I would defend Hanlon's Razor just a little bit. I think it is fairly applicable when dealing with people you personally know and are interacting with. Most people are just ignorant, not malicious, so most people you interact with day to day really just are not paying attention, as it were.
Where it breaks down, hard, is when you move from normal people you interact with day to day to highly selective groups. Business executives, for instance, are not a random sampling of people, but rather a very small percentage that is highly selected for certain traits. If those traits include, say, goal driven sociopathy, then yea, assuming their intentions are not bad is going to be a big mistake generally. Scale that up to politicians who are an even tinier percentage of the population and much more filtered for certain traits, and the razor should definitely be flipped and we should assume malice until proven otherwise.
Put another way, abuse of Hanlon's Razor seems to me to be a version of the human mistake Hayek cites for the appeal of socialism: applying behavior that is appropriate for the family and close friends to behavior appropriate to anonymous society, and vice versa. A useful rule of thumb for assumptions about humans at large (anonymous society) is really destructive when applied to small and highly selected groups (elites), just as applying the rules of markets to your family interactions would be pretty awful.
Thank you. What you've done, ultimately, is explained to people precisely where Hanlon's razor is oversubscribed, and almost certainly used as a form of mind control. It fits people's intuition within their community circles, which is far removed from the machinations of global organization and the expert classes.
I often say to myself "The fact that I don't know something has nothing to do with its truth, falsehood, existence or non-existence."
I came up with that when I realized that all the arguments called "razors" start by discreetly choosing one side with the vain hope that nobody will notice.
In particular, Ockham's razor is simply a rhetorical tactic because it's generally easier to defend an argument that makes few assumptions, than arguments that make more assumptions. The razor itself says nothing about validity or truth or anything about the argument or the topic, but it has that air of thought control that is the foundation of all sophists.
I think the useful part of the various razors is to give one a starting point for cognition, not the end point or solution. Helping one line up priors, in Baysean terms. Not much stronger than “many dogs are friendly “ or “don’t pet wild geese”, but still helpful places to start if you know when they apply. Applying general rules of thumb about dogs to hyenas is probably a bad move:)
My favourite is the second half of Hanlon's Razor. The substacker "bad catitude" put it succinctly: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence but always ascribe to malice that which has gone on far too long to be explained by incompetence".
I think we passed that "far too long" point a while back.
He also pointed out the VENN diagram that explains what we just went through. I added some short explanations so people wouldn't have to look up the Asch, Milgram and Stanford experiments because people don't want more than 30 seconds of info (so I help them LOL).
Interestingly none of those 3 are affected by intelligence. It is the ability to question authority that most just can't do. Peer groups, educators, religious, political but most importantly medical authorities just can't be questioned by the majority.
I have a pretty intelligent group of friends and relatives. Not one other than myself rejected the jab. Some did back off after their first 2 jabs. I completely agree that general intelligence has nothing to do with the ability to both 1) question authority, and 2) look for inconsistencies in whatever is presented for your information consumption.
Yes, there is an ignorance involved, but there was also ignorance involved in the hive-mind thinking around the submission to the "covid psyop" and all its variants (pun intended). Many of the do-gooders I encountered with covid were quick to express the "virtues" of Hanlon's Razor even if they were unconscious of the influence of the thinking. That "ignorance" got a lot of people killed, and severely affected many more.
Eventually, ignorance is no longer an acceptable excuse, and the mal-affects of the thinking need to be addressed on the front lines of social discourse.
Perhaps I am a bit to hyper-vigilant about this, but after witnessing how submissive large numbers of people became - and watching some of them die and leave my life permanently -, I cannot help but see them as liabilities to my own well-being, and all because they were incapable of thinking that people would promote terrible and life-threatening agendas.
Yes! This is why, for my friends and family who weren't killed (yet) by the shots, I still have my guard up more with them. I know they don't mean me harm, but I also know they are easily duped.
The signs that these people could be easily duped were there before the shots came out though, I just didn't see them as well as I do now in hindsight.
Sad thing is, I have this group of friends because I ditched the last group for being easily manipulated as well.
I would like to thank you for your insightful comment.
But I would point out that even under the auspices of the most extreme Hanlon abuse imaginable, where everyone is a bleeding heart philanthropist, there is an argument to be made that I rarely see.
How could a person who was so criminally negligent reach a position of such power and carry out such disastrous acts with nobody challenging them?
It indicates that everyone around them and everyone who supported them has no idea what they are doing. There was an enormous oversight that needs to be addressed before trust can be rebuilt.
So in other words, if it's malice we need to put our guard up and be careful who we trust, and if it's incompetence we need to put our guard up and be careful who we trust.
Indeed, Grey's law says just that, "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice". This aphorism cuts both ways, in either case the solution is to limit the power of untrustworthy actors.
A crude analogy could be made to a fox that keeps killing your chickens. It doesn't matter if the fox has malicious intentions, we really can't trust it to guard the henhouse.
But instead, our society seems to be made up of masochistic goldfish.
Yes indeed. I think there are two prongs at play there: one, our culture has gotten away from exercising moral judgment , and two, we have also begun to be unwilling to pay the price of punishing those who behave badly. We have gotten really bad about stuff like “well, it is hard to know all the circumstances, so who am I to say?” when the answer is that we are obligated to think and judge; even if the judgement is “I don’t know enough” we should have an answer for what would be enough and not just decide not to do it because it is hard.
I think we like to shirk that responsibility for good judgement because it also lets us avoid executing the punishment that should go along. Not just official punishment, but things like calling people out on bad behavior or leaving an organization that we think might be bad. Just go along to get along is the root of a lot of problems.
Personally, I don't think the solution is to punish perpetrators. Allow me to explain why with an example:
Suppose there is a forest village where a pack of dangerous wolves operate.
So the village guards catch one of the wolves and mount it on a pike as a warning to the others.
Thinking that this deterrent will make the village safer, the people relax but the killing continues for months.
And so more and more wolves are mounted until there is a ring all the way around the village and people are confused about why the wolves are still coming when it's suicidal.
At a certain point you have to realise that the only way to keep yourself safe is to form a group with trustworthy companions and protect eachother.
Revenge or deterrance alone isn't enough. There will always be more threats.
You may think this scenario is contrived because the wolves would eventually stop, but what if I said that someone who hates the village is secretly abducting wolf cubs and training them to attack.
Then it would never stop no matter how much deterrence there is.
Wolves are not people, and cannot make the decision “screw this, I am not getting mounted on a pike for this asshole.”
More importantly, in your example of someone training wolves the villagers are lacking judgement. They haven’t identified all the perpetrators in this case, only the obvious ones.
Both judgment and then acting upon that judgement (for the good or ill of the judged) are necessary.
People can be trained to the same extent, look at suicide bombers. Covert elements of intelligence agencies are adept enough at brainwashing to produce these kinds of people.
And yes, as you point out they would need to track down the wolf trainer and slay him in order to stop the attacks.
But this metaphor applies to our current society in that the immediately visible ones are mostly just trained actors.
The task of hunting down their handlers and their handlers handlers is challenging and compounded by the fact that they are both very good at hiding and also immensely powerful.
Further complications could arise from misinformation leading to a lot of wasted time and there's also the possibility of secret traitors infiltrating the group to capture it for the other side.
I think it's wiser for each individual to establish a 'tribe-like' circle who they spend a lot of time with and develop trust for.
Then the different groups interact through shared contacts in a network.
They then act to defend those they know from harm, while ignoring the vast majority of strangers who may or may not be enemies.
This has the added advantage of being a life surrounded by people you like and trust, while also providing for defence, attack and economy.
I agree with your point. The hashashim are proof of that. And, in fact, I do think that's part of the MOBS network we are dealing with: serious brainwashing. I want to write about that, but it's a difficult challenge. The argument needs to be made compelling. I've spent possibly 2000ish hours over the past two years reading up on the history of mind control programs. At some point, I started documenting:
I think your solution only works with a very insular society, and doesn't solve the wolf metaphor at all. Even if your tribe and related tribes are all decent to each other, the wolves are still out there to pick you off, either until you change the incentives of the wolves or kill off/change the incentives of the trainer.
In general, though, we are always going to be related to strangers through broader society. Not related by blood or marriage mind you, but by various links like commerce, living in the same general region, being part of the same national/governmental structure, whatever. You just can't know everyone you deal with first hand well enough, and certainly not everyone they deal with. Hence we need processes and rules for how we deal with strangers.
Regarding suicide bombers: you don't see so many of them these days it seems. Less mind control happening, less effectiveness, or the mind controllers deciding it isn't worth the trouble? I don't know.
Halon's razor is an intuitive rule of thumb aka "heuristic" but a heuristic is an unreliable guide to action. For reliability one needs Principles of Reasoning that solve The Problem of Induction but few of us know these principles.
I'm still amazed that Theosophy caught on, as the whole scam was rumbled by one Mr Aleister Crowley, of all people.
Theosophy first really caught on in London, with the idea that upper middle-class Englishmen were the absolute pinnacle of evolution (that they also had scads of money didn't hurt, I'm sure).
It worked like this: Madame Blavatsky would stand before a curtain, and receive letters of wisdom for the audience dropped down from her Red Indian Spirit Guide behind the curtain.
Mr Crowley, being a suspicious sort, stood up one evening and pulled the curtain down
Lo and behold, there stood Madame's assistant, Franz, standing on a chair, holding several letters.
The meeting was abruptly adjourned, and Mr Crowley was banned for life.
The weird part is that most people came back. And more came...
"Theosophy first really caught on in London, with the idea that upper middle-class Englishmen were the absolute pinnacle of evolution (that they also had scads of money didn't hurt, I'm sure)."
Anyone who studies the first year of Theosophy and the first year of each of its major projects should come to the realization that the instantaneous spread of Theosophy was organized by a larger collective. Within months of the founding of Theosophy, there were lodges all over London and England more broadly. Similarly, in India, once the Theosophists decided to build the Women's Indian Conference, there were over 40 offices around the subcontinent within a year. Where did the resources come from to make that happen, if not from a large occult network?
The Crown seemed to be running in parallel with those efforts as well.
I enjoyed listening to that earlier this week. But I do think that he is missing a lot of key pieces of the puzzle. He hasn't connected the dots between Theosophy and Christianity. Perhaps there is too much cognitive dissonance in the way, but he is all around it: it was always Christians clearing the way for Theosophy at the UN. That's crucial to understanding the bigger picture.
Lindsay interprets Marxism and queer theory as gnostic cults. He also views the eradication of the gnostic Christian cults by the Roman church as an affirmation of Western values - those that eventually produced the Enlightenment - over Eastern mysticism.
I guess I'm curious as to whether gnosticism keeps spontaneously arising, including within Christianity, or whether there's an organised human force which keeps inserting it into new cults.
It was Christian go-betweens in the Theosophical Society like Charles Leadbeater and J.I. Wedgewood who brought sex magik and religiously justified and organized child sexual abuse into practice and policy in Theosophy. But they brought it from the Catholic Church. There is a lot more to that story, obviously, but the larger body of evidence points toward Theosophy being a project of the occult power players that controlled Christianity and perhaps most all of the world religions for centuries.
As an aside that lends itself to the conversation: prior to the formation of Theosophy, which took great advantage of Hinduism, the social engineers conjured "Hinduism" out of thin air. The various local practices surrounding the common verses of sources like the Vedas and the Upanishads were not an organized religion, but the British had no idea what to make of cultural spiritual practice not connected to a an organized occult central force. This story alone helps us to choose between historical models of what was going on.
Interesting. Do you think Christianity itself (and for that matter, Judaism, Islam or any other organised religion) is an invention of those occult power players, or do they infiltrate and take over any and all cults that emerge spontaneously (assuming there's such a thing as spontaneous emergence of cults)?
I know your question is for Mathew, Robin, but I'll interject my answer, if I may. I've been preparing a post on What is a Gnostic? From the etymology of the word, it's anyone who acts as if God is as knowable to ordinary people as Church authorities. The word orthodox means 'in a straight line' like orthodonture. The word heresy comes from 'to choose for oneself.' An agnostic says, 'We'll never know' but a gnostic says that's no reason to hand God over to the authorities.
And just to remember the authorized version of who God is, when one of my readers asked for an example, I said that a game I play is to open the OT at random and see if you can find a page where God is not a sociopath. Here was my result yesterday:
"This time I opened to 2 Kings 9 where Jehu tricks the relatives of the king of Judah and slaughters them. Then he tricks the ministers of Baal and slaughters them, tearing down the temple and using it as a latrine. Then Jehu chases the king of Judah shouting, "Kill him too!" He goes back to the castle where the king's daughter Jezebel calls him a murderer, so he has the eunuchs throw her out a window and horses trample her, and dogs eat her flesh.
"In 10 in Samaria, there are 70 princes of Ahab being raised by guardians. He has the guardians cut off their heads and send them in baskets, which he puts in two piles at the city gates. Then he kills everyone in Ahab's house, his chief men, his close friends and his priests. When he stumbles onto some unwitting relatives, he has them taken alive to slaughter by the well."
This, of course, is all fiction. But it's the authorized LORD of the Bible, capitals in context.
Geez, that's very disturbing stuff. As I understand it, the gnostic Christian heresies advocated radical rejection of the body, sex magic and other pretty questionable practices. Is this a misrepresentation of gnosticism or a hijacking of its principles (and what are those principles???) by the occult power players that Mathew refers to?
For that matter, who/what are those occult power players?
I've been trying to think of an analogy. To say that "gnostics advocated _____" might be like saying "dissidents believe ____" There's no unity except in the negative, that they depart from authoritarian orthodoxy. There are over a hundred gnostic texts and some may pre-date the Bible. There's no one organization or authority, which was the point. And to call them heresies assumes that the orthodox version is true.
From the example above, can we say that Judeo-Christianity advocates beheading children and stacking their heads by the side of the road? What are the principles of Judeo-Christianity that can be derived from that scripture? I've never read anything in gnostic scriptures that has as many questionable practices regarding sex and violence as the OT.
This is a good thread to see happening. I think that religioun/gnostic is one of the partisan divides that "the network" uses to place blame and create division.
Can we not identify villains from each camp throughout history? What blinds us to see those in the other camp, and then leap from there to think, "It's the X that really rule the world and screw everything up."
I strongly suspect that this is how the MOBS rule.
Edit: I also think that the two of you are honest women who are able to have a productive conversation, regardless of your self-labeling. I will read if it progresses.
I should have been more specific. I was thinking in particular of the Cathars, whose creed involved radical rejection of the embodied self.
Understand that I'm not coming at this from a pro-Christian point of view. I'm not religious at all, although I acknowledge that the religious urge appears to be very strong in many/most humans.
Oh I forgot one thing, the Cathars definitely didn't believe in sex magic. They renounced all sex and wouldn't eat anything that was the result of sexual procreation. Fortunately for them, they thought fish emerged spontaneously ;-)
From what I've read, that was true of the inner circle - the Perfecti - but not of the Credentes - the ordinary folk who were working toward renunciation but not necessarily expected to attain it. The Credentes were said to practice abortion very freely. Mind you, that's not exactly historically unusual. When I was studying herbal medicine, I learned that one of the most common categories of herbs was the 'emmenagogues' - herbs that were said to 'bring on suppressed menses'. The most common cause of 'suppressed menses' is of course pregnancy, so emmenagogue is just a euphemism for abortifacient.
My current "best guess" is that the ultimate plan is to divide the population (get them hating anything but the elites who are in charge), get through some kind of big catastrophe (collapse of the dollar, civil war, WW3), and from the ashes implement the "Great Reset", which will basically be a chinese-style society.
Many of the various moves that have been made thus far, are about priming the population to accept more control and more austerity (OKC: gun toting freedom lovers are bad, 9-11: deep state control and patriot act, Covid: a fire drill in chinese style authoritarianism.)
I wouldn't be surprised if depopulation plays into this as well.
I'm not sure about the role cults play, or how much the elite are into sacrifice and Satan worship an dall that. I've heard a lot of those stories. I guess I see that as more frosting on the cake, because we've already seen what they're willing to do publically.
Religion is a very powerful control mechanism, whether the beliefs are held sincerely or used maliciously. So it would make sense for them to at least attempt to create such a world religion. Along with their old divide/conquer tricks. I just don't feel the bubblings of a new religion cropping up among the people, as I can clearly see the division.
They even want us to hate the elites, but they want us to fear each other just as much. They want for us to hate the elites because a cultural revolution still favors the oligarchs who can institute authoritarian rule. They want for us to tear down the old system, which would mean tearing down the last vestiges of protections of our rights, even if the system isn't all that good at it anymore.
The religious side of social engineering is always part of these transitions.
"Hanlon’s Razor teaches us not to assume the worst intention in the actions of others."
No it doesn't.
It teaches us to begin with the most parsimonious a priori assumptions, based on the ubiquity of incompetence as statistically more probable in the context of observed human behavioral psychology.
Stupidity and malice routinely coexist within the same entities, both groups and the individuals of which they are composed. The simulacra of cleverness that this combination periodically exhibits, has a name; we refer to it as "low cunning."
Those who use Hanlon's Razor as an endpoint for injecting post hoc fallacies into situational analysis, are intellectually insolvent and morally bankrupt. It is a starting point for reasoned analysis, not a conclusion.
Not sure if I’ve mentioned this before, but I highly recommend the book “Game of Gods: The Temple of Man in the Age of Re-Enchantment” by Carl Teichrib, who has also done in-depth research in many of these areas. He does write from a conservative Biblical Christian perspective, but given your comment on Theosophy vs Christianity, I don’t think you’d find that too scary! 😊
James Lindsay has also started talking about Theosophy vs. Christianity. His discussion of Theosophy and the UN is largely correct, but I think that he misses some context. I will check out the Teichrib story. Thanks.
Regarding the cults that you mention as missing from the list you linked (Cult Education Institute), would you consider sending them an offering; I am assuming that it would be a matter of a little cut and paste or sharing one of your articles, to direct them to what they're missing. I gather a lot of their information is crowd sourced. The question of what is included, and what is not, is always an interesting one. As your work illustrates, what's missing is often more telling than what is offered. Another element of the 'manufactured consensus' I did inquire about more detail regards their funding. I'll post if I get any response.
Isn’t theosophy almost dead, past tense. I have read occult literature for decades. I did read Madam Blavatsky. It was known even then that a lot of it was fictional. Occult literature has given births to many genres like science fiction, mystery, ancient mysteries, and so on. I understand that what you went through as a child was more real, not fiction, but most of it I think it fictional. Even L. Ron Hubbard was a fiction writer. When I went to visit the theosophical society in Oceanside, just because we were there for the week-end and looking for something to do—weeds were growing in the lawn and the front door was padlocked. I attended a lecture at the theosophical building in L.A. and again it was not very impressive, maybe there are twenty-four members. The New Age is old hat. I know they have Satanic masses—the Gnostic mass, which I don’t think comes from Theosophy. But this one person involved told me it was " just jxxking xff on the altar." They have sperm based communion wafers. Not too many people want that kind of spirituality. As far as I can tell it has no direct relation with health freedom, which really is a big deal, and it is mostly woman with vaccine injured children. That is a real robust and growing movement and very interconnected.
"I don't see the occult, so its presence must not be impressive."
They're powerful enough to shove common core down the throats of the school systems.
They're embedded in the UN.
In future articles, I'm going to point out that part of the reason you don't notice them so much is that they're all over dark markets (traffickers) and military intelligence. They're also all over the entertainment/propaganda industry.
If you could see through the Matrix so easily, it wouldn't be the Matrix.
The Globalist Billionaires want to reduce world populations down to about 250 million, bearing in mind that at the beginning of WW2, but in 1940 there were 2.2 Billion apparently, though how that was estimated, goodness knows and the way it is easy done is with all of those who have been vaccinated, as decribed here - and what for, not vaccines, but the COVID jab is a medical treatment, not a vaccine: ModRNA Made in a laboratory and Patented by US Law 2013 not "Natural mRNA" which by US Law 2013 cannot be patented: mRNA means injected humans are now genetically modified to produce "protein" toxins that their own body tries to destroy
Ever heard the term auto-immune disorder? If not, you will very soon, and quite often. It starts with even the healthiest people, who got brainwashed by the Pharma cartel into getting the toxic "forever" jab, where human cells are tricked into producing virus-mimicking "protein" prions, that are produced indefinitely (counter to medical narratives) and spread throughout the body. This signals the human immune system that every organ is under attack by foreign invaders, and the immune system is taxed, hyper-activated constantly, and the heart and CNS start breaking down too.
Just like GM corn and GM soy, the Covid-jab-injected human's DNA system is now a toxic protein creating factory, but instead of killing insects and worms, the human body is destroying itself. In other words, the "pest" is itself, and the immune system identifies it this way. Still wondering why the Covid-vaxxed masses keep dropping like flies, from unexplainable heart attacks, spontaneous abortions and stroke-inducing fibrous vascular clots?
These mRNA-injected humans are now walking bio-weapons factories, and their doctors are never allowed to discuss it. The medical industry has every employee parroting and regurgitating all the false-narratives (disinformation) about how the mRNA remains at the site of injection, and how it only produces spike proteins for a few months. Lies. Does the genetically modified corn and soy only produce worm-exterminating proteins for a few weeks? This deserves careful consideration.
Do not ever let Big Pharma genetically modify you. There are more mRNA jabs being developed right now, being created to control the populace, eliminate the undesirables (everyone but the elitists and their slaves), and turn the Republic into a third-world hell-hole.
More mRNA coming to further infect 270 million Americans with "protein" toxins that invade every organ, including the heart and brain
S.D. Wells
Update June 7 2024
COVID jab a medical treatment, not a vaccine, “safe and effective for what?”
Legal Precedent - 9th Circuit Court Rules COVID-19 mRNA Injections Are Not Legally Vaccines
"The right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions and the case merits are sufficient to invoke that fundamental right."
Karen Kingston
Jun 8
June 7, 2024: The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals just ruled in favor of protecting individual human rights and bodily sovereignty of teachers and other staff of the Los Angeles School Unified District’s (LAUSD), reversing a lower court’s dismissal of their case against the LA County’s School District vaccine mandate for employees.
Announcing this huge win on behalf of their clients, Health Freedom Defense Fund issued a press release, stating that the case was won;
“On the merits, the majority ruled that the district court had misapplied the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts when it dismissed LAUSD’s lawsuit on grounds that the mandate was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a smallpox vaccination mandate because it related to “preventing the spread” of smallpox.
The majority, however, noted that HFDF had alleged in the lawsuit that the COVID jabs are not “traditional” vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 but only purport to mitigate COVID symptoms in the recipient. This, HFDF had alleged in its complaint, makes the COVID jab a medical treatment, not a vaccine.
The court recognized that mitigating symptoms rather than preventing the spread of disease “distinguishes Jacobson, thus presenting a different government interest.” Based on this reasoning, the majority disapproved the trial court’s contention that, even if the jabs do not prevent the spread, “Jacobson still dictates that the vaccine mandate is subject to, and survives, the rational basis test.”
The court held that “[t]his misapplies Jacobson,” which “did not involve a claim in which the compelled vaccine was ‘designed to reduce symptoms in the infected vaccine recipient rather than to prevent transmission and infection.”’ Jacobson does not, the majority concluded, extend to “forced medical treatment” for the benefit of the recipient.”
When HFDF asked the court to opine as to whether or not the CDC’s claim that the COVID-19 vaccines were ‘safe and effective’, the court responded with the rhetorical question, “safe and effective for what?”
Legal Precedent for U.S. Citizens to Deny Medical Treatment
Per the HFDF press release, “Judge Collins wrote that the district court “further erred by failing to realize that [HFDF’s] allegations directly implicate a distinct and more recent line of Supreme Court authority” for the proposition that “a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment[.]” Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Washington v. Glucksberg, Judge Collins noted that the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is “entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions,” and that HFDF’s allegations in this case “are sufficient to invoke that fundamental right.”
The Kingston Report
A Legal Precedent is a LEGAL "Rule Of Law from God". It cannot be bought or suppressed.
A vaccine which BionTech/Pfizer said should have been licensed as a Gene Therapy Injection (1995) and which targets the Dentric Cells in the Lymph Nodes (2023) - but what for?
Time to get The "Devil's Tools" out and start "roasting the buggers", on this side, for the deaths and injuries, they have forced done, from May 2020 to June 2023 with the now WHO directed "illegal Disinformation Laws" - and for the future - into many of "us" for a medical treatment, not a vaccine, but “safe and effective" for what? - which suggests all vaccines are medical treatments and not to be trusted, either, by Legal Precedent from June 7, 2024 .
It was 500 million on the Georgia Guidestones and that same number was supposedly "given" to Billy Meier by the Pleiadians. Either way they don't want 90+% of humans around.
Yes - it does get a bit confusing, however, if 97% of many populations are vaccinated and everyone who is vaccinated, now has a Spike Protein factory making Spikes which the body thinks are infections, which cause the body to attack and kill itself, then every vaccinated person potentailly will die within the next few years, but randomly, so that no evidence can be seen to work out how or why and in that scenario, there won't be many kids left or Humans as a whole, just those few who refused vaccines, like me. But I'm late 70's, so I won't be around much longer, but let's say another 10 years not vaccinated and the majority of us Human Rubbish who have refused vaccines will all die out naturally anyway, sooner or later - then I presuppose that the Billionaires and those of their families and ilk, World Wide, could easily end up being around 250 million or less - if they get their maths wrong, this could easily signal the end of our species on this planet, through the efforts of a few to decimate us all.
I'm sitting in a coffee shop and the barista is wearing a sweatshirt that says "WWJD? He Would Love First"... The lettering is rainbow colored.
...It is pride Month after all.
The layers of cult programming are rich in that sweatshirt expression, and I feel it illustrates the Waldo metaphor.
One of the most pernicious ways the virus spreads is through the use and gradual shift in how language is used and the the fluid meaning of words and concepts. Since people externally identify through language and shared descriptors of reality, a gradual supplanting of legitimate individual sovereignty results. The kind of sovereignty that affords any individual a direct experience with their own source of Creation; no words or concepts required.
One becomes more easily influenced by cult thinking the more this direct connection is corrupted.
There are legitimate "occult" practices that address this mis-alignment, but they remain occult and are kept that way for a reason.
Most people who address these topics get triggered by words like "Gnosticism" and "luciferianism"... James Lindsay is yet another. Have legitimate teachings been misappropriated and used to harm many people? Heck yes, they have. But, those who do not practice deeper studies are ignorant to the realities that exist. And so, the witch hunt takes on yet another form.
The known corruption of another's ability to experience their own spirit is the worst form of abuse. This takes place in many forms of abuse otherwise defined.
"What would Jesus Do?" - Whenever I'm told to view things in those terms I always have a smart ass reply "Kick ass, knock over tables and start a riot?" or "Everybody get a weapon even if you have to sell you clothes?". They always reply that those are taken out of context but can never answer what the context is LOL
The psychology sounds about right ... particularly the breaking of empathy-driven bonds of small communities and families. I'd argue that most institutions eventually become indistinguishable from "cults" ... including the relatively modern idea of "nation-state". A good read on some of the psychology is popular-philosopher Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer".
Cheers from Japan ... a land rich in secular cults.
I would defend Hanlon's Razor just a little bit. I think it is fairly applicable when dealing with people you personally know and are interacting with. Most people are just ignorant, not malicious, so most people you interact with day to day really just are not paying attention, as it were.
Where it breaks down, hard, is when you move from normal people you interact with day to day to highly selective groups. Business executives, for instance, are not a random sampling of people, but rather a very small percentage that is highly selected for certain traits. If those traits include, say, goal driven sociopathy, then yea, assuming their intentions are not bad is going to be a big mistake generally. Scale that up to politicians who are an even tinier percentage of the population and much more filtered for certain traits, and the razor should definitely be flipped and we should assume malice until proven otherwise.
Put another way, abuse of Hanlon's Razor seems to me to be a version of the human mistake Hayek cites for the appeal of socialism: applying behavior that is appropriate for the family and close friends to behavior appropriate to anonymous society, and vice versa. A useful rule of thumb for assumptions about humans at large (anonymous society) is really destructive when applied to small and highly selected groups (elites), just as applying the rules of markets to your family interactions would be pretty awful.
Thank you. What you've done, ultimately, is explained to people precisely where Hanlon's razor is oversubscribed, and almost certainly used as a form of mind control. It fits people's intuition within their community circles, which is far removed from the machinations of global organization and the expert classes.
You are most welcome! It is a small thing next to the great essay you have written for us, for which I thank you!
I often say to myself "The fact that I don't know something has nothing to do with its truth, falsehood, existence or non-existence."
I came up with that when I realized that all the arguments called "razors" start by discreetly choosing one side with the vain hope that nobody will notice.
In particular, Ockham's razor is simply a rhetorical tactic because it's generally easier to defend an argument that makes few assumptions, than arguments that make more assumptions. The razor itself says nothing about validity or truth or anything about the argument or the topic, but it has that air of thought control that is the foundation of all sophists.
I think the useful part of the various razors is to give one a starting point for cognition, not the end point or solution. Helping one line up priors, in Baysean terms. Not much stronger than “many dogs are friendly “ or “don’t pet wild geese”, but still helpful places to start if you know when they apply. Applying general rules of thumb about dogs to hyenas is probably a bad move:)
My favourite is the second half of Hanlon's Razor. The substacker "bad catitude" put it succinctly: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence but always ascribe to malice that which has gone on far too long to be explained by incompetence".
I think we passed that "far too long" point a while back.
Indeed. Gotta love the bad cat , always puts his paw right on it.
He also pointed out the VENN diagram that explains what we just went through. I added some short explanations so people wouldn't have to look up the Asch, Milgram and Stanford experiments because people don't want more than 30 seconds of info (so I help them LOL).
https://i.postimg.cc/KzpyfJDm/VENN-3-Asch-Milgram-Stanford-Full.png
Interestingly none of those 3 are affected by intelligence. It is the ability to question authority that most just can't do. Peer groups, educators, religious, political but most importantly medical authorities just can't be questioned by the majority.
I have a pretty intelligent group of friends and relatives. Not one other than myself rejected the jab. Some did back off after their first 2 jabs. I completely agree that general intelligence has nothing to do with the ability to both 1) question authority, and 2) look for inconsistencies in whatever is presented for your information consumption.
Yes, there is an ignorance involved, but there was also ignorance involved in the hive-mind thinking around the submission to the "covid psyop" and all its variants (pun intended). Many of the do-gooders I encountered with covid were quick to express the "virtues" of Hanlon's Razor even if they were unconscious of the influence of the thinking. That "ignorance" got a lot of people killed, and severely affected many more.
Eventually, ignorance is no longer an acceptable excuse, and the mal-affects of the thinking need to be addressed on the front lines of social discourse.
Perhaps I am a bit to hyper-vigilant about this, but after witnessing how submissive large numbers of people became - and watching some of them die and leave my life permanently -, I cannot help but see them as liabilities to my own well-being, and all because they were incapable of thinking that people would promote terrible and life-threatening agendas.
"Liabilities to my own well-being."
Yes! This is why, for my friends and family who weren't killed (yet) by the shots, I still have my guard up more with them. I know they don't mean me harm, but I also know they are easily duped.
The signs that these people could be easily duped were there before the shots came out though, I just didn't see them as well as I do now in hindsight.
Sad thing is, I have this group of friends because I ditched the last group for being easily manipulated as well.
I would like to thank you for your insightful comment.
But I would point out that even under the auspices of the most extreme Hanlon abuse imaginable, where everyone is a bleeding heart philanthropist, there is an argument to be made that I rarely see.
How could a person who was so criminally negligent reach a position of such power and carry out such disastrous acts with nobody challenging them?
It indicates that everyone around them and everyone who supported them has no idea what they are doing. There was an enormous oversight that needs to be addressed before trust can be rebuilt.
So in other words, if it's malice we need to put our guard up and be careful who we trust, and if it's incompetence we need to put our guard up and be careful who we trust.
Indeed, Grey's law says just that, "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice". This aphorism cuts both ways, in either case the solution is to limit the power of untrustworthy actors.
A crude analogy could be made to a fox that keeps killing your chickens. It doesn't matter if the fox has malicious intentions, we really can't trust it to guard the henhouse.
But instead, our society seems to be made up of masochistic goldfish.
Yes indeed. I think there are two prongs at play there: one, our culture has gotten away from exercising moral judgment , and two, we have also begun to be unwilling to pay the price of punishing those who behave badly. We have gotten really bad about stuff like “well, it is hard to know all the circumstances, so who am I to say?” when the answer is that we are obligated to think and judge; even if the judgement is “I don’t know enough” we should have an answer for what would be enough and not just decide not to do it because it is hard.
I think we like to shirk that responsibility for good judgement because it also lets us avoid executing the punishment that should go along. Not just official punishment, but things like calling people out on bad behavior or leaving an organization that we think might be bad. Just go along to get along is the root of a lot of problems.
Personally, I don't think the solution is to punish perpetrators. Allow me to explain why with an example:
Suppose there is a forest village where a pack of dangerous wolves operate.
So the village guards catch one of the wolves and mount it on a pike as a warning to the others.
Thinking that this deterrent will make the village safer, the people relax but the killing continues for months.
And so more and more wolves are mounted until there is a ring all the way around the village and people are confused about why the wolves are still coming when it's suicidal.
At a certain point you have to realise that the only way to keep yourself safe is to form a group with trustworthy companions and protect eachother.
Revenge or deterrance alone isn't enough. There will always be more threats.
You may think this scenario is contrived because the wolves would eventually stop, but what if I said that someone who hates the village is secretly abducting wolf cubs and training them to attack.
Then it would never stop no matter how much deterrence there is.
Wolves are not people, and cannot make the decision “screw this, I am not getting mounted on a pike for this asshole.”
More importantly, in your example of someone training wolves the villagers are lacking judgement. They haven’t identified all the perpetrators in this case, only the obvious ones.
Both judgment and then acting upon that judgement (for the good or ill of the judged) are necessary.
People can be trained to the same extent, look at suicide bombers. Covert elements of intelligence agencies are adept enough at brainwashing to produce these kinds of people.
And yes, as you point out they would need to track down the wolf trainer and slay him in order to stop the attacks.
But this metaphor applies to our current society in that the immediately visible ones are mostly just trained actors.
The task of hunting down their handlers and their handlers handlers is challenging and compounded by the fact that they are both very good at hiding and also immensely powerful.
Further complications could arise from misinformation leading to a lot of wasted time and there's also the possibility of secret traitors infiltrating the group to capture it for the other side.
I think it's wiser for each individual to establish a 'tribe-like' circle who they spend a lot of time with and develop trust for.
Then the different groups interact through shared contacts in a network.
They then act to defend those they know from harm, while ignoring the vast majority of strangers who may or may not be enemies.
This has the added advantage of being a life surrounded by people you like and trust, while also providing for defence, attack and economy.
I agree with your point. The hashashim are proof of that. And, in fact, I do think that's part of the MOBS network we are dealing with: serious brainwashing. I want to write about that, but it's a difficult challenge. The argument needs to be made compelling. I've spent possibly 2000ish hours over the past two years reading up on the history of mind control programs. At some point, I started documenting:
https://embed.kumu.io/b791c1c421e15f4619e297b163549fbc
I think your solution only works with a very insular society, and doesn't solve the wolf metaphor at all. Even if your tribe and related tribes are all decent to each other, the wolves are still out there to pick you off, either until you change the incentives of the wolves or kill off/change the incentives of the trainer.
In general, though, we are always going to be related to strangers through broader society. Not related by blood or marriage mind you, but by various links like commerce, living in the same general region, being part of the same national/governmental structure, whatever. You just can't know everyone you deal with first hand well enough, and certainly not everyone they deal with. Hence we need processes and rules for how we deal with strangers.
Regarding suicide bombers: you don't see so many of them these days it seems. Less mind control happening, less effectiveness, or the mind controllers deciding it isn't worth the trouble? I don't know.
Halon's razor is an intuitive rule of thumb aka "heuristic" but a heuristic is an unreliable guide to action. For reliability one needs Principles of Reasoning that solve The Problem of Induction but few of us know these principles.
Precisely.
I'm still amazed that Theosophy caught on, as the whole scam was rumbled by one Mr Aleister Crowley, of all people.
Theosophy first really caught on in London, with the idea that upper middle-class Englishmen were the absolute pinnacle of evolution (that they also had scads of money didn't hurt, I'm sure).
It worked like this: Madame Blavatsky would stand before a curtain, and receive letters of wisdom for the audience dropped down from her Red Indian Spirit Guide behind the curtain.
Mr Crowley, being a suspicious sort, stood up one evening and pulled the curtain down
Lo and behold, there stood Madame's assistant, Franz, standing on a chair, holding several letters.
The meeting was abruptly adjourned, and Mr Crowley was banned for life.
The weird part is that most people came back. And more came...
You get the idea. Me, I'm still wondering why.
"Theosophy first really caught on in London, with the idea that upper middle-class Englishmen were the absolute pinnacle of evolution (that they also had scads of money didn't hurt, I'm sure)."
Anyone who studies the first year of Theosophy and the first year of each of its major projects should come to the realization that the instantaneous spread of Theosophy was organized by a larger collective. Within months of the founding of Theosophy, there were lodges all over London and England more broadly. Similarly, in India, once the Theosophists decided to build the Women's Indian Conference, there were over 40 offices around the subcontinent within a year. Where did the resources come from to make that happen, if not from a large occult network?
The Crown seemed to be running in parallel with those efforts as well.
I'm guessing you're aware of James Lindsay's work on the theosophical foundations of the UN? Latest here: https://newdiscourses.substack.com/p/the-global-pagan-theocracy-of-the
I enjoyed listening to that earlier this week. But I do think that he is missing a lot of key pieces of the puzzle. He hasn't connected the dots between Theosophy and Christianity. Perhaps there is too much cognitive dissonance in the way, but he is all around it: it was always Christians clearing the way for Theosophy at the UN. That's crucial to understanding the bigger picture.
Matt have you written articles on this subject? I would like to understand more.
Looking at your excellent maps it seems that you deem Christianity as part of the construct or are you suggesting it has been co-opted ?
Thank you
Interesting. Any thoughts on the gnostic Christian heresies?
That's a broad enough question to write several books about. Can you narrow it?
Lindsay interprets Marxism and queer theory as gnostic cults. He also views the eradication of the gnostic Christian cults by the Roman church as an affirmation of Western values - those that eventually produced the Enlightenment - over Eastern mysticism.
I guess I'm curious as to whether gnosticism keeps spontaneously arising, including within Christianity, or whether there's an organised human force which keeps inserting it into new cults.
It was Christian go-betweens in the Theosophical Society like Charles Leadbeater and J.I. Wedgewood who brought sex magik and religiously justified and organized child sexual abuse into practice and policy in Theosophy. But they brought it from the Catholic Church. There is a lot more to that story, obviously, but the larger body of evidence points toward Theosophy being a project of the occult power players that controlled Christianity and perhaps most all of the world religions for centuries.
As an aside that lends itself to the conversation: prior to the formation of Theosophy, which took great advantage of Hinduism, the social engineers conjured "Hinduism" out of thin air. The various local practices surrounding the common verses of sources like the Vedas and the Upanishads were not an organized religion, but the British had no idea what to make of cultural spiritual practice not connected to a an organized occult central force. This story alone helps us to choose between historical models of what was going on.
Interesting. Do you think Christianity itself (and for that matter, Judaism, Islam or any other organised religion) is an invention of those occult power players, or do they infiltrate and take over any and all cults that emerge spontaneously (assuming there's such a thing as spontaneous emergence of cults)?
I know your question is for Mathew, Robin, but I'll interject my answer, if I may. I've been preparing a post on What is a Gnostic? From the etymology of the word, it's anyone who acts as if God is as knowable to ordinary people as Church authorities. The word orthodox means 'in a straight line' like orthodonture. The word heresy comes from 'to choose for oneself.' An agnostic says, 'We'll never know' but a gnostic says that's no reason to hand God over to the authorities.
And just to remember the authorized version of who God is, when one of my readers asked for an example, I said that a game I play is to open the OT at random and see if you can find a page where God is not a sociopath. Here was my result yesterday:
"This time I opened to 2 Kings 9 where Jehu tricks the relatives of the king of Judah and slaughters them. Then he tricks the ministers of Baal and slaughters them, tearing down the temple and using it as a latrine. Then Jehu chases the king of Judah shouting, "Kill him too!" He goes back to the castle where the king's daughter Jezebel calls him a murderer, so he has the eunuchs throw her out a window and horses trample her, and dogs eat her flesh.
"In 10 in Samaria, there are 70 princes of Ahab being raised by guardians. He has the guardians cut off their heads and send them in baskets, which he puts in two piles at the city gates. Then he kills everyone in Ahab's house, his chief men, his close friends and his priests. When he stumbles onto some unwitting relatives, he has them taken alive to slaughter by the well."
This, of course, is all fiction. But it's the authorized LORD of the Bible, capitals in context.
Geez, that's very disturbing stuff. As I understand it, the gnostic Christian heresies advocated radical rejection of the body, sex magic and other pretty questionable practices. Is this a misrepresentation of gnosticism or a hijacking of its principles (and what are those principles???) by the occult power players that Mathew refers to?
For that matter, who/what are those occult power players?
I've been trying to think of an analogy. To say that "gnostics advocated _____" might be like saying "dissidents believe ____" There's no unity except in the negative, that they depart from authoritarian orthodoxy. There are over a hundred gnostic texts and some may pre-date the Bible. There's no one organization or authority, which was the point. And to call them heresies assumes that the orthodox version is true.
From the example above, can we say that Judeo-Christianity advocates beheading children and stacking their heads by the side of the road? What are the principles of Judeo-Christianity that can be derived from that scripture? I've never read anything in gnostic scriptures that has as many questionable practices regarding sex and violence as the OT.
This is a good thread to see happening. I think that religioun/gnostic is one of the partisan divides that "the network" uses to place blame and create division.
Can we not identify villains from each camp throughout history? What blinds us to see those in the other camp, and then leap from there to think, "It's the X that really rule the world and screw everything up."
I strongly suspect that this is how the MOBS rule.
Edit: I also think that the two of you are honest women who are able to have a productive conversation, regardless of your self-labeling. I will read if it progresses.
I should have been more specific. I was thinking in particular of the Cathars, whose creed involved radical rejection of the embodied self.
Understand that I'm not coming at this from a pro-Christian point of view. I'm not religious at all, although I acknowledge that the religious urge appears to be very strong in many/most humans.
Oh I forgot one thing, the Cathars definitely didn't believe in sex magic. They renounced all sex and wouldn't eat anything that was the result of sexual procreation. Fortunately for them, they thought fish emerged spontaneously ;-)
From what I've read, that was true of the inner circle - the Perfecti - but not of the Credentes - the ordinary folk who were working toward renunciation but not necessarily expected to attain it. The Credentes were said to practice abortion very freely. Mind you, that's not exactly historically unusual. When I was studying herbal medicine, I learned that one of the most common categories of herbs was the 'emmenagogues' - herbs that were said to 'bring on suppressed menses'. The most common cause of 'suppressed menses' is of course pregnancy, so emmenagogue is just a euphemism for abortifacient.
“Occult Octopus: how the Matrix constructs its levers of power” coming to a decentralised video service not so near you.
My current "best guess" is that the ultimate plan is to divide the population (get them hating anything but the elites who are in charge), get through some kind of big catastrophe (collapse of the dollar, civil war, WW3), and from the ashes implement the "Great Reset", which will basically be a chinese-style society.
Many of the various moves that have been made thus far, are about priming the population to accept more control and more austerity (OKC: gun toting freedom lovers are bad, 9-11: deep state control and patriot act, Covid: a fire drill in chinese style authoritarianism.)
I wouldn't be surprised if depopulation plays into this as well.
I'm not sure about the role cults play, or how much the elite are into sacrifice and Satan worship an dall that. I've heard a lot of those stories. I guess I see that as more frosting on the cake, because we've already seen what they're willing to do publically.
Religion is a very powerful control mechanism, whether the beliefs are held sincerely or used maliciously. So it would make sense for them to at least attempt to create such a world religion. Along with their old divide/conquer tricks. I just don't feel the bubblings of a new religion cropping up among the people, as I can clearly see the division.
They even want us to hate the elites, but they want us to fear each other just as much. They want for us to hate the elites because a cultural revolution still favors the oligarchs who can institute authoritarian rule. They want for us to tear down the old system, which would mean tearing down the last vestiges of protections of our rights, even if the system isn't all that good at it anymore.
The religious side of social engineering is always part of these transitions.
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/you-may-have-never-heard-of-the-largest
This was so good, your best piece yet!
"Hanlon’s Razor teaches us not to assume the worst intention in the actions of others."
No it doesn't.
It teaches us to begin with the most parsimonious a priori assumptions, based on the ubiquity of incompetence as statistically more probable in the context of observed human behavioral psychology.
Stupidity and malice routinely coexist within the same entities, both groups and the individuals of which they are composed. The simulacra of cleverness that this combination periodically exhibits, has a name; we refer to it as "low cunning."
Those who use Hanlon's Razor as an endpoint for injecting post hoc fallacies into situational analysis, are intellectually insolvent and morally bankrupt. It is a starting point for reasoned analysis, not a conclusion.
Great post.
You wrote "(until you aren't aloud)"
Did you mean "allowed"?
Thank you. Corrected.
Not sure if I’ve mentioned this before, but I highly recommend the book “Game of Gods: The Temple of Man in the Age of Re-Enchantment” by Carl Teichrib, who has also done in-depth research in many of these areas. He does write from a conservative Biblical Christian perspective, but given your comment on Theosophy vs Christianity, I don’t think you’d find that too scary! 😊
https://www.amazon.com/Game-Gods-Temple-Man-Re-Enchantment/dp/1999492900/ref=sr_1_4?crid=3QEYS7EA4ZDZM&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Cwj6ewQnLWI4mvjYJeLT3jLd3zsfP85tjTJljRXIn_ea98GXhBXSMyBzI8HlGxB2vXiI94uyyZVWNWQeH1kOgbO5NJuKHlVoTNImOic5da22swJWfAE8ASWe1uXBU0gr2AKG0IxiGxi0qZPA-vSdDgDLpdwWZT4pP3Pq6SMHw_FEphigV8OF76ZoD1vrJaDIY0x51Tdt90j5RMTIdGJ-2jsFIk3Wc2Go7HYGd1QBL1c.6B84YZUNFEWxNOc0T_Oam6NUMqpXU8sFXK9EBqoW0fA&dib_tag=se&keywords=game+of+gods&qid=1717845142&sprefix=Game+of+gods%2Caps%2C336&sr=8-4
James Lindsay has also started talking about Theosophy vs. Christianity. His discussion of Theosophy and the UN is largely correct, but I think that he misses some context. I will check out the Teichrib story. Thanks.
You can delete everything after the ? and get the same result.
https://www.amazon.com/Game-Gods-Temple-Man-Re-Enchantment/dp/1999492900/ref=sr_1_4
Regarding the cults that you mention as missing from the list you linked (Cult Education Institute), would you consider sending them an offering; I am assuming that it would be a matter of a little cut and paste or sharing one of your articles, to direct them to what they're missing. I gather a lot of their information is crowd sourced. The question of what is included, and what is not, is always an interesting one. As your work illustrates, what's missing is often more telling than what is offered. Another element of the 'manufactured consensus' I did inquire about more detail regards their funding. I'll post if I get any response.
Isn’t theosophy almost dead, past tense. I have read occult literature for decades. I did read Madam Blavatsky. It was known even then that a lot of it was fictional. Occult literature has given births to many genres like science fiction, mystery, ancient mysteries, and so on. I understand that what you went through as a child was more real, not fiction, but most of it I think it fictional. Even L. Ron Hubbard was a fiction writer. When I went to visit the theosophical society in Oceanside, just because we were there for the week-end and looking for something to do—weeds were growing in the lawn and the front door was padlocked. I attended a lecture at the theosophical building in L.A. and again it was not very impressive, maybe there are twenty-four members. The New Age is old hat. I know they have Satanic masses—the Gnostic mass, which I don’t think comes from Theosophy. But this one person involved told me it was " just jxxking xff on the altar." They have sperm based communion wafers. Not too many people want that kind of spirituality. As far as I can tell it has no direct relation with health freedom, which really is a big deal, and it is mostly woman with vaccine injured children. That is a real robust and growing movement and very interconnected.
"I don't see the occult, so its presence must not be impressive."
They're powerful enough to shove common core down the throats of the school systems.
They're embedded in the UN.
In future articles, I'm going to point out that part of the reason you don't notice them so much is that they're all over dark markets (traffickers) and military intelligence. They're also all over the entertainment/propaganda industry.
If you could see through the Matrix so easily, it wouldn't be the Matrix.
The Globalist Billionaires want to reduce world populations down to about 250 million, bearing in mind that at the beginning of WW2, but in 1940 there were 2.2 Billion apparently, though how that was estimated, goodness knows and the way it is easy done is with all of those who have been vaccinated, as decribed here - and what for, not vaccines, but the COVID jab is a medical treatment, not a vaccine: ModRNA Made in a laboratory and Patented by US Law 2013 not "Natural mRNA" which by US Law 2013 cannot be patented: mRNA means injected humans are now genetically modified to produce "protein" toxins that their own body tries to destroy
Ever heard the term auto-immune disorder? If not, you will very soon, and quite often. It starts with even the healthiest people, who got brainwashed by the Pharma cartel into getting the toxic "forever" jab, where human cells are tricked into producing virus-mimicking "protein" prions, that are produced indefinitely (counter to medical narratives) and spread throughout the body. This signals the human immune system that every organ is under attack by foreign invaders, and the immune system is taxed, hyper-activated constantly, and the heart and CNS start breaking down too.
Just like GM corn and GM soy, the Covid-jab-injected human's DNA system is now a toxic protein creating factory, but instead of killing insects and worms, the human body is destroying itself. In other words, the "pest" is itself, and the immune system identifies it this way. Still wondering why the Covid-vaxxed masses keep dropping like flies, from unexplainable heart attacks, spontaneous abortions and stroke-inducing fibrous vascular clots?
These mRNA-injected humans are now walking bio-weapons factories, and their doctors are never allowed to discuss it. The medical industry has every employee parroting and regurgitating all the false-narratives (disinformation) about how the mRNA remains at the site of injection, and how it only produces spike proteins for a few months. Lies. Does the genetically modified corn and soy only produce worm-exterminating proteins for a few weeks? This deserves careful consideration.
Do not ever let Big Pharma genetically modify you. There are more mRNA jabs being developed right now, being created to control the populace, eliminate the undesirables (everyone but the elitists and their slaves), and turn the Republic into a third-world hell-hole.
More mRNA coming to further infect 270 million Americans with "protein" toxins that invade every organ, including the heart and brain
S.D. Wells
Update June 7 2024
COVID jab a medical treatment, not a vaccine, “safe and effective for what?”
Legal Precedent - 9th Circuit Court Rules COVID-19 mRNA Injections Are Not Legally Vaccines
"The right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions and the case merits are sufficient to invoke that fundamental right."
Karen Kingston
Jun 8
June 7, 2024: The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals just ruled in favor of protecting individual human rights and bodily sovereignty of teachers and other staff of the Los Angeles School Unified District’s (LAUSD), reversing a lower court’s dismissal of their case against the LA County’s School District vaccine mandate for employees.
Announcing this huge win on behalf of their clients, Health Freedom Defense Fund issued a press release, stating that the case was won;
“On the merits, the majority ruled that the district court had misapplied the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts when it dismissed LAUSD’s lawsuit on grounds that the mandate was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a smallpox vaccination mandate because it related to “preventing the spread” of smallpox.
The majority, however, noted that HFDF had alleged in the lawsuit that the COVID jabs are not “traditional” vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 but only purport to mitigate COVID symptoms in the recipient. This, HFDF had alleged in its complaint, makes the COVID jab a medical treatment, not a vaccine.
The court recognized that mitigating symptoms rather than preventing the spread of disease “distinguishes Jacobson, thus presenting a different government interest.” Based on this reasoning, the majority disapproved the trial court’s contention that, even if the jabs do not prevent the spread, “Jacobson still dictates that the vaccine mandate is subject to, and survives, the rational basis test.”
The court held that “[t]his misapplies Jacobson,” which “did not involve a claim in which the compelled vaccine was ‘designed to reduce symptoms in the infected vaccine recipient rather than to prevent transmission and infection.”’ Jacobson does not, the majority concluded, extend to “forced medical treatment” for the benefit of the recipient.”
When HFDF asked the court to opine as to whether or not the CDC’s claim that the COVID-19 vaccines were ‘safe and effective’, the court responded with the rhetorical question, “safe and effective for what?”
Legal Precedent for U.S. Citizens to Deny Medical Treatment
Per the HFDF press release, “Judge Collins wrote that the district court “further erred by failing to realize that [HFDF’s] allegations directly implicate a distinct and more recent line of Supreme Court authority” for the proposition that “a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment[.]” Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Washington v. Glucksberg, Judge Collins noted that the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is “entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions,” and that HFDF’s allegations in this case “are sufficient to invoke that fundamental right.”
The Kingston Report
A Legal Precedent is a LEGAL "Rule Of Law from God". It cannot be bought or suppressed.
A vaccine which BionTech/Pfizer said should have been licensed as a Gene Therapy Injection (1995) and which targets the Dentric Cells in the Lymph Nodes (2023) - but what for?
Time to get The "Devil's Tools" out and start "roasting the buggers", on this side, for the deaths and injuries, they have forced done, from May 2020 to June 2023 with the now WHO directed "illegal Disinformation Laws" - and for the future - into many of "us" for a medical treatment, not a vaccine, but “safe and effective" for what? - which suggests all vaccines are medical treatments and not to be trusted, either, by Legal Precedent from June 7, 2024 .
It was 500 million on the Georgia Guidestones and that same number was supposedly "given" to Billy Meier by the Pleiadians. Either way they don't want 90+% of humans around.
Yes - it does get a bit confusing, however, if 97% of many populations are vaccinated and everyone who is vaccinated, now has a Spike Protein factory making Spikes which the body thinks are infections, which cause the body to attack and kill itself, then every vaccinated person potentailly will die within the next few years, but randomly, so that no evidence can be seen to work out how or why and in that scenario, there won't be many kids left or Humans as a whole, just those few who refused vaccines, like me. But I'm late 70's, so I won't be around much longer, but let's say another 10 years not vaccinated and the majority of us Human Rubbish who have refused vaccines will all die out naturally anyway, sooner or later - then I presuppose that the Billionaires and those of their families and ilk, World Wide, could easily end up being around 250 million or less - if they get their maths wrong, this could easily signal the end of our species on this planet, through the efforts of a few to decimate us all.
I'm sitting in a coffee shop and the barista is wearing a sweatshirt that says "WWJD? He Would Love First"... The lettering is rainbow colored.
...It is pride Month after all.
The layers of cult programming are rich in that sweatshirt expression, and I feel it illustrates the Waldo metaphor.
One of the most pernicious ways the virus spreads is through the use and gradual shift in how language is used and the the fluid meaning of words and concepts. Since people externally identify through language and shared descriptors of reality, a gradual supplanting of legitimate individual sovereignty results. The kind of sovereignty that affords any individual a direct experience with their own source of Creation; no words or concepts required.
One becomes more easily influenced by cult thinking the more this direct connection is corrupted.
There are legitimate "occult" practices that address this mis-alignment, but they remain occult and are kept that way for a reason.
Most people who address these topics get triggered by words like "Gnosticism" and "luciferianism"... James Lindsay is yet another. Have legitimate teachings been misappropriated and used to harm many people? Heck yes, they have. But, those who do not practice deeper studies are ignorant to the realities that exist. And so, the witch hunt takes on yet another form.
The known corruption of another's ability to experience their own spirit is the worst form of abuse. This takes place in many forms of abuse otherwise defined.
I appreciate your continued work on this, Mathew.
"What would Jesus Do?" - Whenever I'm told to view things in those terms I always have a smart ass reply "Kick ass, knock over tables and start a riot?" or "Everybody get a weapon even if you have to sell you clothes?". They always reply that those are taken out of context but can never answer what the context is LOL
I am acutely aware of how meaningless language is becoming, between the inversion and then just outright lies and nonsense its positively surreal.
You are brilliant.
I just hope these thoughts are helpful.
A very important and useful article. Thank you! I will read it repeatedly to ensure it “sinks in”.
Hi Mathew.
The psychology sounds about right ... particularly the breaking of empathy-driven bonds of small communities and families. I'd argue that most institutions eventually become indistinguishable from "cults" ... including the relatively modern idea of "nation-state". A good read on some of the psychology is popular-philosopher Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer".
Cheers from Japan ... a land rich in secular cults.