A very interesting, if not always easy to follow, analysis. Reason 3 is pretty weak, because the idea that a shot could successfully be fired to graze only Trump's ear is fantasy and coulkd easily have resulted in death instead ... unless one follows the TDS media figures who claimed that there was no bullet fired at all and it was all faked. Whether there were a few psychics or others who supposedly predicted this (out of possibly millions of claims of predictions) is not that remarkable, any more than interpretations of the cryptic words of Nostradamus.
No, it's not. What's weak is the way people demandingly assumed that it was not a show, and the way people bought into it from their parasocial icons.
There is no more evidence than that Madam Blavatsky received letters from Koot Hoomi, who magically saved her life when she nearly fell from her horse as a young girl in order to save her for the mystical goals of the Freemasons and aliens. Because WuT?
There was so much wrong with the shooting that it required rapid cleanup of the crime scene. Wash down the roof. Cremate [one of] the shooter's body. Nobody wants a toxicology report? Or to examine the body for indications of torture?
That was the least blood ever spilled from a wounded ear. That's a highly vascular piece of the anatomy. It should spew like a gusher.
So, you do seem to accept the democratic media narrative. That is OK, except two people died and more were seriously injured by real bullets. I suppose that they were crisis actors (a la Alex Jones) or else they were sacrificed for a psyop (which might be plausible, but that is a genuinely risky maneuver that could result in civil war, death penalties (officially administered or not) for the perpetrators, etc. The ear might be a highly vascular piece of the anatomy, but we do not know how large the wound was, and the volume of the spewing blood would depend directly on that. I have spent some time reading and analyzing the JFK assassination, and I am open to a wide variety of conspiracy talk, and I have more trust in Mathew Crawford than in nearly anyone else on many topics in recent history. Some of the writing is conceptually difficult to follow, which is fine, but I am not quite ready to accept a seriously risky fake shooting in Butler, PA when there was obviously also a real shooting with multiple victims at the same time. I will think about it some more, but I am not convinced at all at the moment due to (my perception of) a lack of sufficient evidence.
"Most terrorist events and wars are designed by the social engineers and involve real deaths. That's how they sell it." This is the hump almost no one can successfully climb over. The sale is fake, the deaths can be very real. Ukraine is a staggering example of this. Fake pours out of that country constantly, yet real people do get snatched off their streets, put in holes in the ground and get ground into hamburger.
People either buy the whole package, or they notice the fake and assume nothing is real.
Mathew is correct in pointing out that mainstream Democrats did not question whether an (unsuccessful) assassination took place (I tried to find examples, and only came up with the mayor of Aberdeen, a political advisor to a Democrat billionaire mega-donor, an actress, and a bunch of social media "influencers," many of which may have been fake profiles. I apparently mixed up the idea of a narrative with the laments of many Democrats that it did not succeed. The actual media narrative is that there was a genuine assassination (an attempt does not have to be successful to be called that). The event is suspicious in various ways, as Mathew points out, and other points that he made are valid as well. I still do not feel comfortable with the conclusion that it was staged, because I admit the possibility but do not think that it is adequately explained or demonstrated. The fact that Mathew favors that possibility definitely has some weight for me, but I am not convinced (yet).
Peter Yim has published a number of substack articles, any one of which makes a strong case for the assassination attempt having been staged. Taken together the case is extremely strong. This article, https://peteryim.substack.com/p/the-magic-bullet, presents evidence that the photograph of the bullet in flight was faked. In itself, that’s practically a slam dunk for the claim that it was staged. You can poke around on his stack for additional evidence.
Go to a rifle range, aim at the target, try to do well. Then go back and watch the videos from that day. You will know it is fake immediately.
Interestingly, when I show the video in question to women and ask them if they see something odd they get it almost immediately. Men, especially "hunters", usually don't see it. Our biases own us.
I have fired a rifle. I have never practiced at all. The late Mr. Crooks practiced regularly. My own experience tells me nothing, and I do not understand what you are saying. You need to explain in words exactly what you mean, because talking about "seeing" is completely inadequate in conveying your meaning. Comparing women with "hunters" gives me no additional information. I do not know whether I am biased in this matter, unless inexperience is a bias, and you have implied that it may be helpful. I am not being critical of your ideas; I simply do not know what you are trying to say.
There are two narratives here. There always are. If the story is big, each narrative has minor alternating story lines.
The trap you are falling for here is that you "know" things. You only know what your mental model primed you to know. The world you live in, as Musk points out, is a simulation. He tries to sell that as something cool and maybe spooky. The simulation is what you are told. You (we) then create the reality on the ground.
Heroes are created to do evil. The bigger the hero, the bigger the evil that is on the way.
I was not in the US at that time but experienced butler pennsylvania through first many videos and later on through conversations with my family mostly.
Later I saw a youtube video of supposedly some prophesy of this happening, that really got me thinking.
Even though I believe politics is mostly theater, it is true that its hard to imagine an event that would elicit as much emotion in me (disgruntled "wants to love America" ex-patriot) as that one.
In the end, I didn't vote, instead attending the COP16 biodiversity summit.
Trump is never given credit for being a talented actor but he is one. In the months before the election he gave a masterclass in body language and verbal language mismatch. This activated the mental models of people completely differently from the exact same sentence!
He said the words "I am not a Christian" and used the body language of "I am a Christian". This may seem easy to do but it requires a huge amount of training and talent.
At best (or worst), what Trump did in this clip is to enunciate the second word in that statement in such a way that it could be "a" and it could be "not". If it was "a", it was said in a New-York way that is typical of him. He did not clearly say that he's not Christian. It's also notable that if he had, he chose to say "I'm not Christian" rather than "I'm not a Christian", the latter of which would have left no room for doubt. I'm quite open to the idea that this is a little psy-op using ambiguity. It's either that, or he said "I'm a Christian".
This was without question a psyop aimed at Trump believers. It turned him into a religious figure for many, which is a sale which has been ongoing for some time. Many Jews believe he is Mosiach. Now Evangelicals believe he was "saved by God" to enact something big. The big thing in question is rebuilding the temple.
I find it intriguing how no one claiming familiarity with guns picked the absurdity of what was supposed to happen that day. Maybe they get deleted but any competent marksman should instantly start laughing watching that footage. The lack of familiarity with death is striking too. The photo of the dead guy is so visibly wrong it should be obvious to anyone who has seen violent death what the problem is.
The Scientologists dance around he and his allies like priests on a mission.
Tulsi Gabbard promotes Krishna Consciousness while the Flynn circle promotes Christ Consciousness. This is no accident. This is a spiritual play on the Christian mind.
I'm don't know that much about those religious groups. I was asked to do the energy reading thing (scientology) in the middle of a business deal, but that's about as close as I've got to these groups.
Gabbard I've followed closely. She def has reach into many christian groups. People get incredibly offended if you point out she is military intelligence. Christ Consciousness is a key hook. I've tested that out recently and Christians love the phrase. They have no idea what it means.
I’d like to share this to FB but since they struck it down on your wall, I wonder if they’d strike me out. I’m having a little too much fun watching the post election meltdown at the moment. 😬I kid. I’m doing it.
As an interested observer from the bottom of the world, what is the end game Mat? In your opinion, what construct are the social engineers after (apart from world domination!😁)?
Some of this is in my pinned article, which needs updating, but I think that the global cybernetic empire is about multiple things: (1) A final economic solution enabling long-term world domination; (2) A misguided spiritual journey for people who despise those lower on the intellectual scale within the vast network of humanity; and (3) a misguided attempt to expand humanity into the stars.
I am sympathetic to (3), but believe that it can and will be achieved in other ways, if it can be achieved.
This election has put to bed forever the concept that people listen to the words politicians say. Trump or his people have said:
- They are going to fire 90% of federal workers.
- They are going to intentionally crash the US economy.
- They are going to war with Iran.
While I have personal views on these topics, and they may be lying, I've learned to respect what people say who have the ability to do something. Bernanke laid out the unbelievable response to the 2008, in writing, many years before.
Almost all US families are freeloading somewhere on federal money. The most "conservative" people out there, farmers, are crazy welfare queens. The only way to legally fire vast numbers of fed workers is to engineer a US bankruptcy.
A deliberate crashing of the US system would be traumatic to many to the point of death. Its clear there is some vaccine/poisoning damage out there post whatever the pandemic was. People are fragile.
Iran alone would be such a shock to the world system that that alone would crash our economic system. Our conventional systems would get destroyed in a war against Iran. The US knows it has no shot at beating Iran, but add Russia into the mix (and they are already there) and the US and Israel would get soundly beaten. You have to appeal to magic weapons (which may or may not exist) or the belief that Israel could use other magic weapons (nuclear) and somehow get away with it to see a US/Israel win. Iran has been able to strike anywhere in Israel . The retaliation has been imaginary, particularly in the last Israeli strike which was such a joke they just fired their Minister of War. Our known tools to counter these missiles either barely work (slower incoming tools) or don't work at all (fast, late stage boost tools).
"Almost all US families are freeloading somewhere on federal money. The most "conservative" people out there, farmers, are crazy welfare queens. The only way to legally fire vast numbers of fed workers is to engineer a US bankruptcy."
I've had a similar thought.
Farmers are an interesting case. Where one family may get $6000, they have to take time to interface with the system to get it. A corporate farm can do that x1000 with little more than the same effort. Corporate welfare is a nasty mechanism that scales against the individual.
I'm going to leave war discussion to other articles.
The same or even lower effort. Large operations have companies that provide skilled labor from south of the border. They can maintain a skeleton permanent staff and cycle through immigrant labor with very little effort or involvement. They have no incentive to build or maintain local relationships to provide labor in the future - it all just turns up and the farmers do nothing.
Small to medium farmers have to work incredibly hard. They use equipment that look like museum pieces. They survive primarily by selling off pieces of land and their kids do low end jobs. They have liens on their property so large that if they eventually sell the bank takes it all or close to it.
It would take about six months of disruption to push most Americans all the way to the wall. We are used to be saved: a lot of people have vast debt buildup from the 2008 crash still. If people don't get saved a vast amount of the US changes hands. I've stopped guessing the future but if someone says they are going to crash the economy it does seem worth giving them the benefit of the doubt that they will follow through.
This is interesting. It has to be intentional that his prior presidential bid is unknown. I had no idea. Separately, do you think the social engineers are ever surprised by outcomes? I don’t get terribly worked up over politics, but my husband does. But I, like you, feel that there is always a much larger apparatus operating in the background.
Social engineers of the past were likely more often surprised. I think todays' social engineers have so many tools available, and so much power, that they're like Asimov's Foundation. They're only going to be surprised once in a long while, then they're going to try to piece it back together.
In the screenshots you showed of your social media interactions with friends and acquaintances, if I understood correctly, you interpreted them as a being a good counter-indicator to the words actually typed? I'm wondering if I should have been viewing my social media feed similarly, rather than taking the explanations and reactions I've seen more or less at face value.
I do think that influencers have run some chat groups, and provocatively steered conversation. I think this is one of the lessons of the Themis Report.y groups were almost entirely IRL friends and acquaintances.
A very interesting, if not always easy to follow, analysis. Reason 3 is pretty weak, because the idea that a shot could successfully be fired to graze only Trump's ear is fantasy and coulkd easily have resulted in death instead ... unless one follows the TDS media figures who claimed that there was no bullet fired at all and it was all faked. Whether there were a few psychics or others who supposedly predicted this (out of possibly millions of claims of predictions) is not that remarkable, any more than interpretations of the cryptic words of Nostradamus.
I dont think hes suggesting some sharpshooter shot Trump in the ear. More like the whole thing was fugazy.
"Reason 3 is pretty weak"
No, it's not. What's weak is the way people demandingly assumed that it was not a show, and the way people bought into it from their parasocial icons.
There is no more evidence than that Madam Blavatsky received letters from Koot Hoomi, who magically saved her life when she nearly fell from her horse as a young girl in order to save her for the mystical goals of the Freemasons and aliens. Because WuT?
There was so much wrong with the shooting that it required rapid cleanup of the crime scene. Wash down the roof. Cremate [one of] the shooter's body. Nobody wants a toxicology report? Or to examine the body for indications of torture?
That was the least blood ever spilled from a wounded ear. That's a highly vascular piece of the anatomy. It should spew like a gusher.
So, you do seem to accept the democratic media narrative. That is OK, except two people died and more were seriously injured by real bullets. I suppose that they were crisis actors (a la Alex Jones) or else they were sacrificed for a psyop (which might be plausible, but that is a genuinely risky maneuver that could result in civil war, death penalties (officially administered or not) for the perpetrators, etc. The ear might be a highly vascular piece of the anatomy, but we do not know how large the wound was, and the volume of the spewing blood would depend directly on that. I have spent some time reading and analyzing the JFK assassination, and I am open to a wide variety of conspiracy talk, and I have more trust in Mathew Crawford than in nearly anyone else on many topics in recent history. Some of the writing is conceptually difficult to follow, which is fine, but I am not quite ready to accept a seriously risky fake shooting in Butler, PA when there was obviously also a real shooting with multiple victims at the same time. I will think about it some more, but I am not convinced at all at the moment due to (my perception of) a lack of sufficient evidence.
Show me the mainstream Democrats who question whether an assassination took place.
This is not about accepting a narrative. I did not get there by anyone else's suggestion.
Part of my point is that the mainstream media was suspiciously present to capture the details that create the image.
Most terrorist events and wars are designed by the social engineers and involve real deaths. That's how they sell it.
"Most terrorist events and wars are designed by the social engineers and involve real deaths. That's how they sell it." This is the hump almost no one can successfully climb over. The sale is fake, the deaths can be very real. Ukraine is a staggering example of this. Fake pours out of that country constantly, yet real people do get snatched off their streets, put in holes in the ground and get ground into hamburger.
People either buy the whole package, or they notice the fake and assume nothing is real.
Mathew is correct in pointing out that mainstream Democrats did not question whether an (unsuccessful) assassination took place (I tried to find examples, and only came up with the mayor of Aberdeen, a political advisor to a Democrat billionaire mega-donor, an actress, and a bunch of social media "influencers," many of which may have been fake profiles. I apparently mixed up the idea of a narrative with the laments of many Democrats that it did not succeed. The actual media narrative is that there was a genuine assassination (an attempt does not have to be successful to be called that). The event is suspicious in various ways, as Mathew points out, and other points that he made are valid as well. I still do not feel comfortable with the conclusion that it was staged, because I admit the possibility but do not think that it is adequately explained or demonstrated. The fact that Mathew favors that possibility definitely has some weight for me, but I am not convinced (yet).
Peter Yim has published a number of substack articles, any one of which makes a strong case for the assassination attempt having been staged. Taken together the case is extremely strong. This article, https://peteryim.substack.com/p/the-magic-bullet, presents evidence that the photograph of the bullet in flight was faked. In itself, that’s practically a slam dunk for the claim that it was staged. You can poke around on his stack for additional evidence.
I appreciate that you stepped away to do that research. That motivation is the key to moving forward, no matter what the situation.
Go to a rifle range, aim at the target, try to do well. Then go back and watch the videos from that day. You will know it is fake immediately.
Interestingly, when I show the video in question to women and ask them if they see something odd they get it almost immediately. Men, especially "hunters", usually don't see it. Our biases own us.
I have fired a rifle. I have never practiced at all. The late Mr. Crooks practiced regularly. My own experience tells me nothing, and I do not understand what you are saying. You need to explain in words exactly what you mean, because talking about "seeing" is completely inadequate in conveying your meaning. Comparing women with "hunters" gives me no additional information. I do not know whether I am biased in this matter, unless inexperience is a bias, and you have implied that it may be helpful. I am not being critical of your ideas; I simply do not know what you are trying to say.
There are two narratives here. There always are. If the story is big, each narrative has minor alternating story lines.
The trap you are falling for here is that you "know" things. You only know what your mental model primed you to know. The world you live in, as Musk points out, is a simulation. He tries to sell that as something cool and maybe spooky. The simulation is what you are told. You (we) then create the reality on the ground.
Heroes are created to do evil. The bigger the hero, the bigger the evil that is on the way.
There is explanatory power here, please flesh this out more.
I am most fascinated about how we communicate with each other about what we don't know, and on the minor points we disagree on.
I wrote a brief summary: https://substack.com/home/post/p-150963817?source=queue
I think the link should work let me know if there is an issue.
I was not in the US at that time but experienced butler pennsylvania through first many videos and later on through conversations with my family mostly.
Later I saw a youtube video of supposedly some prophesy of this happening, that really got me thinking.
Even though I believe politics is mostly theater, it is true that its hard to imagine an event that would elicit as much emotion in me (disgruntled "wants to love America" ex-patriot) as that one.
In the end, I didn't vote, instead attending the COP16 biodiversity summit.
Trump is never given credit for being a talented actor but he is one. In the months before the election he gave a masterclass in body language and verbal language mismatch. This activated the mental models of people completely differently from the exact same sentence!
He said the words "I am not a Christian" and used the body language of "I am a Christian". This may seem easy to do but it requires a huge amount of training and talent.
Great observation.
Wow. For reference/study:
https://x.com/darreldrowland/status/1817177872215216206
At best (or worst), what Trump did in this clip is to enunciate the second word in that statement in such a way that it could be "a" and it could be "not". If it was "a", it was said in a New-York way that is typical of him. He did not clearly say that he's not Christian. It's also notable that if he had, he chose to say "I'm not Christian" rather than "I'm not a Christian", the latter of which would have left no room for doubt. I'm quite open to the idea that this is a little psy-op using ambiguity. It's either that, or he said "I'm a Christian".
This was without question a psyop aimed at Trump believers. It turned him into a religious figure for many, which is a sale which has been ongoing for some time. Many Jews believe he is Mosiach. Now Evangelicals believe he was "saved by God" to enact something big. The big thing in question is rebuilding the temple.
I find it intriguing how no one claiming familiarity with guns picked the absurdity of what was supposed to happen that day. Maybe they get deleted but any competent marksman should instantly start laughing watching that footage. The lack of familiarity with death is striking too. The photo of the dead guy is so visibly wrong it should be obvious to anyone who has seen violent death what the problem is.
Falun Gong raised Trump to the level of an angel.
The Moonies gave him millions.
The Scientologists dance around he and his allies like priests on a mission.
Tulsi Gabbard promotes Krishna Consciousness while the Flynn circle promotes Christ Consciousness. This is no accident. This is a spiritual play on the Christian mind.
I'm don't know that much about those religious groups. I was asked to do the energy reading thing (scientology) in the middle of a business deal, but that's about as close as I've got to these groups.
Gabbard I've followed closely. She def has reach into many christian groups. People get incredibly offended if you point out she is military intelligence. Christ Consciousness is a key hook. I've tested that out recently and Christians love the phrase. They have no idea what it means.
This graph is not yet particularly well developed, but is a good starting point for studying the network of these religious organizations:
https://embed.kumu.io/9a96c038b79b6f067c5409b0766526cd
I’d like to share this to FB but since they struck it down on your wall, I wonder if they’d strike me out. I’m having a little too much fun watching the post election meltdown at the moment. 😬I kid. I’m doing it.
Great article Mat. Makes a lot of sense. Was wondering since you are good at this stuff—do you think we are in for a stock market correction soon?
Zero doubt , yes.
As an interested observer from the bottom of the world, what is the end game Mat? In your opinion, what construct are the social engineers after (apart from world domination!😁)?
Some of this is in my pinned article, which needs updating, but I think that the global cybernetic empire is about multiple things: (1) A final economic solution enabling long-term world domination; (2) A misguided spiritual journey for people who despise those lower on the intellectual scale within the vast network of humanity; and (3) a misguided attempt to expand humanity into the stars.
I am sympathetic to (3), but believe that it can and will be achieved in other ways, if it can be achieved.
This election has put to bed forever the concept that people listen to the words politicians say. Trump or his people have said:
- They are going to fire 90% of federal workers.
- They are going to intentionally crash the US economy.
- They are going to war with Iran.
While I have personal views on these topics, and they may be lying, I've learned to respect what people say who have the ability to do something. Bernanke laid out the unbelievable response to the 2008, in writing, many years before.
Almost all US families are freeloading somewhere on federal money. The most "conservative" people out there, farmers, are crazy welfare queens. The only way to legally fire vast numbers of fed workers is to engineer a US bankruptcy.
A deliberate crashing of the US system would be traumatic to many to the point of death. Its clear there is some vaccine/poisoning damage out there post whatever the pandemic was. People are fragile.
Iran alone would be such a shock to the world system that that alone would crash our economic system. Our conventional systems would get destroyed in a war against Iran. The US knows it has no shot at beating Iran, but add Russia into the mix (and they are already there) and the US and Israel would get soundly beaten. You have to appeal to magic weapons (which may or may not exist) or the belief that Israel could use other magic weapons (nuclear) and somehow get away with it to see a US/Israel win. Iran has been able to strike anywhere in Israel . The retaliation has been imaginary, particularly in the last Israeli strike which was such a joke they just fired their Minister of War. Our known tools to counter these missiles either barely work (slower incoming tools) or don't work at all (fast, late stage boost tools).
"Almost all US families are freeloading somewhere on federal money. The most "conservative" people out there, farmers, are crazy welfare queens. The only way to legally fire vast numbers of fed workers is to engineer a US bankruptcy."
I've had a similar thought.
Farmers are an interesting case. Where one family may get $6000, they have to take time to interface with the system to get it. A corporate farm can do that x1000 with little more than the same effort. Corporate welfare is a nasty mechanism that scales against the individual.
I'm going to leave war discussion to other articles.
The same or even lower effort. Large operations have companies that provide skilled labor from south of the border. They can maintain a skeleton permanent staff and cycle through immigrant labor with very little effort or involvement. They have no incentive to build or maintain local relationships to provide labor in the future - it all just turns up and the farmers do nothing.
Small to medium farmers have to work incredibly hard. They use equipment that look like museum pieces. They survive primarily by selling off pieces of land and their kids do low end jobs. They have liens on their property so large that if they eventually sell the bank takes it all or close to it.
It would take about six months of disruption to push most Americans all the way to the wall. We are used to be saved: a lot of people have vast debt buildup from the 2008 crash still. If people don't get saved a vast amount of the US changes hands. I've stopped guessing the future but if someone says they are going to crash the economy it does seem worth giving them the benefit of the doubt that they will follow through.
This is interesting. It has to be intentional that his prior presidential bid is unknown. I had no idea. Separately, do you think the social engineers are ever surprised by outcomes? I don’t get terribly worked up over politics, but my husband does. But I, like you, feel that there is always a much larger apparatus operating in the background.
Social engineers of the past were likely more often surprised. I think todays' social engineers have so many tools available, and so much power, that they're like Asimov's Foundation. They're only going to be surprised once in a long while, then they're going to try to piece it back together.
In the screenshots you showed of your social media interactions with friends and acquaintances, if I understood correctly, you interpreted them as a being a good counter-indicator to the words actually typed? I'm wondering if I should have been viewing my social media feed similarly, rather than taking the explanations and reactions I've seen more or less at face value.
I do think that influencers have run some chat groups, and provocatively steered conversation. I think this is one of the lessons of the Themis Report.y groups were almost entirely IRL friends and acquaintances.
Can you be more specific?