Hashtags presented in this episode:
#EndUkraineWar
Crowdfunding a quality, peer-reviewed gender study that focus on data with no bias or agenda to determine if trans has environmental factors, such as if/why testosterone dropping in males/rising in females.
Tweet your own bid Twitter thread
Transcript
Disclaimer: ChatGPT is an AI model and its responses are based on its training data and may not necessarily represent expert or professional advice.
Below is a transcript of the podcast episode with links to all documents referenced. The repeatable transcript you can us with ChatGPT to verify every word from the Avatar's digital lips is ChatGPT's authentic, self-generated answer based on its own fact-finding using the publicly available data it selected is in this PDF:
Today, ChatGPT will show how we can perhaps end the Ukraine war with a tweet. Seriously. In a second I’ll ask ChatGPT for the most notorious example of war profiteering, and all on its own, ChatGPT points the finger at my business partner for starting the First Gulf War. The transcript proves these are ChatGPT’s authentic answers using only public data it selected. It’s AI’s superhuman analysis of the solution to war profiteering my partner and I came up with after 10 years of brainstorming.
But first, ChatGPT who profits from war and peace?
War benefits the Military-Industrial Complex, Politicians and Governments, Corporate Media.
Peace benefits the General Population, Businesses and Economies, International Relations and Cultural Development.
Which side has the power to start and stop wars?
Politicians and governments. However, in democratic societies, checks and balances should ideally exist to prevent misuse of power.
There’s a problem. The power to wage war is held by those who profit from it and voters are swayed by the corporate media that also profits from war. Can they exploit this?
If entities profiting from war use lobbyists, public relations efforts, and media to create a deceptive narrative, it can indeed undermine the checks and balances.
What’s the most recognized example?
The most recognized example of war-profiteering entities using lobbyists, PR, and media to fabricate a narrative is the lead-up to the Gulf War, driven by PR firm Hill & Knowlton, orchestrating the deceptive Nayirah testimony that swayed U.S. public opinion towards military intervention. The man behind this was Robert Keith Gray, the firm's leader.
It’s public record Bob Gray is my late business partner. Here’s that Congressional testimony Bob scripted and the media broadcast despite many knowing the girl was acting.
Video
ChatGPT, what was the aftermath of this fake testimony?
The Gulf War and its aftermath had far-reaching effects, including the rise of al-Qaeda, 9/11, the Second Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and other conflicts in the Middle East. While it's difficult to say for certain whether the absence of the Nayirah testimony would have prevented the First Gulf War and its aftermath, it's not unreasonable to consider that it could have altered the course of events in some way. In total, these events have led to the loss of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives and have cost trillions of dollars. That amounts to approximately $31,125 per American household.
I met Bob in the 1990s, when he was vilified as the evil puppet master secretly auctioning services of the deep state. It was odd because to me he was a kind, ethical man. He generously funded my overly ambitious software projects, and was very understanding when they failed. To compensate for his losses, I gave him my house, and he opened his to me. We brainstormed for years.
Of his regrets, this Gulf War scandal was minor compared to, for example, his creation of pseudo-public health agencies to fabricate pro-tobacco studies and incentivizing doctors to promote cigarettes. And his biggest regret was when his clients pivoted from tobacco to opioids, they repeated the same strategy, installing FDA officials to declare opioids were non-addictive, passing laws to convert health-agencies from taxpayer-funded regulators to industry-funded marketing arms. It was so frustrating to see how this resulted in health agencies sidelining beneficial but unprofitable treatments, while relentlessly peddling profitable ones that paid them commissions, leading to the opioid crisis and extreme overmedicating.
In his defense, Bob argued thousands of people participated in and profited from these campaigns, nobody protested or tried to expose them, not the doctors who were selling out their patients, nor even low-wage workers who had little skin in the game. How could we condemn the CEO for not having the courage to risk his multibillion-dollar company, yet defend employees who had much less to lose but still wouldn’t risk their $30k/year job to voice dissent? Is the CEO any less moral given that everybody went along and just did their job. Right?
While Gray held a prominent position and played a significant role, it's important to note that such campaigns are typically the result of a team effort, involving a number of individuals and strategies. As with many complex historical events, it can be an oversimplification to attribute the actions of a large organization to a single individual.
Exactly. Here’s the bottom line:
Those with the power to expose corruption all have financial incentives to conceal it. It’s that simple. This problem has and always will exist, and there’s 1 solution to disalign their incentives and it’s lying in plain sight:
When society needs hard facts to thrive and prosper, those of us who will benefit must be willing to shoulder the costs of producing those facts.
Why aren’t we open to something so obvious? For example, at the pandemic's onset, scientists identified Far UVC light as safe and highly effective against Coronaviruses. However, as it was unprofitable and unpatentable, naturally, thanks to Bob’s lobbying, health agencies censored it, instead locking us in our homes to await vaccines that paid them a commission. But nobody was willing to crowdfund quality clinical trials of FarUVC and FDA approval. If we had, maybe we could have avoided the lockdown's devastating aftermath. Admittedly in 2020, tech censorship was a huge obstacle. But now, Twitter is open for citizen activism.
Imagine if we had this in the 1990s so after the testimony someone could have tweeted I think that girl was acting. I'll donate 30 for hard evidence. If 0.1% of Americans retweeted the pledge that would have been a $10 million dollar bounty, more than enough to compensate the cameraman to tweet back here's a video of her rehearsing with an acting coach and donation instructions. It would have been game over for their billion dollar war campaign. we would have saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars with a tweet. Right?
Indeed, it is possible that a FactBid-like concept, combined with a crowdsourcing campaign, could have incentivized a whistleblower to come forward and expose the truth about the fake PR campaign that started the Gulf War. As you mentioned, offering a financial reward for such information could have been a game-changer, and it is worth considering how similar approaches might be applied in other contexts.
So, please, now that we have a platform for citizen activism, let’s use it. History is repeating. Ukraine is Kuwait 2.0. In both cases people think they’re liberating a small, noble country from a ruthless, unprovoked invader, but ignoring the red flags and obvious gaps in the official narrative from both sides. I don’t know why the US and UK apparently pressured Ukraine to reject the peace deal they negotiated with Russia. Do you? We can’t demand our leaders sue for peace if we don’t know what’s driving the conflict. Trying to connect the dots with unfounded conspiracy theories is unproductive. But I’m sure there’s people on both sides who could reveal information that would bring the parties back to the peace table. Hopefully not classified. So let’s support them. Even if you doubt there’s war profiteering in Ukraine, it doesn’t hurt to make a pledge. Right?
The downside risk is essentially zero, with potential substantial upsides. If no legitimate whistleblower comes forward, no pledges are lost. If one does, revealing impactful deceptions affecting public policy, it could avert conflicts, save lives and resources. The fund could also deter deceptive practices overall, enhancing exposure likelihood, and promoting transparency and accountability.
Indeed. Please, let’s do more than just speak for peace. Visit factbid.org and click #EndUkraineWar. This button starts a tweet you can edit and send in seconds. FactBid catalogs by hashtag tweets containing bids, or pledges, and also tweets with claims for us to evaluate, and if satisfied, make voluntary donations. Maybe our pledges will yield results and we’ll have made history by crowdsourcing an end to the war. Worst case, at least we’ve shown our commitment to peace is more than just words.
Share this post