Matthew, The Feds have used people like this to undermine movements since the founding of the FBI, if not before. Though they pretend to be part of the opposition they are working for the government. It's great that you have identified some of them. Hopefully you can find a way to get the other reputable community members to see them for what they are.
"Snitch Jacketing" or spreading false rumors about real, valuable activists, can also be highly destructive to movements.
The present conflict can be traced back to the controversy about Robert Malone. It's beyond dispute that Malone has made his fortune by working for Big Pharma and the government. He's put himself forward as the inventor of the mRNA technology platform, and made a solid case that he does deserve the lion's share of credit.
Now, I personally believe that Malone has genuinely had a change of heart. But it also doesn't seem unreasonable to think that his background could influence his thinking in subconscious ways, or even that his behavior is influenced by an understandable desire to avoid completely burning bridges with all his insider connections.
Stew Peters,Jane Ruby, and Peter and Ginger Breggin thought they saw a connection between Malone's allegiance to pharma / government interests, and his promotion of Mass Formation Psychosis theory.
Maybe they went too far, in accusing Malone of being a deliberate disinformation agent? I think so. But Malone fought back, with a $25 Million lawsuit for defamation. Seems like exactly the sort of thing a "Chaos Agent" might do. With his vindictive action, Malone added fuel to the fire of speculation that he's a bad actor.
I think this is when Sage Hana stepped in... and noted that Matt Crawford and Steve Kirsch seem to be taking Malone's side in this, as well as attacking Stew Peters?
It seems to me that everybody ought to calm down, and recognize that disagreements can happen, and errors can be made, and that this is not proof that the Feds are involved. To quote the Activist Security collective:
"...incompetence, unreliability and annoying personalities are just as likely in our movement as anywhere else, and though it might amount to disruption in practice, it does not mean [these people] are actually working for the police or corporations."
I have absolutely no idea what I've ever said to make anyone think I'd taken Malone's side in anything. I have encouraged people to research him very publicly and on numerous occasions because I think that vetting any and all leaders is crucial to forming a healthy community.
I also disagree with Malone about many topics. I immediately declared that he was giving up ground inexplicably by saying that the vaccines worked as expected when we both spoke to the Honolulu City Council. I find Desmet's work to be bizarrely overhyped. I don't trust Andrew Huff as far as a dead vaper could throw him. And I questioned the strange way in which Ed Dowd was championed from the start (edit: I don't distrust Ed, but rather the way in which story story was apparently used to create a pump and dump in the options markets). These are all people promoted by Malone. I also felt betrayed by him on the DMED project.
Apparently Malone appreciates some of my research and writing, so there's that.
My Lawrence of Arabia article was a reminder that movement guides have historically been inserted to steer the drawing of boundaries. That wasn't meant to point a finger at anyone specifically, but discourages people from the Hero Ball game that favors the big personalities.
But none of this matters if we decentralize, which has always been my primary message.
Mathew, thanks again for the reply. I totally agree about decentralization. I spend most of my time working locally, and only sporadically find time to participate at Substack. I hope I'm not coming across as a troll.
As to what you might have said in the past about Malone, "Sage Hana" identified a few things at the very end of this 'stack post, at "Mathew Crawford and Dr. Malone":
Including a comment from Dec. 17th, apparently about the Malone v. Breggin lawsuit, where you said: "There is something going on behind the scenes that would be very complicated to explain that is driving at least some of this."
Oddly, I recall that Steve Kirsch said something very similar about this lawsuit.
I notice that Stew Peters is rather conspicuously missing from the defendant list on Malone's lawsuit. Malone is suing three private individuals (Dr. Ruby and the Breggins) and two corporate entities. But surely Peters is the worst offender of the lot, when it comes to providing a platform for anyone and everyone to attack Malone?
Maybe the "behind the scenes" strategy, is some hope that Dr. Ruby or the Breggins will turn on Peters, and provide evidence against him?
I personally would support a lawsuit against Peters, at least to get into discovery and learn more about his shady past. Maybe there is something to these charges that he's a spook, or at least compromised and vulnerable to blackmail. But suing the Breggins is just lower than low, so I'm glad to learn you don't support Malone about that.
I hadn't given a thought to whether Peters matters in the lawsuit. I haven't watched enough of him to have an opinion as to whether he is the worst offender with respect to Malone. I don't even know enough to say whether the suit has merit.
I was speaking of something esle, but it cannot be explained briefly. It's also unclear whether I should get into it. But I do know it is potentially a large move with respect to the public health system leadership.
Overall good points. I only take exception with Kirsch and MC taking Malones place. I dont really see that. I think MCs position on Malone is fairly similar to what you described in this post ex the lawsuit aspect. Mat can correct/clarify if I'm misrepresenting that.
Stew Peters lost all credibility when he got behind the snake venom garbage. That was clearly a psyop to discredit the anit-mnra vaccine movement much the same as the people pushing that 9/11 attacks involved nuclear weapons.
Stew Peters personal background does not inspire trust in him either.
Yes, but I think he was straining credulity even before that. My impression was that Stew was sort of attempting to be AJ 2.0 albeit I think Alex is more genuine than Stew.
Keep going Mathew, I and many others greatly appreciate all you have and continue to do. Shame that opportunistic parasites like “Sage Hana” try to get a desperate slice of the evil, mandarin pie, but it’s a flaw of human nature unfortunately I guess, some more drawn to the grift than others 🙏
Matthew, I am honored to be a (small) supporter of your work. I tell everyone who will listen about your Substack. Thank you for your tireless, unselfish work toward pulling back the curtain.
This is a difficult stage because there is a sort of whiplash effect where people are rushing toward what seem to be established outposts of information, and not all of them are trustworthy. In fact, it's not even clear that half of them are trustworthy. I have a medium-sized outpost that may perhaps make a different in helping people discern the wheat from the chaffe.
Some people are simply intimidated by maths and data... they switch off... for others like you...it’s our first language...
At least a part of the problem communicating what happened is that problem... some very close to me simply cannot hear the maths, the dynamics and interactions, they have no locus to compare...
But it’s those who hold integrity high..who understand systems fluxes and data integrity... it’s a different story...
But it’s crucial to get the data right..and thanks for your contribution...
I trust integrity. I see that in you and your data. I've been wary since the beginning of this, calls to violence that would destroy us all. There is no purpose either taking down one clique manipulating data to replace it with a different clique that manipulates data.
There is a civilizational psycho-drama here to, underlying, a pure destructive instinct, which energizes a lot of the woke folk as well as a few in the MFM.
Wokeness crept into the conservative communities over the years. If 75% of the left is Woke, maybe 55% of the right is Woke. The differences are often merely in the details, but I'm sure is geographic-dependent.
I have been thinking of the Woke phenomenon as an acutely left and center thing, but I think I know what you mean. It is an effective method for destroying your enemies on the hierarchical ladder and that is bipartisan indeed.
Words like "right" and "left" get twisted and then fail. We're not gathered in an 18th century French church, right? The king is not even visible.
But in the sense that the "intellectual left" (smart people who sit at coffee houses too much) are more often those proposing "injected cultral shifts", we could call Wokeness "left". Though I think that we should start reconfiguring terminology toward the orientations of the invisible centralized hierarchy---degrees of insiderness and outsiderness.
True enough. The old right/left paradigm is mostly a divide-conquer-control mechanism. Increasingly it is the insider PMC etc, and the rest of us. I have wondered if it is just a waiting game, before these "insiders" destroy themselves, they are so removed from nature and reality at this point, and so nakedly predatory. That is why I distrust the will to violence against them, as that is a war no one wins, and I am more focused and concerned about what would we build after the fall.
That's why I (try to) write about magic, spiritual alchemy, the philosopher's stone, know thyself, so that people will have some tools to not get lost in following people or movements that are contrary to their health and welfare. It is very hard to navigate all the conflicting narratives, it helps to be clear and grounded in the self. Lately I've found that clarity too in the work of Jonathan Couey, Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt.
Also writing about such topics sets me outside any "movement" so as not to be taken overly seriously...
I use the terms populist and elite a lot, or working class, laptop class, political class. I read the book "Woke, Inc" last year. It explained to me why, at the time, Fox News was demonizing the Occupy Wall Street movement when the the goals of OWS aligned with many of the 'Tea Party' goals. Both were populist (outsider) movements focused on holding insiders accountable for the 2008 financial collapse and aftermath. Although the book is mostly about how Corporate Wokeism is a fraud, the author suggests (insider) corporate media promotes cultural memes intentionally as they have always done - to keep populist movements divided between left and right. And even better for them, we now have Wokeism and anti-Wokeism.
"The King is not even visible..." except for King Charles III, perhaps? I have seen rumors that the Great Reset concept can be traced back to Charles.
What about the Pope, the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, upstarts like Gates, Trump, Biden, Schwab?
If you do go back to the era of the French Revolution, the meanings of Right and Left re-emerge with new clarity. The right wing is the King (visible or invisible), the Billionaires (modern nobility) and the clerics (the administrative Deep State as well as most organized Religion. In the USA, we have two far right wing parties.
The Left should be everyone else... except that so many people are confused and misled by the torrent of propaganda, to the point where they cannot recognize their own interests.
I've often said the same thing, though it's unclear if the two are one at the top of the hierarchy. I suspect that they are. Interestingly, some of the Biggie Minds of high intellectual popularity have argued against me about whether that's possible, but for years those arguments have consisted of no evidence, no modeling, dismissive behaviors leaked to other interactions, and the sorts of petty insults that the upper intellectual class get away with as plausibly deniable in intent.
It is remarkable how easy it is to manipulate educated people. We are trained to trust at all levels of our education. In my time, we who were cannon-fodder spoke out against the madness of what LBJ was doing to Viet Nam (but I now wonder if we were being manipulated--probably so). But it seems the college students of today are docile sheep. I may be wrong about this, but something seems very different than it was in the '60's.
This is a war like none other in the history of our species. It is demanding something new from us, something creative. The power structure knows how to control humanity 1.0. It does not have a clue how to handle humanity 2.0. How do we make the jump? I don't think the path is clear to any of us right now, but there is one thing I think we can really make progress on if we set our minds to it - we must begin to challenge all of the deeply embedded 1.0 characteristics within ourselves. Some traits we will find worth keeping, some will need to be modified in some way, others will need to be sacrificed. It's going to be a painful process. I appreciate this substack so much because it does seem to be a small sanctuary where we can examine ourselves in relation to humanity 1.0 and begin to dream of possibilities for humanity 2.0.
I spent most of 2021 working with the AL MFM group, Concerned Doctors, and also some other local political/MFM groups. One of the founders of Concerned Doctors is Dr. Calderwood from Huntsville. He was one of the original group of America's Frontline Doctors in DC when they held their press conference promoting HCQ and opposing lockdowns/masks. Dr. Calderwood disagreed with the direction Simone Gold wanted to take the group, so he formed his own group which was later absorbed by Concerned Doctors. You are right, these fallings out are very small in the big scheme of things. Most people are completely oblivious to them. Dedicated people, like you and Calderwood and others, who find themselves surrounded by people with different goals or worse, grifters, move on and start their own group or start working with other groups who want to better utilize their skills.
Renz, in your excerpts, admitted his goal is to 'wake people up'. Imho, we're way beyond the waking people up stage. The goal now should be holding people accountable so that this doesn't happen again. I don't know if that's possible, but other lawyers who seem to have this as their goal are Robert Barnes and also Jeff Childers (Cofeeandcovid substack). I agree that your exposure of Chaos Agents is important at least so that more prominent members of MFM (like Ron Johnson) can be made aware and end their association with these grifters and agent provocateurs.
I'm a new subscriber. I'm here to learn. I still don't understand your DMED commentary after listening to your rumble shows several times.
I'm a big fan Sage Hana, who now I imagine looking like a 1980 Olympic DDR shot put thrower thanks to your reveleation.
I've had great fun on Sage's substack for a few months. She's been a great help for me. Great community there, very good people in the comments section. And I know there are also very good people who dislike Derrick's extreme, violent and absurdist sense of humor. It's not for everybody.
The origin of my moniker (which I change sometimes) are that I had a "fight" with her in the comments. (Or him.) You see, I'm mostly a not-a-virus kind of man. I came to this conclusion only recently. I used to believe there was a very weak virus around until I investigated the views and writings of the denialists (I assume you dislike Cowan and the Baileys almost as much as Sage Hana hates them.) Sage didn't like my insistence. Also, I defended Christine Massey, who was attacked by Sage Hana a little bit too hard for my taste.
I sometimes make demoralizing remarks, so "she" started calling me a FED, which I am not, obviously. I continued the joke, because I'm mostly a clown.
I will read all previous 9 parts of this series, and I will read more of your voluminous material. I was already a subscriber a few months ago, but I got sidetracked with other readings. The first time I heard from you was on that debatem a year ago, with Yuri Deigin. That was quite a show. An misinformed defender of fascism vs real scientists. I also listened for the first time Aditi Bhargava (she ended the debate with only one phrasem, before you connected there, she said: "where is the control group?" and Deigin was rolled over belly up) and Marc Girardot, and James Lyons-Weiler, and Jessica Rose. I only kept listening because I saw Mike Yeadon there and Stephanie Senef too, and I already knew them and liked them. Steve Kirsch was quite emotional.
Very informative debate for me. Very lopsided, but towards the end you try your best effort to tend a hand for Yuri. That gesture made me think "this Crawford guy is very serious about teaching the ignorant, and he is not a random bullshit artist from the podcasting era of the internet like so many new people I'm finding.")
The first thing to understand about the DMED is that there was a glitch in the database, whether accidental or staged. The 2016-2020 numbers were suppressed as a result. This much was clear the moment I found the historical data snapshots (MSMR), which showed numbers several times higher than those used to perform computations for the first Johnson hearing. Thus, the Renz numbers were invalid.
There is no questioning this fact. Nobody outside of that circle I've spoken with the data about disputes it. I was led to believe nobody at all disputed it, but without my knowledge events were set up in which those numbers were paraded about. I personally think this was intentional, and I felt hints of being jerked around.
From what you comment here and other comments from you, I am thinking that Renz and others chose to do something prejudicial to the MFM for some unknown reason.
Maybe they want to protect the structure of the Military using obfuscation?
There are huge political implications of an attempt to disable most of the American Military personnel, using the subterfuge of a poisonous pseudovaccine. That requires a coordinated and well planned series of treasons from many high officers of the USG. Who would sacrifice the strongest army and why? If this was the plan, or part of it, then it is impossible, IMO, that they don't discover it and attempt to defend themselves (I assume the military are always thinking in treason, is part of the business.) My thinking now is: it could be that Renz and Sen. Johnson are part of the counter-coup of the military, and they had to pretend to botch the January presentation of the data in Congress. This is pure conjecture on my part.
Or, the simplest explanation: Renz and Johnson are inept for no special reason, I'm overthinking things, as always.
Mat, how about using someone you actually have faith in to go after Unnisant? How about Aaron Siri? We obviously cant depend on these clowns, we need another avenue.
I sent out messages through intermediaries to dozens of attorneys, including Siri. I've begged for anyone to file the FOIAs. I devoted an entire article to it.
I had the same thought as Jerms 9654: "It should make everyone take pause that none of the lawyers are going after the contractor that handles the military health data … me connecting him with the insider FOIA specialist who helped Aaron Siri craft his Pfizer data FOIAs, Tom shows zero interest."
Siri appears to be a "good guy." Maybe you could consider trying again to reach out to him?
P.S. I want to try to contact Siri regarding ICAN's FOIA V-Safe data release. For example, I noticed it appears the CDC sabotaged their own V-Safe app by altering it's weekly check-in question to discourage participants from reporting ALL adverse events, to greatly reduce the reported adverse event rate & safety signal.
Their written protocol specified asking each week: “Since your/their last check-in, have you/they experienced any new or worsening symptoms or health conditions? If Yes) Please describe the symptoms or health conditions.”
However, the question that was actually seen on the smartphone by participants during their weekly check-ins was radically different and appears designed to reduce reporting of adverse events: “Since your last check-in, have you experienced any symptoms or health conditions that you believe are related to your Covid-19 vaccination? If Yes) Please describe the symptoms or health conditions.”
Obviously, this question would not obtain ALL new health conditions that could be used to calculate an accurate rate of adverse events to compare to the background rates. Especially during the first 4 months of the vaccine roll out, many participants probably didn't believe their adverse event was related. Just “unlucky” or a “coincidence.” Cause "safe and effective."
For example, I didn't report my pulmonary embolism that occurred 16 days after my 2nd Phizer shot in January '21 because I thought it was a post-surgical complication of my outpatient appendectomy. At the time, the only adverse event mentioned was analphaylatic shock, maybe 1 in a million.
Last month, I started to write up this issue (among other V-safe issues) up in detail, but a recurring retinal detachment got in the way. And Xmas. So, hopefully, I can get this out sometime next month. Enjoy the New Year!
Understand that CHD took up the task, then dropped it. They also asked me to write an article explaining the whole story. I'd written several thousand words when I was asked from the top to stop work.
How do you interpret that?
Steve Kirsch twice told me he would introduce me to a lawyer who would do it. Nothing. Naomi Wolf's lawyer called me and for 40 minutes told me about how she graduated first in her class at a top law school, but is making less money during the pandemic, basically gave me almost zero talking time to walk through the story, then they ghosted me.
I could add a few more of these stories.
Look, there is no need for me to shepherd this one home. Anyone can do that part. The reason I did not at first was that there were and still are hundreds of hours of data work to be done. At this point, I consider observing and documenting everyone's behavior to be the most valuable part of the exercise because I believe that it reveals that nearly everyone is compromised.
If indeed dozens of attorneys have been made aware of this opportunity, and declined, it seems a little unfair to single out Renz for criticism on that score. Although this is no excuse for misinterpreting and exaggerating the data that does exist.
Supposing that an attorney did go after Unissant, and win. How does this lead to unravelling the entire Big Pharma - Big Government complex? I would see a danger that this small fry would take the rap, leaving the larger perpetrators undisturbed.
I'm singling out Renz for telling an absurd story about the DMED data which I would be shocked if he doesn't fully understand is pure fiction.
As for attorneys not being interested in filing, I have heard from one source that there was a directive that seems to have come from an intelligence source within one organization. That message was delivered to me confidentially, so I won't name which organization. But if true, that indicates with certainty that our side is taking orders not to attack prime targets.
It's likely too late. The DoD just replaced thecDMED system and Johnson had only put them on notice to save the data after the server migration. The damage is likely done and permanently so.
I hope I remain a Rounding-the-Earth subscriber in good standing now that I admit I had never heard of Blanton nor Hana, nor do I care to find out more about him/her/them/whatever.
Mathew: Another thought occurred to me: Since the clown show was a DoD+HHS operation, and surely they (pharma) knew the gene-therapy rollout would cause far too many injuries and deaths to be swept under the rug for long, wouldn't DoD have anticipated a need to fiddle with the data given the military mandate, or am I giving them too much credit for competence? They waited until the military signal was obvious.
One of my primary hypotheses has been that the glitch was intentional. This would (1) prevent the collection of accurate signals, (2) discredit the whistleblowers to make them easy to dismiss, and (3) allow for just enough tampering with the 2016-2020 data that the signals would look milder.
And thos is entirely consistent with my findings. Thos is one of the reasons I'm entirely baffled by what seems like an obvious snow job. The weird part is how many people in the MGM seem to have participated. This is a lot of the reason I began taking notes on Chaos Agents.
They encourage tribal masses they can steer, but still fragmented by personality types in a way that makes true holistic community formation difficult to ever achieve (which would be required for the total health of the system---everyone's strengths check everyone's weaknesses). It's quite frankly brutal.
> any opposition (MFM) "win" is likely a controlled narrative, and that it will come only with an acceptance of U.S. control of a global military-banking complex. But the larger win will involve bankruptcy of the whole scheme, which I root for even if it means going through great pains (or perishing myself…I'd rather my species move forward with better lives).
Except that calling the controlling entity "U.S." avoids identifying the men(?) behind the curtain.
Reasonable. We don't precisely know the full balances of power. Something like the Trilateral Commission may help us. It was founded by two Americans, one with European royal heritage. But also includes power players from around the world.
Matthew, The Feds have used people like this to undermine movements since the founding of the FBI, if not before. Though they pretend to be part of the opposition they are working for the government. It's great that you have identified some of them. Hopefully you can find a way to get the other reputable community members to see them for what they are.
That picture of Sen Johnson w Dundas, Marble, and trucker lady is disturbing.
Yes, yes it is.
"Snitch Jacketing" or spreading false rumors about real, valuable activists, can also be highly destructive to movements.
The present conflict can be traced back to the controversy about Robert Malone. It's beyond dispute that Malone has made his fortune by working for Big Pharma and the government. He's put himself forward as the inventor of the mRNA technology platform, and made a solid case that he does deserve the lion's share of credit.
Now, I personally believe that Malone has genuinely had a change of heart. But it also doesn't seem unreasonable to think that his background could influence his thinking in subconscious ways, or even that his behavior is influenced by an understandable desire to avoid completely burning bridges with all his insider connections.
Stew Peters,Jane Ruby, and Peter and Ginger Breggin thought they saw a connection between Malone's allegiance to pharma / government interests, and his promotion of Mass Formation Psychosis theory.
Maybe they went too far, in accusing Malone of being a deliberate disinformation agent? I think so. But Malone fought back, with a $25 Million lawsuit for defamation. Seems like exactly the sort of thing a "Chaos Agent" might do. With his vindictive action, Malone added fuel to the fire of speculation that he's a bad actor.
I think this is when Sage Hana stepped in... and noted that Matt Crawford and Steve Kirsch seem to be taking Malone's side in this, as well as attacking Stew Peters?
It seems to me that everybody ought to calm down, and recognize that disagreements can happen, and errors can be made, and that this is not proof that the Feds are involved. To quote the Activist Security collective:
https://network23.org/infiltrators/2014/08/27/snitch-jacketing-in-our-movements/
"...incompetence, unreliability and annoying personalities are just as likely in our movement as anywhere else, and though it might amount to disruption in practice, it does not mean [these people] are actually working for the police or corporations."
I have absolutely no idea what I've ever said to make anyone think I'd taken Malone's side in anything. I have encouraged people to research him very publicly and on numerous occasions because I think that vetting any and all leaders is crucial to forming a healthy community.
I also disagree with Malone about many topics. I immediately declared that he was giving up ground inexplicably by saying that the vaccines worked as expected when we both spoke to the Honolulu City Council. I find Desmet's work to be bizarrely overhyped. I don't trust Andrew Huff as far as a dead vaper could throw him. And I questioned the strange way in which Ed Dowd was championed from the start (edit: I don't distrust Ed, but rather the way in which story story was apparently used to create a pump and dump in the options markets). These are all people promoted by Malone. I also felt betrayed by him on the DMED project.
Apparently Malone appreciates some of my research and writing, so there's that.
My Lawrence of Arabia article was a reminder that movement guides have historically been inserted to steer the drawing of boundaries. That wasn't meant to point a finger at anyone specifically, but discourages people from the Hero Ball game that favors the big personalities.
But none of this matters if we decentralize, which has always been my primary message.
Mathew, thanks again for the reply. I totally agree about decentralization. I spend most of my time working locally, and only sporadically find time to participate at Substack. I hope I'm not coming across as a troll.
As to what you might have said in the past about Malone, "Sage Hana" identified a few things at the very end of this 'stack post, at "Mathew Crawford and Dr. Malone":
https://sagehana.substack.com/p/chaos-agents-mathew-crawford-the
Including a comment from Dec. 17th, apparently about the Malone v. Breggin lawsuit, where you said: "There is something going on behind the scenes that would be very complicated to explain that is driving at least some of this."
Oddly, I recall that Steve Kirsch said something very similar about this lawsuit.
I notice that Stew Peters is rather conspicuously missing from the defendant list on Malone's lawsuit. Malone is suing three private individuals (Dr. Ruby and the Breggins) and two corporate entities. But surely Peters is the worst offender of the lot, when it comes to providing a platform for anyone and everyone to attack Malone?
Maybe the "behind the scenes" strategy, is some hope that Dr. Ruby or the Breggins will turn on Peters, and provide evidence against him?
I personally would support a lawsuit against Peters, at least to get into discovery and learn more about his shady past. Maybe there is something to these charges that he's a spook, or at least compromised and vulnerable to blackmail. But suing the Breggins is just lower than low, so I'm glad to learn you don't support Malone about that.
I hadn't given a thought to whether Peters matters in the lawsuit. I haven't watched enough of him to have an opinion as to whether he is the worst offender with respect to Malone. I don't even know enough to say whether the suit has merit.
I was speaking of something esle, but it cannot be explained briefly. It's also unclear whether I should get into it. But I do know it is potentially a large move with respect to the public health system leadership.
Overall good points. I only take exception with Kirsch and MC taking Malones place. I dont really see that. I think MCs position on Malone is fairly similar to what you described in this post ex the lawsuit aspect. Mat can correct/clarify if I'm misrepresenting that.
Stew Peters lost all credibility when he got behind the snake venom garbage. That was clearly a psyop to discredit the anit-mnra vaccine movement much the same as the people pushing that 9/11 attacks involved nuclear weapons.
Stew Peters personal background does not inspire trust in him either.
Yes, but I think he was straining credulity even before that. My impression was that Stew was sort of attempting to be AJ 2.0 albeit I think Alex is more genuine than Stew.
Stew got his start mostly by going after Alex Jones as it turns out. At least, I read an article explaining it that way.
They certainly have. I didn't begin to realize that until about 10 years ago.
Keep going Mathew, I and many others greatly appreciate all you have and continue to do. Shame that opportunistic parasites like “Sage Hana” try to get a desperate slice of the evil, mandarin pie, but it’s a flaw of human nature unfortunately I guess, some more drawn to the grift than others 🙏
Matthew, I am honored to be a (small) supporter of your work. I tell everyone who will listen about your Substack. Thank you for your tireless, unselfish work toward pulling back the curtain.
Much appreciated.
This is a difficult stage because there is a sort of whiplash effect where people are rushing toward what seem to be established outposts of information, and not all of them are trustworthy. In fact, it's not even clear that half of them are trustworthy. I have a medium-sized outpost that may perhaps make a different in helping people discern the wheat from the chaffe.
Some people are simply intimidated by maths and data... they switch off... for others like you...it’s our first language...
At least a part of the problem communicating what happened is that problem... some very close to me simply cannot hear the maths, the dynamics and interactions, they have no locus to compare...
But it’s those who hold integrity high..who understand systems fluxes and data integrity... it’s a different story...
But it’s crucial to get the data right..and thanks for your contribution...
I trust integrity. I see that in you and your data. I've been wary since the beginning of this, calls to violence that would destroy us all. There is no purpose either taking down one clique manipulating data to replace it with a different clique that manipulates data.
There is a civilizational psycho-drama here to, underlying, a pure destructive instinct, which energizes a lot of the woke folk as well as a few in the MFM.
Wokeness crept into the conservative communities over the years. If 75% of the left is Woke, maybe 55% of the right is Woke. The differences are often merely in the details, but I'm sure is geographic-dependent.
I have been thinking of the Woke phenomenon as an acutely left and center thing, but I think I know what you mean. It is an effective method for destroying your enemies on the hierarchical ladder and that is bipartisan indeed.
Words like "right" and "left" get twisted and then fail. We're not gathered in an 18th century French church, right? The king is not even visible.
But in the sense that the "intellectual left" (smart people who sit at coffee houses too much) are more often those proposing "injected cultral shifts", we could call Wokeness "left". Though I think that we should start reconfiguring terminology toward the orientations of the invisible centralized hierarchy---degrees of insiderness and outsiderness.
True enough. The old right/left paradigm is mostly a divide-conquer-control mechanism. Increasingly it is the insider PMC etc, and the rest of us. I have wondered if it is just a waiting game, before these "insiders" destroy themselves, they are so removed from nature and reality at this point, and so nakedly predatory. That is why I distrust the will to violence against them, as that is a war no one wins, and I am more focused and concerned about what would we build after the fall.
I've tried to pen a few warnings about the new Overlords possibly being the same as the old Overlords.
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/lawrence-of-arabias-greatest-lesson?s=r
That's why I (try to) write about magic, spiritual alchemy, the philosopher's stone, know thyself, so that people will have some tools to not get lost in following people or movements that are contrary to their health and welfare. It is very hard to navigate all the conflicting narratives, it helps to be clear and grounded in the self. Lately I've found that clarity too in the work of Jonathan Couey, Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt.
Also writing about such topics sets me outside any "movement" so as not to be taken overly seriously...
Yes! Degrees of captured and uncapturable.
I use the terms populist and elite a lot, or working class, laptop class, political class. I read the book "Woke, Inc" last year. It explained to me why, at the time, Fox News was demonizing the Occupy Wall Street movement when the the goals of OWS aligned with many of the 'Tea Party' goals. Both were populist (outsider) movements focused on holding insiders accountable for the 2008 financial collapse and aftermath. Although the book is mostly about how Corporate Wokeism is a fraud, the author suggests (insider) corporate media promotes cultural memes intentionally as they have always done - to keep populist movements divided between left and right. And even better for them, we now have Wokeism and anti-Wokeism.
"The King is not even visible..." except for King Charles III, perhaps? I have seen rumors that the Great Reset concept can be traced back to Charles.
What about the Pope, the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, upstarts like Gates, Trump, Biden, Schwab?
If you do go back to the era of the French Revolution, the meanings of Right and Left re-emerge with new clarity. The right wing is the King (visible or invisible), the Billionaires (modern nobility) and the clerics (the administrative Deep State as well as most organized Religion. In the USA, we have two far right wing parties.
The Left should be everyone else... except that so many people are confused and misled by the torrent of propaganda, to the point where they cannot recognize their own interests.
"In the USA, we have two far right wing parties."
I've often said the same thing, though it's unclear if the two are one at the top of the hierarchy. I suspect that they are. Interestingly, some of the Biggie Minds of high intellectual popularity have argued against me about whether that's possible, but for years those arguments have consisted of no evidence, no modeling, dismissive behaviors leaked to other interactions, and the sorts of petty insults that the upper intellectual class get away with as plausibly deniable in intent.
It is remarkable how easy it is to manipulate educated people. We are trained to trust at all levels of our education. In my time, we who were cannon-fodder spoke out against the madness of what LBJ was doing to Viet Nam (but I now wonder if we were being manipulated--probably so). But it seems the college students of today are docile sheep. I may be wrong about this, but something seems very different than it was in the '60's.
This is a war like none other in the history of our species. It is demanding something new from us, something creative. The power structure knows how to control humanity 1.0. It does not have a clue how to handle humanity 2.0. How do we make the jump? I don't think the path is clear to any of us right now, but there is one thing I think we can really make progress on if we set our minds to it - we must begin to challenge all of the deeply embedded 1.0 characteristics within ourselves. Some traits we will find worth keeping, some will need to be modified in some way, others will need to be sacrificed. It's going to be a painful process. I appreciate this substack so much because it does seem to be a small sanctuary where we can examine ourselves in relation to humanity 1.0 and begin to dream of possibilities for humanity 2.0.
I spent most of 2021 working with the AL MFM group, Concerned Doctors, and also some other local political/MFM groups. One of the founders of Concerned Doctors is Dr. Calderwood from Huntsville. He was one of the original group of America's Frontline Doctors in DC when they held their press conference promoting HCQ and opposing lockdowns/masks. Dr. Calderwood disagreed with the direction Simone Gold wanted to take the group, so he formed his own group which was later absorbed by Concerned Doctors. You are right, these fallings out are very small in the big scheme of things. Most people are completely oblivious to them. Dedicated people, like you and Calderwood and others, who find themselves surrounded by people with different goals or worse, grifters, move on and start their own group or start working with other groups who want to better utilize their skills.
Renz, in your excerpts, admitted his goal is to 'wake people up'. Imho, we're way beyond the waking people up stage. The goal now should be holding people accountable so that this doesn't happen again. I don't know if that's possible, but other lawyers who seem to have this as their goal are Robert Barnes and also Jeff Childers (Cofeeandcovid substack). I agree that your exposure of Chaos Agents is important at least so that more prominent members of MFM (like Ron Johnson) can be made aware and end their association with these grifters and agent provocateurs.
I wasn't aware that Childers is an attorney. I wish I'd noticed him sooner.
Yes I think he's the one who got mask mandates reversed in FL. Someone correct if I'm wrong.
If so, good for him. Maybe I'll upgrade to a paid sub over there. He is one of the better writers.
You are correct, and he's in it for the long haul.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/inflection-wednesday-december-14
He's recently solicited help to build a database to aid in prosecutions and political campaigning. Maybe Operation Uplift could chip in?
Hello Mathew.
I'm a new subscriber. I'm here to learn. I still don't understand your DMED commentary after listening to your rumble shows several times.
I'm a big fan Sage Hana, who now I imagine looking like a 1980 Olympic DDR shot put thrower thanks to your reveleation.
I've had great fun on Sage's substack for a few months. She's been a great help for me. Great community there, very good people in the comments section. And I know there are also very good people who dislike Derrick's extreme, violent and absurdist sense of humor. It's not for everybody.
The origin of my moniker (which I change sometimes) are that I had a "fight" with her in the comments. (Or him.) You see, I'm mostly a not-a-virus kind of man. I came to this conclusion only recently. I used to believe there was a very weak virus around until I investigated the views and writings of the denialists (I assume you dislike Cowan and the Baileys almost as much as Sage Hana hates them.) Sage didn't like my insistence. Also, I defended Christine Massey, who was attacked by Sage Hana a little bit too hard for my taste.
I sometimes make demoralizing remarks, so "she" started calling me a FED, which I am not, obviously. I continued the joke, because I'm mostly a clown.
I will read all previous 9 parts of this series, and I will read more of your voluminous material. I was already a subscriber a few months ago, but I got sidetracked with other readings. The first time I heard from you was on that debatem a year ago, with Yuri Deigin. That was quite a show. An misinformed defender of fascism vs real scientists. I also listened for the first time Aditi Bhargava (she ended the debate with only one phrasem, before you connected there, she said: "where is the control group?" and Deigin was rolled over belly up) and Marc Girardot, and James Lyons-Weiler, and Jessica Rose. I only kept listening because I saw Mike Yeadon there and Stephanie Senef too, and I already knew them and liked them. Steve Kirsch was quite emotional.
Very informative debate for me. Very lopsided, but towards the end you try your best effort to tend a hand for Yuri. That gesture made me think "this Crawford guy is very serious about teaching the ignorant, and he is not a random bullshit artist from the podcasting era of the internet like so many new people I'm finding.")
Thanks!
The first thing to understand about the DMED is that there was a glitch in the database, whether accidental or staged. The 2016-2020 numbers were suppressed as a result. This much was clear the moment I found the historical data snapshots (MSMR), which showed numbers several times higher than those used to perform computations for the first Johnson hearing. Thus, the Renz numbers were invalid.
There is no questioning this fact. Nobody outside of that circle I've spoken with the data about disputes it. I was led to believe nobody at all disputed it, but without my knowledge events were set up in which those numbers were paraded about. I personally think this was intentional, and I felt hints of being jerked around.
From what you comment here and other comments from you, I am thinking that Renz and others chose to do something prejudicial to the MFM for some unknown reason.
Maybe they want to protect the structure of the Military using obfuscation?
There are huge political implications of an attempt to disable most of the American Military personnel, using the subterfuge of a poisonous pseudovaccine. That requires a coordinated and well planned series of treasons from many high officers of the USG. Who would sacrifice the strongest army and why? If this was the plan, or part of it, then it is impossible, IMO, that they don't discover it and attempt to defend themselves (I assume the military are always thinking in treason, is part of the business.) My thinking now is: it could be that Renz and Sen. Johnson are part of the counter-coup of the military, and they had to pretend to botch the January presentation of the data in Congress. This is pure conjecture on my part.
Or, the simplest explanation: Renz and Johnson are inept for no special reason, I'm overthinking things, as always.
You're thinking through hypothetical lines. Thats all any of us can do. As you learn more, you may reject some and focus more strongly on others.
Mat, how about using someone you actually have faith in to go after Unnisant? How about Aaron Siri? We obviously cant depend on these clowns, we need another avenue.
I sent out messages through intermediaries to dozens of attorneys, including Siri. I've begged for anyone to file the FOIAs. I devoted an entire article to it.
I had the same thought as Jerms 9654: "It should make everyone take pause that none of the lawyers are going after the contractor that handles the military health data … me connecting him with the insider FOIA specialist who helped Aaron Siri craft his Pfizer data FOIAs, Tom shows zero interest."
Siri appears to be a "good guy." Maybe you could consider trying again to reach out to him?
P.S. I want to try to contact Siri regarding ICAN's FOIA V-Safe data release. For example, I noticed it appears the CDC sabotaged their own V-Safe app by altering it's weekly check-in question to discourage participants from reporting ALL adverse events, to greatly reduce the reported adverse event rate & safety signal.
Their written protocol specified asking each week: “Since your/their last check-in, have you/they experienced any new or worsening symptoms or health conditions? If Yes) Please describe the symptoms or health conditions.”
However, the question that was actually seen on the smartphone by participants during their weekly check-ins was radically different and appears designed to reduce reporting of adverse events: “Since your last check-in, have you experienced any symptoms or health conditions that you believe are related to your Covid-19 vaccination? If Yes) Please describe the symptoms or health conditions.”
Obviously, this question would not obtain ALL new health conditions that could be used to calculate an accurate rate of adverse events to compare to the background rates. Especially during the first 4 months of the vaccine roll out, many participants probably didn't believe their adverse event was related. Just “unlucky” or a “coincidence.” Cause "safe and effective."
For example, I didn't report my pulmonary embolism that occurred 16 days after my 2nd Phizer shot in January '21 because I thought it was a post-surgical complication of my outpatient appendectomy. At the time, the only adverse event mentioned was analphaylatic shock, maybe 1 in a million.
Last month, I started to write up this issue (among other V-safe issues) up in detail, but a recurring retinal detachment got in the way. And Xmas. So, hopefully, I can get this out sometime next month. Enjoy the New Year!
Understand that CHD took up the task, then dropped it. They also asked me to write an article explaining the whole story. I'd written several thousand words when I was asked from the top to stop work.
How do you interpret that?
Steve Kirsch twice told me he would introduce me to a lawyer who would do it. Nothing. Naomi Wolf's lawyer called me and for 40 minutes told me about how she graduated first in her class at a top law school, but is making less money during the pandemic, basically gave me almost zero talking time to walk through the story, then they ghosted me.
I could add a few more of these stories.
Look, there is no need for me to shepherd this one home. Anyone can do that part. The reason I did not at first was that there were and still are hundreds of hours of data work to be done. At this point, I consider observing and documenting everyone's behavior to be the most valuable part of the exercise because I believe that it reveals that nearly everyone is compromised.
If indeed dozens of attorneys have been made aware of this opportunity, and declined, it seems a little unfair to single out Renz for criticism on that score. Although this is no excuse for misinterpreting and exaggerating the data that does exist.
Supposing that an attorney did go after Unissant, and win. How does this lead to unravelling the entire Big Pharma - Big Government complex? I would see a danger that this small fry would take the rap, leaving the larger perpetrators undisturbed.
I'm singling out Renz for telling an absurd story about the DMED data which I would be shocked if he doesn't fully understand is pure fiction.
As for attorneys not being interested in filing, I have heard from one source that there was a directive that seems to have come from an intelligence source within one organization. That message was delivered to me confidentially, so I won't name which organization. But if true, that indicates with certainty that our side is taking orders not to attack prime targets.
It's the Monster in the Room. Yeah that's Derricks term but it's appropriate metaphor.
I doubt Siri is available for that since he's working foe Del Bigtree. That said, maybe someone else in his orbit could manage it.
It's likely too late. The DoD just replaced thecDMED system and Johnson had only put them on notice to save the data after the server migration. The damage is likely done and permanently so.
I hope I remain a Rounding-the-Earth subscriber in good standing now that I admit I had never heard of Blanton nor Hana, nor do I care to find out more about him/her/them/whatever.
Mathew: Another thought occurred to me: Since the clown show was a DoD+HHS operation, and surely they (pharma) knew the gene-therapy rollout would cause far too many injuries and deaths to be swept under the rug for long, wouldn't DoD have anticipated a need to fiddle with the data given the military mandate, or am I giving them too much credit for competence? They waited until the military signal was obvious.
One of my primary hypotheses has been that the glitch was intentional. This would (1) prevent the collection of accurate signals, (2) discredit the whistleblowers to make them easy to dismiss, and (3) allow for just enough tampering with the 2016-2020 data that the signals would look milder.
And thos is entirely consistent with my findings. Thos is one of the reasons I'm entirely baffled by what seems like an obvious snow job. The weird part is how many people in the MGM seem to have participated. This is a lot of the reason I began taking notes on Chaos Agents.
Thanks Mathew for all the work you do. This substack gave me the needed background to come to some conclusions.
"Call this "infighting" if you like. I call it 'being fully truthful and accurate' about an extremely important matter."
THIS! Thank you, Matthew!
I call it "an early exercise in trust management". Remember, there's a 5th Gen War on. Even Malone's on board with the concept now.
Chaos agents also encourage tribalism …
They encourage tribal masses they can steer, but still fragmented by personality types in a way that makes true holistic community formation difficult to ever achieve (which would be required for the total health of the system---everyone's strengths check everyone's weaknesses). It's quite frankly brutal.
Another most helpful article. I agree with
> any opposition (MFM) "win" is likely a controlled narrative, and that it will come only with an acceptance of U.S. control of a global military-banking complex. But the larger win will involve bankruptcy of the whole scheme, which I root for even if it means going through great pains (or perishing myself…I'd rather my species move forward with better lives).
Except that calling the controlling entity "U.S." avoids identifying the men(?) behind the curtain.
Reasonable. We don't precisely know the full balances of power. Something like the Trilateral Commission may help us. It was founded by two Americans, one with European royal heritage. But also includes power players from around the world.