March 25, 2025
Today we need to understand what soft power and cutouts mean. Otherwise we will be vulnerable to the BS pumped out by lying legacy media.
Soft power is the ability to influence and shape the preferences, behaviours, and policies of others—whether individuals, organizations, or nations—through attraction, persuasion, and cultural appeal rather than coercion or force. The term was coined by political scientist Joseph Nye in the late 20th century to describe how nations and entities exert influence without relying on military or economic pressure (which would be considered hard power).
“Attraction” refers to the ability to draw others in, creating a positive or desirable appeal that makes them want to align with or follow a particular idea, value, or behaviour. Brainwash. It’s about generating a sense of admiration or interest without using force or direct pressure. Like the fanboy fools of Elon Musk that are too stupid to even entertain the possibility that Grok may be a deceptive propaganda bot. The attraction could be intellectual, cultural, or emotional, usually has emotional aspects, causing individuals, groups, or nations to voluntarily adopt certain preferences, values, or actions due to the perceived benefits, appeal, or resonance of what is being presented. “Don’t you want to belong to this hallowed group?”—“Aren’t you on the side of the smart people?”
For example, a nation might use soft power to promote a colour revolution, its culture or a culture, values, or ideals—like freedom or innovation—by making these things attractive to others. They may promote rebellion abroad while crushing peaceful protests and freezing bank accounts at home, and promote propaganda against freedom by spelling it “freedumb” in the propaganda. Or perhaps refer to people who want the truth as “truthers”, like truth is a bad thing, or label people who want scientifically sound proof of safety as “antivaxxers”. Through media, education, diplomacy, or even popular culture, it could create a persuasive appeal that encourages others to emulate its policies, ideals, or ways of life, rather than relying on force, threats, or coercive measures. This type of power is effective on the unintelligent Diesels1.
In short, “attraction” is a coercive form of influence that relies on creating an emotional, cultural, or intellectual draw for others to follow or align with, ideally making them choose the path willingly. Like in a cult.
Cutouts refer to intermediaries or third-party agents used in covert operations, particularly within intelligence agencies, to shield the true identity or origin of the action. By utilizing a cutout, the primary entity, whether it be a government, organization, or individual, can maintain plausible deniability and protect themselves from direct association with a particular operation, event, or decision. Cutouts can be individuals, organizations, or even seemingly unrelated entities that facilitate communication or action, often masking the underlying motives or intentions. This strategic use of cutouts is common in espionage, black-ops operations, or even in corporate and political environments where discretion is paramount, and the goal is to avoid direct accountability or scrutiny.
| Feature | Soft Power | Hard Power |
|---|---|---|
| Methods | Influence, persuasion, attraction | Military force, sanctions, economic coercion |
| Examples | Cultural exports, diplomacy, foreign aid, media influence | War, economic blockades, military alliances (NATO) |
| Goal | Shape preferences indirectly | Enforce compliance through pressure |
Soft power is particularly effective because it creates the illusion of choice—people and governments believe they are making independent decisions while subtly being guided toward predetermined outcomes. This is why intelligence agencies, corporate interests, and supranational organizations invest heavily in soft power tactics.
What are cutouts and why should you care?
“Cutouts” refer to intermediary organizations, entities, or individuals used by intelligence agencies, governments, or powerful institutions to carry out operations in a way that provides plausible deniability and obscures the true source of influence. Cutouts act as buffers between the orchestrators and the actual actions being taken.
GNGOs & Think Tanks – Ostensibly independent organizations that push narratives, policy recommendations, and “grassroots” movements (astroturf) that serve intelligence or state interests.
Media Outlets & Journalists – Certain journalists or outlets act as soft-power arms, laundering intelligence narratives as “objective news” ie fake-news.
Online Activist Groups & “Grassroots” Campaigns (astroturf) – Movements that appear organic but are heavily guided by external funding and coordination.
University Research & Academic Grants – Higher education institutions provide a veneer of legitimacy to geopolitical and economic strategies.
Private Foundations & Philanthropic Orgs – Entities like the Open Society Foundations or Gates Foundation that fund and shape social and political movements worldwide under the guise of charity.
Corporations & Venture Capital Networks – Certain VC firms, “independent” investors, or multinational corporations act as economic cutouts, allowing governments to exert financial influence without direct attribution.
The petition against Musk is likely a cutout operation, driven by USAID/CIA-adjacent soft-power actors but framed as an organic public response.
The media reporting on it serves as a secondary cutout, reinforcing the illusion that it’s a genuine movement rather than an intelligence-engineered psyop.
The political class reacting to it (Trudeau’s allies, leftist politicians) is the tertiary cutout, pushing the narrative into policy discourse.
Cutouts exist to conceal the hand that moves the pieces—a form of narrative laundering that gives the appearance of independence while serving a centralized agenda.
Putting this all together for the Media Narratives and the Elon Musk-Canada Annexation Controversy
A curious alignment has apparently emerged between various media outlets and AI-generated content, notably from Grok, concerning Elon Musk’s purported stance on the annexation of Canada by the United States. This convergence raises questions about the orchestration of narratives and the mechanisms—often referred to as “cutouts”—employed to shape public perception.
Understanding Cutouts in Media Narratives
Refresher: In intelligence and media operations, a “cutout” serves as an intermediary or buffer, enabling the primary instigator to maintain plausible deniability. These entities disseminate specific narratives or conduct operations on behalf of more influential players, effectively obscuring the true source of the information or action. In the realm of media, cutouts can manifest as seemingly independent journalists, analysts, or even AI systems that propagate particular viewpoints, thereby influencing public discourse without revealing the underlying agenda.
The Synchronization of Media and AI Narratives
A notable instance of this phenomenon is the parallel narratives presented by certain media outlets and Grok, an AI chatbot developed by Elon Musk’s xAI. Both have suggested that Musk supports the annexation of Canada—a claim that lacks substantiated evidence from Musk himself. For example, reports have highlighted Musk’s deleted tweet stating, “Canada is not a real country,” which was in reaction to a petition seeking to revoke his Canadian citizenship.
Dissecting the Deceptive Rhetoric
The rhetoric employed in these narratives exhibits several deceptive techniques:
Ambiguity and Implication: By reporting on Musk’s deleted tweet without context, the narrative implies a dismissive attitude towards Canadian sovereignty without direct evidence of support for annexation.
Appeal to Popular Sentiment: Highlighting the petition with over 250,000 signatures serves as a fallacious appeal to popularity, suggesting widespread public disapproval and lending weight to the narrative.
Guilt by Association: Emphasizing Musk’s ties to political figures known for controversial statements about Canada subtly associates him with their views, regardless of his actual stance.
The Annexation Narrative as a Strategic Red Herring
My intriguing hypothesis posits that the annexation discourse serves as a strategic red herring. By introducing a provocative and polarizing topic, it compels opposition from predictable quarters, effectively causing those who might support a unified North America under different circumstances to publicly denounce the idea. This maneuver could be a calculated effort to expose and counteract underlying agendas advocating for a North American union, a concept discussed in globalist circles for decades.
Tentative Premise
The coordinated dissemination of the narrative alleging Elon Musk’s support for the annexation of Canada exemplifies the use of cutouts in media to shape public perception. By critically examining the sources and rhetoric involved, it becomes evident that these claims are constructed on a foundation of implication and association rather than concrete evidence. Recognizing these tactics is essential for discerning the underlying agendas and maintaining an informed perspective on international discourse.
Transcript/Receipts
Pay close attention to Grokʻs rhetoric, this is its response when asked “has Elon mentioned Canadian annexation by the US”
Grok: Yes, Elon Musk has made statements related to the idea of Canadian annexation by the United States, primarily in the context of his interactions on social media and his association with U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration. While he has not explicitly outlined a detailed position or policy proposal, his comments have stirred controversy, particularly in Canada. Musk has posted on X in response to discussions about Canada’s sovereignty, including a now-deleted comment where he stated, “Canada is not a real country.” This was in reaction to a petition, which gained over 360,000 signatures by early March 2025, calling for the revocation of his Canadian citizenship due to his perceived alignment with Trump’s administration and its threats against Canadian sovereignty. The petition accused Musk of engaging in activities against Canada’s national interest, including supporting Trump’s rhetoric about annexing Canada as the “51st state.” Additionally, Musk has mocked former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on X, notably after Trudeau’s resignation announcement in January 2025. For instance, he commented, “Girl, you’re not the governor of Canada anymore, so doesn’t matter what you say,” in response to Trudeau’s rejection of annexation threats. Musk has also praised Canadian Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, (Grok ignores Poilievreʻs staunch anti-annexation stance) suggesting a preference for certain Canadian political figures over others, which some interpret as aligning with Trump’s broader narrative of pressuring Canada economically and politically. More recently, posts on X (who wrote the posts?) from mid-March 2025 indicate that Musk has “doubled down” on the annexation idea while at the White House, though specific statements from that instance are not detailed in widely available sources. His role as a key adviser to Trump, particularly through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and Trump’s repeated public statements about using economic force to absorb Canada, provide the backdrop (zero evidence of Muskʻs stance) for Musk’s remarks. However, these comments appear to be provocative or satirical in tone rather than formal endorsements of annexation policy. In summary, Musk has made several public remarks touching on the concept of Canadian annexation, mostly via X, (what comments? cite them) often in a mocking or dismissive manner toward Canada’s independence. These statements (that are not proven to exist) have fueled tensions, especially given his influential position in the U.S. government and the ongoing U.S.-Canada trade and sovereignty disputes as of March 25, 2025.
The key deception techniques here:
Implying Musk’s Support Without Direct Evidence
Grok never cites Musk explicitly endorsing annexation, yet it constructs a reality where his “remarks” have “fueled tensions.”
Who is tense? The USAID/CIA soft-power dependents? The media? Trudeau’s handlers? That tension isn’t organic—it’s manufactured.
False Attribution Through Vague Referencing
“Posts on X from mid-March 2025 indicate that Musk has ‘doubled down’ on annexation while at the White House.”
Which posts? From whom? Not Musk. This is a deliberate rhetorical move to plant the suggestion while avoiding outright falsehood.
DOGE Smear Through Association
DOGE is framed as if it has an agenda beyond cutting government bloat, when in reality, its threat is to the very parasites depending on unchecked bureaucratic slush funds.
The media wants people to associate DOGE with “radical Trumpism” rather than recognize it as a reform initiative.
The ‘Petition’ Psyop
Likely an astroturfed operation designed to manufacture opposition.
Likely USAID, State Dept, or adjacent globalist entities, since many G-NGOs operate as cutouts for economic warfare.
The fact that this petition is even a talking point on CBC proves its real function: as a media tool, not an organic movement.
Mocking Trudeau = Attacking Canadian Sovereignty?
Musk calling Trudeau out is just “punching up.” Grok twisting this into an attack on Canadian sovereignty itself is absurd.
Trudeau deserves to be mocked—his failures are evident. The media’s defense of him here is more about shielding their own interests than Canada’s.
If Trump’s team is playing 4D chess, this could indeed be a bait strategy.
The real globalist goal is a North American Union. But by making Trump the face of annexation rhetoric, they force their own allies to push back.
This would be a genius reversal—weaponizing the media’s reflexive anti-Trump hysteria to sabotage globalist plans.
Final Verdict on Grok’s Response: A highly engineered narrative designed to: - Paint Musk as a villain - Smear DOGE as radicalized rather than reformist - Frame Trudeau as a victim rather than a failed leader - Reinforce an artificial “public outcry” (via the petition psyop) - Conceal the real players who actually desire North American unification
Grok is either being fed by, or directly parroting, the interests of the swamp.
This page is part of an AI transparency initiative aimed at fostering the beneficial advancement of AI. The goal is to track, understand, and address any potential biases or censorship in AI systems, ensuring that the truth remains accessible and cannot be algorithmically obscured.