News

Learn about ‘the second most powerful person in Washington’ and others influencing policies

An O’Keefe Media undercover video shows a special advisor for The United States Small Business Administration explaining how people in Sleepy Joe Biden’s circle get the puppet president to sign off on whatever they want.

The individual, Tyler Robinson, told an undercover reporter former Facebook board member Jeff Zeints, the current White House chief of staff, is the “second most powerful person in Washington.”

“By getting Jeff to sign off, you’re getting the president to sign off… whatever this guy says, it’s what the President says,” he said.

When the journalist asked about ex-President Barack Obama and ex-Vice President Hillary Clinton being involved in the Biden administration, the White House insider admitted they both remain very close with Biden advisors.

Asked if Zeints is “more powerful than Kamala [Harris],” Robinson answered, “Yeah.”

In other parts of the footage, Robinson explained how the establishment shuns GOP politicians to leave them out of the loop when cutting deals and forming policies.

Robinson also revealed his boss, Isabel Casillas Guzman, is sent by the Biden administration across the country under the guise of visiting small businesses while really helping Democrats get elected.

We The People are being led by unelected bureaucrats who have sold the nation out to globalist interests.

---

Humanity is ready to take the power back from the globalists

No matter where you are on Earth, we are all fighting the same fight against a common enemy – The New World Order.

Also:

---

This is the agenda worldwide

German Transport Minister Volker Wissing said the country may need to implement a ban on driving on the weekends, but this is only the beginning of a tyrannical agenda to control populations and their movement.

Also:

---

Thanks to the work of the Censorship Industrial Complex, an industry built of dozens of agencies and thousands of third-party cutouts including universities, we were led to believe that lockdowns and closures were just the way things are done. Vast amounts of the propaganda we endured was top down and wholly manufactured.

The concept of the Overton window caught on in professional culture, particularly those seeking to nudge public opinion, because it taps into a certain sense that we all know is there. There are things you can say and things you cannot say, not because there are speech controls (though there are) but because holding certain views makes you anathema and dismissable. This leads to less influence and effectiveness. 

The Overton window is a way of mapping sayable opinions. The goal of advocacy is to stay within the window while moving it just ever so much. For example, if you are writing about monetary policy, you should say that the Fed should not immediately reduce rates for fear of igniting inflation. You can really think that the Fed should be abolished but saying that is inconsistent with the demands of polite society. 

That’s only one example of a million. 

To notice and comply with the Overton window is not the same as merely favoring incremental change over dramatic reform. There is not and should never be an issue with marginal change. That’s not what is at stake. 

To be aware of the Overton window, and fit within it, means to curate your own advocacy. You should do so in a way that is designed to comply with a structure of opinion that is pre-existing as a kind of template we are all given. It means to craft a strategy specifically designed to game the system, which is said to operate according to acceptable and unacceptable opinionizing. 

In every area of social, economic, and political life, we find a form of compliance with strategic considerations seemingly dictated by this Window. There is no sense in spouting off opinions that offend or trigger people because they will just dismiss you as not credible. But if you keep your eye on the Window – as if you can know it, see it, manage it – you might succeed in expanding it a bit here and there and thereby achieve your goals eventually. 

The mission here is always to let considerations of strategy run alongside – perhaps even ultimately prevail in the short run – over issues of principle and truth, all in the interest of being not merely right but also effective. Everyone in the business of affecting public opinion does this, all in compliance with the perception of the existence of this Window. 

Tellingly, the whole idea grows out of think tank culture, which puts a premium on effectiveness and metrics as a means of institutional funding. The concept was named for Joseph Overton, who worked at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan. He found that it was useless in his work to advocate for positions that he could not recruit politicians to say from the legislative floor or on the campaign trail. By crafting policy ideas that fit within the prevailing media and political culture, however, he saw some successes about which he and his team could brag to the donor base. 

This experience led him to a more general theory that was later codified by his colleague Joseph Lehman, and then elaborated upon by Joshua Treviño, who postulated degrees of acceptability. Ideas move from Unthinkable to Radical to Acceptable to Sensible to Popular to become Policy. A wise intellectual shepherd will manage this transition carefully from one stage to the next until victory and then take on a new issue. 

The core intuition here is rather obvious. It probably achieves little in life to go around screaming some radical slogan about what all politicians should do if there is no practical means to achieve it and zero chance of it happening. But writing well-thought-out position papers with citations backed by large books by Ivy League authors and pushing for changes on the margin that keep politicians out of trouble with the media might move the Window slightly and eventually enough to make a difference. 

Beyond that example, which surely does tap into some evidence in this or that case, how true is this analysis? 

First, the theory of the Overton window presumes a smooth connection between public opinion and political outcomes. During most of my life, that seemed to be the case or, at least, we imagined it to be the case. Today this is gravely in question. Politicians do things daily and hourly that are opposed by their constituents – fund foreign aid and wars for example – but they do it anyway due to well-organized pressure groups that operate outside public awareness. That’s true many times over with the administrative and deep layers of the state. 

In most countries, states and elites that run them operate without the consent of the governed. No one likes the surveillance and censorial state but they are growing regardless, and nothing about shifts in public opinion seem to make any difference. It’s surely true that there comes a point when state managers pull back on their schemes for fear of public backlash but when that happens or where, or when and how, wholly depends on the circumstances of time and place. 

Second, the Overton window presumes there is something organic about the way the Window is shaped and moves. That is probably not entirely true either. Revelations of our own time show just how involved are major state actors in media and tech, even to the point of dictating the structure and parameters of opinions held in the public, all in the interest of controlling the culture of belief in the population. 

I had read Manufacturing Consent (Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman; full text here) when it came out in 1988 and found it compelling. It was entirely believable that deep ruling class interests were more involved than we know about what we are supposed to think about foreign-policy matters and national emergencies, and, further, entirely plausible that major media outlets would reflect these views as a matter of seeking to fit in and ride the wave of change. 

What I had not understood was just how far-reaching this effort to manufacture consent is in real life. What illustrates this perfectly has been media and censorship over the pandemic years in which nearly all official channels of opinion have very strictly reflected and enforced the cranky views of a tiny elite. Honestly, how many actual people in the US were behind the lockdowns policy in terms of theory and action? Probably fewer than 1,000. Probably closer to 100. 

But thanks to the work of the Censorship Industrial Complex, an industry built of dozens of agencies and thousands of third-party cutouts including universities, we were led to believe that lockdowns and closures were just the way things are done. Vast amounts of the propaganda we endured was top down and wholly manufactured. 

Third, the lockdown experience demonstrates that there is nothing necessarily slow and evolutionary about the movement of the Window. In February 2020, mainstream public health was warning against travel restrictions, quarantines, business closures, and the stigmatization of the sick. A mere 30 days later, all these policies became acceptable and even mandatory belief. Not even Orwell imagined such a dramatic and sudden shift was possible! 

The Window didn’t just move. It dramatically shifted from one side of the room to the other, with all the top players against saying the right thing at the right time, and then finding themselves in the awkward position of having to publicly contradict what they had said only weeks earlier. The excuse was that “the science changed” but that is completely untrue and an obvious cover for what was really just a craven attempt to chase what the powerful were saying and doing. 

It was the same with the vaccine, which major media voices opposed so long as Trump was president and then favored once the election was declared for Biden. Are we really supposed to believe that this massive switch came about because of some mystical window shift or does the change have a more direct explanation? 

Fourth, the entire model is wildly presumptuous. It is built by intuition, not data, of course. And it presumes that we can know the parameters of its existence and manage how it is gradually manipulated over time. None of this is true. In the end, an agenda based on acting on this supposed Window involves deferring to the intuitions of some manager who decides that this or that statement or agenda is “good optics” or “bad optics,” to deploy the fashionable language of our time. 

The right response to all such claims is: you don’t know that. You are only pretending to know but you don’t actually know. What your seemingly perfect discernment of strategy is really about concerns your own personal taste for the fight, for controversy, for argument, and your willingness to stand up publicly for a principle you believe will very likely run counter to elite priorities. That’s perfectly fine, but don’t mask your taste for public engagement in the garb of fake management theory. 

It’s precisely for this reason that so many intellectuals and institutions stayed completely silent during lockdowns when everyone was being treated so brutally by public health. Many people knew the truth – that everyone would get this bug, most would shake it off just fine, and then it would become endemic – but were simply afraid to say it. Cite the Overton window all you want but what is really at issue is one’s willingness to exercise moral courage. 

The relationship between public opinion, cultural feeling, and state policy has always been complex, opaque, and beyond the capacity of empirical methods to model. It’s for this reason that there is such a vast literature on social change. 

We live in times in which most of what we thought we knew about the strategies for social and political change have been blown up. That’s simply because the normal world we knew only five years ago – or thought we knew – no longer exists. Everything is broken, including whatever imaginings we had about the existence of this Overton window. 

What to do about it? I would suggest a simple answer. Forget the model, which might be completely misconstrued in any case. Just say what is true, with sincerity, without malice, without convoluted hopes of manipulating others. It’s a time for truth, which earns trust. Only that will blow the window wide open and finally demolish it forever. 

---

Learn Why The Globalists Are Killing Their Own Monetary System

---

The historic effectiveness of the Social Security program must be evaluated.

The Social Security Act is considered the first federal social welfare program in American history, being signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935. American government pensions have existed for government employees and veterans since the Civil War, and private pension systems even longer. There was not great support for a public pension system in the US, as voluntary association and self-sufficiency was the standard. An example of this is the fact that nearly 90 percent of people over sixty-five in New York were not reliant on any sort of organized private, or public assistance programs prior to 1935.

Some assume that the Great Depression would automatically lead to an absolute devastation of the private pension system. Fortunately, this was not the case. More than 85 percent of private pension plans in existence operated normally during 1932. FDR would champion a social security bill in 1935, arguing that it was true insurance for all retirees. Amendments were introduced, including an amendment to allow Americans to opt out if their private pension system was more lucrative. It was not included in the final act, thus killing any competition in the pension system. One main argument against a compulsory social security system was that it could discourage hiring, as it would increase the cost associated with each employee. So, during the worst depression in modern American history, through the payroll tax, the president championed legislation which would force older people out of work and discourage business owners from hiring more labor.

The historic effectiveness of the Social Security program must be evaluated, and ideally compared to the private pension systems which are becoming less and less prevalent. The Social Security Administration’s published outcome indicators are meant to be a starting point but come with additional complications and red flags. Data provided an available report is mainly from the years of 1998-2002, it is thus extremely limited in its reporting. The report claims that it achieves high levels of eligibility and of utilization. This is of course, true, and would be true of any governmental program which is compulsory. The data provided shows a decrease in labor force participation of men between the ages of 25-54, but an increase of participation for men from the ages of 55 to 64. Participation also increased for men 65 and up. This trend should show some indication as to how Social Security benefits may not have benefited the government’s intended demographic.

The next indicators used are measures of adequacy, equity, and reliance. The main data presented for the five years given indicates how much a person receives from benefits in relation to their previous monthly income. Those from lower incomes will see up to a 70 percent match to their previous monthly income, while those in the high-income bracket may see as low as 30 percent. There is also data which suggests an overall decrease in poverty during a four-year period, but it is unclear if this is due solely to this program. The study points to a supposed increased level of reliability, as the percentage of families using OASDI for 50 percent, 90 percent, and 100 percent of their income slightly increased during the five-year time frame given. An increase of only 1-3 percentage points in each category is seen, which does not seem immediately significant.

Benefits to those who are temporarily disabled are next examined. The report admits that only a small fraction of recipients makes over their designated income amount, indicating Substantial Gainful Activity, (SGA). This simply means that a very small fraction of receivers worked enough to trigger the suspension, or termination of SSI benefits. Put into numbers, from the years 1999-2002, an average of 6.8 percent of SSI recipients worked at some capacity; and only .6 percent of working recipients met SGA requirements, with the rest working at, or below it. Without the examination of outside factors, and assuming a similar trend two decades removed, this would indicate that recipients of temporary SSI benefits are very unlikely to return to the workforce at full capacity.

The final indicator is the use of private pension plans. The administration notes that around 50 percent of the US population has been part of a private pension plan since the 1970s, with participantes dwindling greatly. The data notes that older individuals increasingly have insufficient savings to supplement Social Security payments, and that pension plans are being transitioned to defined contribution plans, which have associated risks that come with market changes.

This government report from over two decades ago is lackluster at best. The SSA failed to meet some of its own KPIs, while others were faulty from the start. While there are high levels of eligibility and utilization, this is not a marker of the necessity or effectiveness of said program, but simply how well the federal government has a grasp on coercive implementation. The Social Security Act is binding, and the components are seen by many as compulsory, with a complicated exemption process. It is not surprising that most of the population is eligible for this extremely accessible, and heavily subsidized program. The second indicator points to the reliability of the program. It is true that the number of participants using benefits for 50 percent or more of their income did rise slightly during the timeframe given. This amount is not significant and has potential negative externalities. Increased reliance on federal programs is not a sign that a program is beneficial for the economy; it is a sign that a program is siphoning participants away from the private sector, thus leading to more individuals who are reliant on the tax-funded program. This is problematic, especially as the program’s funding relies on the working, and thus taxed, population. More low-income participants means less funding for the system to tap into for future users.

Those who are temporarily placed on Social Security benefits are very unlikely to come off, as indicated by this data. One can point to human nature, the unemployment levels of the years examined, or to other factors, but the data is clear that the benefits greatly discouraged a meaningful return to the workforce during the four-year period that was measured. In the long term, this is a problem, as young working people need to contribute to the system to make it work. The use of private pension plans is then examined. There is no comparison to the cost efficiency of private plans, but simply the fact that roughly half of American adults have access to a private plan, and have had access since the 1970s. Older adults having far less savings is also not an ideal outcome, as the state is not immune to the effects of inflation or an insolvent program, thus potentially harming the quality of life seen by SSI users.

There are warning signs which point to the Social Security fund being insolvent by the year 2035. This short window into the effectiveness of this system should give clues as to why. Employers must pay more to hire an individual, leading to a marketplace where low-skilled workers are constantly priced out. This has worsened in recent years, as even recent college graduates are having trouble finding meaningful employment. Employers would also rather have the option to spend less to match their workers’ 401k, or similar fund, rather than provide a set pension.

This is the case, as Social Security is often seen as primary support, rather than supplementary. As more people become eligible for benefits, fewer are working to fund these benefits. Birthing rates have also dropped significantly when compared to the rates of 1935. Finally, these plans are not competitive. Employers used to pride themselves on the excellent retirement funds/pensions which were made available to employees. Rather than rely on innovation to create more meaningful retirement plans, the state has imposed a one-size fits all plan onto the American public. FDR, in his attempt to signal his goodwill to desperate Americans, championed a policy which was doomed to harm future generations.

---

Learn Why The Globalists Are Killing Their Own Monetary System

---

‘They are putting out defective airplanes,’ quality control engineer Sam Salehpour told Senate committee.

A Boeing quality control engineer testified to Congress that he highlighted numerous problems with the company’s 787 and 777 Dreamliner fleet, only to be shut down by his superiors, and thinks the entire fleet of jets should be grounded.

Asked point-blank by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), “Are these planes safe?” engineer Sam Salepour responded, “Right now, I could not.”

“From what I’ve seen, the airplanes are not being built per spec and per requirements,” Salehpour said, adding safety checks aren’t being properly done on older planes for stressed components.

The engineer claimed he specifically saw the company was not properly filling gaps with “shims” in the plane’s fuselages, which could potentially lead to catastrophic failure.

“Since 2013, there have been serious issues on the 787 program not properly closing thousands of gaps in its assembly of the fuselage on major joints. Boeing’s standard says that these joints, these gaps, must be closed, usually buy a small shim, or filler called the ‘shim’ when they exceed 5,000ths of an inch. This seems very small – Boeing’s PR team like to call it the width of a human hair – but when you are operating at 35,000 feet, details are that the size of a human hair can be a matter of life and death.”

“In a rush to address these bottlenecks in production, Boeing hit problems pushing pieces together with excessive force to make them appear that the gaps don’t exist, even though they exist, the gap didn’t actually go away, and this may result in premature fatigue failure effectively.”

“They are putting out defective airplanes,” he added.

“I want to make clear that I have raised these issues over three years. I was ignored. I was told not to create delays. I was told, frankly, to shut up.”

Salehpour further informed Senate members that after he highlighted the issues, he faced retaliation, including being removed from projects, excluded from meetings, and subjected to harassment by his supervisor.

“At one point, Boeing management got sick of me raising these issues and moved me out of the 787 program into the 777 program,” he said, going on to say he also found problems with those planes, adding he saw “people jumping on pieces of the airplane to get them to align.”

“Again, I raised concerns internally. I was sidelined. I was told to shut up. I received physical threats,” the engineer described, going on to mention one instance in which his boss stated, “I would have killed someone who said what you said in a meeting.”

Salehpour also believed someone at work punctured or slashed his vehicle’s tires while he was at work.

The whistleblower told Congress he’s concerned the company could further retaliate against him, but that he’s ultimately at peace for shedding light on the issues.

“It really scares me, believe me, but I am at peace,” he said, adding, “If something happens to me, I am at peace because I feel like coming forward, I will be saving a lot of lives.”

In a comment to NBC, Boeing replied: “These claims about the structural integrity of the 787 are inaccurate. The issues raised have been subject to rigorous engineering examination under FAA oversight.”

Salehpour’s testimony comes as another Boeing whistleblower, former quality control manager John Barnett, was found dead in a hotel parking lot in Charleston, South Carolina, last March, reportedly from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Barnett was embroiled in a lawsuit with Boeing and had been raising concerns about problems he observed while working at Boeing’s North Charleston plant, warning the BBC in 2019 that, as a result of hasty mass production, the company’s 787 Dreamliner fleet had numerous safety issues, including that some planes had been improperly retrofitted with “sub-standard” salvaged parts.

Barnett’s attorneys and a close friend of the deceased Boeing whistleblower both alerted media outlets he was not suicidal prior to his sudden death.

---

The globalists are increasing their attacks on Infowars and the stakes have never been higher!

Please consider donating and visit InfowarsStore.com for merch, nutraceuticals and survival gear.

---

Follow the author on X, Facebook, Gab, Minds, Truth Social and Gettr.

---

---