Iran Was Always the Final Domino
Trump Is Just the Scapegoat
The Eighth Front: The Rise of Corporate “Independent” Media
We’ve reached a point where Israel, often in coordination with elements of the U.S. government, is openly discussing strategies to dominate the information space as part of what it calls the “Eighth Front” — the media and social media battlefield in its broader war.
So what does this Eighth Front look like? Well, it involves buying up as much media space as possible. Also, making well-funded effort to buy influence, shape platforms, fund aligned voices, and marginalize or suppress independent ones that challenge the official narrative. When those in power control the money printer, the money printer inevitably focuses on controlling influence.
My Hypothesis
I believe Trump is being positioned as the fall guy for the war with Iran and the economic fallout that will follow. For this setup to work, three things need to happen:
1 Trump must appear to be calling the shots and fully in control.
2 Trump must not appear intimidated or pressured.
3 Only Trump fell for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Iran war pitch
1. Trump must appear to be calling the shots and fully in control
Most recently, Rep. Thomas Massie lost his primary in Kentucky’s 4th District. Massie was one of the few consistent voices in Congress against runaway spending, against war, and against AIPAC’s influence and should register as a foreign agent (FARA). In a record-shattering spending primary, over $30 million was poured in against him. While many view it as a victory for AIPAC, it was arguably a Pyrrhic one — it drew widespread attention to the scale of foreign lobbying and outside money in American elections.
The system needs Trump to look like he’s in charge. If the public concludes the game is rigged and stops blaming “the other side,” people might start uniting against the real power structure instead of fighting each other.
2. Trump is not being intimidated or pressured
I believe the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania was a genuine effort to kill him — essentially a “Charlie Kirk” style assassination that failed. While I’ve heard others claim that it was staged, several facts remain difficult to reconcile with a fully controlled operation:
Multiple people in the crowd were wounded or killed, including firefighter Corey Comperatore.
Audio analysis by Chris Martensen and others shows synchronized live fire with supersonic bullet cracks.
Video evidence shows the Secret Service counter-sniper team was out of position at the critical moment.
Whether you believe Butler was real or staged, the event demonstrated how easily a president can be targeted in public. The media quickly settled on the “lone gunman” narrative, and the story faded within a couple of news cycles. Not much different then the events that took place UVU when Charlie died.
3. Only Trump fell for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Iran war pitch
Former CIA officer John Kiriakou has argued on multiple podcasts that no previous U.S. president bought Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated pitches for war with Iran — they all viewed the intelligence and rationale as unreliable or overly alarmist. Obama has made similar comments in recent interviews.
However, this framing is incomplete. As General Wesley Clark revealed in his 2007 Democracy Now interview, shortly after 9/11 he was shown a classified Pentagon memo calling for regime change in seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finally Iran.
This plan aligns closely with the 1996 “Clean Break” strategy — a policy paper written by a group of American neoconservatives (including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser) for then-incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Clean Break strategy calls for Israel to abandon land-for-peace negotiations and instead pursue aggressive regime change and regional transformation, starting with Iraq and extending to Syria, Iran, and others.
Although the wars didn’t follow the original timeline, Iran was clearly intended as the final domino. The Biden administration didn’t launch a direct war with Iran partly because it was occupied with — and benefited from — the rapid collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.
Conclusion
In the end, the pieces fit together too neatly to ignore. While the corporate media and “independent” influencers push the narrative that Trump alone fell for Netanyahu’s pitch, the historical record — from the 1996 Clean Break strategy to General Wesley Clark’s Pentagon memo — shows Iran was always meant to be the final domino in a long-term plan for regional transformation.
This entire narrative is a psychological operation designed to pull the wool back over our eyes. It tries to convince us that our political system is not being steered by powerful foreign interests, that Trump is acting freely without coercion, and that any disastrous consequences can be laid entirely at his feet. By preserving the illusion that he is fully in control and solely responsible, the system protects itself — allowing people to believe they can simply vote him out later and “fix” things, while the real architects of the policy remain shielded.
We have "cartesian blinders being put on us so that we are trying to make sense out of scraps of information and hints." - @bretweinstein
WEINSTEIN: I mean, even if you have your villains who are engaged in the behavior that motivated this war in Iran, even if that's the story, presumably most of the people in the path of these ferocious bombings that he is describing are not deserving of going back to the Stone Age.
In fact, I distinctly remember him telling us that part of what we were up to was liberating the people of Iran from their tyrannical regime.
So if it's the tyrannical regime that justifies the ferocious bombing, then it's a tragedy that other people are going to be sent back to the Stone Ages with them. Right?
HEYING: It's it's not a narrative. It's an incoherent set of talking points.
WEINSTEIN: Yeah, it's a kind of cheerleading that is completely inappropriate from the perspective of the president.
Bret Weinstein discusses the Trump administrations "back to the stone age" recent remarks in the latest episode of The Evolutionary Lens, Episode 320 "Are we back in the stone age?" on DarkHorse.
Bret Weinstein explains, "If you stop businesses from starting here, and if you drive people so that they move elsewhere—even though it's difficult to do—then the point is the tax base dries up, which then forces you to become even more predatory for the people who stayed.
And that's really the thing, right? They're setting themselves up so that they have to go after more and more people, because the people who are starting new businesses are not going to do it here."
I was just watching a video and was struck by something that was kinda said.
Our society is obsessed with equality,,, yet nature, is obsessed with meritocracy. Just an interesting thought.
I’m just listening to the hantavirus/water episode and had a thought. I also listened to the Jacob Shockey interview and really loved the observation that all organizations end up becoming controlled by bureaucrats. It’s a bit depressing. In your Huntavirus water episode you go back to that and talk about the female versus male bureaucratic approach. It occurred to me that, perhaps because (at least in the west and the US) especially our lives are relatively free of danger, that there is the hard wiring of the male brain to find emergencies where they don’t exist. Along the same lines, the falling birth rate and lack of motherhood among women has led to misplaced nurturing because of our hardwiring. If people would just have more children, that might solve both of these problems. The fathers would be focused on protecting their families from perceived dangers, rather than feeling responsible for the whole world, and mothers could simply nurture their children as God intended!...
