“The More Things Change?: Political Transitions, ARPA-H, and Fragmented Information Landscapes”
The honeymoon is already ending. Trump’s appointment of Dr. Susan Monarez as CDC Director serves as a stark reminder that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Monarez, with her background at ARPA-H – an organization deeply involved in AI surveillance systems and biodigital convergence- represents precisely the forces many believed they were voting against. As Toby Rogers, whose perspective I deeply respect, has pointed out in a tweet after the announcement, the connections between CIA operatives, RFK Jr.’s campaign, and Monarez’s nomination suggest the deep state could remain firmly in control.
In another tweet, Rogers sharpened his critique:
He also connected Monarez to the Stargate Project – a recently announced $500 billion initiative to build massive AI data centers, ostensibly for developing artificial intelligence but with concerning implications for surveillance and control of public health data. Rogers suggests this infrastructure represents the actual agenda while MAHA serves as a decoy.
The truth about Monarez may be hiding in plain sight. She was previously deputy director of ARPA-H, an agency within HHS created by the Biden administration to accelerate “high-risk, high reward” biomedical research. Modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), ARPA-H represents the continued fusion of military research methodology with public health. As a Science and Technology Policy Fellow, Monarez held roles in the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Security Council, working on initiatives from antimicrobial resistance to expanding wearable technology for health monitoring.
Look at ARPA-H in their own words. Their PRECISE-AI program aims to develop “capabilities that can automatically detect and mitigate AI model degradation” and “correct for performance degradations without the need for human oversight.” Their website also proudly proclaims their ambition for “a world where one vaccine could protect us from multiple viruses” through their APECX program.
In a video for DARPA TV shared by Josh Walkos, Monarez herself explains: “We think about AI from the defensive side… we’re using that same AI technology to help defend against those vulnerabilities, to anticipate the negative implications that are happening within the health system, and to try to stay ahead of it.”
RFK Jr. himself has defended her in a surprising twist, claiming he ‘handpicked Susan’ himself:
Meanwhile, voices that were skeptical of institutional capture – including friends of mine, some of them insiders – are suggesting that having Monarez within the system could actually benefit RFK Jr.’s agenda. Perhaps RFK and Trump and their team are playing 3D chess? Maybe she’s a white-hat who knows where the bodies are buried and can accelerate a plan? I wish this stuff didn’t happen in such cloaked fashion though.
RFK Jr. himself has pivoted to discussing the ‘health risks’ of antisemitism in multiple recent tweets, while the vaccine issues that defined his advocacy have faded from his public messaging. Of course antisemitism is deplorable and should be condemned – but the stark pivot away from vaccine safety is noteworthy. I understood his silence on vaccines during the confirmation process – that’s pragmatic politics – but since his confirmation, the continued absence of vaccine advocacy is striking. Not a single tweet about vaccines since his confirmation, despite this being the cornerstone of his decades-long advocacy – especially considering he is now head of health for the United States.
RFK’s apparent shift from vaccine crusader to mainstream political figure might illustrate a common pattern in our information landscape. While I want to give him more runway and remain hopeful about his true intentions, this potential redirection deserves attention. It’s particularly striking given that RFK himself meticulously documented in “The Real Anthony Fauci” how DARPA oversaw the pandemic response, findings later reinforced by researchers like Debbie Lerman and Sasha Latypova. Yet he’s now defending Monarez, who comes directly from ARPA-H, a sister organization explicitly modeled after DARPA and representing the direct militarization of health research. These researchers have documented how the HHS response to COVID was, in fact, orchestrated by the Pentagon – not public health agencies – casting doubt on the independence of civilian oversight. The irony of RFK, armed with this knowledge that he himself helped expose, handpicking someone from the very military-health system he once criticized is interesting.
If this shift is indeed happening (though I remain unsure), it would fit the pattern I’ve written about before: Nixon, the anti-communist, opened relations with China; Clinton, the champion of workers, brought us NAFTA; Trump, the populist outsider, gave us Operation Warp Speed. The most transformative policies often come from the least expected sources.
But beyond individual political figures, we’re witnessing a systemic fracturing of shared reality itself – one powered by sophisticated technological mechanisms.
The Algorithmic Reinforcement Machine
We now outsource our reality formation to algorithms designed not for truth but for engagement. These systems don’t just reflect our biases – they amplify them, distill them, and feed them back to us in increasingly concentrated forms. The social media feeds of politically opposed individuals have become so divergent that they might as well be reports from different planets.
As I wrote in ‘Divided We Fall,’ I believe this fragmentation is a feature, not a bug. The splintering of our collective reality serves those who would rather we fight amongst ourselves than notice who’s really pulling the strings.
The Tesla owner who now contemplates junking his vehicle over Elon Musk’s political positions represents something deeper than brand loyalty or betrayal. It symbolizes how completely our consumption choices have merged with our identity politics. We no longer simply purchase products; we enter into moral contracts with brands. When those brands “betray” our political tribe, we experience it as personal treachery.
As Naomi Wolf observed, formerly diverse individuals now parrot identical talking points with the same facial expressions, as if possessed by a collective script. The algorithmic sorting of humanity has created a world where formerly unique people transform into predictable NPCs once they’re triggered by certain topics.
This phenomenon parallels the ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ that emerged years ago – an emotional response so visceral that it transcends rational evaluation. The pattern repeats because the system requires these emotional lightning rods. A population focused on personalities has less bandwidth for noticing structural patterns.
While we debate which billionaire is most virtuous or which political figure deserves our undying loyalty, the underlying systems that shape our collective destiny advance undisturbed. This isn’t coincidence – it’s design.
As Bill Hicks, my favorite 20th-century comedian/philosopher gone too soon, illustrated so brilliantly in his famous routine about politics: One puppet seems to share our beliefs, another puppet appears more to our liking, but there’s just one person holding up both puppets.
As I explored in ‘The Second Matrix,’ this pattern of redirecting legitimate concerns into controlled channels is consistent across generations. The incremental approach to societal transformation has deep intellectual roots. The Fabian Society, named after the Roman general Fabius Maximus who defeated Hannibal through strategic patience rather than direct confrontation, advocated gradual institutional change over revolutionary upheaval. Their window for change wasn’t years but generations.
Similar methodologies have been articulated by various influential figures throughout history. As Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School stated: “The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.”
The World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab has spoken openly about “penetrating the cabinets” of governments with WEF-affiliated individuals – a statement that sounds conspiratorial but was delivered as a proud achievement.
The brilliance of this approach is its plausible deniability. Each individual change appears reasonable in isolation. Only when viewed holistically does the pattern emerge – but who has the perspective to see it all? Our attention is deliberately fragmented, our anger carefully channeled toward approved targets.
The Hope Cycle
Political hope follows a predictable pattern. Disillusionment with the status quo leads to investment in a savior figure. The figure’s flaws are minimized; their potential is exaggerated. Inevitably, reality intrudes. The honeymoon ends.
We witnessed this with Trump’s first term. For many Americans who felt abandoned by both establishment parties, he represented disruption of a corrupt system. Whether his presidency truly challenged entrenched power structures remains debatable, but the narrative of rebellion resonated powerfully.
Now in his second term, the pattern is repeating with alarming speed. The appointment of Dr. Susan Monarez – a figure deeply embedded in the very health establishment that many Trump supporters opposed – suggests that certain institutional agendas transcend partisan politics. The rationalization machine has already sprung into action, with some suggesting that having an “insider” like Monarez could actually help implement reforms. This is the language of compromise after promises of revolution.
Similarly, RFK Jr., once the champion of vaccine safety, at least temporarily seems to have shifted his messaging toward safer political territory. I’m a failed pessimist, but I truly don’t know if this hope is justified or another performance in the same theatrical production. His recent focus on antisemitism rather than vaccines reflects precisely the pattern I described earlier from ‘The Second Matrix’ – how genuine resistance movements are captured through sophisticated channels of inauthentic opposition. As I wrote there:
“The pattern becomes clear when we examine how systemic criticism is managed: Those who expose corruption are permitted to speak, but only within careful boundaries… like any sophisticated confidence game, it works in stages: first gain trust through real revelations, then build dependency through exclusive ‘insider’ knowledge, finally redirect that trust toward constrained outcomes.”
The nomination of Monarez, with her deep ties to ARPA-H, embodies the troubling convergence of surveillance, bioweapons research, and pharmaceutical interests I’ve written about extensively. ARPA-H’s own website states their PRECISE-AI program aims to develop “capabilities that can automatically detect and mitigate AI model degradation” and “correct for performance degradations without the need for human oversight.” This is precisely the biodigital convergence I warned about – the fusion of technological control with biological surveillance.
The risk of being duped is not just theoretical – it’s playing out in real time, suggesting that regardless of who sits in positions of nominal power, other forces remain in control of the fundamental agenda.
The hope cycle keeps us invested in the theatrical aspects of politics while the fundamental directions remain largely unchanged. Administrations change; military budgets grow. Parties switch; surveillance expands. Personalities rotate; wealth concentration accelerates.
Manufactured Enemies, Artificial Allies
Our information ecosystems don’t just reinforce our beliefs – they manufacture our enemies. If you’re pro-Israel, you’re fed the most extreme anti-Israel voices. If you’re Palestinian-sympathetic, you’re shown the most callous pro-Israel perspectives. The algorithm ensures you’re perpetually outraged by the opposition’s worst representatives.
For example, my heart and sincerest love genuinely goes out to anyone born with gender dysphoria and feels trapped in the wrong body. Somehow, that compassionate view has evolved into ‘men should be able to play in women’s sports’ – a cartoon version of empathy completely misaligned with reality. This specific controversy about transgender athletes in women’s sports wasn’t even part of mainstream discussion a few years ago, yet somehow we’re supposed to rearrange society to accommodate this absurdly extreme position.
On social media, the same divisive pattern plays out daily. Browse the same news event from different accounts, and you’ll see entirely different realities – conservatives shown the most extreme progressive voices, progressives fed the most inflammatory conservative reactions. During the 2020 election, these divergent feeds created such separate information worlds that Americans couldn’t even agree on basic facts about what happened.
Similarly, those who have lost their minds about Elon Musk or Donald Trump may very well be right in the end, though I doubt it’ll be for the reasons they think. Their concern should be about technocracy, not about cutting government waste or whatever they’re actually freaking out about. Look at how mainstream media manufactured the “Nazi salute” controversy around Elon Musk, or the relentless lawfare against Trump – further evidence of reality engineering designed to provoke emotional responses rather than thoughtful analysis. People aren’t even discussing whether we should have a technocracy – it’s barely in the public consciousness, let alone the conversation. Instead, they’re merely debating whether they prefer their technocracy with left-wing or right-wing flavor.
The most extreme voices get amplified because they generate engagement. Reasonable positions get buried beneath algorithmic priorities that reward conflict over consensus.
We then mistake these algorithmically curated extremes for representative samples. We come to believe that “the other side” consists entirely of its most unreasonable voices. The possibility of common ground vanishes when we’re convinced our opponents are uniformly malevolent or delusional.
Transcending the Manipulation
How do we escape this manufactured division? Begin by recognizing that contempt is the currency of control. When we feel contempt for our fellow citizens, we’re participating in our own disempowerment.
The most revolutionary act may be refusing to see our neighbors as enemies, even when powerful forces profit from our mutual antagonism. This doesn’t mean abandoning principles or pretending disagreements don’t exist. It means recognizing that the exaggeration of these disagreements serves interests that neither side of the political spectrum would willingly support. Reasonable people should be able to have civil conversations to discuss the means and methods to improve the world we will hand over to our children and grandchildren.
The system fears solidarity across traditional dividing lines. It fears conversations that identify shared concerns despite different frameworks. It fears citizens who can disagree on policy while recognizing each other’s humanity.
Our social technologies are engineered to prevent exactly these connections. They fragment discussions, reward outrage, and ensure we never see the full context. They keep us reactive rather than reflective.
Building Reality Resilience
The path forward isn’t ignoring differences or pretending falsehoods are equally valid. It’s developing reality resilience – the capacity to evaluate information beyond its tribal signaling value.
When encountering new information, ask: Does this claim primarily serve to reinforce my existing beliefs? Does it make me feel morally superior to an outgroup? Does it simplify complex phenomena into heroes and villains? These are warning signs of informational manipulation, regardless of political alignment.
Seek information sources that occasionally challenge your assumptions. Not those that simply outrage you, but those that make you think. The distinction is crucial. Outrage reinforces existing neural pathways; genuine challenge creates new ones.
I can only say with humility that I have no idea who’s truly in control, but I do know this: every day that passes where we’re not talking about the harm from Big Pharma and Big Food, more children are being hurt. Those of us who don’t get caught up in political tribalism often think both sides sound a little crazy. The hero worship is ridiculous, as is the villainizing. We should be wondering who has the real power and control grip because it seems quite obvious that it’s never been the politicians – they appear to be middle management at best.
The same applies to RFK Jr. I’ve been a huge fan of his for many years. We were told he would have the opportunity to go wild within the system, and he’s uniquely suited to do so. But why is the head of health in the United States talking about antisemitism rather than the pharmacological grip these companies have on society?
Most importantly, maintain direct connections with individuals across political divides. The algorithmic reality machines lose power when confronted with human complexity. It’s harder to demonize a political philosophy when its adherents include people you respect and care about.
The Undivided Mind
The ultimate goal isn’t political uniformity but mental integration – the ability to hold complexity without retreating into simplistic narratives. The fractured information landscape has created fractured minds, with compartmentalized thinking preventing us from seeing contradictions in our own worldviews.
The forces profiting from our division are counting on our tendency to persist in established thought patterns. The most dangerous individuals to this system are those who can’t be easily categorized – who question their own assumptions with the same vigor they question authority, refusing the comfort of tribal certainty in favor of perpetual inquiry.
In a world of manufactured division, the most revolutionary act is integration – of information, of thought, and ultimately, of humanity.
When contempt for those across the divide next rises within you, consider: Who profits from your anger? What power maintains its grip while we fight each other? As Monarez and her ilk glide between administrations, our task isn’t just seeing the puppet show – it’s forging connections that transcend it. That’s what they fear most.
Originally posted here: https://stylman.substack.com/p/the-more-things-change?
One of our country’s most important freedoms is that of free speech.
Agree with this essay? Disagree? Join the debate by writing to DailyClout HERE.