"...can anyone educated in history really think that the intelligence agencies and corporate-banking complex haven't studied methods of controlling their opposition for decades or centuries? Do we even know how far back Western [quasi]-control over China began?"
These are the questions 'up' now, and we need them. We are playing catch up.
“People are constantly looking for their "own tribe", and when they hear the right words, eloquently spoken, they assume sincerity. “
Yep. It’s the dynamic behind “Who do you want for president”. Mouthing the “right” platitudes with a barely-plausible simulacrum of sincerity will get you far, irrespective of your capacity to actually deliver. That reality is plainly evidenced in DC.
The coarse but sincere truth-speaker, who might actually be able to achieve what he promises, is kicked to the curb.
It’s style over substance, and I think it’s more-or-less related to the phenomenon of people drawing moral or practical lessons from movies: the drama, style and color of presentation bear far more weight than the actual intellectual content, which, in most cases, is lightweight at best.
LOL. Yeah maybe I should have put a warning label on it. Dave died a few years ago. But his daughter has kept his web site alive. There a lot of other interesting stuff on there. I’ve read the entire thing 5 times. Once I step back and look at the bigger picture, a lot of puzzle pieces fall into place.
Dave McGowan was such a genius. If he hadn’t been a smoker I would be 100% sure his lung cancer was a murder. As it is I would put the odds at 75%. His reveal of the Boston bombing was absolutely elegant and required reading for everyone interested in how false flags are managed.
Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon will simultaneously amaze and depress as you realise the soundtrack to your life was you being duped into a contrived psyop.
I have gotten to Part XVI. I can’t put this article down! Egads is this eye-opening. Thanks for the link. Moral: The mediums change but the influence pedaling stays the same.
You are welcome. Thank you. As I wrote earlier, I’ve read it like 5 times. Definitely shattered a few illusions regarding the music I grew up listening to (I’m 68).
Dave wrote some incredible stuff. He is definitely missed. His daughter deserves serious kudos for keeping his stuff alive. It needs a wider audience but she does it on a shoestring with donations and her own money.
Dave died from lung cancer. Allegedly. He was a smoker, but he wasn’t old. His writings exposed a lot of stuff. His piece on the Boston Marathon bombing is exquisite.
Ah. Right smack dab in the middle. Too young to get all the bennies (pensions, healthcare, retirement perks) and too old to learn they wouldn’t be there in time so as to be able to plan for that. As my dad always said, life is all about where you stand in line. We were in the correct line, just not in the right order.
But, as kids we had way more fun than kids today. The music was way better. And college, without cellphones, computers, Social Media etc was an absolute blast. No ripoff govt loan needed. $40 per credit hour and a PT job in the dorm cafeteria was all you needed. We’ve been married 45 years. Met in college and we still get all giggly and laughing at some of the crazy stuff we did back in the day. Wouldn’t trade it for the world.
The most important lesson for all of us. Human nature makes us too easily emotionally led. We must be skeptical of everything, especially that which fits neatly our belief systems, if we wish to find truth and retain our souls.
One of the reasons I like Corbett is because he fits in category of people who are happy to tell you not to follow them. But we enjoy his work because...he did the footwork, and we can and have checked him on it.
All his documentaries are excellent, I recently binge watched them. Plus he's clearly a major nerd, who usually grow up as somewhat outcasted and feel pretty comfortable there (or at least developed specific skills as a response to it). I saw you mentioned that you felt on the outs growing up too. I felt a bit of that myself. I wonder if that's what creates independent thinkers, maybe even dependent on the exact level of outside-the-herd feelings you felt in your formative years. And dictates how much you can/should trust what you hear, or what you see on the surface. Like an animal only has to get snapped at by an alligator once from under the calm surface of the water before it remembers to be careful next time.
So generally the charmers are the ones to watch out for. But the charmers have realized this and started acting nerdy. So you need to be able to differentiate between fake nerd (SBF) and real nerd (Corbett). A tip would be if they're famous or have much attention they're probably not a nerd. Anyway I'm rambling >_<
Extremely well stated. I don’t know how many times I’ve asked people to consider, “Not everyone thinks like we do.” It garners little to no impact. When it comes to being influenced everyone agrees it happens…to other people, not them. My mom was born in 1920. She experienced the transition from radio to television. Radio was a powerful enough influencer. Recall, Orson Wells, War of the Worlds? But when TV came along my mom said, people changed. Became more withdrawn. She hated television. Yet, again, a dismal few admit it influences them. As long as people think they’re too smart to be outsmarted by the opposition the Kunlangeta will always have the upper hand.
The entire world believed the official narrative based on the sober, sincere, and polished voice on the radio. One professional voice to convince the world.
With TV you kept the professional voice reading the script, but you had to add makeup, a suit and tie, and a fresh haircut.
For the next TV generation, you make the professional voices folksy like a next door neighbor or a friend and you modernize the wardrobe and makeup.
The internet required intelligence to steer all to Google and YouTube and Facebook. At first, left wide open and useful to draw everyone in, then wiped, directed , limited, and controlled to accomplish the same thing that first radio voice did.
As soon as I read Al Gore was on the board of Google in an advisory capacity I knew the internet was being captured. I read that easily over a decade ago. The so-called dark web is actually much larger than the web we know. Food for thought.
When it comes to big power battles, the dirt isn't big enough unless it's a live boy or a dead girl. That's the reason child trafficking was ramped up.
I saw that article and gladly shared it because, even if I'd have written it a little differently (we all have our sets of knowledge and styles), it was exactly a point that I wanted to make myself in an article. I'm glad you reminded me of it because I have a future article where I can drop it in nicely.
That's exactly what Robbert Kennedy Jr is all about, controlled opposition. He's fighting for the people, right? Well, if he's fighting for us, then you can go back to sitting on your butt and just keep sucking that lemon. But has such a strong pro-Zionist state. Wants 'safe' vaccines. Thinks vaccines could/should be mandatory if they're proven 'safe' (can they ever be proven 'safe'?). It's very clever what he does... I believed in him at some point in time. What do you make of Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai?
I've had too many priorities to spend time understanding Shiva. But I will say this, I was connected by three people to three teams working on election fraud because I've both applied and taught methods of statistical forensics (to a class that included SEC investigators and some FBI). Not one of those groups brought me in to work even as I sent analyses into them. In addition to that, so many of the lawsuits seemed clumsy, and were thrown out over lack of standing. In the end, I felt like the lawyers in charge were likely controlled opposition, and that nobody else raised the question means there is likely a lot of controlled opposition among everyone involved.
Michael B - Exactly my issue with RFKjr - make 'em mandatory if proven safe. And my question is, who gets to determine they are "safe" in order to mandate them? Does safe mean they are completely inert and cause zero side effects? Only thing I can think that we ingest fitting that definition is pure water.
To me more important that besides safe, that also they work. To my knowledge we not yet since 1796 have got seen a vaccine which works, that it to protect against a disease. What about the fly vaccine report from 1964? As I know it all of the vaccines have harmed more than helped. first writing telling this in 1798. Since 1970 I have said that with time all vaccination will stop.
Actually now during soon 2 years, the word "vaccine" no longer mean "protecting against being hit by an actual disease" but instead "Made to protect against not being too sick when hit by the disease", that is when in the future again and again hit by the actual disease!
I don't know for sure whether he's controlled opposition or not, but I think RFK Jr.'s statement about vaccines could be genius. Vaccines will never be proven safe, so they'll never be mandatory. He gets to stay within a parameter that most people/voters need ("he's not an anti-vaxxer!") and still communicate what he actually believes.
Kennedy is a kikesucking Zionist ass-whore like you are . . .
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol X – Preparing for Power . . . (((SARS-CoV2)))
❝. . . utterly exhaust humanity with dissention, hatred, struggle, envy and even by the use of torture, by starvation, by the inoculation of diseases. by want, so that the “Goyim” see no other issue than to take refuge in our complete sovereignty in money and in all else.❞
That's a good angle. It all depends on who & how "safe" is defined.
The medical professionals told everyone that the covid-19 vaccines were safe when they only had 2 months of data. The fastest approved vaccine was 4 years (mumps I think) and the average 7 years. How do you compress a 4-7 year development cycle into 2 months? You cut out most of the safety studies because that's what takes the most of the 4-7 years.
Nobody can say a vaccine is safe based on 2 months data. Yet they repeatedly said their cult mantra "Safe & Effective" like mind laundered minions to the point of brainwashing themselves and others.
And extremally criminal by giving Nobel price for the Covid-19 mRNA "vaccines", by telling it's totally secure, even though i a newly 180 sides rapport statistically conclude that 17 millions dead by these vaccines.
The same happened when giving Nobel price to Pasteur, whose vaccine later was stopped.
By the Nobel prices the medical firms have "profs" to show to people, and thereby killing more persons, especially children.
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol X – Preparing for Power . . . (((SARS-CoV2)))
❝. . . utterly exhaust humanity with dissention, hatred, struggle, envy and even by the use of torture, by starvation, by the inoculation of diseases. by want, so that the “Goyim” see no other issue than to take refuge in our complete sovereignty in money and in all else.❞
Communism is not a cult, but as Max and Engels wrote in the Manifest, men for all persons to be equal. By capitalism it's the money who rules.
Back in the 1960s I predicted was we now are in, that is the coming totally fascistic dictature.
China is not communistic as also the we have multi rich persons, who have the power. WEF = the richest, which demands, and tells the governments of what to do.
Think about BG who "owns" WHO. And who phone to presidents and tell "Tomorrow you have to be home because then I come.
Capitalism and communism opposites as east and west.
Unfortunately the concept of revisionism has never really been allowed to enter even more politically sophisticated persons’ consciousness. Most have simply adopted TPTB definition of communism, as seen in Edwin’s comment above.
Yes it is as Goebel said "repeat a story and at last people trust it".
And concerning capitalism, and how it can function in good ways, I again and again recall Robert Owen and New Lanark. He was totally different from BG, Soros, and more. Marx was inspired by Robert Owen.
Actually Thaksin, who a month ago returned back to Thailand, since caused by the king, to escape back in 2006. Became multi rich in short time, by mobile phone, got president, and really worked for people.
Actually King Thaksin who in 1787 was decapitated also was a good person, and maybe number one of the Thailand kings. Half Thai and half Chinese, and monk for 5 year before king. Killed by number 1 of the king family, where now nr. 10. is king. So person must not learn about him.
I appreciate your broad range of analysis. Among my various lives was a BA in anthropology, in which I could never fit my questions about group selection into a simplistic enough format to please the keepers. So much of neo-darwinian reductionism has since come crashing down. (Epigenetics alone changes the entire picture of "heritable traits" to look almost Lamarkian.)
I quit the treadmill early when I realized one could never adequately analyze EMERGENT properties and self-organizing systems. I have since been on a quest to learn experientially how to actualize these. They are generally in relation to LIMINAL states, which among many aspects, reorder statuses within a group or society. It is these in-between states of not-knowing that the bosses must ever keep at bay, providing pseudo-solutions within their limited matrix. Honest elections approximate a liminal state, which is why they have also become pretty much a-goner.
I hope you are continuing to heal and detox. I was unable to post earlier but I hope you are utilizing Nattokinase and N-Acetyl Cystiene to clear lingering covid junk. I have also begun delving into the entire endo-cannabinoid system resets to clear emotional and energetic stresses, as Gary Sharpe's substack often discusses. it is a fascinating journey, which along with EMPATHY-rich relationships, is ever-more important in these days to access and develop resilient well-being amid endless calls to activism. Blessings to you!
Private contractors from the US, Israel, Japan and other IT and intelligence firms have set up shop across China at the local level and are seizing control of government by privatizing all functions of government.
Large parts of Chinese local governments have been taken over by private contractors tied to investment banks like BlackRock and Goldman Sachs and private contractors for IT just as is the case in many parts of the US.
According to Eustace Mullins, “the central bank owners adopted the Hegelian dialectic, the dialectic of materialism, which regards the World as Power, and the World as Reality. It denies all other powers and all other realities. It functions on the principle of thesis, antithesis and a synthesis…Thus the World Order organizes and finances Jewish groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Jewish groups; it organizes Communist groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Communist groups. It is not necessary for the Order to throw these groups against each other; they seek each other out like heat-seeking missiles and try to destroy each other. By controlling the size and resources of each group, the World Order can always predetermine the outcome. In this technique, members of the World Order are often identified with one side or the other. John Foster Dulles arranged financing for Hitler, but he was never a Nazi. David Rockefeller may be cheered in Moscow, but he is not a Communist…a distinguishing trait of a member of the World Order, although it may not be admitted, is that he does not believe in anything but the World Order. Another distinguishing trait is his absolute contempt for anyone who actually believes in the tenets of Communism, Zionism, Christianity, or any national, religious or fraternal group…If you are a sincere Christian, Zionist or Moslem, the World Order regards you as a moron unworthy of respect. You can and will be used, but you will never be respected.”
I would like to give you a personal experience regarding your comment about value projection.
I don't think that's the case for me. I like to listen to multiple sides instead of looking for people with whom I agree. For example, I listened yo Jimmy Dore, Coronel McGregor, and Shapiro to see what they thought about Israel-Hamas.
So it's not like I am looking for my tribe and attributing honesty when I find agreement. I attribute honesty based on Three questions:
1. Are they going against the mainstream narrative?
"1. Are they going against the mainstream narrative?
2. Are they being silenced/
demonetized/killed for what they are saying?
3. Are they credentialed?"
The moment you have a list, you can fall prey to the gaming of your metrics. That's exactly where we are with behavioral economics and the funding of data analytics programs. From there, you just need influencers who are willing to use that data to sculpt their message, or just take a script from a writer.
If you can't look the influencer in the eyes, it's a parasocial game.
Also, numbers 1 and 2 in particular have long been gamed. Even Chomsky, before he turned completely nuts (he was always probably acting) explicitly noted the gaming of the Streisand effect.
And 3 is so much less important than people think. Remember that it wasn't a degreed mathematician who took the OWID data in March 2021 and said, "The vaccines don't work," or used that data in two studies in early June 2021 and said, "There is substantial and measurable vaccine mortality" for the first time. It was me. I have a high school diploma.
This is true. Since I've been reading you, I am very weary about my list. I used to blindly trust mainstream. Trump-Russia woke me up, and covid threw a bucket of ice water to my face.
Ever since, I've been trying to figure out who to trust. I thought my little formula was going well until I found you Matthew! I like it though. I enjoy having my worldview challenged.
Oct 20, 2023·edited Oct 20, 2023Liked by Mathew Crawford
On point #2, I have to say, the new way of silencing people who are a legitimate threat, is simply to throttle their traffic. Make them invisible. If the mainstream is attacking the person, they are still giving publicity (remember the old saying, there's no such thing as bad publicity?). That's why I think Dr. Shiva is the real deal. He is one of only 3 'public' figures that has made so much sense to me, that I'd be willing to trust that person (one other is Matthew and one more obscure person). Even then, he has 1 small contradiction that I need to figure out for myself. Whether you agree or not, I think he's legitimate. As for #3, credentials, it's more like if that person has the skills and can demonstrate that they have those skills.
#1, I think isn't even a thing. Controlled opposition is exactly Matt's point in this post. I don't use that as a yard-stick at all.
I think it's great that you are open-minded and seeking answers! It's the only way we can move forward as a society.
Yes, it's not censorship (particularly LOUD censorship as happened to a few key people in the MFM) that is effective. That results in a manipulatable Streisand effect.
RTE was made invisible no later than my decision to tell the truth that neither side liked on the DMED data.
The problem with that is that a chaos agent or operative can be given conspiracy credentials, attacked, martyred, even jailed, in order to give them cred as opposition.
My hypothesis is that over long evolutionary time, when hominins were starving, under threat from conspecifics and man-eating predators, under threat from climate shifts etc., that the tribe looked to whomever had the most cognitive ability, or planning ability, or narrative ability (drawing with sticks in the dirt, chipping the stone tool in a different way, trying the artichoke) to lead them, and then through music or primitive ritual, all the hominins followed that person as the threat of starvation and extinction (disease comes to mind) were constant. We all seek someone who can lead as our ancestors who did this were more likely to get their genes in the next generation. The utterly creepy thing is that I think people now look to "experts" so a sort of distributed leadership is effected by tech and government and media and that's what the freaks mean by "cognitive infrastructure" even leaving aside all the chips and satellites and 5G possibilities. If you KNOW that is your hominin reflex, then you can have a bit more control over it. Maybe. Though one ends up being hyper-vigilant looking for tells.
To massively simplify and paraphrase, Machiavelli and elite theorists posit that there are rulers and those who are ruled. The iron law of oligarchy seems true to me, full stop. As such, (I'm pretty pessimistic) I think the best outcome one can hope for is virtuous rulers (obviously these are not our current ruling elites.) Do you think the iron law of oligarchy is true? If it is true, how do we make the best out of the situation, or, to re-phrase the question, how are virtuous rulers made? If you don't think the law is true then I would love to hear your perspective. Thank you for all your work.
There are always Pareto distributions, and people who will never be alpha. But to frame them as a law of oligarchy pushes toward eugenics and entrenches the Kunlangeta's hierarchies.
Nature involves many small hierarchies on many dimensions. The Oligarchical pyramid is one hierarchy where all dimensions are transactional into one.
Yes, there are lessons in this Planet Escape Room. I'll try to take more time teaching them. The Khan Man at the top depends on acceptance of illusions, and prisoners dilemmas of steep payouts. That can be unrigged. And that's easier when more people recognize the illusions.
Thank you for the response. I view the iron law of oligarchy as an observance of a natural phenomenon--groups of individuals, regardless of democratic structures or intent, tend towards a smaller group making decisions. Within that frame, in my opinion, best case scenario, because there will always be some group making the rules everyone else follows, is that this group is virtuous--like maybe they reject eugenics. I think hearing more about your perspective on hierarchy in general would make a great article or talk. Thanks again.
This is the best explanation of control I have read. This is the reason that people follow the people that are selling them the rope that they will hang them with. All the scientific studies at universities about human behavior were funded by the DOD and their handlers. Not for further understanding of the human mind so as to help people, but to learn how to control them. I now listen to everything, and especially what the source believes about the cabal of globalists actions on the entire planet. If someone you respect for their beliefs has a position that seems opposed to what they say, then you might start to question their real motives. As stated in this article, the opposition coopts movements in order to destroy them from within. The rulers of planet earth know that most people choose a side that seems to conform to their idea of truth, but without any investigation at all, just opinion, and they will defend their uninformed opinion with violence, if need be, and again with nothing but a gut feeling about what it is they defend. The owners know how noncritical thinking people, well think. It is a form of non-think. Most kowtow to authority because they were trained to think this way. Many examples are present in history, but nothing is learned from them. This is human nature, and they know it, so rinse and repeat. Be afraid be verry afraid and take the jab so the killer virus won't kill you. If you question Anthony Fauci, you are questioning science. The verry nature of real science is to question and then question again and again, and then again. Science is never settled, and so they have to fool the public into believing that false science is science. I like to use the Biblical story of the good Sheppard, as most people think just to the Sheppard saving the sheep. End of story, Sheppard good guy, but think about what the Sheppard is going to do with the sheep, and why he saved the lamb from the ledge. He will fatten it, shear it, then slaughter it for the meet. Critical thinking is involved to understand the motive of the Shepard. Our Sheppard's are going to do the same thing to us, and we think the Sheppard is the good guy again, fooling us into not thinking that your righteous cause could never be coopted by the wolf. Jack.
Excellent, thank you.
"...can anyone educated in history really think that the intelligence agencies and corporate-banking complex haven't studied methods of controlling their opposition for decades or centuries? Do we even know how far back Western [quasi]-control over China began?"
These are the questions 'up' now, and we need them. We are playing catch up.
“People are constantly looking for their "own tribe", and when they hear the right words, eloquently spoken, they assume sincerity. “
Yep. It’s the dynamic behind “Who do you want for president”. Mouthing the “right” platitudes with a barely-plausible simulacrum of sincerity will get you far, irrespective of your capacity to actually deliver. That reality is plainly evidenced in DC.
The coarse but sincere truth-speaker, who might actually be able to achieve what he promises, is kicked to the curb.
It’s style over substance, and I think it’s more-or-less related to the phenomenon of people drawing moral or practical lessons from movies: the drama, style and color of presentation bear far more weight than the actual intellectual content, which, in most cases, is lightweight at best.
“Also, revelations by Tom O'Neil that the Charles Manson story seems likely to have been controlled by government agencies”
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/inside-the-lc-the-strange-but-mostly-true-story-of-laurel-canyon-and-the-birth-of-the-hippie-generation-part-i/
Holy cow...I will never look at the music from the 60's the same way again.
LOL. Yeah maybe I should have put a warning label on it. Dave died a few years ago. But his daughter has kept his web site alive. There a lot of other interesting stuff on there. I’ve read the entire thing 5 times. Once I step back and look at the bigger picture, a lot of puzzle pieces fall into place.
Dave McGowan was such a genius. If he hadn’t been a smoker I would be 100% sure his lung cancer was a murder. As it is I would put the odds at 75%. His reveal of the Boston bombing was absolutely elegant and required reading for everyone interested in how false flags are managed.
Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon will simultaneously amaze and depress as you realise the soundtrack to your life was you being duped into a contrived psyop.
I have gotten to Part XVI. I can’t put this article down! Egads is this eye-opening. Thanks for the link. Moral: The mediums change but the influence pedaling stays the same.
You are welcome. Thank you. As I wrote earlier, I’ve read it like 5 times. Definitely shattered a few illusions regarding the music I grew up listening to (I’m 68).
Dave wrote some incredible stuff. He is definitely missed. His daughter deserves serious kudos for keeping his stuff alive. It needs a wider audience but she does it on a shoestring with donations and her own money.
Funny. I’m 68 too. How did Dave die?
Dave died from lung cancer. Allegedly. He was a smoker, but he wasn’t old. His writings exposed a lot of stuff. His piece on the Boston Marathon bombing is exquisite.
Ah. Right smack dab in the middle. Too young to get all the bennies (pensions, healthcare, retirement perks) and too old to learn they wouldn’t be there in time so as to be able to plan for that. As my dad always said, life is all about where you stand in line. We were in the correct line, just not in the right order.
But, as kids we had way more fun than kids today. The music was way better. And college, without cellphones, computers, Social Media etc was an absolute blast. No ripoff govt loan needed. $40 per credit hour and a PT job in the dorm cafeteria was all you needed. We’ve been married 45 years. Met in college and we still get all giggly and laughing at some of the crazy stuff we did back in the day. Wouldn’t trade it for the world.
The most important lesson for all of us. Human nature makes us too easily emotionally led. We must be skeptical of everything, especially that which fits neatly our belief systems, if we wish to find truth and retain our souls.
That's nice and succinct.
One of the reasons I like Corbett is because he fits in category of people who are happy to tell you not to follow them. But we enjoy his work because...he did the footwork, and we can and have checked him on it.
All his documentaries are excellent, I recently binge watched them. Plus he's clearly a major nerd, who usually grow up as somewhat outcasted and feel pretty comfortable there (or at least developed specific skills as a response to it). I saw you mentioned that you felt on the outs growing up too. I felt a bit of that myself. I wonder if that's what creates independent thinkers, maybe even dependent on the exact level of outside-the-herd feelings you felt in your formative years. And dictates how much you can/should trust what you hear, or what you see on the surface. Like an animal only has to get snapped at by an alligator once from under the calm surface of the water before it remembers to be careful next time.
So generally the charmers are the ones to watch out for. But the charmers have realized this and started acting nerdy. So you need to be able to differentiate between fake nerd (SBF) and real nerd (Corbett). A tip would be if they're famous or have much attention they're probably not a nerd. Anyway I'm rambling >_<
Extremely well stated. I don’t know how many times I’ve asked people to consider, “Not everyone thinks like we do.” It garners little to no impact. When it comes to being influenced everyone agrees it happens…to other people, not them. My mom was born in 1920. She experienced the transition from radio to television. Radio was a powerful enough influencer. Recall, Orson Wells, War of the Worlds? But when TV came along my mom said, people changed. Became more withdrawn. She hated television. Yet, again, a dismal few admit it influences them. As long as people think they’re too smart to be outsmarted by the opposition the Kunlangeta will always have the upper hand.
The entire world believed the official narrative based on the sober, sincere, and polished voice on the radio. One professional voice to convince the world.
With TV you kept the professional voice reading the script, but you had to add makeup, a suit and tie, and a fresh haircut.
For the next TV generation, you make the professional voices folksy like a next door neighbor or a friend and you modernize the wardrobe and makeup.
The internet required intelligence to steer all to Google and YouTube and Facebook. At first, left wide open and useful to draw everyone in, then wiped, directed , limited, and controlled to accomplish the same thing that first radio voice did.
One voice to convince the world.
As soon as I read Al Gore was on the board of Google in an advisory capacity I knew the internet was being captured. I read that easily over a decade ago. The so-called dark web is actually much larger than the web we know. Food for thought.
Makes me glad I never got addicted to pornography. No telling how many people they now “own” just because of that.
When it comes to big power battles, the dirt isn't big enough unless it's a live boy or a dead girl. That's the reason child trafficking was ramped up.
That’s next level sick.
Insightful piece. Enjoy your work.
https://jasonpowers.substack.com/p/mp3-the-hierarchy-of-horrible-humans my labeling & categorizing the Kunlangeta.
I saw that article and gladly shared it because, even if I'd have written it a little differently (we all have our sets of knowledge and styles), it was exactly a point that I wanted to make myself in an article. I'm glad you reminded me of it because I have a future article where I can drop it in nicely.
Glad anything I write makes a point. 🤣😎
You've definitely dug into a whole host of intriguing subjects.
👍
That Dunbar slot discussion keeps bearing fruit! It has been a key piece of my understanding of the world for sure.
I'm glad. It's been interesting to see who gets it and who...doesn't seem to want to discuss it. I'll write about that sometime.
That's exactly what Robbert Kennedy Jr is all about, controlled opposition. He's fighting for the people, right? Well, if he's fighting for us, then you can go back to sitting on your butt and just keep sucking that lemon. But has such a strong pro-Zionist state. Wants 'safe' vaccines. Thinks vaccines could/should be mandatory if they're proven 'safe' (can they ever be proven 'safe'?). It's very clever what he does... I believed in him at some point in time. What do you make of Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai?
I've had too many priorities to spend time understanding Shiva. But I will say this, I was connected by three people to three teams working on election fraud because I've both applied and taught methods of statistical forensics (to a class that included SEC investigators and some FBI). Not one of those groups brought me in to work even as I sent analyses into them. In addition to that, so many of the lawsuits seemed clumsy, and were thrown out over lack of standing. In the end, I felt like the lawyers in charge were likely controlled opposition, and that nobody else raised the question means there is likely a lot of controlled opposition among everyone involved.
Michael B - Exactly my issue with RFKjr - make 'em mandatory if proven safe. And my question is, who gets to determine they are "safe" in order to mandate them? Does safe mean they are completely inert and cause zero side effects? Only thing I can think that we ingest fitting that definition is pure water.
To me more important that besides safe, that also they work. To my knowledge we not yet since 1796 have got seen a vaccine which works, that it to protect against a disease. What about the fly vaccine report from 1964? As I know it all of the vaccines have harmed more than helped. first writing telling this in 1798. Since 1970 I have said that with time all vaccination will stop.
Actually now during soon 2 years, the word "vaccine" no longer mean "protecting against being hit by an actual disease" but instead "Made to protect against not being too sick when hit by the disease", that is when in the future again and again hit by the actual disease!
I don't know for sure whether he's controlled opposition or not, but I think RFK Jr.'s statement about vaccines could be genius. Vaccines will never be proven safe, so they'll never be mandatory. He gets to stay within a parameter that most people/voters need ("he's not an anti-vaxxer!") and still communicate what he actually believes.
Kennedy is a kikesucking Zionist ass-whore like you are . . .
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol X – Preparing for Power . . . (((SARS-CoV2)))
❝. . . utterly exhaust humanity with dissention, hatred, struggle, envy and even by the use of torture, by starvation, by the inoculation of diseases. by want, so that the “Goyim” see no other issue than to take refuge in our complete sovereignty in money and in all else.❞
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/protocol-x-preparing-for-power-sars
That's a good angle. It all depends on who & how "safe" is defined.
The medical professionals told everyone that the covid-19 vaccines were safe when they only had 2 months of data. The fastest approved vaccine was 4 years (mumps I think) and the average 7 years. How do you compress a 4-7 year development cycle into 2 months? You cut out most of the safety studies because that's what takes the most of the 4-7 years.
Nobody can say a vaccine is safe based on 2 months data. Yet they repeatedly said their cult mantra "Safe & Effective" like mind laundered minions to the point of brainwashing themselves and others.
And extremally criminal by giving Nobel price for the Covid-19 mRNA "vaccines", by telling it's totally secure, even though i a newly 180 sides rapport statistically conclude that 17 millions dead by these vaccines.
The same happened when giving Nobel price to Pasteur, whose vaccine later was stopped.
By the Nobel prices the medical firms have "profs" to show to people, and thereby killing more persons, especially children.
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol X – Preparing for Power . . . (((SARS-CoV2)))
❝. . . utterly exhaust humanity with dissention, hatred, struggle, envy and even by the use of torture, by starvation, by the inoculation of diseases. by want, so that the “Goyim” see no other issue than to take refuge in our complete sovereignty in money and in all else.❞
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/protocol-x-preparing-for-power-sars
Communists always control both sides.
ALWAYS
The Corporate-Banking complex seems like a better identity for the controllers. Communism is something like an invented cult at their service.
Communism is not a cult, but as Max and Engels wrote in the Manifest, men for all persons to be equal. By capitalism it's the money who rules.
Back in the 1960s I predicted was we now are in, that is the coming totally fascistic dictature.
China is not communistic as also the we have multi rich persons, who have the power. WEF = the richest, which demands, and tells the governments of what to do.
Think about BG who "owns" WHO. And who phone to presidents and tell "Tomorrow you have to be home because then I come.
Capitalism and communism opposites as east and west.
Unfortunately the concept of revisionism has never really been allowed to enter even more politically sophisticated persons’ consciousness. Most have simply adopted TPTB definition of communism, as seen in Edwin’s comment above.
Yes it is as Goebel said "repeat a story and at last people trust it".
And concerning capitalism, and how it can function in good ways, I again and again recall Robert Owen and New Lanark. He was totally different from BG, Soros, and more. Marx was inspired by Robert Owen.
Actually Thaksin, who a month ago returned back to Thailand, since caused by the king, to escape back in 2006. Became multi rich in short time, by mobile phone, got president, and really worked for people.
Actually King Thaksin who in 1787 was decapitated also was a good person, and maybe number one of the Thailand kings. Half Thai and half Chinese, and monk for 5 year before king. Killed by number 1 of the king family, where now nr. 10. is king. So person must not learn about him.
Well, we'll see, or some of us will.
I appreciate your broad range of analysis. Among my various lives was a BA in anthropology, in which I could never fit my questions about group selection into a simplistic enough format to please the keepers. So much of neo-darwinian reductionism has since come crashing down. (Epigenetics alone changes the entire picture of "heritable traits" to look almost Lamarkian.)
I quit the treadmill early when I realized one could never adequately analyze EMERGENT properties and self-organizing systems. I have since been on a quest to learn experientially how to actualize these. They are generally in relation to LIMINAL states, which among many aspects, reorder statuses within a group or society. It is these in-between states of not-knowing that the bosses must ever keep at bay, providing pseudo-solutions within their limited matrix. Honest elections approximate a liminal state, which is why they have also become pretty much a-goner.
I hope you are continuing to heal and detox. I was unable to post earlier but I hope you are utilizing Nattokinase and N-Acetyl Cystiene to clear lingering covid junk. I have also begun delving into the entire endo-cannabinoid system resets to clear emotional and energetic stresses, as Gary Sharpe's substack often discusses. it is a fascinating journey, which along with EMPATHY-rich relationships, is ever-more important in these days to access and develop resilient well-being amid endless calls to activism. Blessings to you!
Love it
Private contractors from the US, Israel, Japan and other IT and intelligence firms have set up shop across China at the local level and are seizing control of government by privatizing all functions of government.
Large parts of Chinese local governments have been taken over by private contractors tied to investment banks like BlackRock and Goldman Sachs and private contractors for IT just as is the case in many parts of the US.
According to Eustace Mullins, “the central bank owners adopted the Hegelian dialectic, the dialectic of materialism, which regards the World as Power, and the World as Reality. It denies all other powers and all other realities. It functions on the principle of thesis, antithesis and a synthesis…Thus the World Order organizes and finances Jewish groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Jewish groups; it organizes Communist groups; it then organizes and finances anti-Communist groups. It is not necessary for the Order to throw these groups against each other; they seek each other out like heat-seeking missiles and try to destroy each other. By controlling the size and resources of each group, the World Order can always predetermine the outcome. In this technique, members of the World Order are often identified with one side or the other. John Foster Dulles arranged financing for Hitler, but he was never a Nazi. David Rockefeller may be cheered in Moscow, but he is not a Communist…a distinguishing trait of a member of the World Order, although it may not be admitted, is that he does not believe in anything but the World Order. Another distinguishing trait is his absolute contempt for anyone who actually believes in the tenets of Communism, Zionism, Christianity, or any national, religious or fraternal group…If you are a sincere Christian, Zionist or Moslem, the World Order regards you as a moron unworthy of respect. You can and will be used, but you will never be respected.”
I would like to give you a personal experience regarding your comment about value projection.
I don't think that's the case for me. I like to listen to multiple sides instead of looking for people with whom I agree. For example, I listened yo Jimmy Dore, Coronel McGregor, and Shapiro to see what they thought about Israel-Hamas.
So it's not like I am looking for my tribe and attributing honesty when I find agreement. I attribute honesty based on Three questions:
1. Are they going against the mainstream narrative?
2. Are they being silenced/
demonetized/killed for what they are saying?
3. Are they credentialed?
"1. Are they going against the mainstream narrative?
2. Are they being silenced/
demonetized/killed for what they are saying?
3. Are they credentialed?"
The moment you have a list, you can fall prey to the gaming of your metrics. That's exactly where we are with behavioral economics and the funding of data analytics programs. From there, you just need influencers who are willing to use that data to sculpt their message, or just take a script from a writer.
If you can't look the influencer in the eyes, it's a parasocial game.
Also, numbers 1 and 2 in particular have long been gamed. Even Chomsky, before he turned completely nuts (he was always probably acting) explicitly noted the gaming of the Streisand effect.
https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/what-noam-chomsky-can-teach-us-about
And 3 is so much less important than people think. Remember that it wasn't a degreed mathematician who took the OWID data in March 2021 and said, "The vaccines don't work," or used that data in two studies in early June 2021 and said, "There is substantial and measurable vaccine mortality" for the first time. It was me. I have a high school diploma.
This is true. Since I've been reading you, I am very weary about my list. I used to blindly trust mainstream. Trump-Russia woke me up, and covid threw a bucket of ice water to my face.
Ever since, I've been trying to figure out who to trust. I thought my little formula was going well until I found you Matthew! I like it though. I enjoy having my worldview challenged.
On point #2, I have to say, the new way of silencing people who are a legitimate threat, is simply to throttle their traffic. Make them invisible. If the mainstream is attacking the person, they are still giving publicity (remember the old saying, there's no such thing as bad publicity?). That's why I think Dr. Shiva is the real deal. He is one of only 3 'public' figures that has made so much sense to me, that I'd be willing to trust that person (one other is Matthew and one more obscure person). Even then, he has 1 small contradiction that I need to figure out for myself. Whether you agree or not, I think he's legitimate. As for #3, credentials, it's more like if that person has the skills and can demonstrate that they have those skills.
#1, I think isn't even a thing. Controlled opposition is exactly Matt's point in this post. I don't use that as a yard-stick at all.
I think it's great that you are open-minded and seeking answers! It's the only way we can move forward as a society.
Yes, it's not censorship (particularly LOUD censorship as happened to a few key people in the MFM) that is effective. That results in a manipulatable Streisand effect.
RTE was made invisible no later than my decision to tell the truth that neither side liked on the DMED data.
The problem with that is that a chaos agent or operative can be given conspiracy credentials, attacked, martyred, even jailed, in order to give them cred as opposition.
My hypothesis is that over long evolutionary time, when hominins were starving, under threat from conspecifics and man-eating predators, under threat from climate shifts etc., that the tribe looked to whomever had the most cognitive ability, or planning ability, or narrative ability (drawing with sticks in the dirt, chipping the stone tool in a different way, trying the artichoke) to lead them, and then through music or primitive ritual, all the hominins followed that person as the threat of starvation and extinction (disease comes to mind) were constant. We all seek someone who can lead as our ancestors who did this were more likely to get their genes in the next generation. The utterly creepy thing is that I think people now look to "experts" so a sort of distributed leadership is effected by tech and government and media and that's what the freaks mean by "cognitive infrastructure" even leaving aside all the chips and satellites and 5G possibilities. If you KNOW that is your hominin reflex, then you can have a bit more control over it. Maybe. Though one ends up being hyper-vigilant looking for tells.
We arguably evolved in groups small enough that, for most, it was safe to assume they could trust their "betters" and follow them.
Now, the escaped kulangeta have figured out how to exploit that vulnerability.
Screams Russell Brand
To massively simplify and paraphrase, Machiavelli and elite theorists posit that there are rulers and those who are ruled. The iron law of oligarchy seems true to me, full stop. As such, (I'm pretty pessimistic) I think the best outcome one can hope for is virtuous rulers (obviously these are not our current ruling elites.) Do you think the iron law of oligarchy is true? If it is true, how do we make the best out of the situation, or, to re-phrase the question, how are virtuous rulers made? If you don't think the law is true then I would love to hear your perspective. Thank you for all your work.
There are always Pareto distributions, and people who will never be alpha. But to frame them as a law of oligarchy pushes toward eugenics and entrenches the Kunlangeta's hierarchies.
Nature involves many small hierarchies on many dimensions. The Oligarchical pyramid is one hierarchy where all dimensions are transactional into one.
Yes, there are lessons in this Planet Escape Room. I'll try to take more time teaching them. The Khan Man at the top depends on acceptance of illusions, and prisoners dilemmas of steep payouts. That can be unrigged. And that's easier when more people recognize the illusions.
Thank you for the response. I view the iron law of oligarchy as an observance of a natural phenomenon--groups of individuals, regardless of democratic structures or intent, tend towards a smaller group making decisions. Within that frame, in my opinion, best case scenario, because there will always be some group making the rules everyone else follows, is that this group is virtuous--like maybe they reject eugenics. I think hearing more about your perspective on hierarchy in general would make a great article or talk. Thanks again.
This is the best explanation of control I have read. This is the reason that people follow the people that are selling them the rope that they will hang them with. All the scientific studies at universities about human behavior were funded by the DOD and their handlers. Not for further understanding of the human mind so as to help people, but to learn how to control them. I now listen to everything, and especially what the source believes about the cabal of globalists actions on the entire planet. If someone you respect for their beliefs has a position that seems opposed to what they say, then you might start to question their real motives. As stated in this article, the opposition coopts movements in order to destroy them from within. The rulers of planet earth know that most people choose a side that seems to conform to their idea of truth, but without any investigation at all, just opinion, and they will defend their uninformed opinion with violence, if need be, and again with nothing but a gut feeling about what it is they defend. The owners know how noncritical thinking people, well think. It is a form of non-think. Most kowtow to authority because they were trained to think this way. Many examples are present in history, but nothing is learned from them. This is human nature, and they know it, so rinse and repeat. Be afraid be verry afraid and take the jab so the killer virus won't kill you. If you question Anthony Fauci, you are questioning science. The verry nature of real science is to question and then question again and again, and then again. Science is never settled, and so they have to fool the public into believing that false science is science. I like to use the Biblical story of the good Sheppard, as most people think just to the Sheppard saving the sheep. End of story, Sheppard good guy, but think about what the Sheppard is going to do with the sheep, and why he saved the lamb from the ledge. He will fatten it, shear it, then slaughter it for the meet. Critical thinking is involved to understand the motive of the Shepard. Our Sheppard's are going to do the same thing to us, and we think the Sheppard is the good guy again, fooling us into not thinking that your righteous cause could never be coopted by the wolf. Jack.