Thanks for inviting me to read this piece. I have a lot of sympathy with what you present here, most especially in the way that the topics you've chosen to reflect on have been polarised and thus distorted. However, it is the nature of my engagement with thoughts such as these that I will tend to single out points of disagreement or areas where there is greater ambiguity than you might be suggesting. This does not mean I disagree with your overall themes; on the whole, we are quite well aligned here (especially on the utter mess that was COVID-19, but also on many of your other chosen topics).
You choose to call these situations a 'psyop', and although I'm not against the idea being flagged here (the distortion implied does occur, and there is a motive behind the acts taken to create and sustain the distortion) I personally resist this terminology. I prefer to talk about these as 'rifts', although even this term is not entirely helpful. I dislike 'psyop' largely because it reinforces the idea of a shadowy cabal controlling events from behind the scenes. I personally suspect this risks overstating the actuality, and in so doing reinforces the idea that we have less power than in fact we do. If there is a shadowy cabal manipulating events behind the scenes they are doing it very badly. There are certainly wealthy individuals doing stupid things with vast funding, but I don't think this equates to these lunatics being in control. Most likely, nobody is in control in the way this phrase is usually used. So on the whole I find it more plausible that other, more basic aspects of human nature suffice to explain the entire horrendous situation.
You are clearly writing from a US perspective, so from this neck of the woods (where I currently live, incidentally, although it's not where I'm from) the situation falls out into the blue team and the red team. I find it helpful to do away with the names of the parties, which are extremely misleading (now more than ever). Because of the cost of running elections in the US (owing to its size as much as anything), those who own the majority of the wealth have aligned with one or another team, and the two teams have ended up, slowly but inexorably, aligned with commercial interests. The red team, for instance, is aligned with oil companies and weapon manufacturers (among other things), while the blue team has become - albeit only quite recently - with pharmaceutical companies, tech companies, and, even more recently, with weapon manufacturers, who have apparently decided to hedge their bets. (The blue team resolutely opposes weapons 'at home' but seems extremely dedicated to sending them abroad and asking everyone to foot the bill).
Every polarisation begats demonisation, and so too this has happened in the US. Cognitive dissonance (which in a political or ethical context I like to call 'moral horror') drives this split, and the split is, I suspect, sufficient to explain much of the nonsense that occurs downstream, possibly all of it. When we encounter what seems to us unthinkable, we will recover from the shock by either dismissing the relevance of what we've encountered (if we can) or making out the other people as monsters (if we can't), this is moral horror in a nutshell. The desire for censorship, for instance, comes about because moral horror so successfully allows for the demonisation of the other side of the rift that all manner of despicable things suddenly sound reasonable.
When you say 'we are being divided for a reason', I feel this plays into the shadowy cabal interpretation - which is not to dispute that we are witnessing great exploitation of divisions to 'divide and conquer'. However, there's another side to this. It is a remarkable quality of the way that legacy news media has operated that it requires sensational stories in order to drive eyeballs, and the divisiveness is therefore available both as a cause ('divided for a reason') and as a symptom (divisive stories 'sell'). I rather suspect it's a bit of both, but even this is a step beyond the shadowy cabal interpretation, which as noted above risks demotivates people in terms of breaking out of this cycle of nonsense.
Again, it's not that the divisiveness doesn't happen, and it's not that there isn't motivation behind the divisions - it's rather that there are many layers of these motivations that happen to align in the divisions. To put this another way, nobody is in control, but some people have more influence than others. I feel it is important to appreciate that nobody is truly in control, least of all the President of the United States. One thing about the current administration is that it has made it far clearer how irrelevant the figurehead is to what is being pushed forward, since Biden, unlike most of the terrible presidents before him, is clearly not capable of being in charge. Honestly, I rather suspect nobody is.
I hope I have made clear why I resist framing these issues in the way that you do, even though I don't disagree with your concerns (I don't have time to go through all the rifts you choose here one by one, although I'm sure we could have an interesting discussion about every one of them).
One more thing. You say:
"Facts are indisputable and in the end of a logical discussion everyone will agree what is true. Opinions are beliefs that are arrived at based on values that each of us give different things."
This is something that has picked up the name 'the fact-value distinction', and it grew out of certain early twentieth century philosophical trends, including and most notably something called 'the Vienna circle' i.e. a group of nerds who met in Vienna and ended up having an astonishing degree of influence on thoughts about facts and values later in the century. But the fact-value distinction is powerfully and dangerously misguided, and indeed has caused enormous mischief over the years. The intuition you are drawing upon here consists (as is so often the case) of both a true and a misleading element. The true aspect is that there is such a thing as a true description (or, perhaps better, descriptions that lean towards the truth) - but the truth is not equivalent to facts, as such.
If I may give an analogy, the facts in a criminal case are statements that capture partial elements of events (and these facts may contradict one another, at least in the way they are presented). A true account of what happened is always possible, but it is not inevitable, and neither is it indisputable. The collection of available facts sets a limit to what is achievable. The court case is, in its ideal case at least, an attempt to assemble the truth from the facts. The facts are not truth, they are more akin to signposts to the truth. Or, to put this another way, facts are not the bearers of truth, but rather knowledge produces facts as a side effect, and we can therefore attempt to retrofit facts into a partial version of the truth.
But beyond this, the facts are not indisputable - or rather, the indisputable facts are the boring or irrelevant facts. The boiling point of water at a certain gravity and atmospheric pressure is an example of an indisputable fact in the sense you want here. But this is radically less than what is required to determine truth on a topic such as climate, the environment, gender metaphysics, disease etc. For more on this idea, see this piece, "After Universities", from September:
You say there are two worlds, by which you mean the world of the red team and the world of the blue team. Aye, but there are not solely these two worlds, and the greatest deception is perhaps the one you don't mention here - that these two worlds are the only available worlds, an illusion that the parties trying to ride the favour of their associated teams have a joint vested interest in maintaining. There are many more than two worlds, but the great danger, as you suggest, is in coming to think that the world we inhabit is the only true world and everyone else has it wrong.
The truth is more fragile and elusive than this; it takes effort to assemble it. We can inch closer to the truth only by being able to speak to one another, in order to build bridges between these worlds. This is the project I am attempting at Stranger Worlds. Of course, I can only do this on a small scale... it will take much more than this to effect change, but I hope to be part of that change if and when we can form alliances with common principles. At the moment, even this feels far, far away, but I maintain my faith that the wretched state of affairs we are currently living through can be ended through the cooperative actions of people such as ourselves.
Many thanks for the invitation to read this essay. As I say, I have great sympathy for your perspective here. But I feel, as I so often do, that the truth retreats from us, and seeing through various sets of deceptions, illusions, psyops, political commitments or whatever, isn't enough to get us to truth. Perhaps, though, it is the start of that journey.
Thank you for your well thought out analysis. I appreciate the honest debate, it is the only way to understand as much as possible about what is going on.
Regarding the Cabal comment. I believe that there is a group controlling all of this and until recently I was unable to define exactly who it was. The use of 'They' often bothered people as they want to know who to blame before considering that there appears to be someone controlling all of this even if we don't know who. I wrote an article that describes my view on this: https://mikemyhre.substack.com/p/who-are-they
The PsyOp is what I chose to call them based on the Mass Formation Psychosis that Desmet has explained.
As for the left vs right, you are correct, that is mainly a US thing and why I see so many of these divisions as right or left. Regarding the two worlds, yes there are many, but from the perspective of each person, there is what they 'know to be true' and what 'others know to be true'. In their minds, there are two worlds. I did describe Independents and who they couldn't talk to either side eluding to the more than two worlds. For the arguments I was presenting, the two world vision was the most likely way to be understood.
It is possible to discern from what is happening that there is a coordinated effort and not just the popular news cycle. Take the Missouri vs Biden case for example. It was just realized in court that the federal government has been violating the first amendment and silencing professionals that they knew to be speaking the truth about matters that were life threatening. Matt Taibbi won an award for excellence in journalism for the Twitter files reporting and he was targeted by the IRS the day his story broke which was proven that they had no justification in doing so. The FBI was paying media companies to silence people. This should have been big news, but it wasn't even something that made a single story unless it was to explain it away as conspiracy theories. There are many examples of this where you can know what is going on without direct evidence because the forces you are assuming are in control (profit motive, sensationalism, etc) are not pulling the strings.
Facts and values - I will ready your article. I believe that everything can be broken down to components and each component given a rating of proven true, proven false, or value choice. This is just as you have declared in court cases. The image that I like to use as an example is two people viewing a cylinder from different perspective. One argues that it is a circle, the other that it is a rectangle. Both know what they see is accurate and assume that both can't be correct. The 3 dimensional view is required to understand how both are correct in their conclusions based on the limited information they have. This is where the 'two worlds' need to discuss how they know what to be true, not dismiss the others thoughts as crazy. A brief discussion will reveal a greater understanding to both and both leave happy. This is what we are being deprived by what I believe is coordinated forced divisions.
Stranger Worlds - I have a vision of ways that we could accomplish agreements as a whole. It requires a discussion similar to twitter, but with credibility scores based on previous discussions and if they resulted in being on the same side. These 'facts' as they get resolved would become an encyclopedia similar to Wikipedia (or a source of). It would require each contributor to be a unique person, not 100s of bots. These contributors would need to be anonymous so their credibility is not due to a public persona but only their history of being right and agreed with. The fact-checkers of today, that silence people and don't allow discussions in their comments are what facebook calls 'opinions' in court. These would be debunked and eliminated with my vision. I believe that if humanity is provided a tool where every voice matters and those who are right most of the time become the voice of society regardless of political standing or university degree. Einstein was initially laughed at, then respected. We need those kinds of discussions on a global scale.
Thanks for continuing our discussion, Mike. I skimmed at the article you linked to (I am, like so many people, desperately fighting to reach the holidays and having to manage my time!). My own feeling is the WEF is symptom rather than cause. I don't personally believe Schwab is a very credible 'Bond villain', but he is an excellent suck up to the ultrarich.
In so much as the WEF is a private club for oligarchs, I agree with you, but I don't believe they have control so much as they have offered a contemporary take on the old 'Hellfire Clubs' of 18th century Britain. I'm agnostic, and prepared for evidence to emerge that confirms your take over mine, but at the moment I think both are in play (i.e. impossible to eliminate).
For me, looking at what WEF actually does reveals an immense and shallow lack of thinking that is incompatible with being in control. What I rather suspect is going on is that because the various oligarchs you discuss in your other piece have in fact lost faith in democracy (indeed, they hate democracy but cannot admit this to themselves) they would rather have a chat at the WEF and make plans over cigars (hence my Hellfire Club analogy) than foster the strong spirit of liberal democracy you and I seem to be after. This for me falls very short of being in control, but as ever your mileage may vary! 😅
I'm going to ponder your proposal for 'manufacturing consensus' a little further in my own time, but my gut reaction is that this is going to run up against what in philosophy might be called 'the metaphysics problem'. In my book, The Virtuous Cyborg, I suggest something akin to what you're proposing here as a tool for credibility in social media (one of our root problems in terms of the corruption of discourse, in my view), but even this leaves me with concerns, and I don't think from where we are we can get to where you want to be here. I think there are deeper problems that act against encyclopaedias, and these can no longer serve the role they once did. There's a crisis here that we will have to face eventually. I have a piece on this coming up on Stranger Worlds in January, actually.
Greatly appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comments. Discourse like this - just two people talking openly and freely - is the fertile soil into which anything worthwhile from here must be planted.
With unlimited love and respect,
Chris.
PS: Sorry to keep throwing pieces at you, but your discussion of circles and rectangles suggests you might like this piece from March:
Yes. I liked that a lot. Very good description of perspectives.
I really didn't want my articles to be so long. There was a lot of ground I wanted to cover and felt it necessary to prove my point. In a world of soundbites, it is rare to get anyone to engage in an in depth discussion or read required to resolve difficult issues. Brevity is the soul of wit. As a film writer accepting an award once said: "If I had more time, it would have been shorter".
I could get into a lot of guessing on who may be behind such a massive control of the worlds minds. As I said, so many want a target before they can consider and as you pointed out, the WEF picture is conveniently painted for us. From my understanding, there is no doubt that someone(s) are controlling the narratives and it isn't who we see. I keep looking for evidence to disprove my theory of coordinated control and I can't find it. Whoever is doing it would not want to be known. That is part of their power. Rothchild's would be another guess, but I don't want to guess. I want to know. Sometimes I think it could be aliens because it seems too powerful to be thought up by humans. Again I need to reign in my suspicions and just deal with facts. And really, the who doesn't matter as much as the mechanism being used because if that is stopped, the influence stops. The mechanisms are visible and accessible. Swimming up stream with a headwind difficult, but still possible.
I have enjoyed our discussions. Have a good Holiday and I look forward to reading some of your articles and talking again.
Just as a quick postscript: "And really, the who doesn't matter as much as the mechanism being used because if that is stopped, the influence stops. "
I think this is the nub of the matter. If we focus on repairing the discourse, it may not matter who has been perverting it. It is so easy to be seduced by explanations, but what we really need is a path out of the warren, not the names of the rabbits who built it. 😉
As for writing too much - I too wrote at great length when I started blogging in 2005. Now it is nearly twenty years later, and I opted when I started Stranger Worlds in January to restrict each piece to just 750 words (a 3-minute read). This is perfect for where I am in my writing. But I could not have skipped to the end, I think. I had to start with writing from the heart. So write from the heart and see where it takes you!
I too enjoyed our exchange - wishing you a joyous winter!
Don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. We all grew up tapping our sibling on the far shoulder and blaming the person sitting on that side. Most people know there needs to be a scapegoat for any covert action.
How do you think human life on Earth started? How far back do you think our history extends?
Figuring it out: We depend on intellectuals and academics to do this. Most of us don't have the bandwidth in our lives or minds to do this work. We are more or less forced to rely on "experts" or "God" for a fair number of our beliefs. I haven't even bothered to go out into space and see for myself if the Earth is globe-shaped. I know of some people who have. And there WERE people in the ancient past who knew this and could even go out and make sure if they really wanted to.
Psychopathy: I have never heard of the Machs test. I have heard of the Dark Triad, though see this as a psychology insider term. Have you heard of Łobaczewski and his Political Ponerology? Hubbard and his work on "Suppressive Persons?" Desmet and his work on Mass Formation?
Propaganda: This became a "thing" during the rise of mass marketing and Public Relations, which was the specialty of Freud's cousin Edward Bernays. However, psychological operations go way back, before the time of Earth.
Who is shaking the jar? That is what Hubbard refers to as the Third Party. These are psychopathic people.
Here are some other psyops I can think of:
1) The evolution of biology on Earth / humans are the only intelligent life form in the universe.
2) You only live once / reincarnation cannot be proven.
3) The death and resurrection of Jesus as depicted in the New Testament.
4) 9/11 as depicted in the relevant government reports, as well as many other major political disasters.
5) Your mind is in your brain, and you can't leave your body, or ever be really free.
6) An asteroid impact destroyed all the dinosaurs 70 million years ago.
That's enough for now.
You're right. Much of what we think we know is true is not actually true. And that's been the situation for a long long time. A REALLY long time!
God - We could discuss for hours. What religion claims is almost a Disney version with lots of holes in it. After life, spirituality, how did life on earth start, all difficult to prove but interesting to theorize.
Desmet Mattias - Yes. His explanation I first heard through Dr. Robert Malone on Joe Rogan. It explained what I was seeing and am so interested in understanding further.
Other psyops - many of what you state are very likely. I would add the titanic to that regarding the federal reserve and I require quite a bit of proof before I put it in the likely category. What I was going for in my 8 active psyops are the ones being pushed right now that are not so deeply rooted. I got into 9/11 a little bit because it was relevant in the wars going on today.
I need to put efforts toward issues that can be discerned, not those that are more philosophical. While the philosophical discussions are interesting they aren't relevant in escaping the Mass Formation Psychosis. As Desmet just explained to the Romanian Parliament, the Sincere Speech is what can make a difference today by breaking the control on society.
I sympathize with the desire to address the current bunch of deceptions directly. However, I suspect that this is the game "they" are inviting us to play, rather than looking into the larger problem of how to expose them and counter their power. In this regard, "spiritual freedom" is a key point, and very few people have any appreciation of what that really means.
Regarding the broader problem of learning more about what is really going on, I rely on evidence, not "proof." Proof is a logical or mathematical concept that I don't find useful. The fact is that the great truths of life are widely experienced. It's just a matter of digging up those experiences. Different researchers I have consulted use different methods. Hubbard introduced me to many of these concepts, and I think his methods were reasonably reliable. Other researchers have simply been unwilling to reproduce his work. The researcher who got the closest is Courtney Brown. And his findings have been very similar to Hubbard's.
Let's go through your list:
1) Global warming. For some this is a question of fact, while for others it is a question of cause and choice of remedy. This issue involves such huge shifts of finance and power that I doubt it will ever easily resolve. But it's difficult for me to believe that the planet will not find a way to re-balance.
2) Gun control. Here is another issue where a lot of political power is at stake. This missing data (for me) is what motivated the shooters. There is some evidence that these were "Manchurian Candidate" kinds of operations. If there is some network behind these events, directing them, that would make a big difference in deciding what to do. Of course, there is an obvious need for better mental health services in all communities. But does that mean more psychiatrists? From my point of view, most psychiatrists are psychopaths and more of them is exactly what I DON'T want.
3) Political candidates. Brown's work indicates that most major political players are being influenced by "higher" forces, probably including ETs. If this is true, then we can't take their actions and apparent intentions at face value. The mainstream tells us that all "bad" politicians want to do is win elections to get more power, and that all "good" politicians want to do is save the world. This narrative is very hard for me - and most people - to swallow.
4) COVID. This was a truly bizarre event that I did not expect. So many governments shut down so hard for so long! This is all mixed up with various power groups flexing their muscles, including the big drug companies, which I hate, but which seem to be aligned with the "patriots." My focus regarding drugs has been the field of mental health. If a person doesn't know that the mind is not in the brain and in fact can be separated from the body (see NDEs for "proof" of that), then one might fall for the whole narrative that we need drugs to control mental disorders. For me, this the height of bullshit.
5) BLM and similar groups. Though this group is clearly aligned with Marxism and Critical Race Theory, my greater concern is how to deflate that whole balloon, as it is currently lifting a whole variety of creative people and "social justice" movements that are deceiving a whole generation of young people. To my mind, these ideologies trace back to psychopaths. Marx could not hold a job or properly care for his family. Stalin robbed banks and committed murder to forward the cause of Communism in the early 1900s. These are not sane leaders or sane ideas. How do you convince people of that if they don't even know they are spiritual beings?
6) Queer power. Same as above, but with sex instead of race being emphasized. Spiritual beings have no race and don't need sex. These are traps of biology. We need to realize that we created biology to have a game to play, not to get trapped in it, arguing about whether a boy can be a girl or not.
7) Jan 6 and the "war against democracy." This narrative is so deceptive I am amazed that so many people believe the corporate news (and Democrat) version. It only enforces for me the idea that there is a larger and irrational power struggle at work behind the scenes that we aren't allowed to know anything about. Well, I think we need to know more about it.
8) War propaganda. Leaders have always had to justify their decisions to go to war, knowing that people in general hate war and would do almost anything to avoid it. War is essentially a criminal and psychopathic activity. If we aren't clear on that, we get nowhere. It was Hubbard who discovered that any violent conflict has at least one Third Party (psychopath) behind it, prodding both sides to fight rather than settle. We can never solve the problem of war without solving that problem.
You mentioned 9/11. Courtney Brown's work has verified that it indeed was an inside job. The whole narrative about Arab terrorists was a setup, and has fueled so much violence and overspending that it is difficult to confront. Many see Hamas' actions in Israel as an extension of what happened on 9/11. Well, in some ways it is. Courtney has also discovered that key Israeli leaders knew that October 7th would happen ahead of time. This is an awful and poisonous revelation, but fact. Evil knows no bounds in the job of protecting itself from being detected.
People like Hubbard and Brown have been the only ones to locate evil using mental processes. It took other researchers years just to show us that we were probably being deceived about these events and many others. I see the need to understand the source of that deception as of utmost importance.
The most important thing here is to get people to believe that they are being lied to an manipulated. As you said, it doesn't end with these eight that I have identified. It is just that these are new enough and blatant enough that when shown all eight at once, people can see a concerted effort that is common. Once they realize they are being played, they will see the wizard behind the curtain (Wizard of Oz reference is appropriate if you have ever seen Wicked showing the other point of view).
You should work on what you feel is more important.
But for me, it wasn't the realization that we were being lied to and manipulated that got me more active and engaged. It was a frustration that we were making so little progress on some of the most pressing problems facing the planet.
And I think that feeling continues to motivate many people, young people in particular. What they see on the ground (if it is reported accurately) is wind damage, flood damage, fire damage, earthquake damage, war and famine ruining the lives of millions of people across the planet. And these problems are not new; they have been with us forever. So, why aren't we making more progress on them?
They are handed on a platter issues like "climate change," "authoritarian leaders," "colonialism," "whiteness." Well, that's better than no answer, no hope for a solution. So I am less interested in getting them to understand propaganda better and more interested in getting them to understand the situation better and find more workable solutions.
Were you referring to your "Who are 'They'?" post?
Back in the 1960s Hubbard was getting a lot of shit thrown at him in certain magazines and also by certain MPs in the UK, Australia, and possibly also South Africa. He hired a Private Investigator (he told his students later) to find out who was behind these attacks. They got as far as a little group of people who met in the City of London and had close ties to Psychiatry, print media, and British politicians. I am sure all human groups that indulge in this sort of thing are similar in composition. They keep it totally secret. It's all done by "gentlemen's agreements." It may or may not involve financial advantage.
But when Courtney Brown looked into the minds of some major world leaders, he found another source: ETs. And even that might not have gotten totally to the bottom of it. But needless to say, you can't control narratives the way we have seen in recent years without a crime family type of operation. People who disobey risk their lives, maybe even their children. It is tyranny of the worst sort. And beyond that level, you have mental suggestions that those affected by them might not even realize are happening. The remote viewers can see it. So this introduces the need for - and benefit from - improved psychic abilities.
I think we all need to be careful to only claim what can be proven beyond a doubt. The WEF has its fingerprints all over everything. Event 201 which means the Pandemic also. Global warming. Wars they finance. One world government and control of the media. We also must realize that this could be blamed on them and they are just scapegoats. I don't think so, they seem to be accepting responsibility for crimes against humanity and treason.
To make claims or supposition beyond what can be proven even if it is likely to be true, dilutes the facts that we can prove (and there is so much that we can).
All right! But I think Courtney Brown's work is totally valid, and so is Hubbard's, as well as the academic work done on reincarnation cases. I am convinced, and to me these are extremely important basics that everyone is being misled about. So that's where I focus my energy.
They lie about population along with everything else. This reality is a fiction, and a poor one at that. The later the hour gets the less they bother with the charade. Eventually there will be nothing left of the stage but that brick wall at the back of the theater.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."-William J. Casey, CIA Director
When Shakespeare sagely said that, "all the world is a stage", whether he meant that literally or not (and whether he actually said it or not), it is and was absolutely true. All the world really is a stage—The narratives we are bathed in from birth to death are - more often than not - counterfeit, and these narratives are the product of a parallel construction of events on a planetary scale.
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
-Former CIA Director William Colby (Operation Mockingbird)
--------
From the Congressional Record, January 27, 1917:
JP Morgan, Steel, Shipbuilding, and “powder”(gun powder? munitions?) interests hired 12 high-ranking newspaper execs to determine how to “control generally the policy of the daily press” throughout the entire country.
Answer: They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.
…the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly SUPERVISE AND EDIT INFORMATION….
This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the WISHES of the interests served.
That may be. It is one of those things that is difficult to prove either way ("Okay everyone line up.. one, two, three, where was I"). The exact number isn't relative to the content of the article. In fact the claim that there are roughly 8 billion before and after the 'worst pandemic in history' puts things in perspective.
Hi Mike,
Thanks for inviting me to read this piece. I have a lot of sympathy with what you present here, most especially in the way that the topics you've chosen to reflect on have been polarised and thus distorted. However, it is the nature of my engagement with thoughts such as these that I will tend to single out points of disagreement or areas where there is greater ambiguity than you might be suggesting. This does not mean I disagree with your overall themes; on the whole, we are quite well aligned here (especially on the utter mess that was COVID-19, but also on many of your other chosen topics).
You choose to call these situations a 'psyop', and although I'm not against the idea being flagged here (the distortion implied does occur, and there is a motive behind the acts taken to create and sustain the distortion) I personally resist this terminology. I prefer to talk about these as 'rifts', although even this term is not entirely helpful. I dislike 'psyop' largely because it reinforces the idea of a shadowy cabal controlling events from behind the scenes. I personally suspect this risks overstating the actuality, and in so doing reinforces the idea that we have less power than in fact we do. If there is a shadowy cabal manipulating events behind the scenes they are doing it very badly. There are certainly wealthy individuals doing stupid things with vast funding, but I don't think this equates to these lunatics being in control. Most likely, nobody is in control in the way this phrase is usually used. So on the whole I find it more plausible that other, more basic aspects of human nature suffice to explain the entire horrendous situation.
You are clearly writing from a US perspective, so from this neck of the woods (where I currently live, incidentally, although it's not where I'm from) the situation falls out into the blue team and the red team. I find it helpful to do away with the names of the parties, which are extremely misleading (now more than ever). Because of the cost of running elections in the US (owing to its size as much as anything), those who own the majority of the wealth have aligned with one or another team, and the two teams have ended up, slowly but inexorably, aligned with commercial interests. The red team, for instance, is aligned with oil companies and weapon manufacturers (among other things), while the blue team has become - albeit only quite recently - with pharmaceutical companies, tech companies, and, even more recently, with weapon manufacturers, who have apparently decided to hedge their bets. (The blue team resolutely opposes weapons 'at home' but seems extremely dedicated to sending them abroad and asking everyone to foot the bill).
Every polarisation begats demonisation, and so too this has happened in the US. Cognitive dissonance (which in a political or ethical context I like to call 'moral horror') drives this split, and the split is, I suspect, sufficient to explain much of the nonsense that occurs downstream, possibly all of it. When we encounter what seems to us unthinkable, we will recover from the shock by either dismissing the relevance of what we've encountered (if we can) or making out the other people as monsters (if we can't), this is moral horror in a nutshell. The desire for censorship, for instance, comes about because moral horror so successfully allows for the demonisation of the other side of the rift that all manner of despicable things suddenly sound reasonable.
When you say 'we are being divided for a reason', I feel this plays into the shadowy cabal interpretation - which is not to dispute that we are witnessing great exploitation of divisions to 'divide and conquer'. However, there's another side to this. It is a remarkable quality of the way that legacy news media has operated that it requires sensational stories in order to drive eyeballs, and the divisiveness is therefore available both as a cause ('divided for a reason') and as a symptom (divisive stories 'sell'). I rather suspect it's a bit of both, but even this is a step beyond the shadowy cabal interpretation, which as noted above risks demotivates people in terms of breaking out of this cycle of nonsense.
Again, it's not that the divisiveness doesn't happen, and it's not that there isn't motivation behind the divisions - it's rather that there are many layers of these motivations that happen to align in the divisions. To put this another way, nobody is in control, but some people have more influence than others. I feel it is important to appreciate that nobody is truly in control, least of all the President of the United States. One thing about the current administration is that it has made it far clearer how irrelevant the figurehead is to what is being pushed forward, since Biden, unlike most of the terrible presidents before him, is clearly not capable of being in charge. Honestly, I rather suspect nobody is.
I hope I have made clear why I resist framing these issues in the way that you do, even though I don't disagree with your concerns (I don't have time to go through all the rifts you choose here one by one, although I'm sure we could have an interesting discussion about every one of them).
One more thing. You say:
"Facts are indisputable and in the end of a logical discussion everyone will agree what is true. Opinions are beliefs that are arrived at based on values that each of us give different things."
This is something that has picked up the name 'the fact-value distinction', and it grew out of certain early twentieth century philosophical trends, including and most notably something called 'the Vienna circle' i.e. a group of nerds who met in Vienna and ended up having an astonishing degree of influence on thoughts about facts and values later in the century. But the fact-value distinction is powerfully and dangerously misguided, and indeed has caused enormous mischief over the years. The intuition you are drawing upon here consists (as is so often the case) of both a true and a misleading element. The true aspect is that there is such a thing as a true description (or, perhaps better, descriptions that lean towards the truth) - but the truth is not equivalent to facts, as such.
If I may give an analogy, the facts in a criminal case are statements that capture partial elements of events (and these facts may contradict one another, at least in the way they are presented). A true account of what happened is always possible, but it is not inevitable, and neither is it indisputable. The collection of available facts sets a limit to what is achievable. The court case is, in its ideal case at least, an attempt to assemble the truth from the facts. The facts are not truth, they are more akin to signposts to the truth. Or, to put this another way, facts are not the bearers of truth, but rather knowledge produces facts as a side effect, and we can therefore attempt to retrofit facts into a partial version of the truth.
But beyond this, the facts are not indisputable - or rather, the indisputable facts are the boring or irrelevant facts. The boiling point of water at a certain gravity and atmospheric pressure is an example of an indisputable fact in the sense you want here. But this is radically less than what is required to determine truth on a topic such as climate, the environment, gender metaphysics, disease etc. For more on this idea, see this piece, "After Universities", from September:
https://strangerworlds.substack.com/p/after-universities
You say there are two worlds, by which you mean the world of the red team and the world of the blue team. Aye, but there are not solely these two worlds, and the greatest deception is perhaps the one you don't mention here - that these two worlds are the only available worlds, an illusion that the parties trying to ride the favour of their associated teams have a joint vested interest in maintaining. There are many more than two worlds, but the great danger, as you suggest, is in coming to think that the world we inhabit is the only true world and everyone else has it wrong.
The truth is more fragile and elusive than this; it takes effort to assemble it. We can inch closer to the truth only by being able to speak to one another, in order to build bridges between these worlds. This is the project I am attempting at Stranger Worlds. Of course, I can only do this on a small scale... it will take much more than this to effect change, but I hope to be part of that change if and when we can form alliances with common principles. At the moment, even this feels far, far away, but I maintain my faith that the wretched state of affairs we are currently living through can be ended through the cooperative actions of people such as ourselves.
Many thanks for the invitation to read this essay. As I say, I have great sympathy for your perspective here. But I feel, as I so often do, that the truth retreats from us, and seeing through various sets of deceptions, illusions, psyops, political commitments or whatever, isn't enough to get us to truth. Perhaps, though, it is the start of that journey.
With unlimited love,
Chris.
Thank you for your well thought out analysis. I appreciate the honest debate, it is the only way to understand as much as possible about what is going on.
Regarding the Cabal comment. I believe that there is a group controlling all of this and until recently I was unable to define exactly who it was. The use of 'They' often bothered people as they want to know who to blame before considering that there appears to be someone controlling all of this even if we don't know who. I wrote an article that describes my view on this: https://mikemyhre.substack.com/p/who-are-they
The PsyOp is what I chose to call them based on the Mass Formation Psychosis that Desmet has explained.
As for the left vs right, you are correct, that is mainly a US thing and why I see so many of these divisions as right or left. Regarding the two worlds, yes there are many, but from the perspective of each person, there is what they 'know to be true' and what 'others know to be true'. In their minds, there are two worlds. I did describe Independents and who they couldn't talk to either side eluding to the more than two worlds. For the arguments I was presenting, the two world vision was the most likely way to be understood.
It is possible to discern from what is happening that there is a coordinated effort and not just the popular news cycle. Take the Missouri vs Biden case for example. It was just realized in court that the federal government has been violating the first amendment and silencing professionals that they knew to be speaking the truth about matters that were life threatening. Matt Taibbi won an award for excellence in journalism for the Twitter files reporting and he was targeted by the IRS the day his story broke which was proven that they had no justification in doing so. The FBI was paying media companies to silence people. This should have been big news, but it wasn't even something that made a single story unless it was to explain it away as conspiracy theories. There are many examples of this where you can know what is going on without direct evidence because the forces you are assuming are in control (profit motive, sensationalism, etc) are not pulling the strings.
Facts and values - I will ready your article. I believe that everything can be broken down to components and each component given a rating of proven true, proven false, or value choice. This is just as you have declared in court cases. The image that I like to use as an example is two people viewing a cylinder from different perspective. One argues that it is a circle, the other that it is a rectangle. Both know what they see is accurate and assume that both can't be correct. The 3 dimensional view is required to understand how both are correct in their conclusions based on the limited information they have. This is where the 'two worlds' need to discuss how they know what to be true, not dismiss the others thoughts as crazy. A brief discussion will reveal a greater understanding to both and both leave happy. This is what we are being deprived by what I believe is coordinated forced divisions.
Stranger Worlds - I have a vision of ways that we could accomplish agreements as a whole. It requires a discussion similar to twitter, but with credibility scores based on previous discussions and if they resulted in being on the same side. These 'facts' as they get resolved would become an encyclopedia similar to Wikipedia (or a source of). It would require each contributor to be a unique person, not 100s of bots. These contributors would need to be anonymous so their credibility is not due to a public persona but only their history of being right and agreed with. The fact-checkers of today, that silence people and don't allow discussions in their comments are what facebook calls 'opinions' in court. These would be debunked and eliminated with my vision. I believe that if humanity is provided a tool where every voice matters and those who are right most of the time become the voice of society regardless of political standing or university degree. Einstein was initially laughed at, then respected. We need those kinds of discussions on a global scale.
Thanks for continuing our discussion, Mike. I skimmed at the article you linked to (I am, like so many people, desperately fighting to reach the holidays and having to manage my time!). My own feeling is the WEF is symptom rather than cause. I don't personally believe Schwab is a very credible 'Bond villain', but he is an excellent suck up to the ultrarich.
In so much as the WEF is a private club for oligarchs, I agree with you, but I don't believe they have control so much as they have offered a contemporary take on the old 'Hellfire Clubs' of 18th century Britain. I'm agnostic, and prepared for evidence to emerge that confirms your take over mine, but at the moment I think both are in play (i.e. impossible to eliminate).
For me, looking at what WEF actually does reveals an immense and shallow lack of thinking that is incompatible with being in control. What I rather suspect is going on is that because the various oligarchs you discuss in your other piece have in fact lost faith in democracy (indeed, they hate democracy but cannot admit this to themselves) they would rather have a chat at the WEF and make plans over cigars (hence my Hellfire Club analogy) than foster the strong spirit of liberal democracy you and I seem to be after. This for me falls very short of being in control, but as ever your mileage may vary! 😅
I'm going to ponder your proposal for 'manufacturing consensus' a little further in my own time, but my gut reaction is that this is going to run up against what in philosophy might be called 'the metaphysics problem'. In my book, The Virtuous Cyborg, I suggest something akin to what you're proposing here as a tool for credibility in social media (one of our root problems in terms of the corruption of discourse, in my view), but even this leaves me with concerns, and I don't think from where we are we can get to where you want to be here. I think there are deeper problems that act against encyclopaedias, and these can no longer serve the role they once did. There's a crisis here that we will have to face eventually. I have a piece on this coming up on Stranger Worlds in January, actually.
Greatly appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comments. Discourse like this - just two people talking openly and freely - is the fertile soil into which anything worthwhile from here must be planted.
With unlimited love and respect,
Chris.
PS: Sorry to keep throwing pieces at you, but your discussion of circles and rectangles suggests you might like this piece from March:
https://strangerworlds.substack.com/p/the-jelly-roll-of-truth
All the Stranger Worlds pieces are 3-minute reads, so I don't think I've thrown as many words back at you as you have at me - yet. 😋
Yes. I liked that a lot. Very good description of perspectives.
I really didn't want my articles to be so long. There was a lot of ground I wanted to cover and felt it necessary to prove my point. In a world of soundbites, it is rare to get anyone to engage in an in depth discussion or read required to resolve difficult issues. Brevity is the soul of wit. As a film writer accepting an award once said: "If I had more time, it would have been shorter".
I could get into a lot of guessing on who may be behind such a massive control of the worlds minds. As I said, so many want a target before they can consider and as you pointed out, the WEF picture is conveniently painted for us. From my understanding, there is no doubt that someone(s) are controlling the narratives and it isn't who we see. I keep looking for evidence to disprove my theory of coordinated control and I can't find it. Whoever is doing it would not want to be known. That is part of their power. Rothchild's would be another guess, but I don't want to guess. I want to know. Sometimes I think it could be aliens because it seems too powerful to be thought up by humans. Again I need to reign in my suspicions and just deal with facts. And really, the who doesn't matter as much as the mechanism being used because if that is stopped, the influence stops. The mechanisms are visible and accessible. Swimming up stream with a headwind difficult, but still possible.
I have enjoyed our discussions. Have a good Holiday and I look forward to reading some of your articles and talking again.
Just as a quick postscript: "And really, the who doesn't matter as much as the mechanism being used because if that is stopped, the influence stops. "
I think this is the nub of the matter. If we focus on repairing the discourse, it may not matter who has been perverting it. It is so easy to be seduced by explanations, but what we really need is a path out of the warren, not the names of the rabbits who built it. 😉
As for writing too much - I too wrote at great length when I started blogging in 2005. Now it is nearly twenty years later, and I opted when I started Stranger Worlds in January to restrict each piece to just 750 words (a 3-minute read). This is perfect for where I am in my writing. But I could not have skipped to the end, I think. I had to start with writing from the heart. So write from the heart and see where it takes you!
I too enjoyed our exchange - wishing you a joyous winter!
The faces we see are never the ones pulling the strings.
They are the Agent Smiths of the world. Powerful, yes. But still serving. . .
Don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. We all grew up tapping our sibling on the far shoulder and blaming the person sitting on that side. Most people know there needs to be a scapegoat for any covert action.
How do you think human life on Earth started? How far back do you think our history extends?
Figuring it out: We depend on intellectuals and academics to do this. Most of us don't have the bandwidth in our lives or minds to do this work. We are more or less forced to rely on "experts" or "God" for a fair number of our beliefs. I haven't even bothered to go out into space and see for myself if the Earth is globe-shaped. I know of some people who have. And there WERE people in the ancient past who knew this and could even go out and make sure if they really wanted to.
Psychopathy: I have never heard of the Machs test. I have heard of the Dark Triad, though see this as a psychology insider term. Have you heard of Łobaczewski and his Political Ponerology? Hubbard and his work on "Suppressive Persons?" Desmet and his work on Mass Formation?
Propaganda: This became a "thing" during the rise of mass marketing and Public Relations, which was the specialty of Freud's cousin Edward Bernays. However, psychological operations go way back, before the time of Earth.
Who is shaking the jar? That is what Hubbard refers to as the Third Party. These are psychopathic people.
Here are some other psyops I can think of:
1) The evolution of biology on Earth / humans are the only intelligent life form in the universe.
2) You only live once / reincarnation cannot be proven.
3) The death and resurrection of Jesus as depicted in the New Testament.
4) 9/11 as depicted in the relevant government reports, as well as many other major political disasters.
5) Your mind is in your brain, and you can't leave your body, or ever be really free.
6) An asteroid impact destroyed all the dinosaurs 70 million years ago.
That's enough for now.
You're right. Much of what we think we know is true is not actually true. And that's been the situation for a long long time. A REALLY long time!
You would enjoy reading @MaMu Letters from Australia.
Yes. I have read a few.
God - We could discuss for hours. What religion claims is almost a Disney version with lots of holes in it. After life, spirituality, how did life on earth start, all difficult to prove but interesting to theorize.
Desmet Mattias - Yes. His explanation I first heard through Dr. Robert Malone on Joe Rogan. It explained what I was seeing and am so interested in understanding further.
Other psyops - many of what you state are very likely. I would add the titanic to that regarding the federal reserve and I require quite a bit of proof before I put it in the likely category. What I was going for in my 8 active psyops are the ones being pushed right now that are not so deeply rooted. I got into 9/11 a little bit because it was relevant in the wars going on today.
I need to put efforts toward issues that can be discerned, not those that are more philosophical. While the philosophical discussions are interesting they aren't relevant in escaping the Mass Formation Psychosis. As Desmet just explained to the Romanian Parliament, the Sincere Speech is what can make a difference today by breaking the control on society.
I sympathize with the desire to address the current bunch of deceptions directly. However, I suspect that this is the game "they" are inviting us to play, rather than looking into the larger problem of how to expose them and counter their power. In this regard, "spiritual freedom" is a key point, and very few people have any appreciation of what that really means.
Regarding the broader problem of learning more about what is really going on, I rely on evidence, not "proof." Proof is a logical or mathematical concept that I don't find useful. The fact is that the great truths of life are widely experienced. It's just a matter of digging up those experiences. Different researchers I have consulted use different methods. Hubbard introduced me to many of these concepts, and I think his methods were reasonably reliable. Other researchers have simply been unwilling to reproduce his work. The researcher who got the closest is Courtney Brown. And his findings have been very similar to Hubbard's.
Let's go through your list:
1) Global warming. For some this is a question of fact, while for others it is a question of cause and choice of remedy. This issue involves such huge shifts of finance and power that I doubt it will ever easily resolve. But it's difficult for me to believe that the planet will not find a way to re-balance.
2) Gun control. Here is another issue where a lot of political power is at stake. This missing data (for me) is what motivated the shooters. There is some evidence that these were "Manchurian Candidate" kinds of operations. If there is some network behind these events, directing them, that would make a big difference in deciding what to do. Of course, there is an obvious need for better mental health services in all communities. But does that mean more psychiatrists? From my point of view, most psychiatrists are psychopaths and more of them is exactly what I DON'T want.
3) Political candidates. Brown's work indicates that most major political players are being influenced by "higher" forces, probably including ETs. If this is true, then we can't take their actions and apparent intentions at face value. The mainstream tells us that all "bad" politicians want to do is win elections to get more power, and that all "good" politicians want to do is save the world. This narrative is very hard for me - and most people - to swallow.
4) COVID. This was a truly bizarre event that I did not expect. So many governments shut down so hard for so long! This is all mixed up with various power groups flexing their muscles, including the big drug companies, which I hate, but which seem to be aligned with the "patriots." My focus regarding drugs has been the field of mental health. If a person doesn't know that the mind is not in the brain and in fact can be separated from the body (see NDEs for "proof" of that), then one might fall for the whole narrative that we need drugs to control mental disorders. For me, this the height of bullshit.
5) BLM and similar groups. Though this group is clearly aligned with Marxism and Critical Race Theory, my greater concern is how to deflate that whole balloon, as it is currently lifting a whole variety of creative people and "social justice" movements that are deceiving a whole generation of young people. To my mind, these ideologies trace back to psychopaths. Marx could not hold a job or properly care for his family. Stalin robbed banks and committed murder to forward the cause of Communism in the early 1900s. These are not sane leaders or sane ideas. How do you convince people of that if they don't even know they are spiritual beings?
6) Queer power. Same as above, but with sex instead of race being emphasized. Spiritual beings have no race and don't need sex. These are traps of biology. We need to realize that we created biology to have a game to play, not to get trapped in it, arguing about whether a boy can be a girl or not.
7) Jan 6 and the "war against democracy." This narrative is so deceptive I am amazed that so many people believe the corporate news (and Democrat) version. It only enforces for me the idea that there is a larger and irrational power struggle at work behind the scenes that we aren't allowed to know anything about. Well, I think we need to know more about it.
8) War propaganda. Leaders have always had to justify their decisions to go to war, knowing that people in general hate war and would do almost anything to avoid it. War is essentially a criminal and psychopathic activity. If we aren't clear on that, we get nowhere. It was Hubbard who discovered that any violent conflict has at least one Third Party (psychopath) behind it, prodding both sides to fight rather than settle. We can never solve the problem of war without solving that problem.
You mentioned 9/11. Courtney Brown's work has verified that it indeed was an inside job. The whole narrative about Arab terrorists was a setup, and has fueled so much violence and overspending that it is difficult to confront. Many see Hamas' actions in Israel as an extension of what happened on 9/11. Well, in some ways it is. Courtney has also discovered that key Israeli leaders knew that October 7th would happen ahead of time. This is an awful and poisonous revelation, but fact. Evil knows no bounds in the job of protecting itself from being detected.
People like Hubbard and Brown have been the only ones to locate evil using mental processes. It took other researchers years just to show us that we were probably being deceived about these events and many others. I see the need to understand the source of that deception as of utmost importance.
I agree on most points.
You seem to have some doubt who is pulling the strings behind the scenes. How are 'they' is explained in another article I wrote:
https://mikemyhre.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/137325435?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fhome
The most important thing here is to get people to believe that they are being lied to an manipulated. As you said, it doesn't end with these eight that I have identified. It is just that these are new enough and blatant enough that when shown all eight at once, people can see a concerted effort that is common. Once they realize they are being played, they will see the wizard behind the curtain (Wizard of Oz reference is appropriate if you have ever seen Wicked showing the other point of view).
You should work on what you feel is more important.
But for me, it wasn't the realization that we were being lied to and manipulated that got me more active and engaged. It was a frustration that we were making so little progress on some of the most pressing problems facing the planet.
And I think that feeling continues to motivate many people, young people in particular. What they see on the ground (if it is reported accurately) is wind damage, flood damage, fire damage, earthquake damage, war and famine ruining the lives of millions of people across the planet. And these problems are not new; they have been with us forever. So, why aren't we making more progress on them?
They are handed on a platter issues like "climate change," "authoritarian leaders," "colonialism," "whiteness." Well, that's better than no answer, no hope for a solution. So I am less interested in getting them to understand propaganda better and more interested in getting them to understand the situation better and find more workable solutions.
Were you referring to your "Who are 'They'?" post?
Back in the 1960s Hubbard was getting a lot of shit thrown at him in certain magazines and also by certain MPs in the UK, Australia, and possibly also South Africa. He hired a Private Investigator (he told his students later) to find out who was behind these attacks. They got as far as a little group of people who met in the City of London and had close ties to Psychiatry, print media, and British politicians. I am sure all human groups that indulge in this sort of thing are similar in composition. They keep it totally secret. It's all done by "gentlemen's agreements." It may or may not involve financial advantage.
But when Courtney Brown looked into the minds of some major world leaders, he found another source: ETs. And even that might not have gotten totally to the bottom of it. But needless to say, you can't control narratives the way we have seen in recent years without a crime family type of operation. People who disobey risk their lives, maybe even their children. It is tyranny of the worst sort. And beyond that level, you have mental suggestions that those affected by them might not even realize are happening. The remote viewers can see it. So this introduces the need for - and benefit from - improved psychic abilities.
I think we all need to be careful to only claim what can be proven beyond a doubt. The WEF has its fingerprints all over everything. Event 201 which means the Pandemic also. Global warming. Wars they finance. One world government and control of the media. We also must realize that this could be blamed on them and they are just scapegoats. I don't think so, they seem to be accepting responsibility for crimes against humanity and treason.
To make claims or supposition beyond what can be proven even if it is likely to be true, dilutes the facts that we can prove (and there is so much that we can).
All right! But I think Courtney Brown's work is totally valid, and so is Hubbard's, as well as the academic work done on reincarnation cases. I am convinced, and to me these are extremely important basics that everyone is being misled about. So that's where I focus my energy.
Good article. Just a heads up about those 8 billion people, this research shows that is nonsense: https://bitchute.com/video/Q0KHQdiHkXcC [6:17]
They lie about population along with everything else. This reality is a fiction, and a poor one at that. The later the hour gets the less they bother with the charade. Eventually there will be nothing left of the stage but that brick wall at the back of the theater.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."-William J. Casey, CIA Director
When Shakespeare sagely said that, "all the world is a stage", whether he meant that literally or not (and whether he actually said it or not), it is and was absolutely true. All the world really is a stage—The narratives we are bathed in from birth to death are - more often than not - counterfeit, and these narratives are the product of a parallel construction of events on a planetary scale.
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
-Former CIA Director William Colby (Operation Mockingbird)
--------
From the Congressional Record, January 27, 1917:
JP Morgan, Steel, Shipbuilding, and “powder”(gun powder? munitions?) interests hired 12 high-ranking newspaper execs to determine how to “control generally the policy of the daily press” throughout the entire country.
Answer: They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.
…the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly SUPERVISE AND EDIT INFORMATION….
This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the WISHES of the interests served.
---------
Excerpts from https://tritorch.com/counterfeit
That may be. It is one of those things that is difficult to prove either way ("Okay everyone line up.. one, two, three, where was I"). The exact number isn't relative to the content of the article. In fact the claim that there are roughly 8 billion before and after the 'worst pandemic in history' puts things in perspective.
Sorry I lost you there. "Worst pandemic in history?"
It was intended to be sarcasm. ;-)
Phew...I was worried there for a moment ;-)
Well said
TriTorch, nice read too! Like the way you pulled in Zappa with the brick wall.
This was a refreshing read, considering all the myopic repetition of the same old mentalities.
Very interesting with lots of great insights that explain our crazy New Normal times. Thanks for all the work!
You make more sense than so many writers.