Hey guys, a mistake was made recently that would make every IT person cringe, especially when it happens at the highest levels of military intelligence.
First, some background. There's an ongoing controversy over whether Mitch Snow, a former special forces operator, was right when he said he saw key members of Charlie Kirk's security team, as well as Erika Kirk, at Fort Huachuca, the US's premier intelligence base, in the day or days before the assassination.
So why does Fort Huachuca matter? According to researcher Ana Escobar, in the days leading up to the assassination, the base's expected visitor list included a strange mix of people: top military officials, the director of the Mossad, the people who run the HADES program, and key members of Charlie Kirk's security team. That's a weird group to have heading to the same Army base in the same handful of days.
And then there's the HADES jet itself, a new Army spy plane and the flagship program of the recon task force at Fort Huachuca. Why did it fly over the Provo area twice on the day of the assassination, and again during Tyler Robinson's arrest?
So how does anyone know who was expected on that base? This is where it gets crazy: Google Trends. Ana, along with other researchers, has been using Google Trends to look for searches tied to Fort Huachuca, trying to corroborate Mitch Snow's story. Over the past few months, they keep finding hits for the same kinds of people: senior officials, searched by their exact titles and photos, around the base, on very specific days.
Which raises an obvious question. If Mitch Snow was lying, or just wrong, why was the military's own system running Google searches on the same people he claimed to see, in the same window of time?
Then there's the timing. Ana says that out of the 43 people she identified, 38 showed up on just three days leading up to the assassination. If this really was an operation, think about who you'd need: the military brass, the intelligence people, the people who run the HADES jet, and someone on the inside of Charlie's security team. What are the odds that the exact people you'd need to pull that off all land on the same base's guest list, in the same handful of days, right before it happened?
The way I see it, the Charlie Kirk assassination has been a complete disaster for the people trying to get away with it. It sucks that Erika Kirk is implicated, because it sucks that that level of evil can exist. And it sucks that everyday people don't want to believe that kind of evil can exist, and see people like me as the ones causing problems.
What gives me hope is that evil can also be incompetent. With no real competition, they get lazy and sloppy, and they make stupid mistakes. In my opinion, this story represents the complete collapse of the old system. The old system is trying to trick us into believing they're still in power, that there's a superstructure. I think they're fighting a war over perception and failing, flailing in the dark, aimlessly looking for footing.
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."
Tomorrow on DarkHorse Podcast Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying will discuss the Washington State ballot measures on parental rights, girls’ sports, and income tax. Plus, why “vote no, hate has no place here” has become the argument against them.
Streaming here on Locals at 11:30am PT with a Q&A to follow!
Whatever happened that night in 2024, I have rarely seen such a coordinated media push behind one story. And if you look at the timing, it lines up with a growing battle between Cornell and student groups protesting the wars overseas. The more I dug, the more it looked to me like this story is being used as leverage against those students.
I recently found out how closely Cornell is tied to the weapons industry, and to Israel's military in particular. Its flagship New York City campus, Cornell Tech, was built as a joint project with the Technion, Israel's top engineering school, which critics have long called the "R&D wing of the Israeli military." Cornell has also hosted research sponsored by Israel's Ministry of Defense and by American defense contractors like Northrop Grumman, and weapons manufacturers recruit Cornell students through the ...
In case you're wondering, a couple of operatives (of sorts) infiltrated the citizen journalist circles and were caught coordinating to discredit one of the researchers in the inner circle. It's a funny story for anyone interested. Essentially, a guy who goes by Jesse on Fire accidentally sent his instructions to the wrong guy. The instructions were meant for the person he's working with, and they laid out how to discredit a researcher who covered the Fort Huachuca story.