Can JLB Debunk 'Concurrent Programming'?

Jul 19, 2026

I listened to JLB’s video “Messi / Yamal Coincidence 'Goes Viral' (but why?).”

His take on the Messi/ Yamal coincidences is that there aren’t really logical explanations for what he calls outrageous coincidences. Moreover, he makes a point of emphasizing that those of us who think there is a coordination between mainstream entertainment and fake events are crazy:

“…from what I can gather the people who spend a lot of time focused on this stuff a lot of them do seem to end up completely losing their freaking minds and going way off into La La Land and then they start to believe that if they study Netflix and the movies at the cinemas that they can somehow predict future events on the television…”
“…they end up with completely cuckoo answers and basically losing their minds i wonder if there is someone or something that stands to benefit from the algorithms pushing this stuff but anyway I do want your comments leave your comments in the comment section below i'm very open-minded….” -JLB

(He even added a nice little cuckoo bird sound, but he implied he was talking about penguins.)

Since when is calling out the entertainment and psyop relationship grounds to be called crazy by somebody who claims to be open-minded for entertaining simulation theory as an explanation for predictive programming?

I feel like some people are just caught in a time loop. Ignoring concurrent programming and calling the noticers “crazy” is only going to build a consensus that one is gatekeeping and not directly confronting the claims.

Reducing it to a straw man of claiming that we advocate “predicting the news” based on Netflix is an oversimplification. I can point to the Charlie Kirk is Not Dead course for evidence of strong correspondences between streaming entertainment and fake events.

Charlie Kirk is Alive

He speaks as though predictive and concurrent programming aren’t already recognized as persistent phenomena. By claiming that it’s a mystery and that it’s unexplained, that there are no logical explanations, he leaves the door open to all kinds of wild speculation.

However, he does so without even acknowledging The Metascript and its systemic implementation. The fake news has been bending history for a long time. The sequence of fake events occurs on a timeline of future events that are presented in the news as authentic.

The entertainment and the news media work in tandem to perform the Bread and Circus acts at the behest of the global government. I am not crazy for noticing this. You’d have to be crazy not to.

Labeling those of us who are noticing the consistent relationship between drills and fake events and entertainment “crazy” is not the same thing as debunking our claims from a skeptical perspective.

Skepticism rises above ad hominem.

The facts are on our side. These can only be conveniently ignored as long as Realville remains small. We are not confused, nor are we at a loss for a logical explanation.

I think it would be interesting if a number of you were to ask him how he explains the real-time concurrent programming connecting the HBO series The Boys with events surrounding Donald Trump, and the Tempest and its connection to Charlie and Erika Kirk, specifically with the down-to-the-day timing.

He claims there is no explanation, but he entertains simulation. We are suggesting that the repeated examples over a long span of time display something systemic, something built into the structure of media itself.

The IPS claims that entertainment is coordinated with psychological operations; JLB makes cuckoo-bird noises and says we lost our minds.

I would be curious to know how he explains these things away, or is he satisfied with the appearance of a mystery? Because when something is understood, and someone calls it a mystery, they are technically engaging in what is called an appeal from ignorance fallacy. I want to know if he’s debunked the concept or if he’s dodging it altogether.

If he has an excellent debunk to repeated and predictable instances of concurrent programming, then I would like to hear it.

My question:

Is JLB dodging the implications of Concurrent Programming by falsely asserting there’s no logical explanation?

Also, let’s not forget that there’s no logical basis for being “open-minded” enough to entertain the “simulation” hypothesis for fake news events. This is technically a Divine Fallacy, appealing to a higher power to cover over gaps in one’s existing explanations for a given phenomenon.

In this instance, rather than considering that the creators of propaganda have hijacked mainstream entertainment for psyop-reinforcement purposes, they assert that God or an equivalent entity was responsible. We can prove that man creates propaganda and that man exists; to assert that “the simulation” was involved, you must first prove that “the simulation” exists.

Let me hear your thoughts. I will read them live:

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?