then they will protect it themselves and become willing participants in the development of the empire.
And just think about this.
The most effective form of control is when people police themselves.
Every assimilation strategy starts basically in the same way.
It redefines the person, it redefines self.
And people don't rebel when the system feels like it's stable.
And this isn't theory.
This is what Babylon did, and they perfected it.
Babylon.
This is the Babylon blueprint as I understand it, and I've been studying it.
Babylon didn't conquer people by force.
It conquered identity by design.
Babylon wasn't just powerful.
It was incredibly strategic.
They developed repeatable systems for reshaping nations.
They were a very powerful nation led by a very powerful king, and they basically absorbed vast swaths of culture, language, documents, and people groups, and they consolidated it into one mighty nation.
And many of you have heard the term mystery Babylon, which is obviously a very important biblical concept.
So we're going to go through and take a look at what they did.
They always started with changing the language because new words create new categories and ideas.
Think of the novel 1984, George Orwell.
If you can change and old meanings can fade, people's thoughts will shift without people noticing.
So a government that controls languages doesn't necessarily need to control the arguments.
Think of how language has changed here in the last 30 years.
What used to be called prostitution is now called a call girl.
What used to be any negative cultural act now has softer naming to reduce the stint of nasty names.
So it used to be called faggot, now it's called homosexual.
Or gay.
It used to be called, you can come up with hundreds of categories.
So if you can control the language, you don't need arguments.
And that comes down, and therefore that leads to education and identity.
Youth, just like in Babylon, youth have to be trained very early so that they inherit their worldview from a system instead of from their families.
The identity is assigned in educational structures, not remembered from what your parents and your grandparents and your great-grandparents taught you.
So in the new system, eventually people forget who they were before the empire.
Babylon also renamed the people and the cultures that they overwhelmed.
Daniel was, his name was changed.
Belshazzar, I believe, was the name that he was given.
They were renamed because it was a psychological change.
It severed people from their roots and sewed them into the new system.
So that's a form of changing language.
Babylon conquered entire nations without any chains.
It simply rewrote the minds of the youth that they absorbed.
Today, the tools have changed, but the blueprint hasn't.
Modern assimilation.
The method hasn't changed, but the tools have.
Today, media defines language.
Crisis teaches fear.
Technology helps us reshape ourselves or does a job reshaping us.
And the narratives that we hear redirect our trust.
It feels so that things feel very familiar instead of forced.
If Babylon were alive today, I don't believe it would use chains at all.
It would use screens, TV screens, phone screens.
And it would use the modern media in a way that doesn't simply report reality, but instead it defines the vocabulary that we're allowed to use.
It tells us what words are acceptable.
It tells us what ideas are thinkable.
And it helps frame matters as narratives more than using facts itself.
So fundamentally, when the language that we use is managed, thought follows closely thereafter.
In the new system, crisis becomes the classroom.
Fear teaches faster than reason.
And emotion replaces reflection and independent thought.
Lessons are absorbed and they're no longer debated because of what the media tells us.
We now have digital versions of ourselves that often feel more real than even our own physical lives.
I know that the time I spend doing shows often doesn't even feel like me.
It feels like the projection of me that I want to let people see.
And so therefore, I have a secondary life that lives inside my computer, inside my phone, inside my screens.
Now let that sink in.
Even I am admitting that there are two versions of me: there's the real version sitting here, flesh and blood, delivering this presentation.
And then there's the digital vision, the place where I live interacting with artificial intelligence or interacting with Google Chrome or whatever browser I happen to be using.
So what's happening is that I don't necessarily see how those two identities change me, which puts me into a position of relative uncertainty.
Because when people are uncertain, who do they trust?
They trust the loudest and most coordinated voice.
That's an idea of basically mass reconstruction of the mind.
So the control mechanisms that have control of us today don't appear to be forced.
It looks familiar, not forced.
It feels familiar, not forced, and therefore, it's much deeper and darker than the things that feel forced, such as war, such as military presence.
It's the broadsword.
So, tonight, I'm going to walk you through the process from start to finish so that you can understand what's been happening to the American people.
I don't want to overwhelm anybody, and I'm going to try to go rather slow with this, because this is about helping you, the listener, see and feel the process.
Each piece of this presentation is going to build on the one before it.
Once you see the progression, it's not going to feel random anymore.
And that's when things change, when it doesn't feel random anymore.
We're going to take a look at a long conditioning arc.
We're going to take a look at the crisis factory that they use to create fear.
We're going to see how that develops into digital identity and how that ends up in transhumanism.
And then, hopefully, if we put the pieces together, we'll be able to show you what the exit path looks like.
I think after this presentation, it's going to be very hard to believe that the shift that we've experienced was accidental.
So, let's start at the beginning: the long arc.
Most people think reprogramming starts with a crisis.
It doesn't.
Crisis only works because the culture was already prepared for the crisis.
No one wakes up one morning and decides that their values have changed.
The small changes that they've experienced up to that point have felt harmless.
Each generation has slightly adjusted, and there's no single moment that feels decisive.
Institutions don't have to lie to us, it's just normalized.
What feels normal defines reality, and normal shifts very quietly, and as it does that, resistance fades naturally.
Crisis doesn't reshape a nation, it reveals what the nation has already been prepared to accept.
Societies are softened through gradual cultural drift, where norms, values, and expectations slowly evolve.
Institutions shape generational thinking, setting the boundaries for what seems normal or acceptable.
And each incremental change feels insignificant, but together they work to create a new worldview.
Then, by the time the real crisis hits, the population is already psychologically prepared for redefinition.
So, to understand how these things began, we have to go backwards.
Modern reprogramming began when influencing the mind became a science.
The modern era of identity engineering didn't begin online.
It began when propaganda became scientific.
The early social engineers discovered something very, very critical.
Facts don't move people.
Emotion does.
And desire is much more powerful than argumentation.
If you can shake desire, you don't need persuasion.
So think of the wartime laboratory of the 30s to the 50s.
War accelerated everything.
Governments began testing their messaging.
Morale mattered.
And messaging became as strategic as weapons to keep the war machine moving forward.
Then we shifted from just straight propaganda to entertainment.
And that's where the audience begins to see the stories that they're being told or begin to understand the stories that they're being told as tools.
You see, stories build an internal framework.
They teach values without lectures.
And identity absorbs when stories normalize.
Once desire can be engineered, identity becomes programmable.
Again, once desire is engineered, the next step becomes very, very obvious.
Identity fragmentation from the 60s to the 80s, breaking the anchors of family, faith, and community.
When identity anchors are weakened, people become easier to direct.
The next phase, this phase, wasn't about control.
It was about fragmentation.
People lost their anchors.
Every society has had identity anchors.
Do we feel more like our founding fathers, or do we feel more like the personalities we see in the talking heads on television?
We've lost our anchors: family, faith, community, and just as importantly, our language, our shared moral language.
When those anchors loosen, people don't become free.
They become untethered.
During this period, there was psychological exploration.
They explored how people responded under pressure.
How did they respond from an obedience perspective?
How did they respond from a stress perspective?
And how did they respond from an authority perspective?
There was a countercultural effect that led young people to reject the old systems.
It basically severed our young people from their inheritance.
Once identity fragments, People normally look for something to replace it.
And that's where authority becomes the vacuum.
Once identity is fragmented, controlling the imagination becomes essential.
When imagination is centralized, identity becomes uniform.
Once identity is fragmented, the next step is consolidation, not of people, but of imagination.
And that distinction really matters.
By the 90s, a small number of corporations controlled most media.
That matters even more than politics.
When everyone receives the same stories framed the same way, they begin to feel the same things at the same time.
And that's the point.
People don't stop thinking.
They started thinking inside the predefined boxes that were given to them from the media.
When the input was controlled, resistance felt totally unnecessary.
So a uniform imagination within a population produces a uniform response.
By the end of the 90s, the system was all was in place.
Stability without discernment creates vulnerability.
Before the shock, America felt stable, confident, and secure.
Institutional trust was very, very high.
We trusted our media, we trusted our government, and authority generally assumed legitimacy.
And that made questioning feel unnecessary.
We didn't question Reagan, hardly questioned Bush.
But stability isn't the same as resilience.
Resilience comes from discernment.
And that contrast really matters because we didn't have much discernment left.
We were too busy being entertained.
Our culture had not been tested emotionally.
That made it vulnerable to a single overwhelming event.
The most stable-looking cultures are often the easiest to reshape.
And then the shock arrived.
Trauma began being used as a tool of government.
This is where everything accelerates.
Crisis changed how the human mind worked.
That frames a new psychology, a psychology of shock.
Think about it.
Shock collapses critical thinking.
Under shock, the nation had a very narrow focus.
Remember how you felt after 9-11?
We had survival instincts that had just kicked in, and those are not high discernment thinking times.
Those are survival instincts.
We had reduced skepticism about the things our government was doing because we assumed that they had the purpose of protecting us.
Fear doesn't make people stupid.
Fear makes them focused.
And that emotion leads them to compliance.
When emotion overwhelms analysis, people don't ask for the facts, they ask for direction from their government.
So the people basically began a new phase, a moral demand.
This is where the narrative shifted.
Compliance started to be framed as care.
Questioning started to be framed as harm.
And obedience was reframed as a virtue.
Basically, the mindset was: well, after 9-11, if you care, you're going to comply.
That activated all sorts of new policies.
Policies that didn't lead to fear, that followed it.
Consent was manufactured emotionally even before the laws and the bills were passed, before it was even written legally.
So, once government recognized that crisis could be used as a tool to assimilate citizens into the government's new version of culture, The only question was, how far can that tool really go?
Sandy Hook, the child catalyst.
Nothing accelerates compliance faster than fear for the children.
Some events change the emotional rules of a nation, and Sandy Hook was one of them.
Children changed everything.
Children bypass ideology.
Parents, instincts, and protective reflexes all collapse into fearing for the children, creating a rational distance from the decisions that our government is making.
The narrative shifted instantly to prevention and protection.
Sweeping changes were made in how our society operates, and it was framed as safety for the kids.
Moral urgency replaced debate, and questioning our government felt inappropriate because it's the children.
You see how Sandy Hook led to grief becoming the new governor rather than discernment and debate.
This event showed how far fear could move the public.
Nothing shuts down skepticism faster than fear for the children.
The next phase tied fear directly to identity.
You see, when crisis is attached to identity, emotion outruns truth.
This is where the crisis model began to evolve.
Fear alone wasn't enough anymore.
When fear is attached to identity, it intensifies.
Think Nazi.
Threat now feels personal.
Moral stakes rise.
Questioning feels like harm.
People don't just want safety anymore, they want affirmation.
This justified rapid expansion of federal power towards quote-unquote protected citizens.
Now, surveillance can be framed as protection for the identity.
And oversight can be framed as care because we can't have those crazy Nazis running around hurting protected classes.
And resistance became framed as indifference towards the special people.
It's subtle, but it's powerful.
People began expecting the government to guard identity itself, not just physical safety.
When crisis targets identity, people demand protection before they demand truth.
Now, the next crisis changed how people viewed authority itself.
The Dallas debacle, militarizing the protector class.
When protectors appear vulnerable, people invite stronger systems into power.
Remember, Dallas didn't target civilians, it targeted authority itself.
For the first time, the people meant to protect the public looked exposed.
People were shocked.
There was uncertainty.
And the new fear was fear about authority, not just danger.
And that changed public psychology.
A militarization logic followed.
Stronger tools suddenly felt reasonable.
Tanks, SWAT vehicles in our streets, armored vehicles, expanded tactics, federal coordination.
What once felt very, very extreme to a nation that's supposed to arm itself to protect itself from its own government now felt absolutely necessary because our protectors are under attack.
Local institutions began to feel insufficient, and central oversight felt safer.
You see, when protectors seem weak, the people ask for stronger systems.
And that's the lesson.
The next crisis didn't weaken authority, it shattered trust in it.
Uvalde, a total collapse of trust.
When local trust collapses, people surrender their autonomy upward.
Think about that.
We've got to have bigger, more powerful forces protecting us because our police class at Uvalde was so weak they couldn't enter the room for hours.
That crisis didn't just create fear, it created absolute disbelief.
In that situation, the trauma didn't come only from the attacker, it came from the systems that were meant to respond.
And the distinction is very critical.
People stopped asking who did this.
They started asking who can I trust when local institutions fail publicly.
Trust doesn't disappear, it relocates toward expanded federal oversight, toward more centralized control, and toward quote unquote someone else.
When local trust breaks, people trade autonomy for oversight.
Now, what happened in Uvalde, the government began to realize that it overplayed its hand because the very next crisis was, I think it was the church shooting, Audra Hale.
There, the police responded instantly with great power, and they immediately neutralized the shooter.
Because the problem was the American people were beginning to lose confidence in our protector class, and they wanted to repair that.
Las Vegas was the apex event of narrative control.
Here, the system was fully operational, and fear worked without explanation.
This event was different, not because of what happened, but because of what didn't happen.
There was a complete lack of coherence.
There was no clear motive.
There was no clean explanation.
And yet, compliance followed anyway.
People accepted the Las Vegas shooting narrative without any sense of clarity whatsoever.
The people accepted closure on the Las Vegas files without any understanding.
Questions faded very, very quickly.
Fatigue replaced curiosity, and fear did all the work.
That wasn't apathy.
That was exhaustion.
People lost confidence in the system.
Security measures expanded rapidly, and very few people objected.
Realize that after Las Vegas, the crisis script no longer required any coherence whatsoever.
A system so powerful that it no longer needs to deliver explanations that make sense.
And by this point, the pattern was complete.
Modern crisis follow a predictable psychological script.
This isn't random chaos.
The pattern is visible for those who can see it.
Every major crisis follows the same script.
Stage one, shock.
Shock freezes critical thinking.
It narrows the focus.
It puts people into survival mode and reduces their skepticism.
Stage two is emotion.
Emotion overwhelms analysis.
Fear, anger, and grief now dominate the minds of America.
And instinct begins to replace reason.
Stage three: moral demand.
Then comes the moral demand.
If you care, you will comply.
Compliance now equals compassion, and questioning now equals harm.
And obedience is the new virtue.
The fourth stage is policy.
Only after emotional consent is secured does policy activate.
But the solutions were pre-built.
They were just waiting for permission, and they were deployed immediately following the four-phase crisis script.
The population was now governable.
Once you see the script, you can't unsee it.
But next, the question becomes: why does it work so well?
Trauma doesn't just frighten people, it rewires what they're willing to tolerate.
So, why does it work so well?
Because trauma changes the value system.
It's a value inversion.
Under fear, people don't abandon their values.
They reorder them.
Freedom moves down the value chain.
Safety moves up the value chain.
And long-term trade-offs feel distant.
Protection starts to feel moral.
They've just traded their rights.
People don't give up rights for control.
They give them up for reassurance.
Rinse and repeat.
After repeated crisis, process becomes automatic.
Less debate, easier compliance, emotional muscle memory.
People cease to evaluate.
They respond, and fear opens the gate.
Trauma keeps it from closing.
Once fear reshapes tolerance, the next step is quite logical.
Once fear is what's doing the teaching, surveillance feels like care.
And once fear reshapes what people will tolerate, control no longer feels hostile.
You see, surveillance didn't arrive as domination, it arrived as reassurance.
Cameras now felt protective.
Data now felt preventative, and monitoring felt responsible.
The framing changed everything.
The normalization of a surveillance state was developing.
Realize the systems didn't expand loudly.
They expanded very quietly.
Incremental growth, crisis justification, and new matters were rarely rolled back.
Fear is what made them permanent.
And the people began to experience crisis fatigue, not again.
After enough crises, people just stop resisting.
They want predictability back, stability over freedom, routine over uncertainty.
Privacy is now negotiable.
The one-time overwhelming surveillance concept now feels comforting.
Digital identity becomes the next step.
Control doesn't need walls when it has permissions.
You see, when identity becomes digital, participation becomes permission-based.
Surveillance watches what you do.
Digital identity decides what you're allowed to do.
A digital ID becomes the gateway to participate, travel, healthcare, employment.
Digital identity is no longer being pushed as a punishment.
It's being pushed as a permission.
And the nuance really does matter.
Under a digital identity, permission is logical.
Control doesn't need force, it needs authorization.
Access granted, access delayed, access revoked.
Life is now conditional.
We've been broken down and we have an algorithmic identity.
Our identity is no longer intrinsic.
It's calculated.
They've run behavior metrics, compliance signals, and risk scoring through artificial intelligence.
And they've defined who we are by how well we will comply in their new system.
The digital ID now confines.
All that's left is to set a limit on what you're allowed to do.
But we needed one more event to normalize it: the global reprogramming event of COVID.
This was the first time the entire world was psychologically synchronized.
The event was different from every crisis before it because it was global.
It was a synchronized experience.
For the first time, nearly everyone on earth experienced the same messaging at the same time for an extended period.
And that stacking matters.
The duration effect wasn't just a shock, it was a sustained psychological environment.
People had to reform their habits.
Their expectations shifted, and resistance eroded.
The people's prolonged fear reshaped their behavior more deeply than a sudden event or a sudden fear.
And people defaulted now to a permission mentality.
People didn't just comply.
They were begging for permission to re-enter normal life.
Travel, work, and social participation.
Belonging now was conditional.
Are you wearing a mask?
Are you breaking the six-foot rule?
Compliance was now a virtue.
Skepticism became dangerous.
And once compliance was normalized, the next step was very simple, measuring it.
You see, what can be measured can eventually be enforced.
Once compliance becomes normal, the next step is tracking it.
Obedience didn't just become expected, it became measurable.
Who complied?
Who resisted?
Who needed correction?
And as a result of that, new categories of citizens quietly emerged.
Belonging became a new metric.
It was now conditional.
Our access to the features of our own society became tied to our behavior.
Our participation was tied to approval, and inclusion was tied to compliance.
Our behavior replaced our character.
People started policing their peers.
They began enforcing the system on each other voluntarily.
Social pressure, public shaming, moral signaling.
The system didn't need force.
Once obedience is measured, it eventually becomes mandatory.
Once identity is managed digitally, the next question becomes, what is human?
If identity is digital, then humanity itself becomes modifiable.
This is where the conversation changes because now we're no longer talking about systems.
We're talking about humanity itself.
It's a very logical bridge.
Once identity is digital, it doesn't stop at access.
It moves toward redesign, optimization language, efficiency language, improvement narratives.
Control reframes itself as progress.
Biodigital is a new key phrase.
Technology doesn't stay external.
It moves closer to the body.
Wearables normalize monitoring.
Implants feel like convenience.
Data becomes a life metric.
Life becomes measurable.
It blurs all the categories.
When systems define identity, human categories begin to blur.
Selfhood becomes fluid.
Authority replaces ontology.
Identity becomes administered.
Meaning is assigned, not discovered.
It isn't scientific progress, it's a spiritual restructuring of what it means to be human, which brings us to the real battlefield.
Brian, you've got less than two minutes left.
Can we...
Can we wrap it up?
Are you okay with that?
No, I'm good.
Okay, thanks.
It has always been a battle over who gets to define the human person.
At this point, it should be clear.
This isn't a political battle, and it's not a technological one either.
The real conflict is who gets to define meaning, who gets to assign value, and who gets to determine purpose.
Is it a creator or is it a system?
That closes my presentation today.
Man, I'm telling you, you just gave my mind, my mind is sitting here blown because the way you deliver, it just really sinks everything in.
You know, I'm used to the screaming from everybody to get their point across.
And it was just beautiful, Brian.
Thank you so much.
That was fantastic.
My pleasure.
Yeah, it really, really put it all in a nutshell.
So, wow, thank you.
Let's, we got, you guys, I wish we could do questions and answers, but we just can't because our guest right after this is on a very tight schedule.
So, I can't do it today.
But, when you can they get a hold of you, can they go to a website?
Can you know, just quickly give everybody how to watch you do your other events?
Just tune into the Jim Fetzer's Bit Shoot channel and find anything with Carl Herman and Brian Davidson.
Search me by name or do a truth versus news search.
You'll see my shows.
It's mostly current event analysis.
Wonderful.
Thank you so much, Brian.
I'm going to stop the recording now, folks, and we'll be right back with Roger Stone.
Hang in there, everybody.
Okay, Brian, thank you.
I see that we have two of you up there.
One, I think, was for your, you know, your body on top of your screen.
You had two.
So, I'm going to turn.
Can you turn one of them off somehow there for me?
Trying to figure out how that or can I think we're okay.
There we go.
Okay, Brian, I'm going to demote you down to a attendee so you can watch the rest of the event.
Thank you so much for your presentation.
Okay.
So, Roger, thank you.
We'll start in just a moment.
All right.
Get this, Jack.
Okay.
All right.
Roger, it looks great.
Thank you.
Okay, so I'm going to start the recording right now.