15 Comments

Then there is Darwinism- the perfect psyop to infiltrate all aspects of society claiming a bleak dog eat dog mechanical survival mechanism as the basis of biology and human activity. It was the cia who sought out the nobody Darwin and promised him fame- tweaking his work to their advantage. Just another example of infiltration. Virology also has a sketchy ‘scientific’ basis if you look at the origins. A complex subject over simplified to manipulate the public.

Expand full comment

As has been pointed out by some critics of Darwinism, the so-called theory of natural selection is not scientific and is unfalsifiable. The reason that it presents a powerful illusion is that it is a different (and misleading) expression of a truism. There is no selection. There is no "survival of the fittest." The correct understanding is, "That which cannot survive, perishes" - which is true by definition. The idea of natural selection provides an excuse for rationalization, regardless of any observation or the outcome of any experiment. There is no objective definition of "fitness." The fittest are those that are the fastest, fiercest, have the sharpest teeth or claws, etc., or those that play dead, that are best camoflaged, that reproduce the fastest, that have more resistance to chemicals - the list is endless. One can choose or invent any reason for survival, depending on the situation, and this is why the truism is unfalsifiable. Nature (the hypothetical intelligent agent) does not select the fittest to survive. Those that cannot survive, do not survive, no matter what the reason. It is difficult to overcome the illusion because it is not a hypothesis or a scientific theory, but simply a misstated truism.

Expand full comment

So well said. A misstated truism that has been indoctrinated as fact stimulating a subconscious feelings of fear, threat and lack of safety. Exactly where the manipulators want the public.

Expand full comment

It is not quite accurate to say that "It was the CIA who sought out the nobody Darwin and promised him fame." Darwin died in 1882. The CIA was formed in 1947 or so, although it was the successor to the OSS, if I remember correctly.

Expand full comment

Right- of course! Thanks for the fact correction.

The plan to steer humanity down that course of seeing the world through the survival lens has long been in the making. I’m sure there was a pre cia “intelligence” gathering organizing that was facilitating indoctrination of the masses.

Expand full comment

I followed up a bit on my previous error about Darwin being published by the cia.

It was Thomas Huxley- grandfather of Aldous Huxley, who recognized Darwin’s theory as a propaganda tool. Thomas was actively trying to override the institutionalized religious beliefs of the day, advocating to replace them with scientific theory. The Huxley family was aligned with the eugenics movement. Thomas’ grandson Julian, brother of Aldous, later acted as president of the eugenics society.

There was a bit of arm twisting on Thomas Huxley’s part to convince Darwin to allow him to publish his work by appealing to Darwin about the possibility for fame. Darwin was also encouraged by proponents of Mathusianism.

This is a link to a brief review of a biography that that explores some of this background.

https://crev.info/2022/11/huxley-conspiracy-to-sell-darwinism/

Expand full comment

** in any case- it was a pivotal step to move humanity from a spiritual belief in the divine order of creation to believing in purely natural laws without the hand of a creator. Thomas Huxley was the first to use the term agnostic.

Expand full comment

It’s refreshing to see people connecting the dots with Rome and masons and Jesuits.

Expand full comment

"False conspiracies are pushed by occult networks into any and all dissident discussions. Examples include the Flat Earthers, the No Virus crowds, and whatever you want to call the DMED psyop folks. The result is gaslighting and a hall of mirrors that slows the ability of free thinkers to examine evidence and form strong communities. These activities are a big clue as to just how evil the Theosophists can be."

Very interesting.

I want to bring to your attention the case of Justin Leslie, whislteblower from Pfizer. This young man seems pretty angry at James O'Keefe. His version of events is that O'Keefe stopped the release of the full story on the so called "Directed Evolution" saga, which affects Malone. Back in 2023, when O'Keefe broke the internet with those videos at the diner/stage, Malone went on video the next two days insisting (I think on Bannon's and in other places) that the story was real, that Walker was a real executive, that they were really trying to make the virus worse with the vaccine (if I understand the story correctly.) But the undercover journalists / young lab scientist who went on a "date" twice with Walker is this Justin Leslie, who is solidly on the no virus camp, and denounces the mass poisoning campaign of the mRNA injectable products.

And he has friends on the gnostic arena. And everything is very confusing, as always.

I see gnostic totalitarianism in both no-virus and yes-virus camps. How could not be so? The entire enterprise of vaccines is redolent of gnosticism, in particular that weird idea promoted by Bret Weinstein and others about extinguishing the virus through vaccination and perennial lockdowns. The virus is the archon that keeps us prisoner. Only virus communism will save us from the virus. It's as stupid as that, when we boil it down.

But all people with an actually functional frontal lobe argued that there is no way to eradicate viruses, much less bacteria. And of these, some went so far as to admit that myth about smallpox eradication was always textbook and think-tank bullshit anyway, a just-so story tailored to placate the hubris of brainiacs and unternerds.

If there was no SARS virus and it was all theatre, which is perfectly possible given the level of penetration and development of scientific fraud involved, then the bigger crime, the coerced injections of God-knows-what, becomes less confusing. More painful, but more clear. The pain makes many of us avert our eyes. But the problem is real, in spite of the horrendous behavior of foot-soldiers of the no-virus camp, who spend so much time eating up people of their own side.

In a sense, it's much better that certain types of people never form a strong community. People who want order should take advantage of the trollish incompetence of their foes. But I'm worried about Christians supporting the bigger and well organized totalitarian gnosticism simply because of disgust.

Right now I am waiting for a reasonable response by a non-jerk expert of the yes-virus side, of the published work of Jamie Andrews, the pictures of CPE (cyto-pathic effects) in cell-line cultures that show "viruses" even on uninfected samples, vert tight negative controls. Which is a repetition and extension of Stephan Lanka's work that everyone ignores. Why is it ignored? Why is it so difficult to explain?

Are we expected to believe that any possible "pathogenic" sequence of genetic code is already embedded in all other genomes of all other organisms, and therefore all viral experiments can find and "prove" anything because, speaking with metaphysical lingo, everything is in everything, as Anaxagoras, that old pre-Socratic philosopher, is supposed to have taught?

Just like a fraudulent statistician is capable of torturing and manipulating the data as much as necessary so that it says whatever the main investigator wants to hear, a lab scientist can simply try as many combinations of antibiotics, antifungal drugs, stains and culture media as necessary until the right virus they are searching for is formed under the electron microscope.

This is impossible!!!

This is madness!!!

If you imagine you have a virus, will that virus appear ***ACTUALLY*** in your system, somewhere? Are humans capable of create actual things with their thoughts, as opposed of just being able to create fictions?

Expand full comment

Note: My YouTube account was nuked on a strike three (all unexplained) just after we (Liam's report) posted a video challenging the narrative on the Jordan Walker story. I wish I had more cycles to dig into that one, and the fact that we were almost the only ones scratching our heads is one of the reasons I broadly distrust most of the alt media dissident talkers.

Thank you for the extra bit on Justin Leslie. I hadn't heard that name, or didn't have enough context to remember it.

There are numerous good debates to be had about virology. Sadly, the No Virus crowd stirs it all up in a confusing soup that cannot be teased apart by anyone not well schooled in science who isn't willing to give up a lot of hours on it. They also run attacks on people that are ugly and disgusting, and often using anon accounts while the public speakers are mostly polite and say nothing about the anon and bot account swarms.

It did not surprise me to find out that there were attacks from that group along the lines of Theosophy attacks. I do know that the woman who organized that No Virus team on message, Imanee Oxum, is a New Age guru type, and is close friends with Scientologist Leigh Dundas who is suspicious for all sorts of reasons, starting with her part in the DMED psyop.

Expand full comment

I've noticed that nastiness, I've suffered it, I speak against it, I get attacked for demanding good manners and respect for basic ethics of rational debate.

The bottom FEDers are complete hooligans and bullies, and it's shameful for me to receive messages from them. But I'm stuck with these people because I don't want to leave behind the good people I know there, who do not abuse anyone. I think that, at some point, the foot soldiers will begin to punch upwards and insult the leaders and try to replace them, which may become a huge shit show that one part of me wants to watch, and another part of me wants to escape from as fast as possible. For instance, if Mike Yeadon (I love that guy) ever says anything different from his current discourse, he will suffer the abuse of certain nincompoops in this space, because idol worshipers cannot allow the image to be an actual being who changes and adapts, and they get so angry when something escapes their delusional control.

I remember the anecdote you have explained a couple of times about that weird Mommalution person, who looks to me like an MBA type. I can't stand multilevel marketeers who exploit disease and loneliness. And there was also that suuuper weird guy name Sacha Stein, who seems to be like the multilevel overseer above all the alt-health gurus, and one who organizes all the feuds and reconciliations like that McMahon guy.

Expand full comment

*Stone

Expand full comment

That one. Correct.

Expand full comment

The interview was interesting and Terry Wolfe gives some good examples and descriptions of the New Age gobbledegook.

There are several “baby with the bath water” things which lack nuance. “Sun gazing,” for example, is a healthy and energizing practice. It doesn’t have to be accompanied by weird ideas or thoughts.

The problem is that mass “Christianity” just like mass politics or anything else becomes a cartoon. Discourse reduces to food fights over words. Kierkegaard saw clearly where things were headed almost 200 years ago.

The New Age has gained a foothold because of this. “Trump is our savior” is a reflection of the depth of much of what passes for Christian thought.

Look up what Manly P. Hall claims is the “secret doctrine of all ages” and without bringing in preconceived biases explain what is wrong with it.

We Christianized pagan holidays and blindly attacked everything else which led to a break with our western tradition and civilization. The lines were drawn in the wrong places and the results have been catastrophic.

We need a church that can shepherd the “least of these” and provide a base of comfort and safety to bring those of good will together. But we can’t bring down everything to the lowest common denominator.

This is why “secret societies” were formed. They aren’t all from Satan. Many became corrupted which is no surprise. We need to engage like Paul at Mars Hill at the highest levels of thought and discourse.

But more than that, we need to see that the battle is over core principles and morality. This nightmare feeds on the taxes and wealth stolen from us because we didn’t hold the line on “Thou shall not steal” and now the lowest weeds have taken over the garden.

The machine has taken over because we couldn’t maintain the consciousness needed to control it. Simplistic “rapture” stories aren’t going to help.

You are doing a great job of trying to stay true to what you see without sugar coating or turning it into a profit center. Blessings going forward!

Expand full comment

Hi Mathew.

As ususal, still just trying to keep up with the reading, but I had to respond to this, particularly because of your last phrase ... "— fractals of the whole that were meant by the social engineers to appear organic."

I have been wondering about this very thing off and on for the last few years. Perhaps my biggest eye opener was the thought of Evolutionary Biologist Ernst Mayr as expressed by Chomsky in the first three paragraphs of his 2010 Chapel Hill speech, "Human Intelligence and the Environment" — https://chomsky.info/20100930/ ... summarized as "intelligence is a fatal mutation".

Granted, the virtues of STEM have made life more bearable for a portion of the world's population with each passing generation. But I am no believer in a Panglossian best of all possible worlds. The limits of language and logic (Wittgenstein's Ladder and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems), the limits of what can be expressed (transcendent epiphanies, traditional 'mystic' experiences, or just plane puppy love), or the limits of modeling (what came "before" the big-bang, or is "smaller" than a planck unit?) ... all seem to side with intelligence as a fatal mutation.

Particularly when I remember we both briefly chatted that rather Lobaczewski's view that kulangeta are dysfunctionally sick or devolved representatives of humanity, those cluster B / dark triads may be 'more intelligent' than the average person burdened with the extra filter of empathy.

I am beginning to believe that though the predators among us are clever enough to bypass empathy through the self-interest of the old-boys club, the collective gene pool is such that human intelligence is in fact a lethal mutation of an otherwise social primate, and by conscious planning or not, we are experiencing a periodic subconscious emergence of self-destructive group dynamics.

Time will tell, but I suspect we will not be either the first nor last "apex" species to go extinct. But life finds a way. I am kind of partial to crows and wagtails, but cockoaches will probably outlive us all.

Cheers Mathew.

Thank god there are a few authentic individuals around.

Expand full comment