Yes, let’s give up the notion that heroes are going to save the day. It’s outsourcing our own agency. It says, fight for me--you’re the expert--let’s place our complete trust in you. But reality is far messier than that. Controlled opposition is part of the landscape, as is hubris, and just clumsy error, or rushing to completion. Human being stuff.
I think it’s instructive to go back to the beginning of this ‘pandemic’ and see that people turned to ‘heroes’ because: 1) they didn’t have a solid understanding of the science, math, or statistics at play, 2) they were told that they had no expertise, and therefore their viewpoint was not valid, 3) policy was rushing on like a freight train hitting folks in the mouth and they needed brave voices to speak out.
It was, in fact, useful and somewhat necessary to have heroic voices speak, no doubt. But we are at a somewhat different place now. We know a lot more, people like you, Mathew, and Jessica Rose, and too many to list have turned the magnifying glass on vital study, raising key concerns, crunching the numbers, using your formidable intellects to help people parse the deluge of data and propaganda that has rained down on us for what will soon be 3 years. The picture is not complete, to be sure, but we have enough meaningful information and evidence for everyday folks to act.
Hero ball might be applicable for things like press conferences and political campaigns, but only when the heroes are humble enough to not steer the ship, but rather give voice to the concerns, the data, the studies, the critical analysis. Some of the heroes that have been anointed are actually not very good at this voicing. They can be alternately either overly complicated and technical (read: impenetrable for most people), or over-simplify and gloss over critical information, or distort or even omit critical perspectives regarding what is known.
In the final analysis, the heroes aren’t really going to change this, because the actors who have staged this monstrosity are huge and have far far reaching influence. The only thing that can stand against this monstrous vampire squid are large numbers of people that refuse to cooperate. That’s what I believe is needed: more people finding common ground, armed with the excellent study and critique that has been (and should continue to be) developed and refined. That is in motion already--look at how the jab uptake has fallen over time. But there is more to do.
I offer this question: what common ground can be cultivated such that sufficient numbers can act (not to fix everything at once) to turn back the policies and programs that have kidnapped liberty and harmed so many?
One piece of common ground that I hope develops is that the world of knowledge is so huge that talking to a wide set of people is necessary to get a good grasp of complex topics. Part of the problem with identifying "experts" is in thinking that they're going to be the people who solve the multi-disciplinary complex problems---or that they'll remain connected enough to the new information while being called on to give 15 hours of interviews a week. Or even that anyone can be viewed as not having their own perverse interests that you or even they are unaware disconnect them from completing a solution.
It is best to remain open minded about topics until somebody really nails a point sufficiently and completely. Of course, that's all still a matter of judgment, but that's all science can ever be. The ultimate point of science is not rigor for proof, it's rigor for wisdom.
Yes, staying open to the study as it evolves and not being driven by a need to heroically answer every challenge. It’s the trap of hero ball that paints everyone into little boxes and corners, or as you astutely point out, allows perverted interests to divert and mislead. People are seeking answers, and hero ball is the easy (lazy) path. I think it’s wise to also acknowledge here that while science, rigor, and such has its value, people are seeking answers because they have been harmed, or are seeking to protect from harm and transgression. There’s a part of this that doesn’t care what the science says--they just want the harm and brutality to stop, and they are looking for the tools to make that point.
I REALLY appreciated this point of view, and am glad I read it before trying to write the same (which I was prepared to do). I fall squarely in the camp of relying on experts (heroes) to explain complex fields of science so that I can understand. And I've done that, and sought out others to help me understand other points as well. I feel fairly knowledgeable now in some areas and am doing my best to share the distilled and salient points along to others. (I hope others are too.) I'm not seeking to be a hero, and make plenty of efforts to point others to experts as well so that there's no reliance on me.
I want to say thank you to those many people who work behind the scenes to get real science out there. I know many don't feel they are being recognized adequately, but in the eyes of those around them, they are doing magnificent work.
I work with an election integrity group in California ( https://eip-ca.com ), and one of the points that comes up time and again is feeling like some of the "heroes" aren't paying attention to our work, or properly attributing their talking points to us, despite presenting LOTS of training or evidence to them.
We have a couple of major lawsuits before the 9th circuit court of appeals (see the site), and we've come to the point where we aren't going to expend lots of energy trying to gain the world's attention through "heroes". We'll quietly and diligently do our work, present the 12 years of our evidence, and hopefully make some big legal waves. The recognition may come later.
But we've found that some of the "heroes" seem to be more interested in promoting their brand rather than working with people behind the scenes. They receive lots of donations, accolades, followers, etc.
It takes a strong person to continue in the struggle knowing that they're doing essential work, with rewards that may come later.
I hope you'll remain strong in your efforts, Mathew! If you seek for the accolades of the world, you may not ever get it. But God knows what you're doing, and there are certainly rewards in store for you there.
Which efforts in particular? For the election stuff, there's contact info on that web site, as well as some details about the cases - naturally, not everything is being shared, and oral arguments are later this month for one case. I will warn you, things are getting hectic, and training is getting cranked up for the volunteers for observing various election activities prior to November (we have that whole voting "season" thing going on), and how to properly document findings sufficient for court use.
I will say, they are good folks! Dedicated, priorities straight, and doing so with assistance from above. They're non-partisan, and are a 501(c)3 organization for tax deductible donations.
Hopefully that answers what you were inquiring about.
Thank you for this. As a lay person trying to follow the story it's frustrating when all the pieces don't really fit together. There may be "controlled opposition" among the hero class, but I think there is another, simpler explanation you didn't touch on. Many of those who came out against the narrative saw their careers blown up and their comfortable lives severely disrupted. Many of them are just trying to make a living for themselves and their families in their new circumstances (Bret and Heather come to mind, also Dr. Peter McCullough.) There is also the problem of egos getting in the way - crowd adulation has a way of turning people's heads (Dr. Malone?) One of the things I like about Dr. Kory is that, while he has strong opinions, he keeps an open mind and moves with new information. It's probably why he has been successful reinventing his career as needed. And the DMED story - any successful totalitarian takeover will require the co-opting of the military in the US. There are just too many people with guns and the ability to live "off the grid" if necessary, especially here in fly-over country, for the electronic id regime to be completely successful. You are poking at a key part of the puzzle while others are being distracted elsewhere (they are happy to let Thomas Renz run with his incomplete story knowing it won't succeed), and the powers involved don't like it. Be careful.
I do understand that people are shifting in a rapidly changing world, and I will ultimately make plenty of allowances for imperfect actions (because wow aren't we all guilty of those). My judgments vary. I hope it was clear in my tone that my anger is reserved for treatment during the DMED that very much affects me (and in more ways that I laid out) and affects the Big Picture outcome. Most things can be smoothed over by good people.
I’m sorry they are shutting you out. Maybe they are reluctant to change the DMED narrative because the analysis is complicated and nuanced. Correcting the narrative now will confuse people and lose momentum. I’ve watched many interviews and even coming from a professional educator, it’s difficult to understand. But If they don’t incorporate your findings, the errors you’ve highlighted will be used against them. Thank you for all your diligence. Praying doors open soon.
Correcting the narrative months ago would have been far simpler. Either way, not doing what is honest is disturbing.
It is also simpler than people think. There was a glitch. Also, there are indications that prior data may have been fudged, and that warrants an investigation. Also, there is still a signal of increased illness, but closer to 10% overall (larger in categories that are consistent with outside data), not 10x. The end.
I missed the Dmed story about why/how the Dmed data that Renz ran with was wrong. However, I thought it defied belief when DOD claimed in response to Renz' witness evidence that the Dmed data from the previous 5 years was wrong. However, putting that aside an approx 10% rise in many conditions is still not nothing and it is likely underreported because Pfizzer-injured military personnel are not necessarily going to admit to injury, or their carreers are over, and, of course, many of the pfizzer-injured will have lost all faith in medical profs and may be doing everything in their powerr to stay well away from doctors or hide/minimise their injuries during standard medicals.
Nice work. I think many of us have a strong desire to avoid hero worship. Ed Dowd was great for exposing the excess mortality angle from the insurance industry. That's good enough for me. Renz is and was a brand new lawyer when this all started. It would be highly unusual for someone with that little experience to hit the ground running with all the necessary highly developed skills. Essentially, you'd be looking for a polymath who happens to be a lawyer. Someone more like Mathew Crawford with a JD. And, with greatest respect, I can say Mathew is not my hero, but we are fortunate to have him.
A huge majority of lawyers really suck at math, I mean REALLY suck. Also, if a lawyer wants to make any sort of decent income, they have to have so many cases that they are constantly on the verge of committing malpractice, imho. I.e. they don't (or barely) have the time to spend proper attention to ANY of them.
Thank you. To assume that efforts to promote mass psychosis are entirely one-sided is dangerous. Massive social upheaval can be accomplished from both sides of a spectrum, and neither side need be aware that they're participating in the upheaval.
Excellent post Matthew, thanks for putting it out there.
Where do you place Del Bigtree, ICAN, and Aaron Siri in all this? Del definitely gained hero status with me because he provided the information I needed early on in the plandemic to keep my family and loved ones safe from the government/medical complex. But as far as striking back against the criminals, he seems to be largely frustrated as we are. I'd appreciate your perspective.
This is important to me. I give, what is for me, a substantial amount of financial support to our cause, ICAN being the largest contribution, and I want to make sure those resources are going to the right place. You've got me questioning my support for Renz, and I think it's time to do a full review.
I was skeptical of Del Bigtree at first because his production is so slick. But from what I've seen, he is solid. Other people I know who have met him seem to think so, too. I donated something like $200 to ICAN late last year.
I think it's not two parallel mass formations, but a fractal of fear, division and anger. People on the wrong side of the regime are feeling the pinch in all kinds of ways so I'm not surprised that it's getting... complicated.
I think some of the problems not only come from people's natural desires, but also from the selective pressure of needing to overcome the mainstream conversation. Shocking details and compelling stories are what lead and bleed. Maybe some people want to try to win with the truth in the back seat (you've outlined some great reasons why that's a terrible idea).
I feel somewhat at an advantage. I don't have great credentials or even a huge set of experience, I just try to stay in the lane of what I know and to contribute to the discussion that way. I'm comfortable recognizing the limits of what I know.
You're a hero in my book Matthew!
I think everyone would be more skeptical of their heroes, especially ones that just appear on the scene.
I think you have the right solution, as a techie I'm tempted to scream "Just get everyone on the fediverse" but I acknowledge some of the problem is people's behavior and attitudes.
You can't tech away a lack of willingness to listen and take time. I'm really sorry to hear about people not willing to accept your offers of assistance.
Yes, I appreciate the fractal analogy. I will have to think about whether or not that defies mass formation. In a sense, I hope that it does, but I don't want to assume it because this feels important.
My worry about mass formation is that if manipulators are able to pull it off, they can engineer warfare wherever they like, and essentially force the world into a totalitarian nightmare.
"You can't tech away a lack of willingness to listen and take time."
You also can't tech away time economics. We will all have to keep thinking and working on it.
There are some people for whom it matters, and some for whom it does not---either (and maybe independently) in terms of the way they view themselves or others.
Thinking of heroism as an action is probably mostly preferable to anointing royalty. Situational royalty is probably often positive, but the table should be cleared often.
I'm a middle school math teacher at an alternative school, and one of my goals is to teach math in a way that all of my class can visualize the math so that it truly becomes a mental tool for them to use. While I also have the goal of teaching my class standard algorithms to mastery, if I'm honest, it's a secondary goal. This morning, I tried to teach my very smart, engineer husband a concept in a more visual way. He got annoyed (read mad) and wouldn't continue. Ever since I started studying higher math, I've noticed a difference (in myself and others) between being able to visualize (or maybe internalize???) underlying math concepts and being able to follow the recipe (apply the algorithm). When these two levels of math ability don't match in an individual, and those individuals are confronted with math that they "should" be able to understand (because they know the algorithm), but they can't understand the math, most people have an emotional (or physiological reaction): they get mad (if they're in middle school LOL or with people they're comfortable with) or they shut down (what most people do around professional peers). One aspect of your situation that I would gently suggest that you consider is that quite a few of your peers "should" be able to do the math you're describing (and may be quite familiar with the underlying algorithms), but they may not truly understand it such that it exists as a mental tool for them. So you may have a lot of people mentally turn off during your explanation of the math. You may have to start working on how you can present your most important math at a "kindergarden level" (I've always seen it attributed to Einstein that you should be able to explain something to kindergardeners if you truly know it).
To Tina: look up expertise reversal effects in cognitive load theory, and also growth vs fixed mindset. I suspect both could be at play in your setup anecdote.
To Matthew: I have a PhD in mathematics, and I find it incredibly taxing to parse your articles. I’ve watched you teach, and it’s very different. I suggest that you consider incorporating what looks to be considerably developed and honed teaching skills into your writing style. Most, if not all, of your audience is basically the same as the young people you teach - just in older skins.
It is not that I'm unaware of the difference or could not write more clearly. It is the time cost. I have so many points to get to that are not expressed anywhere, so I spend 10 hours on am article when 20 would amplify clarity with the best diagrams and all.
I would simply need help on a time scale.
But that is not the DMED issue. It isn't about math. It is about acknowledging that the numbers in the Renz presentation are clearly a fraction of prior publish data.
Is this the seasonal analysis you were looking for? From March. It's the only article I have of yours in my inbox that hit the keywords seasonal and analysis...
Ah, thank you. I was confusing myself combining two memories! I wrote this article later after I'd seen a seasonal effect, but I never wrote one about the original observation of the seasonal effect. I had found some notes I left myself that were also confusing, but I figured it all out now.
Wow. I never thought I'd have written so much (20,000 pages of essays and notes in all) that I would forget so much so quickly.
I appreciate your brilliance but this article made me depressed. I'm just a high-school educated 56 year old Canadian who is trying to make sense of the insanity that has taken over our world. After reading this, I am even more confused about what is going on and who I can trust to tell me the truth so that I can make up my own mind.
One of my worries is that the Plandemonium is designed to destroy all levels of trust everywhere. If so, that's perhaps the most evil plan in all of human history.
When you think about it, it's not that bizarre that we would live through such an event. I don't know how accurate the estimate is, but something like 22% of all humans who ever lived are alive today. And here we are near the top of the flattening population curve. If somebody or some people were going to do something extraordinarily ugly, and destroy much of civilization for their own gain, now isn't a bad time from the persective of psychopathic masterminds.
That's an incredible observation there. As things fall to chaos who do you trust? Ultimately I learn the most about someone when I understand their incentive structure: are they hurting for money? There's also quietly assumed archetypes playing in the background; the hero, the martyr, the cheerleader, the divider, the skeptic, the rebel, the outcast. This is before you even bring in outside influence. Regarding iatrogenic deaths yes I have long sensed that patient advocates were removed to make these things easier in nursing homes in 2020 and panic was ramped up systematically. Did grandma die from too much morphine, thirst, or isolation? But I remember noticing myself that covid and all cause mortality shot through the roof on the US mortality dashboard in early 2021, but ONLY for older age cohorts, who the vaccines were being rolled out to. I believe Reinhard Fuellmich mentioned this also. To me this indicates that the jabs were killing the old folks too, it's just easier to hide those deaths. I suspect strongly that Pfizer etc already knew the data and were tracking it internally. So they front ran it themselves to control the collapse. It takes a lot of strategy to sift through the greatest crime in human history. Good read though...
in June 2021 I did a rough estimate of the number of the elderly that had already been killed off, as they kept repeating that 80% of the deaths had been in people over 80, and we had just had the census done in 2020. I figured roughly that they had killed 3% of that age and up by then. But there have been several nice analyses on the deaths by cohort since then, I am sure the current totals are easy enough to find and compare to the Census Bureau. I am kind of afraid to look.
There's going to be an obvious degree of pull forward on elderly deaths as they are now a slightly smaller base number; i.e. the 84 year old who died last year is not going to make the breakdown for 85 year + this year. The large size of the baby boomer cohort should start pushing the raw death numbers up though the percentage distribution should stay stable. They killed off every age group (except the very young who seemed to benefit from less well child jabs) but they hit the elderly hard.
the WEF and Gates Foundation and others did several pandemic exercises before Event 201, and control of messaging and the press, and control of dissent are prominently featured in the communications portion of each of the exercises. They have indeed been planning for that control for a very long time.
"One of my worries is that the Plandemonium is designed to destroy all levels of trust everywhere." - Imho this is part of the plan, most especially at the microscopic family unit.
I have heard 1 out of 13 or 14 ever alive are alive today, putting it at around 7%.
I occasionally read someone lament, as I have myself, that they have lost contact with so many friends and family over the jabs and being called a conspiracist for not trusting 'the science'. I am heartened to read stats that put the unjabbed at 20% or higher. At some future point, we are going to have to form new circles of family substitutes; almost my entire extended family have taken them.
And, what do we do with the % of the jabbed who weren't really jabbed? Who lied to keep their job or see the ballgame or go on the cruise, but they will always appear in the denominator of adverse events? Will those betrayals ever be exposed or will they remain hidden, and at what cost?
I also know people who told spouses they did not get the jab but they did get the jab, and have suffered adverse events. So there are those betrayals also.
I say "betrayal" because you can't made good decisions if you don't have good information.
thanks for taking the time to put words to the end of the hero archetype era. its been coming and we have been a feeling it but there is so much ego still invested in the ego belly gazing of the heros journey.
the most important part of that journey is coming home, and being received and recognized. which is the archetype we are moving into. the community archetype and we are being led by the trickster, the only one fool enough to bypass the ego.
and yes I am also amazed at why your not being called to help usher out the old, however am certain that it is because you are called to usher in whats next. try to be patient. i know its hard but you do have a thousand invisible eyes as your witness who have your back.
Great article. So many people don't pay attention to numbers if it goes against the narrative.
About hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin--AMA recommendations and FDA recommendations govern insurance which governs the large nursing home chains. Insurance doesn't follow the medical science or evidence.
Mar. 1, 2020 Trump first advocates HCQ for treating covid on national news.
Mar. 1, 2020 The AMA cautions doctors against prescribing HCQ for covid in a tweet.
Guess which one had the most impact on doctors?
Covid mortality began its steep ascent in the week of Mar. 21-29, about 3-4 weeks from Mar. 1.
What is the lag between covid symptoms and death, when progression occurs? 3-4 weeks?
The Trump press conference on HCQ was March 19, 2020. But I get your point.
"So many people don't pay attention to numbers if it goes against the narrative."
There is a distinct challenge. For some purposes, getting people on a page is good. But if people allow themselves to be herded onto the same page, they're open to manipulation. Everyone has to be mentally flexible to dodge and weave---particularly during a time like this.
I realized after my first comment that the problem is too much trust in people and not enough willingness to do one's due diligence, which tracks closely with your post.
Not enough willingness to do due diligence is one problem. And honestly, we all have different talents to be employed in due diligence, so it's easier to do in crowds, if they're willing.
Proxy trust is an extremely tough problem to sort out. Humans need to relocalize in order to form good decentralized networks so as not to be manipulated too easily. The defense comes in the economic cost necessary to achieve control.
Economic cost becomes harder if our emotions can't be used to manipulate us. I see that both "liberal" and "conservative" media often attempt to create anger in their readers--and both are owned by Blackrock and have taken money from pharma, up to 70% of the media revenue.
Ivermectin and hcq were marginalized because they were known as treatment for coronavirus no later than 2005, so constituted treatment that would have negated the need for an EUA, so the one we have is fraudulent. The other reason is that the pandemic was to serve as a cash cow, and nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of that. The pharma profits are used to control the political process.
The Chinese cited hcq specifically as therapeutic after the SARS outbreak. Sep 2014 paper in PubMed said "...the small molecule ivermectin has been the focus of growing attention in the last 8 years due to its potential as an antiviral.....New uses for it are identified regularly, including possible antibacterial, antiviral, and anticancer potential."
8 years prior to 2014 would be 2006. I assume Dr Fauci would be familiar with this one from 2012: 'Ivermectin is a specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear import able to inhibit replication of HIV-1 and dengue virus'
I am not part of the Mensa Society, but I wanted to drop in and tell you all that the horrific and unparalleled situation we find ourselves in on earth is not about you.
Our children are dying here. They’re about to push another deadly vax on the people we love. So, I don’t give a damn about your egos, your wallets, or your fan base. If you have the intellectual chops and the humbleness to help humanity, then step up and leave the petty human behavior behind.
And furthermore, if any of us clueless subscribers pinning our hopes on you finds that you are leading us astray in exchange for money from opposing forces, I can assure you, you will not be treated kindly.
None of the bickering geniuses on Substack today have given me any hope for humanity. Over and over again we devolve into the same sodden mess just when freedom looms a mile away.
A long time ago I was reading Robin Dunbar's book on gossip and grooming while simultaneously trying to plow through one of Gerald Edelman's books on Neural Darwinism, which was flummoxing me. I had been thinking, reading Dunbar, that maybe people who read the National Enquirer and people who cared about the Kardashians and celebrities were wired to be interested in gossip, but I certainly wasn't. In frustration I turned to the annotated bibliography in the back of the Edelman, and zoomed right in on an annotation in which he damned the writer Walker Percy with very faint praise. It then hit me that I was just as susceptible to gossip, my brain wired to select for social information, just like the rest of my species. What I worry about here is that we'll all get stuck in conflict and gossip and social information. "viruses don't exist" and "snake oil" theories can't stick, though they can siphon off energy, which I'm betting is the point, but they can't stick. Social information and conflict, which is how social media and the MSM capture our attention, will addict us and divide us. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, which sounds really stupid and glib, but I, for instance, love novelty, and my cognitive map is holistic and inductive. I need the overarching first, then the details. I can't be religious because it is too repetitive. That's both my strength and my weakness. If everyone of good faith is honest about those aspects of themselves, things might move forward in a more unified way. I mean in face of the event horizon of Goliath sucking at us all. IMHO.
We don’t really need the archetype of the hero at this juncture of human evolution. Heroes are fallible because they let the ego dictate. It’s the age of the the sage king archetype. May we move forward with wisdom, patience, and dare I say, a sense of humour.
In the wild, a high proportion of gorillas serve as the alpha at some portion of their lives. The alpha is the holistic leader, solving conflicts and healing, and once in a while showing aggression to a threat. Every neighborhood needs one. Many little heroes.
Bit yeah, the superheroes...that's what Watchmen is about. That's why I love that book.
Robert Sapolsky tells this story about the baboons he studied in, I think, Kenya. A big tourist hotel for rich people got built very near their territory, and the food dump, all sorts of leftover fancy food, was at the very edge of it. Baboons are seriously hierarchical and the alpha males guarded these exotic treats and ate them themselves and wouldn't let any lower ranking animals have any. It was toxic to them, they died, and the group became egalitarian and non-hierarchical after the alphas died.
I'm really liking Galadriel in the Rings of Power. How she could sail off into the undying lands but refuses not to fight evil. But there's also, in the books, Tom Bombadil, who stays very local, near leaves the place he's in, the genus loci, but who is not tempted by the ring, and sees people who are invisible to everyone else with the ring on. You may have something of that spirit Mathew, though your erudition and interdisciplinary knowledge is way beyond my bandwidth at least. It is heroic to endure. The forces are Sauronic and who knows who's an orc in disguise.
I don't know, maybe we need both. The hero, if we are to believe Walter Burkert, the historian of Greek religions, who says the stages of food-getting behavior maps perfectly over the Propp Sequence, a structuralist analysis of folk and fairy tale motifs. The hero's journey is as old as tree shrews. This pattern needs more layers, perhaps rising hierarchically, perhaps descending into the underworld, or both, more archetypes on different trajectories, maybe like a polyphony. There's a very specific sequence to the journey according to Campbell and others. By this, though, I don't mean this phenomenon being described. We have false pied piper heros, and people thrust into that position, which also involves people investing the heroic part of themselves in someone outside themselves, and becoming more passive, and tsunamis the ones thrust inadvertently into the role with fame. That can knock them for a proverbial loop. Think of rock stars. Robert Bly thought all that positive projection was a tangible force. How did spies turn people during the Cold War? Often by finding their greatest weakness. Anyone or any group threatening the agenda will be targeted very specifically. (This makes me think of Ghostbusters, empty your mind, and when you can't, you get the Stay Puft marshmellow giant lol) Absolutely everyone fighting, except those who are disingenuous, is on an archetypal hero's journey I would say. Those of us who need heroic leaders need to to some degree pull back our positive projections and find a hill to die on. The immensity is daunting. Not to be Pollyanna, but better her than Sartre. "Live to the point of tears" says Camus.
One thing that we need: a society of many courageous people from which many are ready to step.up to be heroic. That happens when communities are healthy and without so many artifocial.divisions.
A short anecdote: Back in 2020, I listened to a podcast and it randomly mentioned The Plague by Camus, a book that was placed on my coffee book table that I had just picked up from the neighbourhood ‘lil library’ nook that afternoon.
Yes, let’s give up the notion that heroes are going to save the day. It’s outsourcing our own agency. It says, fight for me--you’re the expert--let’s place our complete trust in you. But reality is far messier than that. Controlled opposition is part of the landscape, as is hubris, and just clumsy error, or rushing to completion. Human being stuff.
I think it’s instructive to go back to the beginning of this ‘pandemic’ and see that people turned to ‘heroes’ because: 1) they didn’t have a solid understanding of the science, math, or statistics at play, 2) they were told that they had no expertise, and therefore their viewpoint was not valid, 3) policy was rushing on like a freight train hitting folks in the mouth and they needed brave voices to speak out.
It was, in fact, useful and somewhat necessary to have heroic voices speak, no doubt. But we are at a somewhat different place now. We know a lot more, people like you, Mathew, and Jessica Rose, and too many to list have turned the magnifying glass on vital study, raising key concerns, crunching the numbers, using your formidable intellects to help people parse the deluge of data and propaganda that has rained down on us for what will soon be 3 years. The picture is not complete, to be sure, but we have enough meaningful information and evidence for everyday folks to act.
Hero ball might be applicable for things like press conferences and political campaigns, but only when the heroes are humble enough to not steer the ship, but rather give voice to the concerns, the data, the studies, the critical analysis. Some of the heroes that have been anointed are actually not very good at this voicing. They can be alternately either overly complicated and technical (read: impenetrable for most people), or over-simplify and gloss over critical information, or distort or even omit critical perspectives regarding what is known.
In the final analysis, the heroes aren’t really going to change this, because the actors who have staged this monstrosity are huge and have far far reaching influence. The only thing that can stand against this monstrous vampire squid are large numbers of people that refuse to cooperate. That’s what I believe is needed: more people finding common ground, armed with the excellent study and critique that has been (and should continue to be) developed and refined. That is in motion already--look at how the jab uptake has fallen over time. But there is more to do.
I offer this question: what common ground can be cultivated such that sufficient numbers can act (not to fix everything at once) to turn back the policies and programs that have kidnapped liberty and harmed so many?
One piece of common ground that I hope develops is that the world of knowledge is so huge that talking to a wide set of people is necessary to get a good grasp of complex topics. Part of the problem with identifying "experts" is in thinking that they're going to be the people who solve the multi-disciplinary complex problems---or that they'll remain connected enough to the new information while being called on to give 15 hours of interviews a week. Or even that anyone can be viewed as not having their own perverse interests that you or even they are unaware disconnect them from completing a solution.
It is best to remain open minded about topics until somebody really nails a point sufficiently and completely. Of course, that's all still a matter of judgment, but that's all science can ever be. The ultimate point of science is not rigor for proof, it's rigor for wisdom.
Yes, staying open to the study as it evolves and not being driven by a need to heroically answer every challenge. It’s the trap of hero ball that paints everyone into little boxes and corners, or as you astutely point out, allows perverted interests to divert and mislead. People are seeking answers, and hero ball is the easy (lazy) path. I think it’s wise to also acknowledge here that while science, rigor, and such has its value, people are seeking answers because they have been harmed, or are seeking to protect from harm and transgression. There’s a part of this that doesn’t care what the science says--they just want the harm and brutality to stop, and they are looking for the tools to make that point.
I REALLY appreciated this point of view, and am glad I read it before trying to write the same (which I was prepared to do). I fall squarely in the camp of relying on experts (heroes) to explain complex fields of science so that I can understand. And I've done that, and sought out others to help me understand other points as well. I feel fairly knowledgeable now in some areas and am doing my best to share the distilled and salient points along to others. (I hope others are too.) I'm not seeking to be a hero, and make plenty of efforts to point others to experts as well so that there's no reliance on me.
I want to say thank you to those many people who work behind the scenes to get real science out there. I know many don't feel they are being recognized adequately, but in the eyes of those around them, they are doing magnificent work.
I work with an election integrity group in California ( https://eip-ca.com ), and one of the points that comes up time and again is feeling like some of the "heroes" aren't paying attention to our work, or properly attributing their talking points to us, despite presenting LOTS of training or evidence to them.
We have a couple of major lawsuits before the 9th circuit court of appeals (see the site), and we've come to the point where we aren't going to expend lots of energy trying to gain the world's attention through "heroes". We'll quietly and diligently do our work, present the 12 years of our evidence, and hopefully make some big legal waves. The recognition may come later.
But we've found that some of the "heroes" seem to be more interested in promoting their brand rather than working with people behind the scenes. They receive lots of donations, accolades, followers, etc.
It takes a strong person to continue in the struggle knowing that they're doing essential work, with rewards that may come later.
I hope you'll remain strong in your efforts, Mathew! If you seek for the accolades of the world, you may not ever get it. But God knows what you're doing, and there are certainly rewards in store for you there.
Thanks for sharing your story.
Request for email communication: I would like to find out more about your efforts.
Which efforts in particular? For the election stuff, there's contact info on that web site, as well as some details about the cases - naturally, not everything is being shared, and oral arguments are later this month for one case. I will warn you, things are getting hectic, and training is getting cranked up for the volunteers for observing various election activities prior to November (we have that whole voting "season" thing going on), and how to properly document findings sufficient for court use.
I will say, they are good folks! Dedicated, priorities straight, and doing so with assistance from above. They're non-partisan, and are a 501(c)3 organization for tax deductible donations.
Hopefully that answers what you were inquiring about.
Thank you for this. As a lay person trying to follow the story it's frustrating when all the pieces don't really fit together. There may be "controlled opposition" among the hero class, but I think there is another, simpler explanation you didn't touch on. Many of those who came out against the narrative saw their careers blown up and their comfortable lives severely disrupted. Many of them are just trying to make a living for themselves and their families in their new circumstances (Bret and Heather come to mind, also Dr. Peter McCullough.) There is also the problem of egos getting in the way - crowd adulation has a way of turning people's heads (Dr. Malone?) One of the things I like about Dr. Kory is that, while he has strong opinions, he keeps an open mind and moves with new information. It's probably why he has been successful reinventing his career as needed. And the DMED story - any successful totalitarian takeover will require the co-opting of the military in the US. There are just too many people with guns and the ability to live "off the grid" if necessary, especially here in fly-over country, for the electronic id regime to be completely successful. You are poking at a key part of the puzzle while others are being distracted elsewhere (they are happy to let Thomas Renz run with his incomplete story knowing it won't succeed), and the powers involved don't like it. Be careful.
I do understand that people are shifting in a rapidly changing world, and I will ultimately make plenty of allowances for imperfect actions (because wow aren't we all guilty of those). My judgments vary. I hope it was clear in my tone that my anger is reserved for treatment during the DMED that very much affects me (and in more ways that I laid out) and affects the Big Picture outcome. Most things can be smoothed over by good people.
I’m sorry they are shutting you out. Maybe they are reluctant to change the DMED narrative because the analysis is complicated and nuanced. Correcting the narrative now will confuse people and lose momentum. I’ve watched many interviews and even coming from a professional educator, it’s difficult to understand. But If they don’t incorporate your findings, the errors you’ve highlighted will be used against them. Thank you for all your diligence. Praying doors open soon.
Correcting the narrative months ago would have been far simpler. Either way, not doing what is honest is disturbing.
It is also simpler than people think. There was a glitch. Also, there are indications that prior data may have been fudged, and that warrants an investigation. Also, there is still a signal of increased illness, but closer to 10% overall (larger in categories that are consistent with outside data), not 10x. The end.
I missed the Dmed story about why/how the Dmed data that Renz ran with was wrong. However, I thought it defied belief when DOD claimed in response to Renz' witness evidence that the Dmed data from the previous 5 years was wrong. However, putting that aside an approx 10% rise in many conditions is still not nothing and it is likely underreported because Pfizzer-injured military personnel are not necessarily going to admit to injury, or their carreers are over, and, of course, many of the pfizzer-injured will have lost all faith in medical profs and may be doing everything in their powerr to stay well away from doctors or hide/minimise their injuries during standard medicals.
https://www.campfire.wiki/doku.php?id=rounding_the_earth:the_dmed_saga
Nice work. I think many of us have a strong desire to avoid hero worship. Ed Dowd was great for exposing the excess mortality angle from the insurance industry. That's good enough for me. Renz is and was a brand new lawyer when this all started. It would be highly unusual for someone with that little experience to hit the ground running with all the necessary highly developed skills. Essentially, you'd be looking for a polymath who happens to be a lawyer. Someone more like Mathew Crawford with a JD. And, with greatest respect, I can say Mathew is not my hero, but we are fortunate to have him.
I am my cats' hero.
unless you're wanting a Tylenol
or any other item in that cupboard
😹
I appreciate what Renz is trying to do, but he doesn't really give off a strong "competence" vibe to me.
A huge majority of lawyers really suck at math, I mean REALLY suck. Also, if a lawyer wants to make any sort of decent income, they have to have so many cases that they are constantly on the verge of committing malpractice, imho. I.e. they don't (or barely) have the time to spend proper attention to ANY of them.
Thank you. To assume that efforts to promote mass psychosis are entirely one-sided is dangerous. Massive social upheaval can be accomplished from both sides of a spectrum, and neither side need be aware that they're participating in the upheaval.
Excellent post Matthew, thanks for putting it out there.
Where do you place Del Bigtree, ICAN, and Aaron Siri in all this? Del definitely gained hero status with me because he provided the information I needed early on in the plandemic to keep my family and loved ones safe from the government/medical complex. But as far as striking back against the criminals, he seems to be largely frustrated as we are. I'd appreciate your perspective.
This is important to me. I give, what is for me, a substantial amount of financial support to our cause, ICAN being the largest contribution, and I want to make sure those resources are going to the right place. You've got me questioning my support for Renz, and I think it's time to do a full review.
I was skeptical of Del Bigtree at first because his production is so slick. But from what I've seen, he is solid. Other people I know who have met him seem to think so, too. I donated something like $200 to ICAN late last year.
Love me some Del. Jefferey Jaxsen too. Siri is outstanding. As far as I can tell, ICAN is making more progress than everyone else combined.
I think it's not two parallel mass formations, but a fractal of fear, division and anger. People on the wrong side of the regime are feeling the pinch in all kinds of ways so I'm not surprised that it's getting... complicated.
I think some of the problems not only come from people's natural desires, but also from the selective pressure of needing to overcome the mainstream conversation. Shocking details and compelling stories are what lead and bleed. Maybe some people want to try to win with the truth in the back seat (you've outlined some great reasons why that's a terrible idea).
I feel somewhat at an advantage. I don't have great credentials or even a huge set of experience, I just try to stay in the lane of what I know and to contribute to the discussion that way. I'm comfortable recognizing the limits of what I know.
You're a hero in my book Matthew!
I think everyone would be more skeptical of their heroes, especially ones that just appear on the scene.
I think you have the right solution, as a techie I'm tempted to scream "Just get everyone on the fediverse" but I acknowledge some of the problem is people's behavior and attitudes.
You can't tech away a lack of willingness to listen and take time. I'm really sorry to hear about people not willing to accept your offers of assistance.
Yes, I appreciate the fractal analogy. I will have to think about whether or not that defies mass formation. In a sense, I hope that it does, but I don't want to assume it because this feels important.
My worry about mass formation is that if manipulators are able to pull it off, they can engineer warfare wherever they like, and essentially force the world into a totalitarian nightmare.
"You can't tech away a lack of willingness to listen and take time."
You also can't tech away time economics. We will all have to keep thinking and working on it.
Sadly I don't think it defies it at all.
Think of it this way: people are being herded into individual cults and the big meta cult rule is you're not allowed to deprogram people from cults.
They just let people pick, mix-and-match different flavors of all kinds of programming, as long as they don't actually think for themselves.
Thinking for one's self isn't the same as being right about everything and it's very dangerous to assume they are.
The Many Mini Masses Theory.
Divide and Conquer.
'think whatEVER you want to
align wherever you feel at home
it's ALL good
but when it butts heads with our agenda
💀'
they've been theorizing studying & planning this for decades
expecting the unwashed to recognize the machinations
organize a strategy for pushback
and effectively communicate it and recruit to it
is improbable at best
This hero shit bugs the hell out of me, also. These guys stroke each other's egos rather than engaging in seriously challenging each other's biases.
There are some people for whom it matters, and some for whom it does not---either (and maybe independently) in terms of the way they view themselves or others.
We need to distinguish between celebrating HEROISM and falling into Hero Worship.
Celebrating Heroism is good for our cause. Hero worship is dangerous.
My 90 second pitch: https://video.thesetruths.com/Sk19bew/heroism-vs-hero-worship/
Thinking of heroism as an action is probably mostly preferable to anointing royalty. Situational royalty is probably often positive, but the table should be cleared often.
I'm a middle school math teacher at an alternative school, and one of my goals is to teach math in a way that all of my class can visualize the math so that it truly becomes a mental tool for them to use. While I also have the goal of teaching my class standard algorithms to mastery, if I'm honest, it's a secondary goal. This morning, I tried to teach my very smart, engineer husband a concept in a more visual way. He got annoyed (read mad) and wouldn't continue. Ever since I started studying higher math, I've noticed a difference (in myself and others) between being able to visualize (or maybe internalize???) underlying math concepts and being able to follow the recipe (apply the algorithm). When these two levels of math ability don't match in an individual, and those individuals are confronted with math that they "should" be able to understand (because they know the algorithm), but they can't understand the math, most people have an emotional (or physiological reaction): they get mad (if they're in middle school LOL or with people they're comfortable with) or they shut down (what most people do around professional peers). One aspect of your situation that I would gently suggest that you consider is that quite a few of your peers "should" be able to do the math you're describing (and may be quite familiar with the underlying algorithms), but they may not truly understand it such that it exists as a mental tool for them. So you may have a lot of people mentally turn off during your explanation of the math. You may have to start working on how you can present your most important math at a "kindergarden level" (I've always seen it attributed to Einstein that you should be able to explain something to kindergardeners if you truly know it).
To Tina: look up expertise reversal effects in cognitive load theory, and also growth vs fixed mindset. I suspect both could be at play in your setup anecdote.
To Matthew: I have a PhD in mathematics, and I find it incredibly taxing to parse your articles. I’ve watched you teach, and it’s very different. I suggest that you consider incorporating what looks to be considerably developed and honed teaching skills into your writing style. Most, if not all, of your audience is basically the same as the young people you teach - just in older skins.
It is not that I'm unaware of the difference or could not write more clearly. It is the time cost. I have so many points to get to that are not expressed anywhere, so I spend 10 hours on am article when 20 would amplify clarity with the best diagrams and all.
I would simply need help on a time scale.
But that is not the DMED issue. It isn't about math. It is about acknowledging that the numbers in the Renz presentation are clearly a fraction of prior publish data.
Is this the seasonal analysis you were looking for? From March. It's the only article I have of yours in my inbox that hit the keywords seasonal and analysis...
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/examining-temporal-associations-of
Ah, thank you. I was confusing myself combining two memories! I wrote this article later after I'd seen a seasonal effect, but I never wrote one about the original observation of the seasonal effect. I had found some notes I left myself that were also confusing, but I figured it all out now.
Wow. I never thought I'd have written so much (20,000 pages of essays and notes in all) that I would forget so much so quickly.
I appreciate your brilliance but this article made me depressed. I'm just a high-school educated 56 year old Canadian who is trying to make sense of the insanity that has taken over our world. After reading this, I am even more confused about what is going on and who I can trust to tell me the truth so that I can make up my own mind.
I hear you.
One of my worries is that the Plandemonium is designed to destroy all levels of trust everywhere. If so, that's perhaps the most evil plan in all of human history.
When you think about it, it's not that bizarre that we would live through such an event. I don't know how accurate the estimate is, but something like 22% of all humans who ever lived are alive today. And here we are near the top of the flattening population curve. If somebody or some people were going to do something extraordinarily ugly, and destroy much of civilization for their own gain, now isn't a bad time from the persective of psychopathic masterminds.
That's an incredible observation there. As things fall to chaos who do you trust? Ultimately I learn the most about someone when I understand their incentive structure: are they hurting for money? There's also quietly assumed archetypes playing in the background; the hero, the martyr, the cheerleader, the divider, the skeptic, the rebel, the outcast. This is before you even bring in outside influence. Regarding iatrogenic deaths yes I have long sensed that patient advocates were removed to make these things easier in nursing homes in 2020 and panic was ramped up systematically. Did grandma die from too much morphine, thirst, or isolation? But I remember noticing myself that covid and all cause mortality shot through the roof on the US mortality dashboard in early 2021, but ONLY for older age cohorts, who the vaccines were being rolled out to. I believe Reinhard Fuellmich mentioned this also. To me this indicates that the jabs were killing the old folks too, it's just easier to hide those deaths. I suspect strongly that Pfizer etc already knew the data and were tracking it internally. So they front ran it themselves to control the collapse. It takes a lot of strategy to sift through the greatest crime in human history. Good read though...
in June 2021 I did a rough estimate of the number of the elderly that had already been killed off, as they kept repeating that 80% of the deaths had been in people over 80, and we had just had the census done in 2020. I figured roughly that they had killed 3% of that age and up by then. But there have been several nice analyses on the deaths by cohort since then, I am sure the current totals are easy enough to find and compare to the Census Bureau. I am kind of afraid to look.
There's going to be an obvious degree of pull forward on elderly deaths as they are now a slightly smaller base number; i.e. the 84 year old who died last year is not going to make the breakdown for 85 year + this year. The large size of the baby boomer cohort should start pushing the raw death numbers up though the percentage distribution should stay stable. They killed off every age group (except the very young who seemed to benefit from less well child jabs) but they hit the elderly hard.
the WEF and Gates Foundation and others did several pandemic exercises before Event 201, and control of messaging and the press, and control of dissent are prominently featured in the communications portion of each of the exercises. They have indeed been planning for that control for a very long time.
"One of my worries is that the Plandemonium is designed to destroy all levels of trust everywhere." - Imho this is part of the plan, most especially at the microscopic family unit.
I have heard 1 out of 13 or 14 ever alive are alive today, putting it at around 7%.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-humans-who-have-ever-lived-are-alive-today
I occasionally read someone lament, as I have myself, that they have lost contact with so many friends and family over the jabs and being called a conspiracist for not trusting 'the science'. I am heartened to read stats that put the unjabbed at 20% or higher. At some future point, we are going to have to form new circles of family substitutes; almost my entire extended family have taken them.
And, what do we do with the % of the jabbed who weren't really jabbed? Who lied to keep their job or see the ballgame or go on the cruise, but they will always appear in the denominator of adverse events? Will those betrayals ever be exposed or will they remain hidden, and at what cost?
I also know people who told spouses they did not get the jab but they did get the jab, and have suffered adverse events. So there are those betrayals also.
I say "betrayal" because you can't made good decisions if you don't have good information.
Youre not alone. I feel the same way.
thanks for taking the time to put words to the end of the hero archetype era. its been coming and we have been a feeling it but there is so much ego still invested in the ego belly gazing of the heros journey.
the most important part of that journey is coming home, and being received and recognized. which is the archetype we are moving into. the community archetype and we are being led by the trickster, the only one fool enough to bypass the ego.
and yes I am also amazed at why your not being called to help usher out the old, however am certain that it is because you are called to usher in whats next. try to be patient. i know its hard but you do have a thousand invisible eyes as your witness who have your back.
Great article. So many people don't pay attention to numbers if it goes against the narrative.
About hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin--AMA recommendations and FDA recommendations govern insurance which governs the large nursing home chains. Insurance doesn't follow the medical science or evidence.
Mar. 1, 2020 Trump first advocates HCQ for treating covid on national news.
Mar. 1, 2020 The AMA cautions doctors against prescribing HCQ for covid in a tweet.
Guess which one had the most impact on doctors?
Covid mortality began its steep ascent in the week of Mar. 21-29, about 3-4 weeks from Mar. 1.
What is the lag between covid symptoms and death, when progression occurs? 3-4 weeks?
The Trump press conference on HCQ was March 19, 2020. But I get your point.
"So many people don't pay attention to numbers if it goes against the narrative."
There is a distinct challenge. For some purposes, getting people on a page is good. But if people allow themselves to be herded onto the same page, they're open to manipulation. Everyone has to be mentally flexible to dodge and weave---particularly during a time like this.
You are correct about the press conference. The March 1 communication about HCQ was in a tweet.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7685699/
I realized after my first comment that the problem is too much trust in people and not enough willingness to do one's due diligence, which tracks closely with your post.
Not enough willingness to do due diligence is one problem. And honestly, we all have different talents to be employed in due diligence, so it's easier to do in crowds, if they're willing.
Proxy trust is an extremely tough problem to sort out. Humans need to relocalize in order to form good decentralized networks so as not to be manipulated too easily. The defense comes in the economic cost necessary to achieve control.
Economic cost becomes harder if our emotions can't be used to manipulate us. I see that both "liberal" and "conservative" media often attempt to create anger in their readers--and both are owned by Blackrock and have taken money from pharma, up to 70% of the media revenue.
Ivermectin and hcq were marginalized because they were known as treatment for coronavirus no later than 2005, so constituted treatment that would have negated the need for an EUA, so the one we have is fraudulent. The other reason is that the pandemic was to serve as a cash cow, and nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of that. The pharma profits are used to control the political process.
Was IVM known that long ago, too? I was not aware if that's the case. Do you have something like the oldest paper citation?
The Chinese cited hcq specifically as therapeutic after the SARS outbreak. Sep 2014 paper in PubMed said "...the small molecule ivermectin has been the focus of growing attention in the last 8 years due to its potential as an antiviral.....New uses for it are identified regularly, including possible antibacterial, antiviral, and anticancer potential."
8 years prior to 2014 would be 2006. I assume Dr Fauci would be familiar with this one from 2012: 'Ivermectin is a specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear import able to inhibit replication of HIV-1 and dengue virus'
I am not part of the Mensa Society, but I wanted to drop in and tell you all that the horrific and unparalleled situation we find ourselves in on earth is not about you.
Our children are dying here. They’re about to push another deadly vax on the people we love. So, I don’t give a damn about your egos, your wallets, or your fan base. If you have the intellectual chops and the humbleness to help humanity, then step up and leave the petty human behavior behind.
And furthermore, if any of us clueless subscribers pinning our hopes on you finds that you are leading us astray in exchange for money from opposing forces, I can assure you, you will not be treated kindly.
None of the bickering geniuses on Substack today have given me any hope for humanity. Over and over again we devolve into the same sodden mess just when freedom looms a mile away.
Here here.
What we need is to form communities. Nobody is coming to save us. Find your strength from within. That is most of what matters now.
A long time ago I was reading Robin Dunbar's book on gossip and grooming while simultaneously trying to plow through one of Gerald Edelman's books on Neural Darwinism, which was flummoxing me. I had been thinking, reading Dunbar, that maybe people who read the National Enquirer and people who cared about the Kardashians and celebrities were wired to be interested in gossip, but I certainly wasn't. In frustration I turned to the annotated bibliography in the back of the Edelman, and zoomed right in on an annotation in which he damned the writer Walker Percy with very faint praise. It then hit me that I was just as susceptible to gossip, my brain wired to select for social information, just like the rest of my species. What I worry about here is that we'll all get stuck in conflict and gossip and social information. "viruses don't exist" and "snake oil" theories can't stick, though they can siphon off energy, which I'm betting is the point, but they can't stick. Social information and conflict, which is how social media and the MSM capture our attention, will addict us and divide us. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, which sounds really stupid and glib, but I, for instance, love novelty, and my cognitive map is holistic and inductive. I need the overarching first, then the details. I can't be religious because it is too repetitive. That's both my strength and my weakness. If everyone of good faith is honest about those aspects of themselves, things might move forward in a more unified way. I mean in face of the event horizon of Goliath sucking at us all. IMHO.
Keep face sucking with Goliath to yourself, Cynthia. Else people might gossip.
We don’t really need the archetype of the hero at this juncture of human evolution. Heroes are fallible because they let the ego dictate. It’s the age of the the sage king archetype. May we move forward with wisdom, patience, and dare I say, a sense of humour.
In the wild, a high proportion of gorillas serve as the alpha at some portion of their lives. The alpha is the holistic leader, solving conflicts and healing, and once in a while showing aggression to a threat. Every neighborhood needs one. Many little heroes.
Bit yeah, the superheroes...that's what Watchmen is about. That's why I love that book.
Robert Sapolsky tells this story about the baboons he studied in, I think, Kenya. A big tourist hotel for rich people got built very near their territory, and the food dump, all sorts of leftover fancy food, was at the very edge of it. Baboons are seriously hierarchical and the alpha males guarded these exotic treats and ate them themselves and wouldn't let any lower ranking animals have any. It was toxic to them, they died, and the group became egalitarian and non-hierarchical after the alphas died.
I'm really liking Galadriel in the Rings of Power. How she could sail off into the undying lands but refuses not to fight evil. But there's also, in the books, Tom Bombadil, who stays very local, near leaves the place he's in, the genus loci, but who is not tempted by the ring, and sees people who are invisible to everyone else with the ring on. You may have something of that spirit Mathew, though your erudition and interdisciplinary knowledge is way beyond my bandwidth at least. It is heroic to endure. The forces are Sauronic and who knows who's an orc in disguise.
The best leaders are those who don’t vie for the job.
Watchmen is top quality. One of my most borrowed out and never returned books. Tied with Ender’s Game.
I don't know, maybe we need both. The hero, if we are to believe Walter Burkert, the historian of Greek religions, who says the stages of food-getting behavior maps perfectly over the Propp Sequence, a structuralist analysis of folk and fairy tale motifs. The hero's journey is as old as tree shrews. This pattern needs more layers, perhaps rising hierarchically, perhaps descending into the underworld, or both, more archetypes on different trajectories, maybe like a polyphony. There's a very specific sequence to the journey according to Campbell and others. By this, though, I don't mean this phenomenon being described. We have false pied piper heros, and people thrust into that position, which also involves people investing the heroic part of themselves in someone outside themselves, and becoming more passive, and tsunamis the ones thrust inadvertently into the role with fame. That can knock them for a proverbial loop. Think of rock stars. Robert Bly thought all that positive projection was a tangible force. How did spies turn people during the Cold War? Often by finding their greatest weakness. Anyone or any group threatening the agenda will be targeted very specifically. (This makes me think of Ghostbusters, empty your mind, and when you can't, you get the Stay Puft marshmellow giant lol) Absolutely everyone fighting, except those who are disingenuous, is on an archetypal hero's journey I would say. Those of us who need heroic leaders need to to some degree pull back our positive projections and find a hill to die on. The immensity is daunting. Not to be Pollyanna, but better her than Sartre. "Live to the point of tears" says Camus.
One thing that we need: a society of many courageous people from which many are ready to step.up to be heroic. That happens when communities are healthy and without so many artifocial.divisions.
A short anecdote: Back in 2020, I listened to a podcast and it randomly mentioned The Plague by Camus, a book that was placed on my coffee book table that I had just picked up from the neighbourhood ‘lil library’ nook that afternoon.