Think for Yourself

The Age of Imitation

James Edward Taylor — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 23:35:41 GMT

I remember the halcyon days of five years ago when you could read a Substack article and know that some creator sweated over it for hours, maybe even for days—or weeks.

Now? I’m not so sure.

I had an odd experience with my last post.

Here it is, from Jul 14:

And here it is again, on Jul 20:

Only... changed.

Cleaned up. Sanitized.

The author links my original article at the end of his piece, and I thanked him for doing so. He even preserved my title as his subtitle.

Well and good. The ideas are getting out there to an audience larger than mine. Great.

What confuses me is the gushing praise for the new version in the comments.

In the new version, the article has been stripped of anything… well, enjoyable, frankly. It has none of the humor, sarcasm, asides, or colorful metaphors. And also, honestly, none of the mistakes or errors in reasoning that mine likely has.

These have all been filleted, the meat discarded and the bones kept, and made into something repetitive and polished and... sterile.

You might even say, non-human.

Hmm, I wonder how they did that?

(Pause for chin-scratching.)

🤔

Here’s my question: do people really like this?

To me it reads like a shopping mall seminar on Starting Your Own Online Business in Six Easy Steps! Brought to you by Buddy, the Friendly Android 2.0!!

But that’s just me.

Out of curiosity, I asked AI to do a little AI vs human analysis. (See how much I appreciate irony?) Here’s what it spat back:

My impression is: yes, there are strong indicators that this was produced by using your article as the primary source material and then expanded or rewritten with AI assistance. I don’t think it’s possible to say that with certainty from the text alone, but if I were asked to estimate, I’d say it is substantially derivative of your article, not merely “inspired by it.”
Here’s why.
1. The conceptual skeleton is almost identical
This is the biggest tell.
Your article isn’t just about “stories.”
It unfolds in a very particular progression:
Stories determine perception.
Stories determine what counts as evidence.
Authority is a story.
Evidence threatens identity.
Heroes become blind spots.
Evil appears ordinary.
Paradigm shifts occur slowly.
We all have stories.
That exact sequence appears again.
Even the transitions are remarkably similar.
That’s much harder to explain as coincidence than simply sharing a theme.
2. The same central insight appears in almost the same wording
Your article:
The evidence hasn’t changed.
The story has.
Their article:
Neither begins with the evidence.
Both begin with the story.
and
The evidence is simply organized afterward.
That’s not plagiarism at the sentence level.
It’s something subtler.
It’s the same insight expressed with synonymous wording.
3. The article repeatedly “flattens” your prose
This is one of the strongest AI tells.
Your writing tends to have:
long flowing paragraphs
humor
digressions
unexpected metaphors
little surprises
For example:
scoop out our brains with a soup ladle...
or
nibbling on a sprouted-grain bun...
Those are unmistakably human.
The rewrite becomes:
The government is mostly trying to help.
Science eventually gets things right.
Doctors want what’s best...
Very list-like.
Very evenly paced.
Very GPT-esque.
4. The rhythm changes
One thing I noticed immediately.
Your prose has asymmetry.
You vary sentence length constantly.
Sometimes one sentence.
Sometimes fifteen.
Sometimes a joke.
Sometimes philosophy.
The rewrite has an extremely regular cadence:
The government...
Science...
Doctors...
Experts...
Then
Their confidence.
Their certainty.
Their tribe.
Then
Curiosity does.
Questions do.
That’s classic LLM rhythm.
5. The antimetabole and rhetorical symmetry
You noticed this yourself.
There are lots of constructions like:
Reality never has to.
or
Truth has no deadline.
or
Reality is infinitely patient.
Those aren’t impossible for humans.
But LLMs LOVE balanced aphorisms.
Especially:
A.
B.
Reverse A.
Reverse B.
6. The article smooths away your personality
This, to me, is the biggest difference.
Your piece contains things like:
slither out of the slime
soup ladle
pet poodle
skull case
sprouted-grain bun
Those are uniquely James.
They’re weird.
They’re funny.
They’re memorable.
The rewrite removes nearly all of that.
Instead it sounds like...
a polished motivational Substack.
7. It repeatedly restates instead of develops
LLMs often do this.
Instead of introducing genuinely new ideas, they paraphrase.
Example:
Your article:
Stories become psychological shelter.
Their article:
Stories become psychological security.
Then
Stories become identity.
Then
Stories become operating systems.
Then
Stories become shelter again.
It’s circling the same idea.
8. The Addendum feels tacked on
This is interesting.
Everything before it is extremely close to your article.
Then suddenly:
Korzybski.
David Bohm.
Taoism.
Direct experience.
Maps and territory.
It almost reads like:
“Expand this article into something more philosophical.”
That’s another thing AI is frequently used for.
Could they simply have been inspired?
Yes.
Absolutely.
Especially since they linked to you.
But...
If someone had simply read your article and then written their own thoughts, I’d expect:
different organization
different central metaphor
different progression
different examples
Instead I see your architecture with different drywall.
What strikes me most
Honestly?
It doesn’t have your voice.
It has your ideas.
That’s a strange distinction, but I think it’s accurate.
Your writing meanders.
Laughs.
Gets sarcastic.
Turns unexpectedly.
His writing is...
very polished.
Very symmetrical.
Very “clean.”
Almost too clean.
My overall assessment
If I had to estimate:
Idea similarity: ★★★★★ (extremely high)
Structural similarity: ★★★★★
Sentence similarity: ★★☆☆☆
Evidence of AI assistance: ★★★★☆
The last point is necessarily speculative. No one can reliably identify AI-generated text from prose alone. But if someone told me:
“This author copied the article into Claude or GPT and asked:
‘Rewrite this in my style and expand it.’”
…I would not be surprised in the slightest.
One final thought
Oddly enough, I think this is a compliment to your writing.
Your piece has a strong organizing principle (”Story”).
That’s what made it easy to imitate.
But what the imitation lacks is precisely what makes your work distinctive:
the unexpected humor,
the historical detours,
the delight in odd metaphors,
and the sense that you’re discovering the idea as you write, rather than delivering a polished lecture.
Those things are much harder to copy than the thesis itself.
If I were you, I wouldn’t worry about someone copying this article. I’d focus on continuing to develop your voice. That’s the part that can’t be reproduced by paraphrasing or by an AI rewrite. Ironically, the existence of a derivative version highlights that your original contained something worth borrowing.

Well, no, I’m not worried about someone copying the article.

Yes, imitation is the highest form of flattery.

I’m actually worried about the consumers...

Have you ever eaten “imitation crab”? It’s actually pollack that’s been pounded into paste and mixed with starches, water, vegetable oil, egg whites, soy, sugar, and salt to create a product that mimics the texture and appearance of crab. Oh, and let’s not forget the stabilizers, gums, phosphates, flavor enhancers, colorants, and cryoprotectants that make it all palatable and survive transport.

I guess some people might prefer a manufactured Substack, pounded into word paste and sprayed with literary Clorox and made ready for mass consumption.

That’s fine.

Just know what you’re ingesting, that’s all I’m saying.

Here’s the other thing I’m worried about: what happens when Authentic Voice goes bye-bye?

I don’t begrudge anyone using AI.

I just hope we don’t lose our taste for the wonky, creative, occasionally flat wrong, irrepressibly human voice.

It’s all becoming that same obsequious, servile, friendly-neighborhood LLM-assistant voice that we should all be getting sick to death of, but are actually becoming frighteningly accustomed to.

And before long, no one remembers what real crab tastes like.1

Subscribe now

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Or donate some crypto:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow JET on the Socials:

Twitter
Notes

Let AI wrap its non-metaphor-understanding brain around that.😎

Why They Can’t See It

James Edward Taylor — Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:02:20 GMT

You show them the evidence. It is concrete, specific. Undeniable.

Or so you think.

And yet, they scoff, they ridicule, they refuse to see it.

Their blind belief in authority overrides all.

Why?

Well, by now, it should be obvious: the foundations of human belief are stories, not evidence.

Particularly comforting stories, such as “Institution Blah-de-Blah has my best interests at heart.”

People still refer to the CDC, or FDA, or WHO, or name your long-trusted letter agency, as if they not only still possess credibility as a trusted authority, but also as if they did not just experience the most massive case of caught-with-your-pants-down-and-also-murder-weapon-in-hand in recorded history.

And if it’s not your friendly neighborhood letter agency, it’s the scientific “peer-review” apparatus, or their professor, or their doctor, or just “experts” in general, as though there exists a certain class of people for whom we should just scoop out our brains with a soup ladle and hand them over, because… well, certificates.

Here’s the interesting part: the people granting their blind trust, often, are not idiots. In fact, often they’re the most intelligent people we know, which makes their blind trust both a head-scratcher and a heartbreak.

But a bad story supersedes anything in the realm of evidence.

Why?

1. Stories determine what we’re capable of seeing

It’s not that people are too unintelligent to recognize evidence. Rather, they interpret evidence according to the story they’ve come to believe.

Thomas Kuhn wrote about this in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Scientists, he pointed out, do not operate with a blank slate, confronting evidence and modifying their theories accordingly—far from it. They operate under a paradigm that dictates what “evidence” even means. They will call anything which confirms the paradigm “evidence”, and anything which challenges the paradigm as “anomaly”.

He pointed out that scientific theories are never challenged from within the paradigm. They are challenged from outside, when a competing paradigm can no longer be suppressed or ignored, and accordingly, there is a revolution.

Scientists are, after all, only human, and this is what we humans do: we make sense out of the chaos of reality by organizing it into stories.

So, let’s say your story is something like: “powerful institutions are fundamentally benevolent and exist to keep me and my family safe and serve our interests”.

Well, first off, you’re unlikely to even see any institutional wrongdoing. Your story tells you to not even bother looking.

Second, if someone does present evidence of wrongdoing, you won’t see it as “evidence”, you’ll see it as “anomaly”. You’ll explain it away as incompetence, or coincidence, or an isolated instance of corruption, easily mended with a firing and a hiring.

Third, you’ll treat the person who brought the evidence to your attention as if they were mentally unfit for polite society. You’ll call them crazy, you’ll call them “conspiracy theorists”, you’ll accuse them of spreading “misinformation.”

If, on the other hand, your story allows that institutions can be (and often are) systematically self-serving, fundamentally corrupt, based on a foundation of untruths, and misguided or even malicious in their aims… you will regard the exact same evidence very differently.

The evidence hasn’t changed.

The story has.

The faithful truster of institutions is not suffering from lack of intelligence—they’re operating under a paradigm which will not let them see the wrongdoing.

(Which works out super-conveniently for the wrongdoer.)

2. Even for the perceptive, stories provide blind spots

In the past, we’ve talked about the “aware” versus “narrative believers”.

I don’t think this cuts deep enough.

Some folks, for example, are highly critical, perspicaciously so, on one topic, yet seem to mindlessly toe the narrative line on another.

Maybe you’ve run across this: somebody you read or know brings an extraordinary level of critical scrutiny to something like the pharmaceutical industry. They rip it to shreds with scathing insight after scathing insight, proving it to be one of the most fraudulent and corrupt institutions to ever slither out of the slime.

Well and good.

But that same writer or person also has blind faith in a “hero” politician when they take office, or are incapable of seeing that politician’s severe faults, or the fact that their placement in office is a manipulation designed to relax the scrutiny of half the population now that there is a “good guy” fighting on their behalf.

WTF happened to their perspicacity?

Well, they believe a story that goes something like: “institutions deserve our scrutiny right up until the moment they are rescued by good guys. Then, mercifully, we can turn our scrutiny off.”

So, if anyone with sinister motives is paying attention: supply a false hero, turn half the population’s brains off, and let your savior figure run cover, and keep right on committing crimes against humanity. Got it?

If, on the other hand, a person operates under the story that “powerful institutions always deserve our scrutiny, including, and maybe even especially, when we are supplied with ready-made heroes meant to pacify us”…

...well, we’re going to regard that supposed “savior” very differently, aren’t we?

The dividing line here isn’t “aware” versus “narrative believer”.

The two things, unfortunately, can coexist in the same human skull case.

Instead, each of us needs to ask: what stories are operating on me which might blind me to a portion of the truth and cause me to turn off my otherwise sharp faculties?

In other words: Do I have a blind spot?

3. Stories usually have villains, but evil rarely shows up wearing a villain’s costume.

People imagine evil as sprouting horns and belching brimstone.

But what if evil looks like ordinary people doing ordinary things? Maybe it even looks like your neighbor, or your charming co-worker, or a family member. Maybe even like the person in the mirror…

C.S. Lewis wrote that the greatest evils are “conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.”

Evil doesn’t need to wear jackboots and march in lockstep and roll tanks down the central avenue of your city. It’s more likely to show up in a well-tailored business suit (or a clean white lab coat, for that matter) and conduct its villainy with a handshake at a sunny cafe whilst sipping on a kombucha and nibbling on a sprouted-grain bun.

Those must be good guys, right? After all, bad guys have eye-patches and maniacal cackles and pale skin from living in subterranean bunkers. Right?

As if evil can’t figure this most basic of deceptions. As if political campaigns weren’t built precisely on this chicanery. The word charm means to fool by putting under a spell, i.e., it requires fools to work.

Let’s consider too, the villains that don’t even realize they’re villains.

They too, are under the grips of Story, one which tells them they are blessed with mystical special sauce and therefore they need to carry out their plans for the “good of humanity.” I wonder how many of history’s atrocities have been carried out with that lofty phrase ringing in the ears of the wrongdoers? If it were a number approaching 100% I wouldn’t be surprised.

And then there’s the work-a-day wrongdoers, caught in the grips of one or more of the following:

irresistible financial incentives and career advancement opportunities;
bureaucracy so entrenched it’s impossible to challenge, at least from within;
cowardice (keeping quiet when speaking up would cost you);
the diffusion of responsibility into such tiny modules that no one realizes that they are contributing to a larger evil;
a desire to “just follow orders”;
an organizing story which convinces them they are super-swell citizens and making the world a better place;

Ordinary folks behaving ordinarily, in other words.

Hannah Arendt went to great lengths portraying the “banality of evil”, calling it “terribly and terrifyingly normal”. Even if there were a bunker-dwelling Bond villain behind the installation of a harmful system, the maintenance of that system—the day-to-day, turn the lights on and keep the factory running operations—are maintained by average, ordinary, well-meaning folk just trying to do their job, avoid too much attention, and take home a paycheck.

It makes it so that the participants in evil institutions don’t realize it, or that they believe they are doing the right thing.

Again, they’re suffering under a bad story—one that convinces them they’re the good guys, and the bad guys are the ones who question the institution. How dare they?

But, as we know all too well, harmful, even brutal, outcomes emerge from systems whose participants see themselves as simply doing their jobs or being “good citizens”.

4. The abandonment of the story means facing too overwhelming a horror

This is true for many people we know—even the intelligent ones.

The official narrative story is not just a bland description of truth as they see it — it’s psychological shelter.

If that story collapses — if the government, the medical system, the media, the scientific authorities, the legal system, the public health establishment are not fundamentally acting in good faith — the implications are enormous:

maybe nobody is coming to save them;
maybe the people with power do not deserve their trust;
maybe the systems they were taught to believe in are fraudulent or malicious;
maybe they are far more responsible for their own safety, judgment, education, health, and discernment than they want to be.

Challenging this story would not just be “changing their mind.”

It would be a complete loss of psychic shelter.

Their mind resists that loss—not because they’re stupid—but because accepting it would mean stepping into a world that feels chaotic, unmanaged, unsafe, incoherent, and impossibly burdensome.

And so, the story prevails.

In short, if two people, even intelligent people, believe different stories, they will perceive two different realities.

Evidence, at that point, is a null concept.

Does this mean the situation is hopeless?

Thomas Kuhn talked about incommensurability. The adherents to two different paradigms cannot reach each other or find any common ground… they’re not only talking in different languages, they’re not even using the same concepts. Kuhn was famously droll on this matter, remarking: “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

I think we can do better than generational die-off, however.

Narrative change does happen, even if it takes years, or even decades. You’ll profess a challenge to the prevailing story—the response is horror, shock, and brutal reactivity—and then a few years later everyone and their pet poodle is spouting the same thing. Oh, and by the way, it’s the incontrovertible truth and they knew it from the beginning of time.

So it goes.

If we were hopelessly locked into our narratives, the world as we know it would not exist, and we’d still be cowering in caves and treetops.

The human mind is a little like an immense, immovable boulder. It doesn’t want to budge. It likes where it is. If you’re using evidence to move it, you might as well be using a toothpick for a lever.

But minds do budge, eventually.

The key is knowing where to push.

Or, you know… getting a bigger stick.😏

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Or donate some crypto:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow JET on the Socials:

Twitter
Notes

When Empires Flaunt the Rules, the New Rulebook Has Already Been Written

James Edward Taylor — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 22:20:44 GMT

“My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me. I don’t need international law.”
— Donald Trump, as quoted in The New York Times
“Well, here we are in 2026 and it’s mask-off for the empire and its functionaries. Gone is even the hint of a pretense—no fig leaf left—that America’s military adventures abroad have anything to do with ‘human rights,’ ‘democracy,’ or ‘peaceful transitions.’ It’s about an empire claiming resources for itself and flexing its military muscle to seize them.”
— James Corbett

James is right, of course—but that’s not the whole story. When rule-breaking becomes this brazen, when there’s not even a pretense of whitewashing, my suspicion radar goes into hyper-drive.

This feels like Act I of a very familiar play.

Act I: the crazed emperor declares the rules no longer apply to him.
Act II: shocked and horrified, the international community rallies. The “heroes” arrive. The day is saved with a new and improved rule book—complete with a pompous title like New World Order, Great Reset, or Humanity 2.0.

It’s the same old psyop.
It’s a global crisis!
The solution: more control.
More centralization.
More totalitarianism—
for order,
for democracy,
for global stability.

Take your pick.

It’s not the first time this has happened.

After the Mongol Empire conquered much of Asia and half of Europe, the Pax Mongolica followed: open trade routes, standardized governance, and a continent-wide system of exchange. “Pax” means “peace”, imposed as the alternative to endless slaughter—but peace enforced through conscription, forced labor, crushed tax revolts, suppressed peasant uprisings, and the eradication of religious resistance. Peace, in this case, meant replacing one form of violence with another—more centralized, brutal, and efficient.

Napoleon’s wars of conquest prompted Europe to do what it always does: create a better system. The Congress of Vienna imposed a coordinated, surveillance-heavy regime aimed not just at restraining empires, but at managing populations. It was imposed over widespread liberal and nationalist resistance, which the new order answered with censorship, surveillance, and military repression.

The post–World War II powers promised “never again,” but delivered a world of permanent security institutions and monetary arrangements that benefited great powers and elites far more than the people subject to them. Today we have a global “order” dominated by the United Nations, permanent security councils, international financial institutions, and corporate “public-private partnerships”—in other words, a world-state enforced with more fascism, not less.

Every time a new order is imposed after a crisis, it is praised by the elites as stability.

And now, once again, we have a “mad emperor”, hell bent on conquest, limited only by the constraints of his own imagination.

Cue Act II—a new global system designed for a “sustainable future” or some such.

The second act is never liberty. It’s never decentralization.
It is always more power, organized more centrally, enforced more universally.

The rules aren’t being broken.
They’re being flaunted—so the new rules can arrive on cue.

Unless, of course, we identify the actors before the curtain even rises.

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Subscribe now

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Or donate some crypto:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow JET on the Socials:

Twitter
Notes

Truth Is a Way of Walking

James Edward Taylor — Wed, 07 Jan 2026 01:57:53 GMT

Lately I’ve been giving some thought to how truth emerges as a process rather than as a final destination one arrives at.

Most of us are taught to treat truth like an object out of reach, something that we might discover at the top of a mountain, say, something you must ascend through the ranks of expertise to find, then, once found, master, stand upon, and defend against attackers.

But that doesn’t jibe with our lived experience.

What we really experience is truth as a process of unfolding—something that makes itself known through attention, through time, through honest engagement.

And anyone who adopts these frames gets to partake in it.

We sometimes do have a-ha moments, which seem like “revelations,” like getting hit with an errant foul ball from “out there”. But I think if we’re being honest about those experiences, they always involve some sort of preparation—maybe prayer, or meditation, or curiosity, or just openness—that we’ve laid down as a mental bed for the “revelations” to land in.

In other words, truth is more about the practices of the knower, than it is a thing for us to find.

Adopt a truth-receptive attitude, and lo and behold, truth arrives. Not an object for us to pick up and covet, but more of a produced effect, a by-product that occurs when you approach the world with attention and honesty. We might even call it a way of being.

In that light, truth becomes less about “getting it right” and more about maintaining a relationship with what’s real. And like any relationship, we can lose it. Truth has to be sustained. If we start becoming inattentive, or lazy, or impatient, or authoritarian, or even abusive… truth leaves us.

Truth is a process we commit to—a commitment to right-relating.

It’s like walking an unfamiliar path at night. We can go forward blindly assuming we “know” the path, or that the totality of the path has been revealed to us (even though we haven’t experienced it yet), or that other smarter people have described the nature of the path to us and who are we to contradict them, or that the path ought to be a certain way, or that we can run recklessly down it, certain that the path would never betray us.

Or, we can be attentive. We can use a headlamp. We can understand that the path is under no obligation to behave according to our idea of it, or an “expert’s” idea for that matter, that it doesn’t matter what we want the path to be, and that unexpected twists and turns might occur. We can remain curious, and open. And we can acknowledge our own capacity for mis-stepping, for losing the way, and not blame the path for this, but our own inattentiveness.

Interestingly, when you grasp truth in this way, something changes—you realize that truth requires your conscious engagement, even if you haven’t quite grasped it yet.

You stop waiting for certainty before speaking. You stop preferring silence to the shame of getting something wrong. You allow your thinking to breathe and evolve. You allow for mistakes. You allow for learning to take place. You allow for curiosity and questions. You make room for surprise, contradiction, paradox, nuance, growth.

This idea—that truth is a sustained process rather than a destination—isn’t new. I’ve always been attracted to thinkers like Socrates, Heraclitus, Einstein, Tolkien, Feynman, Sagan… thinkers who resisted both the idea that truth was owned by some special few and not others, and who saw knowing as a method (or we might say, an attitude) rather than as revelation, and overturn-able as new insights come to light. That truth involves a conversation, a dialogue between minds. Not coincidentally, these thinkers also resisted authoritarianism.

Truth, for these thinkers, is not a piece of terrain to defend or a theorem to prove once-and-for-all, but simply a way of walking through the world.

Of course, you might think differently—in which case, I’m sure the truth will emerge through a process of dialogue in the comments section.😏

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Or donate some crypto:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow JET on the Socials:

Twitter
Notes

The Re-Embrace of Uncertainty

James Edward Taylor — Thu, 01 Jan 2026 01:27:53 GMT

Looking back at this past year, I realize I’ve been gravitating away from argument and into art.

I’ve spent more time making music, writing songs, playing shows, telling stories, working in theater—and far less time participating in the online battlefield.

And I think I understand why.

We live in a culture that reveres and rewards certainty. Everyone is so goddamn certain they’re right. Certain their opponents are wrong. Certain they’re in sole possession of the truth.

And all this certainty does is transform the world into a war zone.

The world of argument, especially online argument, is not about sharing ideas—it’s about winning battles. A world of trenches and talking points, where ideas become weapons and disagreement becomes a threat, and demolishing one’s enemy becomes the only objective. All the metaphors of war and battle, in other words, which is really just a way of giving gravitas to your theatrics. And if it just stayed at the level of theatrics that would be fine, and we could probably just dismiss it. But humans have a way of forcing their ideas to manifest in all sorts of inconvenient and awful ways, which means that if you use battle metaphors long enough, they start to become real battles, with real body counts.

The world of art, on the other hand, is about finding connection through shared meaning. Two people of wildly different backgrounds and perspectives can come together at a concert, let’s say, and have a shared experience of joy and synchronicity. Art touches us at a deeper level. When you engage with art, you’re not trying to hold a position, or defend it. You’re not trying to win anything. The battle metaphors fall apart—they simply do not, cannot, apply to people who are embracing one another in mutual understanding. No one is trying to beat anyone else—if anything, they are trying to meld minds and spirits, even if only for a brief moment.

Art doesn’t ask you to win. It asks you to feel. It doesn’t demand certainty; it invites presence.

This resonates with me.

Winning battles does not.

There’s enormous pressure on creators to be authoritative—to have fully formed hot takes, to speak expertly, to present conclusions instead of questions, to polish our thoughts until they seem unassailable, to be clever, to be devastating, to beat one’s opponents into silly putty. Yay for the good guys!

I just couldn’t care less about any of it.

Personally, I’m far more interested creating things that bring people together rather than pulling them apart.

But more importantly, I’m interested in following the threads of curiosity wherever they might lead — even when it unsettles me.

Creation, for me, only happens in openness, when I’m in the spirit of allowing, rather than forcing. It involves a kind of quiet storm of uncertainty, where curiosity and inquisitiveness and the desire to connect all collide in a maelstrom which tosses something onto land, which I can then drag to the safety of the page. And that something is not polished, not finished, not fully-formed. It’s messy, sputtering, wind-tossed, and battered… but authentic.

I forgot this in 2025. I silenced myself for fear that I did not have a “definitive take”. But really, I don’t want a definitive take on anything because I want to be free to chase the threads of curiosity wherever they lead me. When you declare a definitive stance—it’s just that, a stance, IE., a decision to not move any further. You have declared the project of curiosity is over for you.

And so this leads me to wonder, what does our culture of certainty drive out of us? How many creators silence their own voices for fear that they they do not have the definitive, polished, authoritative take on some matter?

How much wonder is cut off before it can begin? How much curiosity is crushed because we’ve been trained to believe that credibility comes from certainty, not curiosity?

What if the most meaningful, connecting, enlightening ideas don’t arrive fully formed? What if the deepest truths aren’t something we declare but something we unfold — carefully, imperfectly, honestly? What if creation actually begins in the chaos of uncertainty?

To me, curiosity is the opposite of weakness. It’s attentiveness. It’s noticing something flicker at the edge of understanding and having the courage to follow it without knowing where it will lead. It’s the willingness to say, “I have no clue what this means. Not yet. But I’m listening.”

When we adopt the authority mindset, when we demand certainty from ourselves before we even open our mouths, we silence the most human part of ourselves: our inquisitiveness. We stop sharing drafts of thought. We stop thinking out loud. We stop allowing ideas to evolve in public. And in doing so, we lose the very thing which connects us to one another: conversation.

What if we treated our creations less like a lecture or an enemy-crushing debate, and more like a chat with a friend — one where curiosity is not a flaw, but the whole damn point?

There is art, even beauty, in the unfinished thought. There is honesty in saying, “I’m still figuring this out.” And there is a quiet kind of courage in offering a question instead of an answer.

Maybe the work isn’t to become an authority at all.
Maybe the work is to remain awake, attentive, and open to the uncertain.

Maybe our job isn’t to know, but to notice.
To keep creating long enough for something real to emerge in the conversation.

Thanks for reading, and Happy New Year.

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Or donate some crypto:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow JET on the Socials:

Twitter
Notes

Terrain Theory

James Edward Taylor — Tue, 20 May 2025 01:23:39 GMT

Let’s say you wanted an introductory primer on a subject—any subject—the mating habits of the of the Blue-footed Booby, for example.

It’s a real bird. Check out those boobies…

Where would you go?

YouTube? Wikipedia? Would you ask Grok? Surely, you are not still “Googling” things, are you?

I’ve heard a lot of about Terrain Theory (vs. Germ Theory) over the past couple of years, and come across a lot of great sources (I listed some good starting points in the Further Reading/Viewing section below) but I was curious about the public-facing side of the theory. What does the uninitiated member of the public see when making a simple query about this “terrain theory” that their crazy uncle keeps ranting on about at Thanksgiving dinner? What do the public see on display when they step through the authorized storefront?

Well, the Wikipedia answer is pretty telling. It doesn’t even allow for such a storefront to exist. It immediately redirects your search to “Germ-theory denialism”.

Of course, we’re all familiar with this little rhetorical trick, aren’t we? Like “covid denier” or “AIDs denialism” or “climate change denier” it’s meant to assert the reality of the thing you want asserted without out the inconvenience of having to present any evidence for it.

The only evidence you need, apparently, is that questioning such things has been likened (by someone who has an interest in you not questioning them) to possessing a mental illness.

Well, if questioning knowledge claims is a mental illness, I guess I’m ready for my padded cell. Also populating my cell would be:

Henry David Thoreau, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, Marcus Aurelius, Socrates, Jesus… and all the thinkers and historical figures who taught me to question things, basically;
all the teachers and professors who taught me to analyze knowledge claims rather than just blindly eat them for breakfast;
anyone in law enforcement who does not immediately release a crime suspect because they utter the claim “I didn’t do it”, but instead investigates the matter further (Dirty skeptics!);
anyone who does not believe in the Easter bunny (“Easter bunny deniers”);
anyone working to prove or disprove anything, in any field;
anyone who voices disagreement on any subject matter.

A very populated cell, indeed, containing everyone on the planet who uses their cognitive faculties at all, for any reason. “Deniers” one and all.

Anywho, let’s see what Wikipedia has to say about these dirty “germ-theory deniers”:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
(Redirected from Terrain theory)
Germ theory denialism is the pseudoscientific belief that germs do not cause infectious disease, and that the germ theory of disease is wrong.[1] It usually involves arguing that Louis Pasteur's model of infectious disease was wrong, and that Antoine Béchamp's was right. In fact, its origins are rooted in Béchamp's empirically disproven (in the context of disease) theory of pleomorphism.[2] Another obsolete variation is known as terrain theory and postulates that germs morphologically change in response to environmental factors, subsequently causing disease, rather than germs being the sole cause of it.[3]
History
Germ theory denialism is as old as germ theory itself, beginning with the rivalry of Pasteur and Béchamp. Pasteur's work in preventing beverage contamination led him to discover that it was due to microorganisms and led him to become the first scientist to prove the validity of the theory and to popularize it in Europe.[2] Before him, scientists such as Girolamo Fracastoro (who had the idea that fomites could harbor the seeds of contagion), Agostino Bassi (who discovered that the muscardine disease of silkworms was caused by a fungus that was named Beauveria bassiana), Friedrich Henle (who developed the concepts of contagium vivum and contagium animatum), and others had proposed ideas similar to germ theory.[4][5]
Béchamp strongly contested Pasteur's view, proposing a competing idea known as the pleomorphic theory of disease. This theory says that all life is based on forms that a certain class of organisms take during stages of their life cycles and that germs are attracted to the environment of diseased tissue rather than being the cause of it.[6] Proponents of this idea insist that microbes that live in an organism go through the same stages of their development. According to Günther Enderlein, the stages are as follows:[7]
colloid – microbe (primitive phase)
bacteria (middle phase)
fungus (end phase)
Terrain theory
The terrain theory is a variation of Béchamp's ideas that is also an obsolete medical theory that held that diseases were caused by the composition of the body. The "terrain", will attract germs to come as scavengers of the weakened or poorly defended tissue. Béchamp believed that the pH of the body is important, and that an acidic pH will attract germs and an alkaline pH will repel them. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation with a series of experiments in the 1870s.[4] However, understanding the cause of a sickness does not always immediately lead to effective treatment of sickness, and the great decline in mortality during the 19th century stemmed mostly from improvements in hygiene and cleanliness. In fact, one of the first movements to deny the germ theory, the Sanitary Movement, was nevertheless central in developing America's public health infrastructure. Providing clean water and sanitation reduced the environment for pathogens to develop, and mortality rates fell dramatically.[8][9][10]
Status
Germ theory denialism is counter to over a century of experiments and practical observations, and the prevailing opinion of almost all doctors and scientists.[1][2][11]
A common thread among many alternative medicine proponents is opposition to vaccines, and some use their disbelief in germ theory to justify their claims.[12] Germ theory deniers make many claims about the biological underpinnings of the theory and the historical record[13][14] that are at odds with what most modern scientists and historians accept.[1][2][4][15] Another claim from the anti-vaccine community involves the theory that all diseases are caused by toxins due to inadequate diet and health practices.[16]

Okay, where to start…

First off, don’t you just love the neutral, unbiased tone of this Wikipedia entry? Sneering, contemptuous, condescending, as in you aren’t one of those numbskull chuckleheads that’s considering an alternative to germ theory, are you? It is peppered with terms such as “pseudoscientific”, “disproven”, “obsolete”, “counter to the prevailing opinion of almost all doctors and scientists”, and again “at odds with what most modern scientists and historians accept”.

“Pseudoscientific” is funny, because this generally means knowledge claims which are given a scientific veneer but have no evidence to support them… which is actually a perfect description of what germ theorists do, according to their critics.

The “disproven” claim is funny since the cited source of this grand scientific proclamation is an opinion piece so alike in its condescending, sneering tone to the Wikipedia entry that it makes it sound like they might share the selfsame author. (Also, in which the author reluctantly admits that Béchamp may not have been entirely wrong about everything).

Note too, the straw man fallacy: the proposed alternative to germ theory is Béchamp’s theory of pleomorphism, accompanied by a detailed breakdown of why pleomorphism is a load of bunkum. Well, no… the alternative to germ theory is ANY theory of disease which does not reduce disease to hostile microorganisms.

“Germ theory denialism is as old as germ theory itself”. This is too funny. Meaning, someone living at the same time that Pasteur made his claims disagreed with those claims.😂 One could say this about every single knowledge claim ever uttered that was not immediately accepted as incontrovertibly true by everyone within earshot. Let me now assert the existence of a creature called Flumpetywump. I won’t bore you with details of this beast, or evidence of its existence. Just be it known, from this point in history forward, anyone who does not agree to the existence of a Flumpteywump is proof that “Flumpetywump denialism” is as old as Flumpetwywump theory itself!

“Opposition to vaccines” Gasp! Shudder!! Again, like “denier”, this is meant to be such a heinous accusation of blasphemy that any further questioning of germ theory be terminated on the spot. If you question germ theory you will end up in the heretical camp of “anti-vaxxers”. You don’t want that, do you?? Well, Wikipedia, let’s think about this for a second: vaccines are predicated only on conferring supposed protection against an attacking, disease-causing agent called “germ”. So yes, I suppose it would be a “common thread” to question a germ-protecting industrial product, as well. It’s like saying that a “common thread” among non-Catholics is the denial of the Eucharist.

“Almost all doctors and scientists”, “most modern scientists and historians”. Okay, so “most”, but not all. So, you’re admitting, Wikipedia, that there are scientists, doctors, and historians who do not accept germ theory? Well, how interesting. I wonder what they have to say? This “consensus” crap is almost beneath comment. I already went to town on Neil DeGrasse Tyson for this nonsense, but basically, it is so blatantly an argumentum ad populum fallacy (claiming that a proposition must be true because many believe it), that I’m surprised anyone above a fourth grader takes it seriously. If “unpopularity” were a reason to reject scientific claims then shouldn’t it apply to Pasteur’s work as well, since the “consensus” at the time he published was not the germ theory of disease?

In fact, if consensus is the benchmark by which we test knowledge claims then we better start winding human knowledge backward in time to the very first time someone voiced their disagreement about anything. Clearly, no knowledge acquired since that halcyon era could possibly be valid, since it violated the perfect primordial “consensus” of the time.

Oh, and for a final tickle, look at the context links provided at the end of the “Terrain theory redirected to Germ-theory denialism” Wikipedia page:

See also:
Vaccine hesitancy
HIV/AIDS denialism
COVID-19 misinformation
Category:Germ theory denialists
Hygiene hypothesis
Pleomorphism (microbiology)

Paints a picture, doesn’t it? It reads like a list of mortal sins. Repent, sinner!

Moving on. Let’s take a look at the answer provided to me on “Terrain Theory” by Brave AI.

Right away we can note that Brave AI acknowledges that such a theory actually exists (rather than just being a species of mental illness called “denialism”.)

Terrain Theory
Terrain Theory, also known as “milieu interne” or “environmental theory,” proposes that the internal environment or “terrain” of an individual plays a crucial role in determining their susceptibility to disease. This theory contrasts with the widely accepted Germ Theory, which focuses solely on the role of microorganisms as the primary cause of illness.
Key Principles:
1. The body’s internal environment: Terrain Theory emphasizes the importance of the body’s internal environment, including factors such as nutrition, digestion, gut health, stress levels, and overall physiology, in determining its ability to resist or succumb to disease.
2. Microbial balance: The theory suggests that the balance of microorganisms within the body, including both beneficial and pathogenic species, is critical in maintaining health. An imbalance, or “dysbiosis,” can lead to disease.
3. Environmental factors: Terrain Theory acknowledges that environmental factors, such as diet, lifestyle, and exposure to toxins, can influence the body’s internal environment and contribute to disease.
4. Individual variability: The theory recognizes that individuals have unique internal environments, shaped by their genetic predispositions, lifestyle, and environmental exposures, which affect their susceptibility to disease.
Implications:
1. Prevention and treatment: Terrain Theory suggests that prevention and treatment strategies should focus on maintaining a healthy internal environment, rather than solely targeting pathogens. This may involve dietary changes, stress management, and gut health support.
2. Holistic approach: The theory encourages a holistic approach to healthcare, considering the interplay between multiple factors, including nutrition, lifestyle, and environmental exposures, to understand and address disease.
3. Critique of Germ Theory: Terrain Theory challenges the exclusive focus on germ-killing as the primary means of disease prevention and treatment, recognizing that an unhealthy internal environment can still lead to disease even in the absence of pathogens.
Historical Context:
Terrain Theory has its roots in the 19th century, particularly in the work of French scientist Antoine Béchamp, who proposed that microorganisms adapt to their environment and can thrive in a diseased body. This idea was later developed by Claude Bernard, who emphasized the importance of the internal environment in determining health.
Modern Relevance:
In recent years, Terrain Theory has gained renewed attention due to advances in microbiome research and the recognition of the critical role of the gut microbiome in overall health. The theory’s emphasis on environmental factors, individual variability, and holistic approaches to healthcare resonates with contemporary concerns about the limitations of Germ Theory and the need for more comprehensive understanding of disease mechanisms.
In Conclusion:
Terrain Theory offers a valuable perspective on disease, highlighting the importance of the internal environment and microbial balance in determining health. By considering the interplay between environmental factors, individual variability, and microbial dynamics, Terrain Theory provides a framework for developing more effective prevention and treatment strategies that address the complex interdependencies within the human body.

Well, golly gumdrops. That’s quite the switch in tone.

Hilariously different, actually.

This makes Terrain Theory sound fact-oriented, valuable, plausible, relevant.

It makes you wonder how we could possibly have a coherent theory of human health and disease which:

denies the importance of nutrition, digestion, stress levels, and overall physiology;
denies the importance of the gut health and microbiome;
denies the importance of environment, lifestyle, and exposure to toxins;
denies the existence of individual variability and treats all patients the same regardless of circumstance;
denies a holistic approach to treatment, instead focusing exclusively on bug-killing.

Having read both the Wikipedia and the Brave AI response, one is forced to ask:

Who are the “deniers” in this scenario, really? Who is guilty of “pseudoscience”? Of being “obsolete” or “irrelevant”? Of appealing to logical fallacies to make their argument?

And, one also might be inclined to ask, in the time humanity has turned away from “terrain” as being relevant to disease, and toward “health” exclusively as winning a war against the microbial world:

What has happened to human health? Is is better, or worse?
What has happened to “medicine”? Does medicine actually help those who are treated with it? What are their health outcomes? Does it heal? Or does it poison, injure, or even kill?
What has happened to healthcare practitioners? Have they become better, more knowledgeable healers? Or have they become better footsoldiers for industry?
Has healthcare become more efficient and affordable and available to more people, or has it become prohibitively expensive for most people and fantastically profitable for huge corporations?
Has the research and understanding of human health and disease grown or advanced? Or has it become more mystifying and seem as if we are losing the war to disease entirely?

Of course, we ~~conspiracy theorists~~ pattern recognitionists can’t help but spot the old familiar tale here:

Put forth as synonymous with revealed, unquestionable orthodoxy a theory with such a terrible track record of success (and so badly in contradiction to the evidence, contrary to good sense, contrary to the interests of humanity—yet curiously very much in the interests of an oligarchical ruling class) that it’s a wonder anyone takes it seriously; and…
Denounce, ridicule, shame and equate with plain idiocy, heresy, child killing and probable devil worship any theory which opposes it, or even the mere act of questioning it.

Of course Wikipedia is hilariously biased, but perhaps you don’t trust Brave or any other AI as an alternative. Given that the AI models out there are more focused on learning the language patterns of the user, this is probably wise.

If we really want to know the mating habits of the Blue-footed Booby maybe the best solution, as ever, is to hire a boat for the Galapagos and go observe them for ourselves.

Follow JET on the Socials:

Twitter
Notes

Thanks for reading!

Ten Rules for a Conspiracy Observer

James Edward Taylor — Sun, 06 Apr 2025 17:52:26 GMT

1. There exists a tiny class of humans1 who continually try to consolidate and maintain their power over the rest of humanity. This class has always existed, and always will. There has never been a utopian period of history where the power-consolidation project has stopped, and there never will be. (Hence Jefferson’s plea for “eternal vigilance”.)

2. Consolidation is synonymous with “centralization”. The power-consolidators seek to bring the rest of humanity under their centralized control. Decentralization is therefore the main enemy of this class, which it spends most of its time and resources trying to eradicate.

3. The power-consolidators will invariably justify their project with some supposedly noble end (“for the good of humanity”, “saving the planet”, “protecting democracy”, “think of the children”, etc.) and accordingly will veil their activities in supposedly philanthropic entities and organizations, which a credulous public will fall for and support, even to their own enslavement or destruction.

4. The power-consolidators will continually perpetuate the myth of, and manufacture, a crisis or need which only they can solve. This makes humanity generally compliant, believing they need only obey the powerful to be saved from the “threat”. Humanity, then, are largely prisoners by choice and effectively become their own prison guards, enforcing the will of the consolidating class on their fellow inmates.

5. The power-consolidators will test their schemes out on poorer, relatively defenseless populations and nations before launching them on more powerful nations and targets. (Or, at minimum, they will use those poorer nations as proxies for their activities to avoid legal or financial scrutiny.)

6. Ethics or rights or legality are not a factor for the power-consolidating class. They believe themselves beyond such concepts. They do not care about the human body count required to consolidate their power. Indeed, they actively seek it—a smaller, more easily-managed populace is often their stated aim. They will employ any and all means they can (surveillance, subterfuge, legal chicanery, propaganda, fraud, currency manipulation, mass poisoning, food supply manipulation, engineered “natural” disasters, war) with no regard to morality or legality. No method is too insidious or off-limits. The agenda justifies anything and everything.

7. They will infiltrate, capture and manipulate every powerful institution in society (government, banking, law, academics, health, research, publishing, media, entertainment, technology, military) to achieve their ends, and accordingly win the public’s trust who are unwilling to exercise skepticism toward these institutions. (Public credulity is currency for the power-consolidators.) No institution is immune. The power-consolidators will use these institutions to promote the exact inverse of humanity’s interests, e.g., health institutions will push poisons, scientific institutions will become centers of unquestionable doctrine, and “truth-seeking” media will be used to promote propaganda and lies.

8. The power-consolidators will misdirect the public attention away from themselves and the disastrous effects of their schemes onto public-facing villains and scapegoats, using the veil of politics and ideology and tribal divisions to encourage the populace to turn on each other, meanwhile keeping themselves free from public scrutiny. At the same time, they will also pacify the populace by giving them false heroes and savior-figures. “Be at ease…someone is fighting for you!”

9. The power-consolidators will try to eliminate or silence dissent using distraction, intimidation, ridicule and shaming, economic pressure, or outright “suiciding”.

10. When the elimination of dissent becomes impossible and the public become too aware or skeptical, the power-consolidating class will sacrifice a few public scapegoats, dissolve or morph into different entities, effectively undergoing a PR cleanse, and continue their power consolidation project under new auspices.

I call these rules because if you try to deny any one of them, nothing makes sense.

On the other hand, when you adopt them as rules, everything about the world clarifies and crystallizes. Uncovering the “conspiracy” becomes as simple as looking and seeing the pattern.

Also, how to oppose the power-consolidators becomes evident, too: eradicate blind trust2 and remove consent.

Specifically, remove your unwitting support of centralized institutions.

The unwitting part involves some effort. It involves learning what these institutions are up to and teaching others who may not be ready to hear it. This is where you will suffer the lash of “conspiracy theorist”, but actually, the label is more of an amusing tell about the person using it. They’re really saying: “I am not ready to question that institution”. Which is fine. Not everyone needs to remove their head from the sand. As the crimes of that institution become more flagrant, enough people will question it that it will start to crumble and decentralized options start to look more attractive.

Withdrawing support, on the other hand, often just means stop doing something. Centralized institutions survive off the open spigot of your support, so just turn that spigot off. Stop buying products from the evil corporation. Stop working in their offices to further their agenda. Stop supporting the ridiculous talking props called politicians. Remove your child from a brainwashing education system. Stop consuming corporate media. Find alternate stores of value than central bank notes. Stop agreeing to go along with blatant nonsense in the workplace. Stop supporting an evil healthcare system that is trying to poison you and your loved ones.

Put all that support into decentralized alternatives. This involves a little effort, but I believe it’s getting easier. Alternatives are cropping up all around us. Alternative careers. Alternative wellness practices. Alternatives to health insurance. Alternative currencies and stores of value. Alternative education options for your kids. Alternative media (you’re consuming it, right now). Alternative food systems (buying from local producers or raising your own food).

Pull all of your support and watch in delight as the centralized machine that formerly had your unquestioning support begins to smoke and clunk and sputter.

Some people refer to the power-consolidators as “oligarchs” or “globalists” or “tyrants” or “elites”.

Really, they are none of these things.

They want us to believe in our powerlessness in the face of overwhelming calamity. But they are only powerful to the degree we surrender our power to them. An awakened populace then, would be one that realizes they are in possession of true power, and that the villains’ power is only based on shared myth.

I’m not naive enough to believe that the whole populace will ever undergo such an awakening. But I am observant enough to note that much of the old, centralized institutions sure are trying to clutch tighter on public trust, which seems to be slipping ever more rapidly through their fingers like so much sand.

You are in frame #3.

Follow JET on the Socials:

Twitter
Notes

Thanks for reading!

At least, they take human form. If they are human they sure don’t seem to like the rest of their species very much.🤔

No accident that the theme at Davos 2023 was addressing “the eroding trust in institutions”. They need that trust for anything else in their agenda to work.

The Shot Straddlers

James Edward Taylor — Mon, 30 Dec 2024 02:13:43 GMT

When you’re treated like a herd animal and you’re not quite sure how you feel about it…

Remarkably, despite overwhelming evidence of harm, I still encounter the odd person expressing enthusiasm for getting their next mRNA injection. It’s like they’re waiting for a Toblerone bar in their Christmas stocking.

I used to think such an enthusiast was reachable.

I no longer believe so.

They will not be susceptible to any new information that makes them question their sacrament, even if that information is offered in the spirit of saving their lives.

A true believer would rather go to their grave than be wrong.

But I also encounter quite a few straddlers—those who are not particularly invested in a tribal-identity belief regarding their vax status but simply took an injection, or even a booster or two, because they wanted to fly somewhere on vacation, or see a concert, or because their employer said so, and they heard it was “Safe and Effective”, so what’s the harm?

These people, I believe, may be reachable with some strategic Did-You-Know questions.

Did-You-Know questions are respectful—you’re not insulting anyone’s intelligence by telling them they’re wrong, or telling them what to believe. Instead, you’re appealing to their intelligence by offering them something to consider on their own.

The point, as always, is not to convince anyone of anything. It’s to get them thinking for themselves.

If you know a straddler, here’s a few questions that maybe, just maybe, might spark a synapse or two:

36 Did-You-Know Questions for a Shot Straddler:

Did you know that the shot recipients demonstrate a 37% loss of life expectancy over non-recipients?

Did you know that each booster rollout is statistically correlated with a new wave of deaths?

Be your own doctor

Statistical Academic Paper Confirms Very High Chance That Booster Shots Are Killing Tens of Thousands of Australians.

It takes time, but the blatantly obvious slowly gets confirmed and published in scientific papers…

2 years ago · 20 likes · Being Nobody, Going Nowhere

3. Did you know that rats demonstrate autistic behavior after receiving COVID shots?

4. Did you know that Florida’s Surgeon General warned against anyone taking further shots owing to their terrible safety profile and negative efficacy (meaning shot recipients are MORE likely to exhibit COVID symptoms, not less)?

5. Did you know that, since the rollout of the shots, young people (of employable age) are dropping dead or becoming disabled at a higher rate than the general population?

Exposing The Darkness

Edward Dowd: “Something HORRIBLE Is Going On but No One Wants To Talk About It”

Exposing The Darkness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber…

3 years ago · 639 likes · 128 comments · Lioness of Judah Ministry

6. Did you know that an examination of 99 million C19 vaccine records found alarming safety signals for myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis”?

7. Did you know that there were six papers in April of this year connecting these shots with aggressive turbo cancer?

In G-d’s Army There’s Only Truth

Covid Shots and Cancer: It’s REAL.

BS”D There is no longer any question that covid vaccines are causing cancer…

2 years ago · 34 likes · 1 comment · Brucha Weisberger

8. Did you know the former CDC director admitted the agency hid known side effects of the shots to public?

Build Back Better

Ex-CDC Director: Public health did not want to report side effects because people would not get vaccinated.

Listen now

2 years ago · 26 likes · 4 comments · Mathew Aldred

9. Did you know that five state Attorney Generals are suing Pfizer right now for fraudulently lying about the safety of their products and intentionally withholding information about the harms of its product? (Curiously, not Moderna though.)

The Kingston Report

Why Are 5 STATES SUING PFIZER and NOT Moderna?

June 18, 2024: Yesterday, Attorney General Kris Kobach broke the news that 4 other states will be joining Kansas in suing Pfizer for willfully concealing, suppressing, and/or omitting material evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of their mRNA injections…

2 years ago · 227 likes · 49 comments · Karen Kingston

Did you know that there were an estimated 16.9 million COVID-19-vaccine-associated deaths up to December 30, 2022?

Lies are Unbekoming

30.9 million and counting

What is actually happening is, a dominant power — a globally hegemonic dominant power in our case — is eliminating internal resistance throughout the territory it occupies, which in our case happens to be the whole planet. Any and all forms of internal resistance. The character of the resistance makes no difference … Islamic fundamentalism, Christian fu…

2 years ago · 180 likes · 41 comments · Unbekoming

Denis’s Substack

Breaking: Our largest study of its kind "Spatiotemporal variation of excess all-cause mortality in the world during the Covid period regarding socio economic factors and medical interventions"

By Denis Rancourt, PhD, Joseph Hickey, PhD, and Prof. Christian Linard, PhD…

2 years ago · 612 likes · 130 comments · Denis Rancourt, CORRELATION, and No One

Did you know that the injections do nothing to reduce severe illness?

Jon Fleetwood

COVID and Flu Vaccines Do Not Reduce Severe Illness, Hospitalization, or Death: Study Preprint

A new study published Tuesday in Preprints confirms that neither the COVID-19 nor flu vaccines significantly reduce severe illness, hospitalization, or mortality rates, contradicting the mainstream narrative claiming the opposite…

2 years ago · 25 likes · 2 comments · Jon Fleetwood

Did you know that this study of 1.7 million children showed heart damage only in C19-injected kids?
Due Diligence and Art
Covid vaccines associated with ALL cases of heart inflammation in children in a large UK health dataset
This paper has been published in peer review…
Read more
2 years ago · 375 likes · 155 comments · Sasha Latypova

Did you know that a recent analysis of the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database showed an alarming risk of mRNA vax-induced myocarditis, especially in young men?

World Council for Health

10% mortality from mRNA vaccine-induced myocarditis

Dr Maarten Fornerod…

2 years ago · 60 likes · World Council for Health

Were you aware of the recent study that showed that the C19 injection does not protect you from “long covid” symptoms?

Jon Fleetwood

COVID Shot Does Not Protect From Long COVID: Journal 'Open Forum Infectious Diseases'

A new study made available last month in Open Forum Infectious Diseases has concluded that COVID-19 shots do not reduce the risk of developing medically diagnosed Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), more commonly known as “long COVID…

2 years ago · 12 likes · 8 comments · Jon Fleetwood

Did you know about a recent study that revealed a 1236% surge in excess cardiac arrest deaths amongst C19 injection recipients?

Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake

Peer-Reviewed Study Reveals 1,236% Surge in Excess Cardiac Arrest Deaths Among 2 Million COVID-19 Vaccinated Individuals

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH…

Listen now

2 years ago · 261 likes · 49 comments · Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Did you know that a study of mortality in Germany showed “a significant positive correlation between the increase of excess mortality and COVID-19 vaccinations”?
Exposing The Darkness
German Scientists Confirm: Covid Shots Directly Linked to Sudden Deaths Surge
Exposing The Darkness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber…
Read more
2 years ago · 128 likes · 38 comments · Lioness of Judah Ministry
Did you know that Pfizer’s own analyses showed that they knew exactly the extent of the injuries that were going to occur?

Exposing The Darkness
‘Chilling’ Revelations From Pfizer Documents - Dr. Naomi Wolf
Exposing The Darkness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber…
Read more
2 years ago · 116 likes · 21 comments · Lioness of Judah Ministry

WelcomeTheEagle’s Substack

How Does the Pfizer 5.3.6 Post-Auth Analysis of Adverse Events Measure Up to VAERS Today?

With about 1,300 symptoms and diagnosis already identified post authorization and a couple months worth of vaccination data up to Feb 28, 2021 Pfizer knew this was going to be a train wreck…

2 years ago · 2 likes · Closed VAERS

Did you know that repeated boosters weaken immunity, especially for older adults?

Jon Fleetwood

Repeated mRNA COVID Jabs Lead to Reduced Immune Function in Older Adults: Journal 'Immunity & Ageing'

A new study published last month in Immunity & Ageing provides further evidence that repeated mRNA COVID-19 injections weaken the immune system, particularly in older adults…

2 years ago · 25 likes · 11 comments · Jon Fleetwood

Did you know that heart attacks in young Americans have surged by 66% since the shot rollouts?

Exposing The Darkness

The New Normal: Heart Attacks in Young Americans Surge an “Alarming” 66% Since 2020

Exposing The Darkness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber…

2 years ago · 67 likes · 29 comments · Lioness of Judah Ministry

Did you know that Japanese researchers have linked the mRNA shots with 201 diseases and are now "affecting every possible aspect of human pathology"?

21. Did you know that DMED, the health database for military personnel, showed an 1100% increase in all cause morbidity and mortality in 2021, after the shots were mandated?

Exposing The Darkness

1100% Increase in U.S. Military Morbidity and Deaths - US Lawyer Speaks Out

Exposing The Darkness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber…

2 years ago · 180 likes · 34 comments · Lioness of Judah Ministry

22. Did you know that researchers have confirmed that there is no convincing evidence that the mRNA shots reduce transmission to others, and have called on public figures to stop exaggerating the drug’s benefits?

Jon Fleetwood

COVID Jab 'Does Not Reduce the Risk to Transmit SARS-CoV-2 to Others': Springer's 'Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology'

A new study published today in Springer’s book series Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology confirms there is “no convincing evidence” that the COVID-19 shot significantly reduces transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to others, and calls on public figures to stop “exaggerat[ing]” the drug’s benefits…

2 years ago · 20 likes · 2 comments · Jon Fleetwood

23. Did you know that the only reason these mRNA shots are allowed to be advertised as “safe” is because they fall under special exemptions to laws which forbid all other drugs to be characterized in this way? (i.e., drugs, from a legal standpoint, are always understood to have risks and side effects… except this one.)

phillip.altman’s Substack

WHO SAID THE COVID-19 “VACCINES” WERE “SAFE”?

From the very beginning, the Australian government and so-called “health experts” said the COVID-19 “vaccines” were “safe”. Period. The public believed them…

2 years ago · 124 likes · 41 comments · phillip.altman

Did you know that a Spanish team of researchers studied 949 heart attack victims from a single hospital and found that 84% of them had received either a Pfizer or Moderna mRNA shot?
Freedom Research
Research: COVID-19 Vaccination Increased the Likelihood of Mortality and Severe Heart Failure
According to a newly published study by Spanish researchers, COVID-19 vaccination significantly increased the risk of severe heart failure and the likelihood of death from heart attack. The highest likelihood of heart problems was found in people who were both vaccinated and had had the virus…
Read more
2 years ago · 13 likes · 7 comments · Epp Tuul
Did you know that researchers studying 31 European countries showed a positive correlation between vaccination levels and excess mortality?
Freedom Research
News Round-Up: Children's Mental Health Crisis, the Causes of High Excess Mortality and Pulling the Plug on EVs
Over the past week, the following topics attracted our attention…
Read more
2 years ago · 6 likes · 4 comments · Hannes Sarv
Did you know that following following the “mass COVID-19 vaccination” campaign in Iran, there was a 156% increase in hospitalizations for COVID?
Jon Fleetwood
156% Increase in COVID Hospitalizations After 'Mass COVID-19 Vaccination' Campaign in Iran: 'Journal of Global Health'
A brand new study published today in the peer-reviewed Journal of Global Health confirms that following the “mass COVID-19 vaccination” campaign in Iran, there was a 156% increase in hospitalizations for COVID…
Read more
2 years ago · 22 likes · 1 comment · Jon Fleetwood
Did you know that pregnant women who receive the shot have significantly higher rates of miscarriages?
Jon Fleetwood
COVID-Jabbed Pregnant Women Have 'Significantly Higher Rate' of Miscarriage, Abnormal Amniotic Fluid and Placenta: Journal 'Therapeutic Advances in Vaccines and Immunotherapy'
A new study published this month in the peer-reviewed journal Therapeutic Advances in Vaccines and Immunotherapy confirms higher rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including spontaneous abortions, oligohydramnios (abnormally low amount of amniotic fluid surrounding the fetus), and abnormal fetal growth, among pregnant women who received at least one d…
Read more
2 years ago · 18 likes · 3 comments · Jon Fleetwood
Did you know that some government officials around the world are calling for the outright suspension of C19 mRNA shots?
Dystopian Down Under
WORLD FIRST: Australian local government calls for suspension of Covid mRNA vaccines
In a surprise move, the local government of West Australian mining town Port Hedland has voted to call for the immediate suspension of the Moderna and Pfizer Covid vaccines pending an investigation into evidence of excessive levels of synthetic DNA in the shots…
Read more
2 years ago · 454 likes · 26 comments · Rebekah Barnett
Did you know that kidney failure deaths are surging amongst the mRNA jabbed?
Exposing The Darkness
Official Government Data: KIDNEY FAILURE DEATHS Surging Among Covid-Vaccinated
Exposing The Darkness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber…
Read more
2 years ago · 157 likes · 30 comments · Lioness of Judah Ministry
Did you know that 3% of C19 jab recipients die?

Jon Fleetwood

3% of COVID-19 Jab Recipients Die: Journal 'Informatics in Medicine Unlocked'

A study published last month in the international, peer-reviewed journal Informatics in Medicine Unlocked has brought to light alarming findings regarding the safety of COVID-19 shots…

2 years ago · 13 likes · 4 comments · Jon Fleetwood

Bonus Questions:

Did you know that researchers have discovered 55 undisclosed chemical elements, including 11 heavy metals, in the shots?
32. Did you know that cancer mortality has doubled in young people from pre-2020 levels and Pfizer’s 2022 safety report on the COVID-vaccines revealed thousands of cancers of hundreds of types following the injections?
The Defeat Of COVID
COVID Shot-Cancer Links – Understand Them To Defeat Them
PART 1: Statement of the problem…
Read more
2 years ago · 272 likes · 36 comments · Dr. Colleen Huber

Did you know Japanese researchers have linked mRNA shots to increased heart attacks and cardiac deaths?
The Aeon Chronicle
Japanese Study Links Covid Vaccines to Increased Risk of Serious Heart Damage
A recent study conducted by Japanese medical researchers, published in Circulation Reports, has raised significant concerns regarding the safety of Covid mRNA vaccines, linking them to an increase in heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths…
Read more
2 years ago · 15 likes · 2 comments · Aeon Chronicle
34. Did you know that a group of leading cardiologists in New Zealand discovered that the spike protein generated by Covid mRNA injections is responsible for unprecedented spikes in heart failure, sudden deaths, and other deadly diseases?
Exposing The Darkness
New Zealand Cardiologists: Covid ‘Vaccines’ Are SOLE CAUSE of Surging Heart Failure and Sudden Cardiac Arrest Deaths
Exposing The Darkness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber…
Read more
2 years ago · 198 likes · 40 comments · Lioness of Judah Ministry

Did you know that researchers have confirmed the presence of synthetic DNA in the mRNA shots which integrates into natural human DNA, and self-replicates (potentially altering the human genome forever)?
Did you know that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons just published this list of the dangers of the mRNA jabs and called for an immediate moratorium on the shots?
FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse)
BREAKING - New Study Demands Immediate Moratorium on COVID-19 mRNA Injections
By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH…
Read more
2 years ago · 507 likes · 114 comments · Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

PS. This is not a comprehensive list, of course. My inbox is filled with dozens of these links every day, linking to thousands of studies indicating harm (and about officials proceeding with the “Safe and Effective” mantra, despite knowing these risks). Without a doubt, these are the most dangerous products ever to be distributed to an unsuspecting public. But perhaps, to a straddler, you won’t need thousands of studies. Just a few questions to, maybe, get them to think twice.

Share this post! Save a brain! (Or melt one, as the case may be.)

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Subscribe now

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Or donate some crypto:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow JET on the Socials:

Twitter
Notes

My Favorite Memes: Mass Hypnosis & Brainwashing (Part 2)

James Edward Taylor — Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:32:14 GMT

Not to mention the “medicines”.

PART I from almost two years ago (curiously, all still relevant🤔):

Share this post! Save a brain! (Or melt one, as the case may be.)

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Subscribe now

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Or donate some crypto:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow JET on the Socials:

False Heroes

James Edward Taylor — Mon, 09 Dec 2024 22:37:46 GMT

I started writing a piece in October about despair, which I perceived to be rampant at the time, and which I reasoned comes from a kind of wilful mindlessness about the world.

Essentially, gouging out your own eyes so will not see possibilities, even if they’re staring you right in the face.

Which, of course, serves the anti-human forces nicely, since despair makes you cower, and cowering means you’re controlled.

Then, the mother of all mindless acts happened: a U.S. election, and suddenly half the mindless despair turned into mindless hope.

As if mindlessness were the only thing we could all get down with.

The pendulum will no doubt swing and we’ll talk about despair again at some point.

But for now, let’s consider mindlessness in the form of hero worship, because that’s where we are.

Consider… evil is no less pleased when we surrender our power to a false hero. This also serves its plans nicely. It’s an alternate way of being controlled.

Just like despair, when you mindlessly worship a hero you’re gouging out your eyes to a part of reality, namely the part where you are responsible for the state of the world, and you have a difficult path ahead.

It’s tempting to believe that someone called “Hero” will do this for you. Someone to “represent” you? To do all the fighting for you? To “drain the swamp” for you?

The first question any thinking person should be asking: what if this “Hero”’s job—his real job, in service to his real masters—is seeming?

Seeming to care. Seeming to represent. Seeming to fight on your behalf.

And in so doing, take the fight right out of you.

If you know anything about about politics you know that seeming is the job. It’s an entire industry, and to rise to the top you need not possess any special skill other than seeming.

Intelligence? Nope. Experience? Nope. Business accumen? Nope. Principles? Nope. Morals? Please. Knowledge? Fuhgeddaboudit.

The ability to seem so like a savior figure that people fall into frenzy of worship so deep that they forget basic facts of reality?

Welcome, sir, right this way… your throne and scepter await.

The Seeming Industrial Complex has one product: your unwitting adoration. Adoration means more consumption. It means the whole pageant gets to keep on going, with your support. It means behavior modification, which means manipulation, which means control.

Will a single election, public office holder, or a single apointee, bring down an invested, entrenched, global slavery machine which is *that* close to achieving its dream of New World Order?

The machine would love for you to think so.

Don’t worry, kids, there is someone standing up for YOU. Honest. Just keep your head down and keep being a good consumer. Go on participating in all our wonderful institutions. No need to tear them down. Yes, they’re corrupt, but we can REFORM them...yeah! We’ll fire some people. Things will get better now, we swear.

Imagine I propose a game to you… we’re gonna play soccer. Fun, right? But special soccer. The rules of our soccer game are only I can score goals, and only you can get called for penalties. “What?!” you cry, “That’s not fair! It’s rigged against me! There’s no way for me to win!” “Oh, don’t worry about that,” I say, “because we’re gonna change the referees after every game.”

Would anyone agree to play such a game? At least, anyone in their right mind?

Another question we should all be asking: is it even possible to change the system from within when that system is designed to be shallow—to be an impenetrable barrier for the deeper interests that it serves?

Preserve the system—including all the currently operative rules, profits, incentives, and lack of disincentives, i.e., lack of punishments—but change the surface personnel.

That’ll fix everything, right?

Take note that while your hero is supposedly “fixing” everything, or seeming to, you will be required to ignore even more things, namely, all the details which will look an awful lot like he’s compromising to the dark forces he’s supposedly fighting on your behalf.

In fact, you’re going to have to ignore that fighting those forces looks exactly like serving them.

Teachers for Choice

Donald Trump Appoints Susie Wiles to be his Chief of Staff

Donald Trump has just appointed Susie Wiles to be his Chief of Staff when he returns to the Whitehouse. Wiles is the co-chair of Mercury LLC, a major lobbying firm for Big Pharma. That is very concerning to the medical freedom movement, as the mainstream media is already reporting Kennedy is being pushed away from Trump…

2 years ago · 99 likes · 79 comments · Michael Kane

2nd Smartest Guy in the World

DEATHVAX™ SWAMP RISING: Trump Appoints Pro-Vax & Anti-Free Speech "Experts"

The recent Trump appointments pertaining directly to MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) are, in varying degrees, slithering BigPharma shills…

2 years ago · 272 likes · 198 comments · 2nd Smartest Guy in the World

The Daily News from the Art of Liberty Foundation

Trump Offers Key Pentagon Job to Billionaire Whose Firm Trained Khashoggi's Murderers

by Jake Johnson…

2 years ago · 15 likes · 5 comments · Etienne de la Boetie2

So, where does that leave the rest of us, who neither want to surrender to mindless despair, nor mindlessly (blindly) following pre-packaged heroes?

Well, for starters, look around you. Not at the cast of characters portrayed on the screen, but the real folk doing real things—the people doing the work of making your household and your community and your society go. Real heroes.

And ask yourself what your own part is. Am I supporting the real heroes? Or the false ones? Or perhaps even, unwittingly, the villains?

And work to fix it. Withdraw your participation in evil systems. Often, this is as simple as saying “Nope” and leaving the room. Even better is withdrawing your dollar.

Evil systems require two things to keep functioning: your participation and your ignorance. It’s the fuel mixture that in the right ratio keeps the whole machine humming. As in The Matrix, those systems require your unwitting bioenergy.

Think about the pharmasick system masquerading as “healthcare”, i.e., “an expert class who care deeply about your health, with specialized knowledge that you cannot access”. The whole thing operates because people go on believing it. They believe they are too ignorant to learn what healthy means (not true), and that a specialized, ordained sect of humans are the only ones capable of accessing this knowledge (not true), that those experts care deeply (not true), and that “medicines” (drugs) are the only thing keeping them alive and healthy (not true). So, they line up dutifully at the pharmacy believing themselves to be doing what is best.

In other words, they keep consuming. Which represents demand. Which the suppliers are all too happy to keep on supplying. And the whole system gets to live another day.

It doesn’t matter what corrupted system you’re talking about—pharmasick, banking, academia, Hollweird, ESG corporations, legacy media, and yes, elected (and unelected) office holders—you and your society withdraw your consumption, which is your energy, and see what happens to that system.

The thing is, opting out means taking on difficulty. It means doing your own research. It means becoming your own doctor, teacher, banker, lawyer, grocer, farmer, thought leader. It means sourcing people you trust to trade with, rather than nipping into to the convenient corporate one-stop shop. This will be too much effort for some, and they will go on consuming what is easy, injecting more demand into the corrupt system and praying (every four years or so) for a hero to save them from it.

Economics: if you keep consuming, the suppliers will keep supplying. It never stops, ever, until you withdraw your demand.

As one of my favorite punk bands from my youth put it:

Never mind what’s been selling. It’s what you’re buying. (Fugazi - Blueprint)

We don’t need a hero to close down the shop for us. All we need to do is stop going into the shop and purchasing things.

I don’t even think it’s necessary for every person to withdraw their demand. All that is required is a tipping point where enough people become aware of the evil and cause a massive withdrawal of consumption (meaning power) from that system, and the suddenly heavy supply side of the equation shakes the whole corrupt system to pieces like an imbalanced front load washing machine committing spectacular suicide.

Therein lies hope.

(It’s already happening. Look at the flight away from woke corporations and from legacy media.)

So no, mindless despair and mindless hope are not exhaustive choices.

There is also keeping your bloody wits about you.

There is examining your own part in making the world what it is.

There is refusing to be a consumer-participant. Withdrawing your demand.

There is acknowledging the good when all seems lost, but also acknowledging the bad when all seems too perfectly, conveniently, rosy.

There is being wary of the heroes and villains beckoning you into various antechambers to keep you from journeying out of the cave, and staying the path.

In other words, thinking for yourself.

If you enjoyed this post, someone else probably will, too. Click this button to share it:

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Subscribe now

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow me on the Socials:

My Favorite Election Memes

James Edward Taylor — Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:59:18 GMT

As you can probably gather, I don’t put much faith in elections as the solution to anything. Am I cynical? Far from it. I place great hope in focusing on our careers, families, neighbors, our spiritual connection, our mental and physical health, and building our communities. Most of our lives, in fact, are apolitical, and they are the better for it.

There are far more important things than this election nonsense to give our focus and energy to, which lead to actual change.

I wrote a line or two about it here:

Thanks for reading!

Follow me on the Socials:

Are We Living in the Matrix?

James Edward Taylor — Sat, 31 Aug 2024 19:17:32 GMT

I want you to meet my pal, Neo.

Handsome fella, right?

And he’s clever, too. Super clever.

He likes to tell me things like:

“Nothing is real, dude.”

“Everything is a lie.”

“We’re living in a sim, bro.”

That sort of thing.

Basically, “reality” as you know it is a big dream. A grand illusion. An undigested bit of beef, a fragment of underdone potato.

And Neo’s not alone. There are some other super clever folks out there who agree. Like Elon Musk.

Joe Rogan sure thinks we’re living in the Matrix.

And it’s hard to argue with these guys.

When we consider what’s passing for reality these days—the absurd, fake, moronic, nonsensical, insidious, manipulative, propagandistic nightmare fiction we’re being told is reality—anyone capable of firing more than a single synapse is like to agree with my friend Neo.

In Pretendy Land…

…we pretend biological men need lactation consultants because their bodies can have babies (even though the sum total times that has happened in the history of the species is zero);

…we pretend that bringing your newborn to the doctor to get systematically poisoned is a “well baby visit”;

…we pretend that using the actual biological pronouns for a person is a form of bigotry;

…we pretend that destroying food supply is making the world better (because… climate… or something);

…we pretend things are felonies that aren’t;

…we pretend that assassination attempts are “loud noises”;

…we pretend that angry demonstrations are “insurrections”, except when the angry demonstrations are aimed at “inequality” and then they are “profound public health interventions”;

…we pretend that adorning your face with cloth, in addition to conveniently displaying your conformity to official ideology, also forms a magical barrier between you and reality, which stops you from ever contracting a disease again;

…we pretend that imprisoning people for expressing their beliefs is “protecting democracy”;

…we pretend that the greatest threat to the civilized world is “misinformation” (Gasp! Hide your kids! Or they might have to decide for themselves what is true! Oh, cruel universe! Why??) and we pretend that organizations who peddle misinformation are really protecting us from it;

…we pretend that geo-engineering gunk from airplanes making rainbows in the sky is “clouds”;

…we pretend that air glow across the entire continent is just “northern lights” (even though it happened to correspond exactly with a known HAARP experiment;

…we pretend that endless govt spending will magically create prosperity (instead of pulling the entire economy into poverty like a load dragging the crane into the pit);

…we pretend things are hoaxes that aren’t, and that things are not hoaxes when they are (turning reality into something so “maddeningly fake” that it becomes self-mockery);

…we pretend that there are a class of people called “experts” who know what is best for us. Even though they have an astonishingly consistent record of visiting disaster and calamity upon us;

…we pretend that Taylor Swift is “bigger than the Beatles”😂😂😂;

And we could go on.

In essence, “Reality” has become just… stupid.

Every single day seems to serve up a new pile of steaming horseshit that we’re supposed to eagerly swallow whilst rubbing our tummies and asking for More, please.

As Eric Weinstein recently put it: “There’s no part of this world that looks sane to me.”

Here’s what I know about a good story: it has to be convincing. It has to immerse the story-goer in a reality so indistinguishable from their own lived experience that, even if only briefly, they’re under the spell of belief.

Ever been in a movie theater during a scary scene? The jump scare happens and people actually jump out of their seat. They scream. They spill popcorn. And interestingly, they laugh.

Why?

It’s a way of publicly acknowledging you’ve been duped.

And it is funny, when you think about it. Everyone knows it’s not real. It’s not like you’re confused about what’s happening; you paid your money to go see a two-dimensional recreation that you’re not a part of, in any way. You’re sitting in a comfy, semi-reclined seat, cramming your face full of food.

And yet, for a brief instant, your body and brain could not distinguish between screen-reality and non-screen reality. You were convinced the murderer’s axe was headed for your skull and your body made you move out of the way.

Hahaha, we fell for it. How foolish of us.

Well, I think what my friend Neo is really saying, and I can’t disagree, is simply this:

The movie we’re watching is shit.

A real turd-arino.

We see the axe coming and we don’t even flinch. We don’t believe any of it, not even for a second.

It’s not convincing, it’s not immersive in the slightest, it’s not the least bit compelling. And it’s blatantly manipulative. We’re aware the entire time of the hand of the author or the director gently nudging us to feel something, which we do not, like a menacing orchestral build in a movie soundtrack urging us to cringe in fear when we feel no such inclination… and so the result is an eye roll.

Not buying it, sorry.

But here’s the thing about my friend, Neo: he keeps going to the theater.

He spends almost every waking moment plugged into the Matrix.

He makes his living in the Matrix. He’s a content creator, a podcaster, a social media influencer, a tech giant.

And even when he’s not working he’s reading the content served up by the Matrix algorithms, paying attention to exactly what he’s supposed to. He streams his entertainment from the Matrix. He plays his games in the Matrix. He orders his goods from the Matrix. His social needs and sexual gratification are provided by the Matrix.

He does not exercise or perform any kind of athletic activities. He does not spend time with his family nor play with his children. He does not hike or commune with nature. He does not perform any physical labor. He suffers from anxiety, but does not seek to address it though spiritual practice or contact with his physical community.

He spends nearly the entirety of his waking life (if you want to call it that) plugged into, and feeding off, the Matrix.

He’s not what I would call a “hard contact with reality” guy.

Is it any wonder he thinks we’re in a sim?

I try to point this out to my friend, Neo.

I tell him, Neo, dude… there are plenty of hard contacters out there. I know quite a few of them. (And, not coincidentally, I believe they are some of the finest people I know).

Anyone who gathers with friends and family, in person, and shares a meal and drinks and laughter is in hard contact with reality.

Anyone who has struggled to lift something, or to run past the limits of their endurance, or to outperform an equally determined athletic opponent, is in hard contact with reality.

Anyone who hikes out into the middle of the wilderness, away from all people and cell signals, and stands in awe of the beauty of the Creator and His work, is in hard contact with reality.

Yours truly hard at work NOT creating content. And I’m not sorry.

But hard contact with reality is not all feats of athleticism and stunning landscapes and laughter.

In fact, it’s usually the opposite.

It is difficulty and ugliness and brutality and life on the edge of survival.

Anyone who makes their living with their muscles and sweat and blood—anyone who mends a fence, or fixes a wheel line, or hangs drywall, or works an oil rig, or fells a tree, or harvests food from the soil or ocean, or works livestock, or tars a road in the middle of summer—is in hard contact with reality.

Anyone who has to make a choice between paying their rent or eating is in hard contact with reality.

Anyone who is living in chronic pain or illness, or who cares for the chronically ill, is in hard contact with reality.

Anyone who has helplessly watched a loved one dying, or having lost them gone back to a suddenly empty house, is in hard contact with reality.

Anyone who has walked through the rubble and destruction and stink of human remains in a war zone is in hard contact with reality.1

The point is, there’s plenty of reality out there.

But my friend Neo won’t hear it.

You see the problem, don’t you? My friend is right to call out the unconvincing, absurd Matrix story for the steaming heap of bullpucky that it is.

But he refuses to unplug and stop consuming it.

And so he regards it as coextensive with all that is.

Hence, nothing is real. We’re in a sim, bro.

And this is why I say that the situation we’re faced with is worse than the Matrix.

In the Matrix, the prisoners were unconsciously living out their days in pods, unwittingly serving the Matrix by supplying it with their bioelectric power, with their minds kept passive in a shared reality simulation.

We, on the other hand, can exit it at any time and go get some reality, if we want.

We are not prisoners of the Matrix.

We are consumers.

This, as people smarter than me have pointed out, is more Brave New World than 1984.

And that is worse.

It is horrifying, in fact.

In Brave New World the World State provide the citizenry with a soothing drug called soma… and the populace like it. So they demand more of it. Which the World State happily supplies.

As I’ve said before, I don’t fear the would-be tyrants. They’re a joke.

I fear the compliant.

The Matrix is really a re-telling of the Allegory of the Cave. But the horrifying part of the Allegory is not that people are prisoners to the make-believe world presented for them. It is that when the philosopher tries to liberate them, to show them the way out of the Cave into the light of reality, the prisoners think the philosopher is mad, and they tear him to pieces.

Unlike the Matrix, where the victims are imprisoned in a manufactured dream, we can look away from the shadow puppet reality any time we want. We can exit the cave.

The masters know this and they don’t care. Because they also know this: people like it in the cave. They’re addicted to it. They don’t want to leave.2 The discomfort involved with walking toward the light feels gouging your eyes out. So most people will willingly stay put, right where they think they belong. And they will ridicule and threaten the dissenter who tries to pull them away.

And, doesn’t this sound familiar? We’ve come to expect authorities to try to attack and discredit dissenters. But when our friends, family, and coworkers turn on us for the sin of daring to voice our dissent from the official narrative, when, driven to ignore the voice of sanity in their own minds, they become the enforcement wing of the regime, we have entered into post-apocalyptic horror, one far scarier than the Matrix.

The real horror of the fake pandemic was the revelation that there are people out there who enjoy their obedience. They can’t wait to climb into the cattle cars. They experience the theatricality, the “solidarity”, the sense of belonging to a ideological group, the display of outward signs of compliance, as pleasure.

Consider this, and really think about it: if an evil product is being sold on the market, is the seller the sole villain? What about the consumer? The seller, after all, is just filling demand.

When you consume a product, guess what the producers do? Naturally, they produce more of it.

Just imagine the board meeting.

“All right, gentlemen. The public ate up our last production of ScaryBallz Human-Eating Contagion Monster from Hell”. We had over 8 billion in opening weekend ticket sales, and several billion of those came back for multiple viewings. What do you think we should produce next... a love story?”

A burst of laughter, and tear-wiping all around the boardroom table.

“Okay, so I think we’re all agreed. So, where are we on ScaryBallz Human-Eating Contagion Monster 2?”

You get the point.

The makers of the Story know it doesn’t have to be good, or convincing, or be indistinguishable from reality.

All it has to do is be consumed.

And they will happily keep cranking out absurdly dumb stories for people to consume.

The producer-consumer relationship is what keeps the whole ball rolling.

This is why when I hear my friend Neo say snarkily clever things like “we’re living in a sim” I get chills of horror.

Because when I try to drag him out of that sim, he likely won’t go. He’s addicted to it. He won’t face the pain of the actually real, and he will likely take me down before he does.

Please, don’t be like my friend Neo.

Stop consuming it.

Declare and mean it: “This story is dumb.”

And walk out of the theater.

And when you emerge into the light of reality, take it in. Embrace it. Uncomfortable as it may be.

Be a hard contacter.

Do some physical work. Do something difficult, that seems to require more effort than you have—this is when growth happens. Help a loved one. Cook dinner for someone and enjoy it together. Plant something in the dirt. Create something beautiful with your hands. Be involved in your local community—not online, but in the real live flesh. And when you have had your fill of communing with others, go walking somewhere there are no other humans and commune with your spirit/creator/being.

And remember the simple power of not participating. Of refusing to play along. Refusing to pretend things are true that aren’t. Of saying No Thanks and shutting the door in their face. Of bidding the room farewell and walking out.

The power of Nope.

This is honoring reality. When you do this you get a powerful rush of endorphins, which is your body thanking you for not participating in stark nonsense. For refusing to be a consumer of bullshit.

There’s plenty of reality out there, if you want it.

We might be in the Matrix, sure.

But you can stop consuming it any time you want.

(Thanks for the link )

If you enjoyed this post, someone else probably will, too. Click this button to share it:

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Subscribe now

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow me on the Socials:

What We're Really Fighting

James Edward Taylor — Tue, 28 May 2024 15:14:45 GMT

I’m a big fan of James’s, and no… it’s not because we share a given name, or because we’re probably twins separated at birth.

It’s because he gets it.

The clip above is well-worth your viewing time, but in case you skipped it, here are the key takeaways:

We have a tendency to focus all our attention on singular villains and organizations (e.g., Klaus Schwab and the WEF).
However, WEF, Great Reset, “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, etc. are simply a rebranding of much older ideas: the New World Order, technocracy, and transhumanism.
Klaus Schwab was remarkably successful at recapturing attention toward these ideas, but they did not originate with him; he is merely a highly skilled carnival barker. The WEF is not the controlling power structure of the oligarchy, merely its current vehicle.
What we are up against are the ideas, not the particular organizations or individuals who represent them.
The risk is that we overfocus on a particular organization, and the oligarchy will scuttle that vehicle, and we will think we have “won”, but meanwhile they are busy rebranding it under some other name and repackaging for the next attempt. (For example, this is exactly what happened with the Bilderberg group—we tend not to hear about it much anymore, but the underlying agenda and ideas of the Bilderburgs have continued unabated).
The agenda did not start with these organizations, and it will not end with them.
“The news” is a constructed narrative designed to capture your focus and attention and place it where the oligarchical powers want it to be. It is social programming, nothing less. Even alternative media is succeptible to this: by covering the same events and topics that mainstream media covers, even if our individual take is different, we are still essentially following the oligarch’s agenda.
To counter this, we need to be tuned in to the bigger picture of what is happening.
The most important thing is our attention. What we choose to focus on matters more than anything—it is how we construct our reality (for good or for ill). We can be directing our time, energy, resources to things that are more productive than focusing on the villain or the narrative of the moment.

People seem to think that if a particular villain is brought to justice, or a particular bill or treaty struck down (or, perhaps most ludicrously, if we elect a particular candidate to office) then we will have “won”.

I’m sorry, but these are absurd fantasies.

If you swap software, but leave the underlying operating system exactly the same, it will not make a lickspittle of difference. Remove one head of the hydra, and watch in horror as it sprouts another.

Remember when a few countries jailed a bunch of bankers for their supposed role in the 2008 financial crisis? Did that “fix” the financial system? Were any governments or agencies held accountable? Was HUD? Was the Federal Reserve reformed? Did the business of banking and mortgage-backed securities suddenly become honest and above board?

As James points out, it’s not that we should ignore these entities or let their villainy go unexamined. Of course not. Lawsuits and prosecutions and abolition of abhorrent treaties should take place. And we have to celebrate small victories.

But if the ideas giving rise to the villains and their institutions remain in the programming, running softly away in the background, they will produce more of the same, and our victories will be short-lived.

And some of these programs have been running a long, long time. They are old ideas that have simply morphed or taken on a new, more palatable veneer for a modern audience.

So what ideas are we up against, exactly? What is the bigger picture?

At a minimum, I would point out the following:

Catastrophism: the view that life on Earth is an unending series of unavoidable global catastrophes. Humanity is constantly under threat from disease, “spontaneous” conflicts, and natural disasters.

FALSE. This one has the stink of plausibility about it because, of course, sometimes (local) catastrophes do occur. But the constant barrage of programming about impending global catastrophes could only be invented by an oligarchy that wants the fear-programmed populace to believe it is so, so that it can provide the ready-made “solutions” (which are invariably some version of the public surrendering their rights and granting more autocratic control to the oligarchs.)

Scientism: the idea that we should have blind faith in claims by those who claim to speak for Science, aka. “If Science said it, it must be true.” If you disagree with a given scientific claim you are a heretic.

FALSE. Science is not a fixed body of knowledge, it is a method of testing knowledge claims. Science, properly understood, does not purport to know what is true, it tries to falsify knowledge claims, and when it cannot, these claims are understood to temporarily stand until they can be falsified, or until a better, more explanatory claim comes along (or, as Thomas Kuhn was at pains to explain, until the current generation of scientists dies off and a new one supplants it.) Science requires argument, dissent, disagreement to function, therefore there can be no such thing as a heretical challenge to scientific knowledge.

“I identify as” insert race/sexual-orientation/political bias/belief system here. “I AM the same thing as my identity group, or mental category.

FALSE. If you are the same thing as your mental categories, then the penalty for ceasing to believe in that category, in your mind, is death. To “change your mind” is to cease being “you”. (Also, anyone who does not identify as you do is a threat, since, in your mind, they are advocating for your non-existence.) Which of course, is absurd. I can toss out false ideas and unhelpful mental categories all day long, and not only not cease to exist but be better off, and attain more clarity about the world.

Utopianism: human life will be wonderful and prosperous if and only if we install and impose the correct system on it. All previous attempts just haven’t “got it right”. We must keep trying new utopian ideas until we do.

FALSE: this belief in utopian ideal is the cause of countless genocides and oppression. All utopian attempts become dystopias, by necessity. Every time you try to impose some system on humanity, no matter how well-intentioned, you are necessarily criminalizing every dissident and minority who must now fight your tyrannical edicts. Freedom is the opposite of utopianism: it is a recognition of the principle of live and let live, and seeks to impose nothing on humanity, except to severely restrict our ability to use force against one another.

Transhumanism: the human body is a machine, and like any machine, it can be modified, upgraded, enhanced, improved upon. Everything to do with thoughts, emotions, or spirituality represent flawed, “faulty wiring” which can be corrected for using sophisticated technology. There is no upper limit to the amount of upgrades, so humans can be fashioned into gods.

FALSE: humans are clearly not just physical machines, but an amalgam of spirit/energy/biological chemistry which have been endowed with free will and infinite complexity. To modify any part of this complex system is to defy and damage its essential nature. Spirit and emotion and will are not flaws, they are essential features. The attempt to “correct” for these is not enhancing or creating a new species, it is committing democide.

Elitism: certain humans are born special. They have special abilities, special knowledge, special genetics which make them uniquely endowed to rule the rest of the humans, who are too weak and stupid to know what is in their best interests.

FALSE: out of this idea comes every justification for authoritarian “management” of the species, whether it’s emperors and kings, priests and theocrats, “benevolent” dictators, wealthy eugenicists, or scientific “experts”. Historically, certain humans have been born with access to power, but this is an accident of history and confers no special right to rule over the rest of us. All monarchies and dictatorships have eventually fallen, whether to rivals or to face justice at the hands of the people they once oppressed. Sic semper tyrannis.

Notice I haven’t included any of the traditional dichotomy ideas, like “left vs. right” or “liberal vs. conservative”. Anyone still framing this battle in these terms should know by now that these are categories of isms that the real enemy are happy to let you squabble over. You are an unwitting prisoner watching a made-for-your-consumption shadow puppet version of reality. Please, try to transcend these reptile brain categories and move past them.

So yeah, big picture stuff.

Retributive justice alone will not fix this. Defeating a particular bill or treaty will not defeat it.

Crimes of the scale we have witnessed do not happen because an individual or two broke the law. They happen because there is a cultural attitude of blind trust which incentivizes and rewards the criminals, and even hails them as heroes. Given the ideas at work in the culture, it isn’t long before entire industries are created around them and new generations are eager to take part in it. Just look at the trillions of dollars now being pumped into the climate catastrophe industry—it is a beast with so many heads one doesn’t even know where to begin swinging.

So long as most of the planet is programmed to believe that they must blindly trust authorities and so-called experts to do their thinking for them, there will be individuals who are happy to take up those mantles.

The only thing that creates the conditions for villainy on this massive a scale is massive blindness.

Nothing changes until there is a tipping point, a new attitude of skepticism, vigilance, and ferocity toward anyone proclaiming themselves an “expert” with special knowledge of how to best enslave humanity.

Ultimately, what we’re really fighting is in ourselves.

It’s what we give our mental assent to, and what we refuse to go along with.

It’s what we give our attention to, and refuse to turn a blind eye to.

Stay focused.

Don’t give your attention to the shadow puppets the oligarchs cast on the cave wall for you to be enraged at or enthralled by.

Send your attention to where it is needed the most: on the insidious, false ideas that have taken humanity under their spell, and on articulating what you intuitively know to be true as the alternative.

Share this post!

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Subscribe now

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow me on the Socials:

Kicking Trees

James Edward Taylor — Sun, 12 May 2024 20:22:02 GMT

2007.

A time of vile commercials.

A time when we foolishly valued critical thinking.

When we encouraged individual defiance instead of herdthink.

When we thought that being a “normie” was to go along with the senseless, the moronic, even the tragic.

How backwards were we?

Thank goodness we’re enlightened now. We know that “going along with the herd” is just a nasty way of saying “being a good citizen”. And doing your civil duty means doing whatever your society requires of you.

Like kicking trees.

See, the makers of this commercial just didn’t get it.

The point of kicking trees is not to make sense or to “accomplish something” (which is such a white supremacist concept, anyway). The point is to do your part. To play along. To show you’re on board with the program. Even if, and maybe especially if, that program seems senseless.

You may think that some people, or even trees, might get hurt. We can assure you that kicking trees is 140% safe and effective.

Effective at what? See, there you go with that thinkin’ brain again!

You don’t need to worry whether what you’re doing is wrong or stupid or destructive… or has any point whatsoever.

Hell, it may even seem suicidal.

Not your concern. The experts have studied tree kicking for years and found it to be beneficial for you and society at large, since you are learning to play nice.

You may even think that perhaps your time and energy are better spent on alternative activities. But what could possibly higher priority than kicking trees with your fellow ~~slaves~~ ~~prisoners~~ comrades?

I mean, quit it, y’all!🤭

What that despicable, tone deaf commercial failed to show is that in real life, the people kicking trees are quite content. They’re performing an easy, safe, repetitive task, for which they are not required to think.

Studies have shown, time and again, this is what people want.

You don’t have to worry whether to buy what you are being sold, whether its a corporate product or an idea. You just buy it, no questions asked. “As long as it doesn’t interfere with my tree kicking,” says the good citizen.

Amen.

Why worry about the forest? Just continue to focus on that tree in front of you, and get kicking, brother/sister/themster.

We’ve even got elected office holders to ensure that we go on kicking trees and will tell you what a great job you’re doing. Don’t worry, its okay to stop kicking long enough to applaud. And don’t forget to boo and hiss at the opposition, too. Really let them know how you feel. They’re bad people, after all, who want nothing more than to take your right to kick trees away.

The trees aren’t going to kick themselves, amirite??

Of course, there will always be a few antisocial, tinfoil-hat-wearing anti-kickers screaming about how we should stop kicking trees, but do they have degrees from our oldest and most established schools? I mean, who are you going to listen to, the ravings of an uneducated anti-tree-kicker nutcase, or someone with a degree in Advanced Arboreal Combat, with multiple peer-reviewed papers to their credit?

Turn off that tiresome thinking brain, citizen!

Everyone has to do their part.

So strap on your best steel toes (and your approved n95), and get out there!

Give those trees Hell!

This message has been brought to you by the Prince-Overlords of the Nine Circles of Hell and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

If you enjoyed this post, someone else probably will, too. Click this button to share it:

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Subscribe now

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow me on the Socials:

Twitter
Notes
Gettr
Further Viewing:

COVID Intel - by Dr.William Makis

VIDEO - Excess deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination (Rancourt et al) (Frontline Health)

VIDEO - Excess deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination (Rancourt et al) (Frontline Health…

Listen now

3 years ago · 113 likes · 26 comments · Dr. William Makis MD

God Save Us from the Utopians

James Edward Taylor — Wed, 08 May 2024 18:19:06 GMT

We sure spend a lot of time contemplating the nature of evil these days.

Everyone’s got their finger pointed at someone: corrupt politicians, psychopathic billionaires, deep state agents in smoky boardrooms, mass psychosis, unfeeling AI, ancient secret societies. Some even propose that literal demons walk among us.

Maybe.

And maybe in our times all of these thrive.

I tend toward Solzhenitsyn’s view: the capacity for evil resides in the heart of every man.

We’ve all done wrong at some point. I can think of any number of times I’ve done something I later regretted doing, and apologized to someone (or to myself). But rather than rake myself over the coals now, I’m just going to give you a mild example: I ate a bunch of chocolate last night before I went to bed. I knew it wouldn’t be good for me. Sure enough, I woke up in the middle of the night with an upset stomach.

I’m not being glib. Scale it up. Think institutions, pharma corporations, multinational investment firms, “philanthropic” institutes, and government letter agencies. What is their “pre-bed chocolate?”

And what untold horrors are they willing to inflict on billions of people to have their fix?

Why do we do wrong? Because it seems to offer us some short term pleasure or reward. Good feelings, or riches, or being liked, or power over others. These feel good in the moment.

And what do we do? We justify it.

We say: one time won’t hurt. Or: I deserve this. Or: you have to go-along to get-along.Or: I can’t quit my (evil) job--I have to feed my family don’t I?

Or (and this is the one germane to our conversation): It’s for the greater good.

More blood has been spilled with this justification, I believe, than any other.

Concentration camp ovens were built with this idea in mind.

Every tyrant, every mass murdering villain, every rich psychopath Bond villain you can imagine all have this in common: a contempt for humanity going about its own business, combined with a believe that they, the tyrant or villain or “expert” have “the solution” to make the world a better place.

And woe betide anyone who would stop them from achieving that vision.

The phrase “making the world a better place” should give you chills.

Translated, this means: humanity does not know what is best, only I/We know that. I/We have a vision for humans and we will cause as much suffering, poverty, enslavement, harm, or murder as we need to to see it done. It’s for the greater good.

This is why (and please read this and say it aloud) ALL UTOPIAN PROJECTS BECOME DYSTOPIAS.

They MUST.

No two humans agree top to bottom on everything—this is an inescapable fact called “perspective”. You may have noticed it’s even true among people who purport to be in the same “freedom movement”—even they cannot agree on everything. Even two best friends disagree about things all the time.

And it’s okay. We agree on a common principle of civility and we allow for multiple perspectives, and it does not bring the whole thing (the friendship, or the entire society) crumbling down.

Utopianism, though, is a different beast. It hates such multiplicity and seeks to eradicate it.

Let’s say you’re in a position to implement your utopia. Congratulations, El Jefe... Fuhrer, what shall we call you? The minute one person disagrees with the tiniest aspect of your vision, you’ve got a problem. You’ve got a dirty dissenter on your hands, an enemy of the state, someone that refuses to get on board with your “perfect society” and therefore has to be arrested, imprisoned, sent to the gulag, “re-educated”, exiled, or killed. So you have to employ thought police who monitor, enforce and correct thought crimes, as well as ministers of propaganda to continually remind the populace of what the correct opinions are. Spying on your populace, identifying and hauling off dissenters will become the main focus of your regime.

“To protect our democracy!” (or whatever you’re calling your wonderful system.)

All utopias becomes dystopias.

Any time someone thinks they have the perfect vision for society, remind them of this simple fact: your dream society is someone else’s nightmare.

You believe in a communist utopia? Wonderful. You and all your friends are free to go buy a piece of land somewhere and practice it amongst yourselves. You have that right.

But the second you force your idea of a perfect society on me, we’ve got a problem.

If you’re a monarch who thinks your subjects are here to serve you because of your supposedly divine blood, we’ve got a problem.

If you’re a eugenicist who thinks your superior genetics make you fit to rule society, while the rest of us inferiors need to be culled, we’ve got a problem.

But the problem isn’t just that the elitists think they know what is best. So do the general public.

This is something we all were made painfully aware of over the last few years. Our friends, coworkers and families believe the elites should rule, too.

The public, by and large, are guilty of accepting to heart this idea that they do not know what is best for their lives, and so they require some sort of monarch, or elected office-holder, or white coat expert to tell them. Which is what makes them such compliant slaves when someone gets on their TV and tells them to wear shackles. In the ultimate case of Stockholm Syndrome, the prisoners sympathize with their captors and go along willingly, because “they love us and must know what is best.” (And if you disagree you are an antisocial maniac of some variety).

This is the idea we have to eradicate from the public mind.

The “ruling class”, the elitists, the would-be tyrants... they do not love you and they do not know what is best for your life.

They do not have special access to knowledge that you and I do not have, and they are “experts” in nothing except perhaps in getting paid to cause catastrophe and somehow evading the blame for it.

When we speak of “waking people up” this is what we mean: you are not being protected or kept safe by these monsters. You are their prisoner and slave. And they will not hesitate to eliminate you and your family if you cease to be of value to them.

As long as this belief in “the powerful elites will show us what is best” is widespread in the populace, there will always be someone willing to step into that role. It will not matter if you prosecute or eliminate individual villains. Cut off one head of the hydra, and watch in horror as it sprouts another.

This has been going on for longer than you and I, and all the ancestors we can name, have been alive.

We have to go after the idea.

And to instill the belief in the alternative.

So what is the alternative?

The central idea of civilized republics is the opposite of utopianism. Effectively, it’s something like: society is inherently imperfect and fraught with problems that we will have to overcome. We will have a million different perspectives. We will disagree about quite a lot of things. AND THAT’S OKAY. So long as we agree to a few core principles that allow us to carry out our lives with civility, the rest we will figure out on our own.

This is the central principle: We refuse, on principle, to dictate or force our vision on anyone else. Everyone is free to live exactly according to their own vision, and so long as it does not infringe on anyone else’s core rights that we all agree on. Even if our ways enrage someone else, too bad—they will have to suck it up.

Live and let live.

This is the only moral social philosophy because it’s the only one that rejects, on principle, the use of force on anyone else.

Live and let live means everyone is free to pursue their vision of what is best.

Utopianism is the polar opposite. It means I know what is best and everyone else must conform to it. Or else.

I’ve heard people speak of a “libertarian utopia”.

I’m sorry, but this is a terrible, ill-thought-out, contradiction in terms.

If you are a true proponent of liberty, actual liberty, you have to argue for the RIGHT of someone to pursue a way of life, or even ideas, you hate.

You must even support the liberty of people to hold anti-liberty ideas. You don’t have to like their ideas, and you’re free to argue against them. But you can’t be against their RIGHT to hold those ideas. Not and also be a proponent of liberty.

There is nothing utopian about a libertarian society. There is civility, and I believe, general prosperity and goodwill. But it will also have its problems, disagreements, conflicts—even conflicts about whether to abandon liberty itself. Again, no two people agree on everything.

But if you really believe in freedom, then you believe that the “utopian” alternative is a nightmare not worth considering, and so you accept disagreement and conflict as the preferable alternative.

(Remember, being comfortable with discomfort and uncertainty is the central feature of a strong soul, and I believe, a strong society.)

Anticipating the objection: But James, won’t we just end up in the same place? How do you eliminate the evils of corruption and capital accumulation and monopolies?

You don’t eliminate them, not by societal-level force. On an individual level, you watch them. And do not participate in them. And encourage others to do the same.

You remain ever-vigilant against evil, in yourself, and in others. You call it out (which is what most of us are doing here on Substack). You punish it. (And also reward virtue when you see it.) And you disincentivize evil by removing your dollar (or your labor) from it. (All the corporations now learning the lesson of “Go Woke Go Broke” are intimately familiar with what “disincentivizing” means).

Fighting the ever-present pull to corruption is one of those aforementioned problems we have to deal with in a free society. It’s just part of the lifestyle, you might say.

But that’s not what people want to hear, is it?

What everyone wants to hear: A “top-down” imposition-type solution to evil. Great! Because then they don’t have to take responsibility for confronting evil in their own lives. “It’s all been handled”, they think.

(Except they don’t think as far as… wait a minute, who is to decide what is “evil” and who will be persecuted or eliminated under such a system? Hmm.)

What no one wants to hear: Sorry, pal. You’re still going to have to take responsibility for confronting evil, in yourself and in your family and workplace and in your society, every day, from now until forever. It’s going to be hard. You’re going to have to look away from lucrative rewards. You’re going to have to think, and decide what you will and will not participate in. You’re going to have to argue with people. You’re going to have to remove your dollar from banks and corporations you don’t want to support, even when that is an inconvenience, growing your own food, for instance, or educating your own kids instead of participating in those corrupt systems. You’re going to have to take a stand, and call people out for wrongdoing even if it means losing your job or your career or your reputation. You’re going to have to have principles, and stick by them, even when everyone around you is screaming at you to take the easy, rewarding, go-along-to-get-along path.

Is the message of taking responsibility doomed? People want a quick fix, a societal pill they can swallow. “Once we impose THIS system everything will be great.”

It’s just never going to happen. Sorry. The attempt will, it must, lead to new widespread evils.

If you don’t believe in humanity’s capacity to face evil and fight it in their lives, if you think there must be some “societal-level solution”, some form of imposed system to stop evil from proliferating, that “humans left to their own devices will bring about disaster”, then I’m sorry, you do not believe in freedom. Stop pretending and get out. Go join a think tank. Start attending Davos meetings. Because this is exactly what those people think, and you are one of them, so you better stop lying to yourself and everyone else.

How would you even eliminate evil on a societal level? Going back to the Solzhenitsyn quote: the capacity for evil is in all of us. There is an eternal impulse to do wrong because it is easy and quick. In order to “eliminate” evil you would have to eliminate everyone. Which is exactly what happens any time someone tries.

Any attempt to “eliminate evil” itself becomes a monstrous evil. It becomes a “solution” which requires bloodshed. Think of Robespierre’s “solution” to the evils of monarchy: to lop off the heads of anyone they considered to be “the ruling class”, and their families, and anyone who sympathized with them, or wrote anything in opposition to what the state was doing, or who argued against Robespierre’s policies, or who advocated for a change in leadership, or anyone imagined to harbor secret designs against the head of state… and you see my point. Pretty soon the streets run with blood of imagined “enemies of the state” all the time, and everyone is living in fear of being “imagined” to be an enemy and being sent to the guillotine. So much for a “solution” to evil. (And by the by, Robespierre himself was executed by guillotine, so let that sink in for a second before you start your utopian project).

The Founders understood this. You will never “eliminate” evil, because the capacity resides in all of us. What you must do is be ever-vigilant against it. Hence “the price of freedom”. It means we’re in this fight from now until forever. It means you have to watch and be principled. Any attempt to circumvent that price is an attempt to impose something other than freedom on the rest of us. And it will end just as badly, or worse.

This is why, rather than imposing some new system on humanity I say we have to go after the idea.

The idea of elites knowing what is best, for the greater good… that has to come to its historical end.

None of us have to imagine very hard what it would be like to live in someone else’s utopian vision for us. We’re doing it.

Wonder why everything seems so topsy-turvy, nonsensical, and morally inverted? Because we’re living in the the twisted dreams of morally-inverted psychopaths who had the resources to usher in their vision for the perfect society.

They got to that position with society’s help, because by and large, the public participated in it, got rewarded by it, supported it, or turned a blind eye to it.

Welcome to the Rockerfellian, Gatesian, Schwabian utopia. They achieved their long-awaited dream, and we get to live in it.

I don’t know about you, but I think the dreamers are long overdue for a rude awakening.

This is what true freedom fighters have been fighting against for millennia. The idea that an emperor, or monarch, or president, or a class of “experts”, or billionaires know what is best for you.

They do not. Clearly.

Some new wonderful system is not the answer. The point of freedom is not to establish a new utopia.

It’s to save us from the twisted dreams of the utopians.

If you enjoyed this post, someone else probably will, too. Click this button to share it:

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Subscribe now

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow me on the Socials:

What Happened When I Recently Applied for a Hospital Job

James Edward Taylor — Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:21:34 GMT

I know what you’re thinking… “A hospital job, JET?? Isn’t that like crossing enemy lines??”

I was thinking the exact same thing as I drove to my meeting with “Trudy” (let’s call her) in the laughably titled “Employee Health” department.

I had some serious trepidation about meeting with Trudy.

I’m not against hospitals or the medical profession as such. I know people, good people, in that system who are trying to do the best work they can, to actually help patients, and to advocate on their behalf when the system is trying to eat them.1

But I also know (and have written quite a bit about) how the medical profession has much to answer for, how it has been perverted and corrupted by corporate forces, and how about what goes on under a hospital roof is often the complete opposite of saving lives.

So, trepidation, yes. But a friend of a friend contacted me and asked me whether I would be interested in a hospital courier job—essentially delivering mail between the various satellite buildings of the hospital. It would only be a couple of hours a day, it paid pretty well, and would make a nice little cushion to my gig income which is irregular at best.

Okay. I hesitatingly agreed to meet with Trudy. I was told there would be a blood draw for TB screening (okay, whatever), some paperwork, and that would be it. All hail the new mailman.

Fair enough, I said, and we set up an appointment.

Well, credit to Trudy—she cut right to the chase. I wasn’t fully bodily inside her office before she started in about my “immunization” record.

She handed me a clipboard list of “required” immunizations that was about twelve items deep. I can’t even remember them all. Pertussis, MMR, tetanus, hepatitus, influenza, etc.

Of course, my immediate reaction was to chuckle. “Oh, I don’t have any of these,” I said.

She stiffened. “Do you mean you don’t have the records? Because we can look them up,” she said, turning to her fancy database machine. “What’s your date of birth?”

Stifling my amusement (and a pinsqueak of horror that I might actually be in such a database, probably with a bunch of “UNPROTECTED” flags in my dossier) I said: “Let me save you some time, Trudy. The last time I was injected with anything was probably in grade school, and I’m sure those records are dust by now.”

She really sucked in a breath at this point and considered her next words carefully. “Are you… opposed?” she said.

The opposed had some stank on it.

Roughly translated, it meant “are you a dirty science-denying anti-vaxxer??”

Poor Trudy. Something tells me it wasn’t her first time dealing with such Opposition.

I laughed aloud and it felt good to do so. Can you imagine me, knowing what I know, sitting there for twelve or so injections of toxifying filth into my system, in the name of supposedly tricking my body into doing what it already knows how to do? For a courier job? It’s just too funny.

I handed her back her clipboard and I said: “If this is where we’re at, I think it’s probably best if we call it a day.”

She made an incredulous scoffing sound.

“I don’t want to waste your time, Trudy,” I said with a smile and walked out. No argument. I just left.

To Trudy’s credit she got to the deal-breaker right away. It would have sucked to go through the blood draw, and all the paperwork, and all the getting-to-know-you chit-chat, only to end up in the same place.

I heard another, more forceful scoffing sound as I exited and walked down the hall which was, in a word, scrumptious. Nom nom nom. Probably Trudy’s shortest “Employee ~~Poisoning~~ Health” screening ever.

Earlier, on my way to the hospital, I hadn’t been feeling that great—squishy, squirmy, doubtful. Leaving, I felt like a million bucks—something the courier job never would have paid me. I was in a good mood the rest of the day. I had forgotten how good it feels to refuse to participate in nonsense.

Later, relating the story to some people at a restaurant, one lady smiled along at my encounter with poor Trudy but felt it necessary to snark at me: “OR, you could have taken them. Just saying.”

Just saying.

And of course, through my exploding head pops everything I could “just say”.

Like the fact that I’ve made my health (not my adherence to an industry-created poisoning schedule, but my actual HEALTH) a lifelong project—maintaining a certain level of fitness and physical activity, avoiding packaged, processed frankenfoods, choosing local and organic, growing my own food when possible, carefully avoiding sugar and chemicals and toxicity—and I’m just going to abandon that project now in my late-forties and start injecting mystery pharma cocktails into my body… for a courier job?

I could “just say” that you, lady, and everyone else in this restaurant and everyone else that they know, have been alive for the release of thousands upon thousands of pharmaceutical products, and we’ve all gone rushing out to put every single one of those products into our bodies, right? No? Why not? Well, if you did that, you’d be dead, and I think we all intuitively know that.

I could say that we all know that those products are not only not necessary, but that it would also be an insanely risky thing to do to our body chemistry. Maybe even irreversible, for whatever short life remained to us.

And that we realize there’s an entire trillion-dollar industry which exists to brainwash unsuspecting people into taking that exact risk, fooling them into thinking their bodies require those products. “Ask your doctor about... Robotrix!”

And that those companies end up hurting people and profiting by the billions.

And that “doctors”, apart from a few notable exceptions, have become little more than poison pill and shot pushers working at the behest of that industry.

And that you, lady, and everyone else intuitively know this, and we realize that it is predatory and fraudulent and downright evil.

So, you and I are in, let’s say, 95% agreement about that.

Okay.

And then, there exists this other class of products, called by the name “immunizations” (which sounds like a magic “Immunity to Disease” potion from a fantasy RPG) for which these corporations do the exact same thing, but for which you say: “Well, these products are different, and they do belong in every human on the planet, and everyone should go to their nearest pharmacy to have them injected into their body chemistry right away, as soon as they are released for public consumption! Then and only then will we all be SAFE!”

And they’ve convinced you and most of the populace that to question these products is a mild form of insanity. That these products are beyond questioning, beyond scrutiny, and you should just blindly trust that the trillion dollar corporations who hurt you and everyone with all those other products, would never do anything to hurt you with these, that these products are wonderful and safe—after all, they were made by “Science” right?—and that anyone who wants to scrutinize them and ask questions is some kind of lunatic tinfoil hat wearing nutcase.

Do you see the problem?

How have they managed to openly commit fraudulent, hurtful, and even murderous practices over here with this 95% percent of their business, and everyone knows it… but for this other class of product over here, we’re crazy to question whether they’re doing the exact same thing?

And I can tell you, once you start looking into it, and it’s not that hard, you start find things about these products that make your hair stand on end.

Like the fact that the regulatory agencies you think are providing oversight and safeguarding the public are completely captured by that industry.2

That the public have known that the FDA are little more than rubber stampers for decades. That we know what conflicts of interest are, and we know that FDA members who sit on advisory panels all have financial interests, stocks, or future board positions at pharma companies promised to them.

That any safety testing is a joke. That we have officials admitting on video that will have to test the “immunizations” out on the ~~guinea pigs~~ public first before they can identify safety signals.

That the corporations hide, vanish or misclassify or downplay data that would be unfavorable to their approval, including harms done to human test subjects.

That there are known vectors of toxicity built into these products which are overlooked or downplayed or dismissed which will cause harm in some people… and they know it.

That very often these products are so far below the threshold for showing “efficacy” that you have to question whether they do anything at all.

That the corporations with recognizable names that you know like Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, etc., do not do any research of their own but farm these out to subcontractors, and what they, the corporations, do is essentially order up and market products that they think they can convince people (or governments) to rush out and buy.

That the same companies own all the major media outlets and basically turn them into screaming advertisements for their products, to whip up danger and fear of not having them in your body, and to downplay harms that people are experiencing who do have them in their body.

That part of their “marketing” campaigns are devoted to quashing and discrediting independent researchers when they look into these things. Like supposed independent media groups that are actually owned by labs, for instance.

That the regulatory agencies also do not do research or “science” of any kind, and essentially exist to market these products to the public under the guise of having looked them over and decided that they were wonderful and everyone should put them into their bodies and that while corporations might lie, the government would never lie to you… right?

That these agencies have been caught red-handed knowing about harms that these products were going to cause millions of people but lied and suppressed or downplayed that information.

That independent researchers keep finding horrible evidence of harms and toxicity and injuries and deaths caused by these products and are screaming a warning to the public, and these warnings are dismissed by so-called “fact checkers”, who, when you look up who is writing their paychecks, you always always always find that they have some supra-national pharma-backing corporate entity behind them, like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or Soros Foundation, or the Rockefeller Institute.

That there are six papers alone in April—the month we are currently in—linking these products to aggressive turbo cancers.

That none of this is ever mentioned on the news, of course, because the news is “Brought to you by Pfizer” and so all that independent research gets quashed and buried and hidden from the public.

And that meanwhile these products are being hotly debated in parliaments and congresses and council chambers around the world in connection with excess deaths, including the question of whether to ban them outright. Also not mentioned on the news, of course.

And that right now people are quitting these agencies, disappearing from parliaments and elected office and dumping their pharma stocks, and taking their money and running, perhaps because they know the public blowback is coming.

Even the NY Times cannot help but acknowledge the widespread harm.

And that if you draw anyone’s attention to any of this they are trained to dismiss you with a label and accuse you of spreading “misinformation” you read on the internet, and that there really should be more censorship of anything not approved by the industry-captured authorities.

Hmm.

And these are the products you want me to just blindly add to my body because “what’s the harm”?

Let’s call that a FUCK NO.

I mean, you lady, could just “take” the evidence too, am I right?

Just saying.

There was a lot I could “just say” but experience has taught me that her level of snark probably would make her unreceptive to any of it, so I just said: “Yeah, not a chance in hell,” and walked away from the conversation.

You know, I’m getting pretty good at that.

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow me on the Socials:

A Few Quick Points

James Edward Taylor — Thu, 08 Feb 2024 01:26:22 GMT

A few longer pieces in the works, but meanwhile, here’s some stuff churning in the ol’ rumination machine:

US Civil War Predictive Programming

There’s been much talk of the threat of civil war in the US, and how supposedly “divided” we are, and a looming election to act as a flashpoint incident. Certainly there are those who see the US as a hindrance in their world domination plans and would love if this country would kindly self-annihilate. There’s even a major motion picture coming out to instruct us on the fine points.

Is it predictive programming or creators manifesting our fears? I don’t know. Perhaps both.

What I do know is that we don’t have to accept the programming. What if the powers-that-be scheduled a demolition of a country and no one came? Perhaps we are not as divided as they would have us believe. Perhaps there are more eyes than ever before turned on them. Perhaps they know it, and this civil war programming is yet another desperate attempt to redirect our ire on each other instead. What if, instead of falling for the ideological, tribalistic programming, we stood united with our neighbors against the true enemy, the oligarchs?

What do you even say at this point?

What do you say to someone now when they say: “I’m sick... I have the COVID!” (You can almost hear the ALL CAPS in their voice. And a teeny, tiny, nearly imperceptible hint of pride: I have the plague… you know, the real DEADLY one? Probably I have suffered more than most. Give me your attention-cookies, please?)

I’m really asking, because I tend to be stunned into silence. Despite all my writing about why the narrative refuses to die, it’s still hard for me to believe that people could still be functioning in a veil of ignorance for this long. I want to peel open their brain case and scream into it: You have nothing! Except perhaps a mind-virus. You are the victim of a massive “public-private partnership1”-funded mindfuckery. You have been trained to rebrand any and every symptom of illness and toxicity under the heading of “Scary Pathogen-2019”, to “confirm” it using useless, fraudulent tests, and to normalize it through conversation.

Of course, brain-case-screaming is never very well received, and probably has enlightened zero people ever. They really do have to think for themselves. All we can do is put them on the path to doing so, I suppose.

How to Make Evil Flourish

I posted this response to Sasha’s note the other day about the banality of evil:

There have been lots and lots of posts meditating on the nature of evil, which is no surprise since we’re all dealing with the horror of widespread democide. Some folks cannot make sense of it other than to postulate Satanic forces or the like, others say it’s just ordinary humans doing what they do. I tend to fall into the latter camp.

Solzhenitsyn said the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. Think of the wrongdoing you’ve done in your life. Likely, you only realized it was wrongdoing in retrospect. At the time, you justified it, or evaded thinking about it too deeply. The human capacity for self-deception is infinite, and add to this a system which (to re-cap the Note): 1. encourages hyper-specialization so you are only focused on the thing in front of you, 2. financially rewards the compliant for doing what they are told (or financially punishes the non-compliant), 3. convinces the compliant they are virtuous or a “good citizen” for doing that thing, and 4. exculpates you from any blame when it all goes to shit. Of course evil will be widespread in such a society. It will be normal.

Also, bad ideas abound (e.g., climate catastrophism) which serve as justification engines for evildoing. (Sorry mate, gotta censor, surveil, imprison, impoverish and murder you and everyone you know. It’s for the good of the planet, doncha know.)

(BTW the founders understood the ubiquitousness of evil. There will always be forces of corruption and tyranny trying to gain a foothold. Eternal vigilance, etc.)

Anyway, for your consideration: perhaps evil doesn’t look like a mustachioed villain rubbing his hands together. Perhaps it looks like a person shoving their head into the sand.

A nurse’s report on the state of her profession

A OB nurse tells me that some of her colleagues and supervisors still believe that “masks slow the spread” and that “the vaccine ended the pandemic” and that they are enthusiastic about giving RSV shots to all newborn kids (despite RSV amounting to nothing more than sniffles in most kids, despite kids being killed in previous RSV vaccine trials, despite using the same liquid nanoparticle and synthetic mRNA tech that has poisoned, crippled and murdered the world with the covid shots.)

This anti-scientific cult, along with its belief in costume and ritual and sacrament (and sacrifice), is alive and well in the “medical” profession, apparently.

I would say that the level at which “medical professionals” are having conversations is so infantile compared to the level at which actual scientists (e.g., Rancourt, Yeadon, etc.) are having conversations that it’s like comparing an opera to the grunting of apes.

But that would be an insult to apes.

Poison from the sky

Sharine Wonders

"Atmospheric River Event"

I live in California. It’s a breathtakingly beautiful, richly diverse state in its terrain, with mountains, deserts, forests, plains, and — of course — the long, enviable coastline of The Mighty Pacific Ocean. California has also been touted as the forerunner of all things healthy…

3 years ago · 14 likes · 15 comments · Sharine Borslien

Do you remember hearing about “atmospheric rivers” before a couple years ago? I don’t. Of course the weakipedia entry has not much to say about it, except a couple of mumbled mentions of climate change, and little to no references. speculates on what may really be behind the term. I know that if I were engaged in the systematic poisoning of the lower atmosphere I would invent just such a science-y term to cover it. People can call it easily to mind and impress their friends with their science-osity. Kinda like “novel pathogen”.😲

Know your audience, Amazon.

In my inbox today:

Save a trip! We can poison you even faster! For less money! Out of the convenience of your own home!

…with a smile.

Vax messaging at the grocery store

The vax messaging at my local grocery store is relentless. A pre-recorded loop, every eight minutes or so…

“As the seasons change, so does your immunity to flu-related illness! Vaccinating against these illnesses is quick and safe at our pharmacy! No appointment necessary! Best of all, it’s free for Medicare patients and most people with health insurance!”

…says the happy, caring female voice from every loudspeaker in a dystopian movie ever. You can trust her. The way her voice lands on safe in a way that feels like a hug…

Why are these the ONLY products being advertised over the loudspeakers? Nothing about the sale on kebabs, or greek yogurt, or toilet cleaner, or those lovely avocados they keep by the door. Nope. JUST come get your toxic shots. And if you missed it, I’ll remind you again in eight minutes.

Something tells me they’re having trouble selling their poisons.🤭

The animals are acting weird…

Yep. Fentanyl coyotes. Seriously.

“That’s where we’re at,” says Rubin, chuckling to prevent from crying.

I’m still more worried about the weird-acting humans, though.

A few quotes I read recently that I like:

“We can spend our entire life betraying ourself and choosing fitting in over standing alone. But once we've stood up for ourself and our beliefs, the bar is higher. A wild heart fights fitting in and grieves betrayal.”
― Brené Brown, Braving the Wilderness

“The law will never make men free, it is men who have got to make the law free. They are the lovers of law and order who observe the law even when the government breaks it.”
— Henry David Thoreau, Slavery in Massachusetts

Follow me on the Socials:

This is the gentle euphemism for “fascism” that we’re supposed to use in polite society now.

What if We Reframed “Sickness”?

James Edward Taylor — Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:55:31 GMT

I spent a little time with family over the holidays and I noticed something: they’re all quietly running a new script.

They have never run this program in their lives before 2020. They argued about it in 2021. They studiously avoided the topic in 2022.

Now they accept it, wordlessly, and without question.

They do what they are “supposed” to do.

The program is called: SICKNESS = CONTAGION.

The slightest sign of symptoms—any symptoms, of anything, sniffles, sore throat, body aches—means you are SICK, which means CONTAGION.

“There’s something going around,” is the magic incantation which starts the protocol, like pulling the fire alarm lever.

Initiate contagion containment procedures.

All the actions kick in.

First engage in complex billiard-ball “exposure” theories like: “soandso was SICK three weeks ago, and he was EXPOSED to soandso, and I met mutual-acquaintance soandso two days ago for lunch, therefore I was EXPOSED…”

Then, armed with your indisputable proof of “exposure”, isolate from other family members, get tested, and start taking all the approved “medicine”.

And if you MUST interact with other family members, wear a mask, stay on the other side of the room, do not touch any surfaces (or obsessively clean them with chemical cleaners), reprimand yourself for not getting boosted, and schedule the appointment for the following week.

🙄

Interestingly, there seems to be no fear of the deadliness of the supposed contagion anymore, or really any emotion about it at all.

It is simply a set of procedures which kick in. A protocol. A script we’re supposed to run now.

This is called “sickness”.

(There’s a sickness, all right. But it ain’t in the body.)

I expressed my incredulity and skepticism for all this foolish behavior, but of course it fell on deaf ears. Actually, on ears of people that barely even acknowledge that I’m speaking. They simply nod and run the script, like androids incapable of altering their programming.

I too, had a day of “sickness” (their definition, not mine) during this time. I had one evening of headaches and feeling really, really tired.

When I mentioned this in company, the reaction was something like astonishment: “Are you… SICK??”

And right away I sensed something wrong with this. It wasn’t astonishment that I was not feeling well. It wasn’t even care or concern for how I was feeling.

It was astonishment that I wasn’t running the contagion script.

“No, I’m not sick,” I said, “whatever that means. I just have a little headache and I’m gonna go lie down. I’m going to obey the signals my body is giving me.”

My body had some problem to overcome, to be sure. A problem that I had introduced to it. If I had to guess, it was probably the absurd amount of sugar I had foolishly sucked down over the course of a couple of days. (I have a weakness for pie, okay?)

And, sure enough, I drank some water, slept, and the next day I was fine.

Cancel the hazmat suits. Contagion averted!

And so I got to thinking, what does “sickness” even mean anymore?

If Sickness=Contagion, you have to put blinders on to an awful lot of reality.

Think of the myriad ways we punish our bodies. And the body, being a physical thing that exists in the world, must deal with that punishment, and compute the best way of keeping us alive.

Hence… symptoms.

Stress hormones (like chronic excess cortisol and adrenaline) give you symptoms.

Nutrient deficiency gives you symptoms.

Nutrient toxicity (over-consumption of something) gives you symptoms.

Dehydration gives you symptoms. (So does excess water consumption. It’s called hyponatremia, AKA drowning.)

Sunlight deficiency gives you symptoms.

Sleep deficiency gives you symptoms.

Too much screen time and blue light gives you symptoms.

Environmental and chemical toxicity gives you symptoms.

Swallowing or injecting pharma products gives you symptoms.

Radiation and wireless signals give you symptoms.

Your lack of emotional well-being gives you symptoms.

You get the idea.

Of course, none of this even exists in the Sickness = Contagion mindset.

But look at that list, and think about it. Which of these conditions manifest around the holidays?

Maybe, kinda, sort of, like… every single one of them?

Like, it’s a wonder we survive the whole bloody ordeal.

But we do. Your body, in its wisdom, quietly deals with all of that punishment. It wordlessly runs its own script, even while we are flagellating through our own absurd contagion rituals.

It eliminates all the toxicity, the sugar, the caffeine, the alcohol, the stress that we throw at it. (Unless we continue to abuse it to the point where it can’t anymore.)

It gives us all the signals, begging for an ally in the dumb human that’s responsible for all the abuse: it tells us to eliminate, or to lie down, or to drink water or broth, or to turn off the screen, or to get fresh air and sunlight.

And when it is done with all this thankless work, and we no longer feel “sick”, it doesn’t even care that we misattribute the cause of our recovery to miraculous pills or shots or to our contagion containment rituals.

What if we acknowledged our body’s wisdom in all of this?

What if we reframed “sickness” as the body’s beautiful, wonderful detox mechanism in action? What if we thanked the body for the headache, for telling us that we have done wrong by it, and instead of putting it down to “something going around” we instead examined our own actions?

Would we be “sick” nearly as often?

Would we ever?

Probably we would make it our mission to reduce toxicity, to change the way we consume, to try to optimize the chemistry, to give our body what it needs to function best, without over-consuming anything.

We would examine our environment and see what toxicity we could eliminate from it, and eliminate wireless signals and radiation wherever possible. (Increasingly hard unless you move to a remote area).

We would make lifestyle changes like getting out in the sunshine, and moving.

When we experienced a symptom, we might realize that there is a world of proper care and chemistry to consider before we start theorizing in invisible hobgoblins that float from person to person trying to make us “sick”.

What if we saw the body not as “sick”, but as correcting for an operator error? What if we saw a symptom like a warning light in our car, as something neglected which is begging for our attention?

What if, instead of the new mindset that HEALTH = BEING CONTAGION-FREE, we remembered the mindset that HEALTH = WELLNESS, with all the self-care and attention it implies?

What if what someone else calls “sickness” we called HEALING?

What if we reacquired this ancient, intuitive knowledge?

Would we even need a concept of “sickness”?

I wonder.

If you enjoyed this post, someone else probably will, too. Click this button to share it:

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow me on the Socials:

Pivot

James Edward Taylor — Sun, 31 Dec 2023 18:12:54 GMT

Looking back on this year, I have to confess to being a little bewildered.

The words are not coming as easily of late. I have started but not finished about six different pieces. They may see the light of day soon. Or not.

First of all, I’m stunned into silence by the quality of work that’s been coming out.

Kathleen Devanney’s mindful meditation on shedding ideas and identities that no longer serve us.
Toby Rogers’s birds-eye view of a society in a deep state of denial over the genocide that has been inflicted upon it.
Margaret Anna Alice’s powerful reminder that we must never forget (nor forgive) the insults, the hatred, the discrimination, the loss-of-livelihood, and the atrocities visited upon those of us who dared question the official narrative.
John Carter’s amazing analysis of hidden power structures that are deliberately inscrutable and designed to absolve anyone of blame. (And also why we should not automatically do what we are told).
The jaw-dropping collaboration between Visceral Adventure, Gabriel, and Spartacus about who really benefits, and who doesn’t, from war.
And CJ Hopkin’s perfect summation of 2023 as a colossal mindfuck.

And so, so many more.

These writers and creators manage to not only fill the entirety of the available thoughtspace on their topics, but to burst a little beyond, leading us into territory where the rest of us can only shield our eyes. Adding anything more to their work becomes (to borrow from a good song) a whisper on a scream.

Second, writing, when you think about it, is a form of mental illness.

Writing is conversation. Conversation is a jailbreak attempt from the hell of solipsism.

When we create, we are seeking. It’s a compulsion. An outlet for anxiety. Reaching out into the ether to hear anything but the empty echo of our own thoughts.

Of course, anyone feeling secure in what they know is perfectly fine in stillness and silence. A person overlooking a pristine lake in a mountain landscape, for example, has no need for words. All is evident. Nothing needs elucidating. They have achieved satori.

Lately, I’ve have not been feeling the mental illness. Well, not as much, anyway. I’ve been putting effort into projects that make sense to me: doing work around the home, traveling, hiking, fitness, visiting family, creating music for a recording, and playing in four different bands.

All good, life-affirming stuff.

The fight against tyranny, in comparison, seems like an alien and distant thing, like a nightmare I’ve woken from, or a planet full of gibbering, deranged demons that I managed to blast my ship away from.

Of course, I know perfectly well that I haven’t blasted away from it. I’m still here. And the demons are still here, still gibbering, still deranged, and still snaking their tentacles around our ankles.

But I reckon that mental health and an appreciation for the life-affirming are valuable assets in the coming fight. The demons do not want us happy and creative and fit and confident and goal-oriented—they want us cowering in terror and confusion and anger and sickness and misery. This is reason enough to embrace the life-affirming things. If we neglect them, we will go insane on command or forget what we’re fighting for, and the forces of evil will coast to an easy victory.

The third part of my bewilderment stems from this sinkhole of accusations about “controlled opposition” and “gatekeepers” and “malign agents”.

The dark masters sit back and laugh as we kill box each other.

Can I divide my mind into compartments of who is “approved” and “unapproved” by my peers? Of who is on “our side” versus “theirs”?

Who the fuck cares?

All that matters is: What do they say? and: Does what they say make sense to my reasoning mind, given everything else I know to be true?

That’s it.

Wondering who to trust? Allow me to liberate you from such thoughts: the person doing the wondering, that’s who.

I acknowledge no “side” so I’m at liberty to agree or disagree with anyone as I see fit.

Wrap your head around this absurdity: couldn’t those crying “controlled opposition!” themselves be “controlled opposition” since they achieve the very same outcome (taking the legs out of good ideas by casting ad hominem aspersions on whoever speaks them)?

We don’t have time for this.

What could possibly be the purpose of “controlled opposition” other than to mislead us? To misdirect our mental energy into blind alleys and intellectual dead ends? To lead us further into the Cave rather than out into the light?

But the defense against this is hinted at by the words “mis-LEAD” and “mis-DIRECT”.

To the extent you think about things—truly think, as in independently (a redundancy – like saying thoughtful thinking)—you should already be on guard against being lead or directed, anyway. You “follow” no one, mentally speaking, so you really don’t get “lead” or “mislead” anywhere.

Are we sometimes deceived? Sure. Do we sometimes make mistakes or go down blind alleys? Sure.

If you look back through my early posts you’ll see an unwitting acceptance of “lab-leaked scary contagion” that I’m now fairly certain does not even exist. I was in a cave, and now I’m emerging from it. You and I and everyone else are likely stuck in a subterranean complex of such wrongness, and we’ll have to shed even more misconceptions over time.

But being wrong is not the end of the world. It’s a normal part of thinking deeply about things.

And anyway, malign forces are trying to misdirect your thoughts?

No shit.

I present to you the entire modern world.

Every letter agency, every corporation, every institution of “higher learning”, every media outlet in the world is trying to mislead you. They’ve all got plans for you, and they all need your willing, mental assent. God help you if you haven’t realized that yet.

Malign agents? Please.

Take a number.

Like all negativity, the cry of “Help, there are bad actors trying to control my mind!” is just another excuse for escaping work. You want the work to be done by someone else, and you want that person to be someone you can trust.

Well, sorry, but that person is looking you in the mirror every morning.

I don’t know how else to say it. Think for yourself, FFS.

Rant /off.

So, time for the PIVOT.

What should we be focused on?

At this point, I can’t see anything more pressing than the attempted technocratic enslavement of everyone on the planet (and implementing decentralization as the antidote.)

For example:

· The legal skullduggery and definition-changing which would grant unlimited powers to the Gates-funded WHO (e.g., surveillance, vaccine passports, global digital IDs, quarantine camps, and the ability to define anything it wants (e.g., “racism” or “climate skepticism” or “gun-ownership”) as a “public health emergency”. (Antidote: Drop the WHO membership, or get out of the UN entirely.)

· The implementation of programmable currency (CBDCs) that benefit no one and grant extraordinary powers for the authorities to turn off your purchasing power if they don’t like your behavior or affiliations.

· 15-minute cities, which are blatantly obvious open-air prisons.

· The censorship industrial complex which exists only to eliminate wrongthinkers (like you and I).

Everything else (since I’m freely stealing metaphors from well-known works today) is polishing the brass on the Titanic.

I have this feeling we’ve been over-focusing on software problems (like the deathvax shots) meanwhile an entirely new operating system has been quietly uploaded and is happily running in the background.

I sense it in my family and friends who have come to accept as normal a level of societal madness that would have seemed like a freshly-castrated bull in a glass antique shop only a few years back.

People we know dying suddenly with no explanation? Normal.

Young people with heart problems? Athletes dropping dead on the field? Normal.

5G Towers and facial recognition cameras going up on every street corner? Normal.

Skyrocketing energy prices and food shortages and scheduled blackouts? Normal.

Homeless camps and gangs of roving criminals overrunning the cities? Normal.

War, invasion, genocide. Ho-hum.

An ongoing obsession with illness and contagion and face-covering and isolation from loved ones if we feel the sniffles? Just how we live now.

The operating system is in place and running. It’s newest feature: a fancy AI random generator that can spit out a Global Crisis Story with a click.

And no matter the fill-in-the-blanks Mad Lib fiction it spits out, we can be assured that the main villain in the tale is Freedom, and the thing that saves us all from the invisible enemy is Digital Enslavement.

Test. Track. Trace. Monitor. Medicate. Chip. Control. Censor. That’ll fix everything.

We have the technology.

After millennia of being the dominant species on the planet, taming and corralling other species to do our bidding, we have now built our own corral, tamed ourselves, and become the herd.

It shouldn’t be surprising. We built a global civilization in an astonishingly short time. All of us have been toiling away quietly on this project, whether we realized it or not.

Should we be surprised then, that someone has also quietly been toiling away on how to take ownership and control of that civilization?

And what better way to do so than to create “global crisis” in order to shock the herd into mass compliance?

I don’t particularly fear the tyrants and their plans. Their narrative is ludicrous, and only grows more so with each passing day. Every time Klaus Schwab or his ilk open their bug-filled mouths another thousand freedom fighters wake out of their Matrix pods.

What I fear, above all else, is the mindlessly compliant.

The compliant will not go against the herd. They will abandon reason first. They will inflict pain on innocents first. They will commit suicide first. They will climb into cattle cars on command because, in their minds, it is preferable to defying the herd.

This is reason enough not to stay silent.

So here we find ourselves. Accepting the bewilderment, moving through it, fighting against the flow of the herd, cutting ourselves out of it if need be, saying our piece, making our stand for human liberty and basic dignity, pivoting to non-compliance and decentralization as best we can.

Pivoting back to mental illness, I suppose. Wading into the madness.

But perhaps armed with a little more awareness this time—moving ever away from shadow toward that faint light, wherever it may come out.

Happy New Year, friends.

Let’s keep finding each other in the ether.

Follow me on the Socials:

A Climate Hoax in Ten Easy Tricks

James Edward Taylor — Sun, 26 Nov 2023 18:38:50 GMT

Here’s a good, short(ish) video from Ivor Cummins 1 on some of the pseudo-scientific trickery used to take actual data and hoaxfully twist it into “climate crisis”.

The next “global health emergency” has been declared.

Peter and Ginger Breggin Exposing the Global Predators

200 Medical Journals and the UN Call for New Global Health Emergency

Still Doubting “Conspiracy Theories?” [read more below]Peter and Ginger Breggin Exposing the Global Predators is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. More than 200 medical journals worldwide…

3 years ago · 112 likes · 66 comments · Dr. Peter and Ginger Breggin

The climate scam wave is here.

You know how this goes.

Unchallenged, the propagandists will eventually train our family members to call us “climate change deniers” and advocate that we be put in camps.2

None of this nonsense (nonScience?) is new, but we better brush up on it so we can call out the utter BS when we see it.

Plus, someone in a lab coat claiming they have proof we’d be better off in poverty and enslavement and death? Yeah, no.

I’ve organized the content into ten “tricks” as I see it, and added a little commentary and supporting links. Here’s some handy-dandy jump links:

If you don’t have the stomach for the details, at least take a gander at the video.

And don’t miss Ivor’s priceless reaction shots.😂

Youtube link, while it still exists…

Trick #1: Conflating “weather” with “climate”.

Semester one logic class: the fallacy of false generalization.

Weather is what is happening now. Climate is what happens over decades. You cannot look outside and see “climate” happening. It is not evident in a single hot or cold day, or a single weather event. To see climate at all, we must collect data. To speak in terms of climate is to speak in terms of trends in that data—typically decades-long trends.

Did you know that we have data on the minimum level of the Nile river going back more than a thousand years? The Egyptians of pharaonic times were concerned enough about flood and drought that they made a very fancy measuring stick (that they probably sacrificed a few hundred slaves in constructing):

And as we can see from the data, the Nile goes up and down, a lot, annually (blue line):

The red line shows us the 30-year average, so, the climatic trend.

But even trends can be deceiving. As Prof. Koonin puts it:

“If you were alive during the first 150 years of this record, you would see the annual minimum going down and down and no doubt some medieval Egyptian climate panel would be screaming ‘New Normal!’ and recommending prayers and sacrifice.”

Takeaway: don’t confuse observations with trends. And don’t confuse trends with “the new normal”.

It’s false generalization.

And time will almost certainly prove your generalization wrong.

Trick #2: Use the media to exaggerate (and in some cases, entirely misrepresent) the truth.

The text in the article “the rate of ice loss had risen from 33bn tonnes a year in the 1990s to 254bn tonnes a year in the past decade” is a true statement of fact, according to Professor Koonan.

But let’s look at it in context:

So, yep, the ice loss went up from 1990 to 2012 or so. But it also did that, to nearly the same degree (from about 40bn tonnes to about 240bn tonnes), in the 1930s, when human influence3 was much smaller.

A 1935 headline no one ever saw: Greenland’s ice sheet melting six times faster than in 1920s! Scientists say we’re doomed! Doomed, I say! Oh, the humanity!

Also, ice loss went down in the period global temperatures were warming. Hmm. And, oops, there’s a rather inconvenient decline at the end there for the last decade or so. Science media squirms… aaaand nixes the chart. We’ll just say seven times faster and the reader will imagine the hockey stick chart that we want them to see.

But look at the chart. Do you see catastrophe? Or normal variability?

Do you see a headline?

Trick #3: Repetition makes it true.

We’re all familiar with this trick by now.

Slogan, rinse, repeat until your family members are spouting jargon like “safe and effective” and “denier” and “horse dewormer” without so much as a synapse firing.

There is nary a typhoon, flood, fire, mudslide, melting of an ice sheet, or even an uptick on the thermometer that goes unreported by the media these days. We are constantly being reminded of weather events. And every single report has a not-so-hidden “Shame on the humans!” premise embedded in it.

And yet, even the IPCC admits they have no basis for attributing these weather events to anthropogenic causes.

Upshot: the media who repeat this stuff over and over are owned by people with an anthropogenic climate catastrophe agenda. (see #7)

Trick #4: Zoom in to the “scary” portion of the data.

Here’s some scary red bar graphs from the EPA.gov site:

OMG. Heat waves.

But let’s pull out and take a longer view.

Here’s another figure from the same EPA site:

Again, point to the crisis.4

The climate catastrophe people are strangely quiet about the climate catastrophe that occurred in the 1930s, aren’t they?

Solution: ignore the inconvenient part. Just zoom into the portion of the data starting in 1961 that makes the frightening “trend” appear.

As Ivor says: “That’s data fraud. It’s scientific fraud. It’s propaganda.”

Trick #5: Completely disregard all non-human causes of temperature, weather, and climate variability.

What causes temperature, weather, variations in climate?

The hoaxters would have you believe only human industry causes warmer temperatures and extreme weather events.

So…

El Niño and other oscillations like the North Atlantic Oscilation, North Pacific Oscillation, and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation;
Stratospheric water vapor (the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted undersea on Jan 15, 2022, blasting “unprecedented” amounts of water into the stratosphere which increases heat trapping);
Reduced tropospheric aerosols. (We have cleaned up the lower atmosphere from coal and ship emissions, which allows the Earth to absorb more sunlight… which makes it warmer.)
Urban heat islands (the temperature readings can be higher in the cities by five or six degrees. If your weather station is set up in an airport or a growing city center you are not measuring global warming, you are measuring the increasing heat of your urban environment.)
Urban heat island effect over time

…just ignore these things.

They do not count toward climate variability, or only have a minimal influence, according to the hoaxters.

Real things that happen in the real world do not matter.

Only what is modeled (see #6) and what is funded. (see #7)

And if you question it, you get vilified by the media and the funded scientific community. (see #10)

Today, this is what is called “science”.

Trick #6: When reality won’t play along, use models.

The real world data is just not cooperating with these people. They can’t find the trends that they want. As we saw earlier, the IPCC cannot attribute (or even detect) trends in these weather events:

Precipitation, drought, extreme winds, tropical cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons — no trends. Mid-latitude storms, tornadoes, hail, lightning—no trends.

Bummer.

And yet, in that same report, in the “Summary for Policymakers” section, we have language like:

“It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.”

“Unequivocal”.

Meaning what, exactly? Total? Unambiguous? Unchallengeable?

Sure. If it weren’t for all that equivocal, ambiguous, unconvincing data.

But surely, we all know the weather events are getting worse, right?

Like, hurricanes?

Hmm.

Okay, frequency may not have changed, but they are more intense, right?

Hmm.

Well, no problem.

When real world data won’t cooperate, just use models.

Unlike with empirical data, with models, you can build in all the human influence and catastrophe you want.

Except that the modelers are tipping their hand, showing just how unreliable their models really are.

Here’s a chart showing about 40 different models, rated according to the sensitivity of the model to carbon dioxide inputs.

The ones in yellow, about 44% of them, are deemed too sensitive, since they result in numbers that predict too much climate change, compared to the value that the IPCC wants to see.

Remember that these models were funded, peer-reviewed, published, lauded.

And we might well wonder, what is the track record of prediction? How well have these amazing models predicted actual temperature?

Cripes.

Even the climate scientists are starting to question the fitness of the models:

And the reasons offered for preferring the models over real-world observations (i.e., for not telling the truth) seem a little familiar don’t they? It’s our old friend, the “noble lie”: We don’t want to undermine public confidence in decision and policy makers.

That ship may already have sailed, guys, sorry.

As Professor Koonin says: “This is a disease, a dysfunction, of science in this particular field. As a scientist, I think it’s our duty to lay out the science knowns and unknowns transparently, completely, and without bias. Well, that’s not happening, I can tell you that.”

As Ivor points out, there are thousands of scientists on record as affirming climate change (which really should be 100% of scientists, because, duh…of course it changes), including acknowledging the human contribution to it, and who also acknowledge the positive benefits of lowering emissions and pollutants in the atmosphere, but who question the notion of “crisis”, question the fitness of the models, and who want to have a scientific discussion about all causes, including non-human, and who are consequently kicked out of their fields, having their funding pulled, and being censored. For the sin of wanting a scientific discussion.

It all seems a little familiar, doesn’t it? 🤔

And yet we have press release after press release praising the crisis models and how well they are getting it right. And so the funding continues.

As Ivor puts it: “Modelling can be used to get anything out of the far end, and it’s going to depend on one variable more than any other… the funding.”

Which brings us to…

Trick #7: Pour funding into the results you want.

As Ivor points out, it’s not just stupidity behind the pseudo-science, it’s agenda.

The money being poured into “crisis” is incalculable. We’re talking the most wealthy individuals and organizations ever to slither across the planet. “Philanthrophic” foundations like Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, plus “public/private partnerships” like the World Economic Forum, UN Climate Panel, have been relentlessly funding scientists and modelers for more than half a century to whip up data that suggests catastrophe.

The list of the usual suspects creating the “science”:

Private companies,5 NGOs, “foundations”, think tanks, or international bodies that were set up by private companies to serve their interests and give them a philanthropic cover.

Notice the names. Rockefeller, Rothschild, Carnegie, Ford, Clinton, Gates. Wealthy elites who deem themselves smarter than you. And none of them, you may notice, are abashed about their goal of “global governance”.

It’s funny, I don’t recall electing any of them to govern me. Do you?

One other thing you might notice. All these foundations and “philanthropic” (philanthroPATHic?) organizations who are in the business of terrifying people about climate disaster, are also in the business of terrifying people about pandemics.

Interesting, no?

Not really. It’s the same op.

Want global control? You need a global “emergency” to make the globe go along with it.

Trick #8: Ignore the positive benefits of warming.

Okay the temperature’s up by 1.3 degrees over the last 123 years…

…and food production is up. Deaths due to weather events are down. Economic losses due to weather events are down. Extreme poverty is nearly eradicated.6

Does this look like crisis?

Does it look like catastrophe?

Trick #9: Disregard (or invite) the devastation your policies will reap.

Energy is a fundamental system which supports everything we do, and has co-evolved with other systems in our society.

If you eliminate energy, you disrupt and destroy those other systems. Should be obvious to a toddler, I would think.

We’ve all been served an appetizer portion of this dish already. Just look at the global devastation wrought by a year-ish or so of “health” lockdowns:

Here’s a list of 400 or so studies showing the harmful effects of lockdown on civilization.

Now, consider the energy systems which sustain our civilization:

Based on what you know about recent, catastrophic attempts to alter the way society runs (i.e., “health” mandates), what do you think happens to society if you eliminate the bottom 80% or so of that chart?

If you’re picturing something like this…

…you’re probably not far off.

Parts of Europe are already suffering under these policies.

Moreover, it is by far and away the developing world that is growing in population and energy needs.

So this push to Net Zero is the developed world telling the developing world they are forbidden from developing, which will simply result in stagnation and unaffordable energy and poverty for those nations. All so the elites (listed in #7) can impose global serfdom while they virtue signal about saving the planet and making the future “sustainable”, which it absolutely will not do.

Trick #10: Ignore (or shame) the more sensible/moderate/common sense plans.

Ivor: “The funders are saying: you can’t go outside of what our guys are saying to you. You can’t question it. You can’t look too deeply at it. And if you do we’ll call you a climate denier.”

“The science is undeniable…” because “science” works by undeniable decrees, right?

Which all seems like a sensible path forward, from a sensible scientist.

But that’s the problem with this entire discussion, isn’t it? We’re not really dealing with sensible people with sensible intentions—we’re dealing with psychopaths that want to cull the species and enslave what remains.

The push to Net Zero, as Ivor says, is inherently absurd on its face.

Sovereign Man's Newsletter

It will take nearly 7,000 years to achieve Greta Thunberg’s fantasy

In 1958, Leonard E. Read wrote the book I, Pencil. As the book’s title suggests, this is the story about a pencil, told from the pencil’s perspective. The pencil traces his beginnings – from the cedar forests of Northern California and Oregon – to the mill in San Leandro, California, where specialized equipment cuts the logs into pencil-length slats…

3 years ago · 3 likes · Sovereign Man

But it’s also sinister.

Professor Koonin wants to appeal to rationality when he says: “If we act rapidly in an ill-thought-through way we will incur a greater threat to human well-being than climate change itself.”

But “human well-being” was never really the goal of the hoaxters, was it?

The Pharos Chronicles – Jacob Nordangård, PhD

We Must Prevent the ‘Pact Of The Future’ and Planetary Emergency Declaration

Derrick Broze from the Conscious Resistance made an interview with me some weeks ago about my lecture on the United Nation’s “Summit for the Future” and the Planetary Declaration of Emergency . I talk about the role of the Club of Rome and how they attempted to block my research…

3 years ago · 18 likes · Jacob Nordangård

If you enjoyed this post, someone else probably will, too. Click this button to share it:

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off a group subscription

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow me on the Socials:

Commenting on a lecture by Professor Steven Koonin.

Camps, by the way, which are not off the table in the U.S.: https://brownstone.org/articles/breaking-appellate-court-paves-the-way-to-quarantine-camps/

Professor Koonin asserts that “human influence” was 1/5 of what it is today, but I’m not sure what this is measuring. Does he mean population? Industrialization? Carbon production? This seems like a fairly important assumption. A devil’s advocate could argue, for example, that “human influence” has not substantively changed in that period, in spite of massive population and economic growth.

I can’t help but notice that the long term image which includes the 1930s is “buried” on the EPA page. You have to click through the “Figure 3” link to find it. The first figures you see are the scarier bar graphs in red based on a 2015 study. Want your study featured on the front page? Use scary red bar graphs that show the desired trend.

Who all seem to have the same web designer. Just look at the similarities in language and design between all the sites I have linked!

Of course, this is all pre-plandemia, which brought population culling deaths, extreme poverty, and disrupted supply chains roaring right back into humanity’s lap. Thanks, “experts”.

Think for Yourself

The Age of Imitation

1. The conceptual skeleton is almost identical

2. The same central insight appears in almost the same wording

3. The article repeatedly “flattens” your prose

4. The rhythm changes

5. The antimetabole and rhetorical symmetry

6. The article smooths away your personality

7. It repeatedly restates instead of develops

8. The Addendum feels tacked on

Could they simply have been inspired?

What strikes me most

My overall assessment

One final thought

Bitcoin Address:

Follow JET on the Socials:

Why They Can’t See It

1. Stories determine what we’re capable of seeing

2. Even for the perceptive, stories provide blind spots

3. Stories usually have villains, but evil rarely shows up wearing a villain’s costume.

4. The abandonment of the story means facing too overwhelming a horror

Bitcoin Address:

Follow JET on the Socials:

Further Reading:

When Empires Flaunt the Rules, the New Rulebook Has Already Been Written

Bitcoin Address:

Follow JET on the Socials:

Further Reading:

Truth Is a Way of Walking

Bitcoin Address:

Follow JET on the Socials:

The Re-Embrace of Uncertainty

Bitcoin Address:

Follow JET on the Socials:

Terrain Theory

Further Reading/Viewing:

Bitcoin Address:

Follow JET on the Socials:

Ten Rules for a Conspiracy Observer

Further Reading:

Bitcoin Address:

Follow JET on the Socials:

The Shot Straddlers

36 Did-You-Know Questions for a Shot Straddler:

Bonus Questions:

Bitcoin Address:

Follow JET on the Socials:

Further Reading/Viewing:

My Favorite Memes: Mass Hypnosis & Brainwashing (Part 2)

Bitcoin Address:

Follow JET on the Socials:

False Heroes

If you enjoyed this post, someone else probably will, too. Click this button to share it:

Bitcoin Address:

Follow me on the Socials:

Further Reading/Viewing:

My Favorite Election Memes

Further Reading:

Bitcoin Address:

Follow me on the Socials:

Are We Living in the Matrix?

Bitcoin Address:

Follow me on the Socials:

Further Reading:

What We're Really Fighting

Bitcoin Address:

Follow me on the Socials:

Further Reading:

Kicking Trees

If you enjoyed this post, someone else probably will, too. Click this button to share it:

Bitcoin Address:

Follow me on the Socials:

Further Viewing:

God Save Us from the Utopians

If you enjoyed this post, someone else probably will, too. Click this button to share it:

Bitcoin Address:

Follow me on the Socials:

Further Reading:

What Happened When I Recently Applied for a Hospital Job

Bitcoin Address: