This week continues to show the dominance of spectacle over substance. The Epstein files are once again opened, but the release feels more like a timed political stunt than a genuine pursuit of truth. January 6 revelations confirm that the so-called insurrection was a staged rehearsal for revolt, filled with agents and informants rather than genuine revolutionaries. Meanwhile, in the background, where public outrage seldom appears, the AI-state strengthens its hold as Trump, Musk, Altman, and Thiel merge private profit with state surveillance.
The stories differ, but the approach remains the same: elite networks share just enough to capture attention, while the true sources of power remain hidden. When documents are released, they are carefully selected and reviewed. When “revolts” happen, they are carefully planned. When new tools are introduced, they are often presented as a symbol of patriotic progress. The citizen is asked to watch, feel, and obey—but never to act.
Musk Named in Epstein Files
Epstein documents released name Elon Musk, Steve Bannon, Peter Thiel - Fox News
Epstein files include Elon Musk – Independent
Democrats release Epstein documents - The Guardian
Trump orders release of Amelia Earhart records – The Hill
Trump orders release of records related to Amelia Earhart – Reuters
The release of new Epstein documents was presented as a win for transparency. However, transparency in this system often only scratches the surface. The names revealed—Musk, Bannon, Thiel—are a mix of cultural lightning rods and strategic power players. However, what truly matters isn't their individual reputations, but how the documents are portrayed, much like narratives that require adjustment. Musk’s name came to light after he publicly suggested that Trump’s was in the files. Now, the focus shifts, and the story centers on Musk rather than Trump’s involvement.
This recalls a pattern Journalistic Revolution pointed out as far back as 2016: Trump never discusses his ties to Epstein or Clinton. Silence itself is a strategy. In 2019, when Epstein died under suspicious “suicide” circumstances, Trump brushed it off as Democrat trickery. Now, even as new evidence emerges, he dismisses it as another hoax. The goal is not to deny facts but to frame them as partisan warfare, thereby protecting the deeper bipartisan network from exposure.
Trump’s abrupt choice to release Amelia Earhart records reveals a sleight of hand. A 90-year-old aviation mystery provides a harmless distraction—a symbolic act of disclosure that poses no risk for current elites. The media dutifully covered the Earhart story, reducing focus on the ongoing scrutiny of Epstein’s elite connections. The message is clear: when uncomfortable truths threaten to expose those in power, history is used as a distraction.
The COVID19 - SHORT PATH TO 'YOU'LL OWN NOTHING. AND YOU'LL BE HAPPY.' book suggested that Epstein’s “suicide” might have been timed to conceal his connections to Bill Gates just as pandemic narratives were about to be introduced. The idea was straightforward: eliminate the intermediary before the crisis reveals the financiers. The same concept seems to be in action now. Musk’s name is mentioned, but the system quickly shifts attention. By staging spectacles—such as Earhart files, hoax rhetoric, and controlled disclosures—the mechanism ensures that the real structure of compromise stays hidden.
Epstein was never just about one man’s crimes. He was an asset—a tool for leverage. Whether connected to Mossad, the CIA, or some hybrid entity, his role was to trap and manipulate. That’s why the revelations seem like theater: because the actors remain on stage while the script conceals the directors. Readers must ask: how many cycles of “new files” will pass before it becomes clear that disclosure is not meant to free but to distract?
January 6 “Insurrection”
Investigation of January 6 Attack - American Oversight
New disclosures about January 6 - BBC
FBI agents on January 6 - JFeed
FBI had 275 plainclothes agents embedded - The Blaze
The idea that January 6 was a spontaneous insurrection has always been questionable. Leaked footage showed doors opening, police stepping aside, and crowds being guided into well-choreographed areas. This week, the revelation that 275 FBI agents were embedded in the crowd confirms what many have already suspected: the event was not just infiltrated, but heavily influenced by federal presence. Such a number shifts the story from “rogue actors” to “state-managed spectacle.”
For years, the FBI insisted there were no undercover agents in the crowd. That denial has now fallen apart. What does it imply when the very agency responsible for protecting the Capitol also helped populate the event? The concept of entrapment becomes inevitable. Militias that seemed to be “radicalized” are revealed to be organized around informants. Groups that appeared to be grassroots movements were, in reality, carefully planned.
The violence was minimal compared to genuine insurrections. The only fatal shooting involved Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed woman entering a secured hallway. In contrast, true revolutions are bloody, destructive, and aimed at seizing power. The French Revolution stormed the Bastille. The Russian Revolution toppled the Winter Palace. Throughout history, colonial uprisings have shown that tyranny does not surrender through selfies and livestreams. Compared to these, January 6 seems more like a staged performance than a real revolt.
This framing matters because of what it leads to later. The so-called insurrection justified big increases in domestic surveillance, stricter punishments for dissent, and branding populist opposition as a terrorist threat. In other words, the story of rebellion was used as a weapon to strengthen the state. The real coup was not against the government—it was by the government, against its own people’s ability to protest.
Readers must face a tough truth: power never gives up ground without force. Tyranny employs dirty tactics. It infiltrates, provokes, and controls appearances. Real revolutions won't be televised because the networks are part of the regime. January 6, on the other hand, was broadcast in high definition precisely because it was staged—because it was choreographed. And by buying into that show, the public accepts shackles as a form of security.
Trump, Musk & the AI State
Trump admin reunites with Elon Musk in pursuit of AI dominance - Fox News
OpenAI’s big week in AI arms race - CNBC
Elon Musk sold Grok to Trump for 42 cents - Fortune
Meta’s AI system LLaMA approved for US government use - Reuters
Sam Altman on superintelligence - Fortune
Peter Thiel Antichrist tech regulation - The Verge
While Epstein files and January 6 keep audiences locked in cycles of outrage, the actual infrastructure of the future continues to be solidified. This week, the Trump administration formalized partnerships with Musk in pursuit of “AI dominance.” The symbolism is clear: the populist president and the visionary billionaire joining forces “for the country.” Yet beneath the patriotic exterior lies an unprecedented merger of private and state power.
Musk’s sale of Grok to the Trump administration for 42 cents isn’t a business deal—it’s a handover. The AI is now effectively state property, yet its roots remain in private development. Meta’s LLaMA received government approval, creating a stable of interoperable AI tools under federal direction. Altman, meanwhile, promotes “superintelligence” as inevitable, positioning OpenAI as both prophet and priest of the new machine order.
The continuity here is strong. Crisis after crisis pushes citizens into new forms of control. COVID19 justified medical surveillance. January 6 justified political surveillance. Now, AI is framed as a matter of national defense—an arms race where refusing to adopt it means surrender. The narrative is a weaponized sense of inevitability: we must do this, or China or Russia will take over. However, it is not the citizen who actually benefits, but rather the corporate-state alliance.
Peter Thiel exemplifies this dynamic. Once seen as a libertarian contrarian, he is now viewed as the dark genius behind tech regulation. Thiel warns that the Antichrist could come through government control of AI, technology, and science. The Antichrist is not necessarily a single person but a system of counterfeit omniscience—an intelligence that imitates godlike power while enslaving. If such a role exists, it won’t be linked to regulating these industries, but the AI empire he funds and is building.
The convergence of Trump, Musk, Altman, and Thiel demonstrates what we call “technocratic convergence”: the final stage where surveillance, finance, and the military combine into a single system. Citizens are told this is progress. In reality, it’s digital feudalism—predictive, punitive, and unaccountable. The real question for readers isn’t whether AI will take over but whether we will recognize it as the true seat of power before it’s too late.
The Same Playbook, New Interface
This week shows how the script repeats itself. Epstein files reappear, not to dismantle power but to redirect suspicion. January 6’s infiltration becomes reality, confirming that the rebellion was planned. AI aligns with the same group of people who were once sold as rebels. Each story claims to bring justice or innovation, but each one tightens the grip.
The pattern is clear now: distraction, infiltration, and integration. Distraction occurs through controlled disclosures, infiltration through managed uprisings, and integration via digital systems of control. Unless the public moves beyond merely watching the spectacle and starts to question the stage itself, the cycle will persist. And next time, it won’t be a rehearsal.
Listen to this week's news in verse for a quick recap!
