(This is the second in a two part series on the Big Lie. Part one is linked below.)
There is something there.
Yesterday’s Torch Report 233 noted that the rhetoric surrounding the strange events at the Pelosi house—that a bus dwelling hammer wielding hippie was actually a “lone right-wing extremist”—seemed to somehow be connected to a “scholar” named Dr. Richard Forno. The language in multiple articles seemed to reflect his sentiment as expressed in the article Political violence in America isn’t going away anytime soon.
Dr. Forno claims to be an Independent, but his writing and his background suggest otherwise. Why did he write that article? Why is this article being used in the circular reference to a DHS bulletin that I still cannot seem to locate? Why does the primary source cited for this mysterious bulletin only appear in liberal outlets? And why does this circle keep leading back to Forno?
There’s something there.
That was my initial sense, and upon further exploration, coincidences abound.
For example, Dr. Forno is a cybersecurity expert who has precisely the skill set necessary to have created the fictitious extremist posts attributed to David DePape. Add to that the fact that Forno has been funded by the NSA, the Department of Defense, and the National Science Foundation, having received over $10 million dollars in federal grants for everything AI and cybersecurity related, and we have every reason to follow the money in search for a motive.
Richard Forno has every appearance of a deep state operative. His article attempts to pin political violence on right-wing extremists, in support of the mainstream narrative ahead of the midterm elections. His description of David DePape as a “lone right-wing extremist” is completely incongruent with reality, which exposes his bias and intent.
But here’s the thing: Forno chose to step in. He chose to write that article. He chose to use those words. WHY? Is he really so shook up by the Pelosi attack that he felt morally compelled to speak out and opine on the cause of all this right-wing violence? Or is he just another state funded operative trying to control the narrative?
“America is ‘dropping cyberbombs’ – but how do they work?”
“Weaponized information seeks a new target in cyberspace: Users’ minds.”
“Threats remain to US voting system – and voters’ perceptions of reality.”
“How vulnerable to hacking is the US election cyber infrastructure?”
“Ransomware can interfere with elections and fuel disinformation”
“The Dark Side of Data: When Information is Weaponized”
“Cybersecurity Information Sharing: A New Perspective for Policymakers”
“Hacktivism, Vigilantism, & Collective Action in a Digital Age”
“Fourth Generation Warfare”
“Weaponized Information, crafting reality, and targeting the world’s most exploitable…”
…and on and on…
Clearly the guy is an expert on weaponizing information, crafting reality, and fourth generation warfare—those are his own words, not mine. He’s the government expert. There is a very interesting overlap between his technical niche and his political interest on the impact of disinformation and election interference. The threats to our elections, according to Forno, are directly related to voters’ perceptions of reality—which is the exact target of cyber warfare.
Sound familiar? I spent Monday, Tuesday, & Wednesday sounding the alarm about the use of AI to manipulate public perception and direct the outcome of elections.
Richard Forno knows how to use targeted misinformation to manipulate the outcome of elections, and he’s been informing the government on how to use Fourth Generation Warfare (i.e. AI and algorithmic social interventions) for over a decade. He wrote a propaganda piece that is central in the narrative of political violence that is being pushed ahead of the midterms. Is this just a coincidence?
Is Forno just another concerned citizen, or is there something else going on?
Here are a few more of his keynote presentations that stood out to me:
“Communicating Risk Across Audiences”
“Thinking Differently — And Beyond…”
“The Chaos of Context: Presentation, Perception, and Agency.”
Just look at the words. What is his intent? What is the outcome of communicating risk? Stoking fear. Notably, that presentation was made in 2019 at an international conference on the Design of Communication—just prior to the pandemic.
As a side note, this “Communicating Risk” presentation reminds me of the Great Barrington Declaration, and the scientific assertion that Covid-19 wasn’t a public health crisis—it was a public health messaging crisis. Scientists were sounding the alarm that governments everywhere were “willfully distorting the public health message for political purposes.”
From their website:
“Why are so many people afraid of COVID-19?
Unfortunately, the public health messaging about COVID-19 around the world has created many misperceptions that have spread fear.
Better public health messaging that does not spread unfounded fears based on anecdotes would help correct this situation.”
For the record, that assessment comes from leading epidemiologists Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Sunetra Gupta and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who hold degrees from Stanford University, Oxford University, and Harvard University respectively. These guys are not fringe quacks, they’re highly esteemed scientists who realized that the communication of risk was being weaponized by our very own government.
Let that sink in.
Now let’s consider Forno’s curios words: “Thinking Differently — And Beyond…”
What does that mean? In my mind, those words imply conformity. It translates to “building consensus”—with a cyber twist. It means that even though everyone is prone to developing their own opinions, when the government colludes with Big Tech to target “the world’s most exploitable” in order to manipulate “voter’s perceptions of reality”—now corrupt politicians can leverage this “new perspective for policymakers” to condition the masses to feel the same about hot button issues.
Remember how we learned about “Algorithmic Social Interventions” that are optimally targeting behavioral interventions to achieve specific policy goals?
Remember how government agencies are using Artificial Intelligence to censor the information available to voters ahead of elections?
Remember how the global cabal is using AI to immunize humanity against misinformation by generating narratives that adapt to changing sentiment?
We’ve been digging into this all week.
I was intentionally ignoring the David DePape drama in order to focus on the greater threat of weaponized AI. When I did look into the narrative surrounding the DePape drama, it led me to Richard Forno—and it turns out Forno has been central in the government’s development and application of advance technologies that are capable of controlling the narrative—and the outcome of elections—for over a decade.
Again, there’s something there.
The connection seems too strange to be coincidental.
Connect the dots.
Legacy media lapdogs have been sowing the seeds of political violence for months, ginning up images of a civil war, and pegging the cause of it all on MAGA extremists. They breathlessly shriek about J6 insurrection and point to the show trials as proof. Now they are feigning concern that “perceptions” over election fraud are likely to cause even more violence leading up to and shortly after the elections—that’s the message coming from Forno, CNN, ABC, NPR, and their ilk.
Of course, this is all according to a “joint intelligence” bulletin that I still cannot find.
For all my fellow MAGA types, any “perception” of election fraud is solely based on Russian, Iranian, or Chinese attempts to interfere with our elections. That’s the story.
Where does this story come from? Well, it comes from Google, who just so happens to be under investigation for interfering with U.S. elections. What a coincidence.
I discovered this when numerous outlets started running stories about how China, Russia, and Iran are sowing dissent ahead of the midterm elections. How do all these journalists know this is happening? Because of expert “threat assessment” being provided by an “intelligence organization” called Mandiant.
Google completed the acquisition of Mandiant on September 12th, 2022.
The Big Lie.
According to the liberals, the Big Lie is that the 2020 election was stolen and the government is colluding with tech firms to fleece the American public.
According to conservatives, the Big Lie is that the 2020 election was legitimate and the greatest threat to democracy are Christians and violent right-wing extremists.
According to yours truly, the Big Lie is that Americans are facing a choice between Democrats and Republicans this midterm election. This is a terrible deception.
Don’t get me wrong, I take heart knowing there are some 300 conservative candidates who are openly challenging the established narrative. I am eager to vote for freedom loving constitutional candidates on the Republican ticket. This is a battle between the left and right for the heart and soul of our nation, and I do believe a red wave is coming.
I do believe that the majority of Americans still value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I do believe that more and more people are waking up and making a stand. I do believe there is hope for the future and that this election may prove to be one of the most pivotal in American history—so get out and vote and let’s make it happen!
Just don’t lose sight of what we’re up against.
This is just one battle in a much bigger war—us against the machines and the commie bastards behind the scenes who are currently pushing the buttons!