I wanted to like her, but at the end of the day she's got tunnel vision about a pet issue and ignored how COVID biofascism annihilated whatever vestiges of a culture of liberty her country had left.
I'm still raging about what happened in our country in the name of COVID but Australia blew my mind.
Very solid, Tereza. I turned off Caitlin Johnstone, along with several other leftists I used to respect and even admire, solely from her (non) response to the whole covid SCAM and, in particular, her silence (now confirmed as actual disinterest by your report here) during the mega lockdown in her own country and state. I could go on, but will only add that her characterization of your words about Whitney Webb is clearly distorted. Consider this "breakup" as, in a way, just another relationship/friendship biting the dust since January 2020. The psychic response to the "covid thing" has to be at the root somehow.
In a sense, they're not comparable because Whitney is, I believe, an investigative journalist who's doing original research. I have her books but haven't dived into them yet. Most of us are putting together other people's research, like that of Seymour Hirsch, and analyzing it. Or commenting on other commentators. Investigative journalism needs to be hyper-focused but Whitney seems to also have breadth, from what I've seen of hers.
In that sense…yes, investigative journalism is not what Johnstone does, so a comparison with a meticulous researcher is unfair.
My informed opinion on Johnstone however, is that she doesn’t hold a candle to Webb in terms of the “intellectual honesty” that Johnstone likes to credit herself with.
Fully agree with you on all counts. Johnstone seems to have gone into the realm of the Counterpunch or Mother Jones type zones, once seemingly bold, now arrogant, patronizing, sour, and stuck in a bubble. Controlled by their own versions of proper "checklists" while touting themselves as being "independent" and not controlled by group think. Ironically, I believe Johnstone herself experienced some sort of 'cancellation' from Counterpunch several years prior to the scamdemic breakout (not sure of the details).
It really does pain me to say this…I’ve been so inspired and delighted to follow her work…but in Caitlin’s exchange with Tereza she said a thing or two that floored me could come from someone’s intelligence I respected.
FWIW: I had a number of encounters with her on the covid mess, i.e. chiding her for avoiding the subject completely, and I found her to be salty and petulant. Still, not nearly as bad as Counterpunch and MJ, which have been more or less fully on the Dark Side on this issue. I will never forget the MJ cover story denouncing natural immunity as some kind of right-wing conspiracy. Utterly absurd and shameful.
Hello, it's all very interesting, now that peoople don't read the same newspapers all their lives anymore, with a style, specific readership and political slant, we are looking around at individual writers and their actions, what they say and do that we may agree or disagree with and choosing who to follow.
I was dismayed when Whitney Webb misquoted Yuval Noah Harai (who it seems we're all supposed to hate and to believe is Klaus's chief advisor), I watched the Davos address Whitney was referring to and YNH said something completely different to what she claimed he'd said.
I was dismayed when Sam Bailey banned me from both her odyssey and substack platforms for politely discussing the difference between open and closed energy systems and the literature on nutrition. I thought that substack was meant for debate and discussion, if not with the author directly then with subscribers. In other words it's meant for disagreement. Does banning me show she has something to hide? Are her arguments vulnerable?
I have thought for many years that the only important quality of intelligence is the ability to accept the possibility that everything we have been taught to believe and do believe may in fact be wrong.
And writers must allow themselves to admit that they're wrong. Cos no one knows it all.
I've said that if there was anyone I agreed with completely, I would be redundant in the world and have no reason to exist. We should rigorously challenge each others' ideas but never attack the person. The only time I've banned people from my comments is if they insult people, as individuals or a group.
I know I've given you lots to look at/ read but I have several on Yuval where I also think he's being villainized and taken out of context. It's not that I'm a fan but I agree with many things he says and find them useful. I also think he's letting us know what's going on and we should thank him for that. Here are the links:
I have been limiting my time on Caitlin’s website; I left for a while but missed my friend Jenny.
I have been spending more time watching Scott Ritter, Sabby Sabs, Richard Medhurst, several others on YouTube.
My portrait of Rachel Corrie is nearly finished. I’m very happy with it. As you will see, my style is far more subtle than Caitlin’s.If I can figure out a way to post it online, I will do so…or have my daughter help me lol.
Teresa’s just leech. I try to not get too nego about People’s comments on here, but she routinely attacks Caitlin’s well made points in order to aggrandize herself. It’s tiresome and annoying. But also sad. There’s a couple of boys on this thread like that too. O well.
Reply
Collapse
Rob (c137)
Writes Robert's Occam's razor
just now
I followed Caitlin for a long time. I even have a few of her books which has really good poetry!
But I grew upset when we were facing the boot of the biomedical surveillance state.
I almost lost my job. Friends lost theirs.
Co-workers were coerced to take this rushed experimental shot. Some have lingering issues even to this day.
She gaslit us at the time, playing like it's not a big deal. I felt disappointed with others that did the same, Noam Chomsky, Chris hedges, Michael Hudson and others that coincidentally also went along with the 911 official story.
Am I wrong to be upset that after all this time of ignoring the issue, now she's saying how it's irrelevant?
That's like the mass media saying Vietnam is irrelevant because it's over.
I've been getting Jean's comments too, including the one where she (?) says that I weaponize her name. She, of course, is who I'm quoting in the article. At this point I'm certain it's either an insult-bot or someone being paid.
Thanks for posting on Caitlin's article. I didn't realize it was her post when I replied on the laptop of luxury class--I'm glad I didn't get too detailed.
I didn't even bother to write comments on her page because I found her a lost cause as she ignored this con-vid thing as if we didn't suffer... But how dare she bring it up as if we are the problem! Victim blaming, Narcissistic or sociopathic...
I believe the attitudes toward Sept. 11 you cite in Chomsky, Hedges, et al is a key to the responses to the 'demic and the injections. Edward Curtin, whom I greatly admire, wrote an article referencing them, saying that as intelligent as they are, they lack a certain imagination that prevents them from seriously entertaining any big "conspiracy theories."
I've also found that people reach the end of their revolutionary rope. I found it with Michael Parenti and with the person who transformed Bible research, John Dominic Crossan. In both cases, I could show them exactly how their research led irrefutably to the conclusion I'd drawn--something that changed the whole way of looking at it--but they couldn't see it. It's like the ability to change is an elastic that wears out and just can't stretch any more without snapping.
"And then there is the psychological effect of the Big Lie which is axiomatic in gaslighting. The paradox here is that the bigger the lie, the harder it is for the mind to bridge the gulf between perceived reality and the lie that authority figures are painting as truth. I believe that the prospect of being deceived evinces a primitive emotional response on a par with staring death in the face. We are hard-wired to fear deception because we have evolved to interpret it as an existential threat. That’s why deception can elicit the same emotional response as the miscalculation of a serious physical threat. Lies told to us don’t always bear the same cost as a misjudged red light, but the primitive part of the brain can’t make this distinction and we rely on cerebral mediation for a more appropriate but delayed response. And in the long run, the lie is often just as dangerous as the physical threat. Many government whoppers – ‘safe and effective’ – do cost lives.
To avoid the death-like experience of being deceived, a mental defence is erected to deny that the lie is happening."
I talk about that, how it's easier to lie big than to lie small, in one of my YTs before I did Substack. The person's own cognitive dissonance does the work for you of "They couldn't possibly get away with that!"
Thanks for the link to that website. Speaking of Chris Hedges and JFK, have you seen this interview with John Kiriakou? Specifically, you can jump to the obligatory "throw it in at the end" blurb starting around minute 32. What all knowing smugness by both of them, particularly Hedges:
The Eeyore of sanctimonious political analysis. That's precious. Will watch the episode. I also liked your metaphor in the comment referencing Michael Parenti about coming to the end of the "revolutionary rope." I do distinguish between the various voices. Coming to the end of that rope, maybe spiritually and physically, is probably very apropos for Parenti, who I have looked up to way more than Hedges and Chomsky when all were "at their best." I'm not sure the latter two had much revolutionary rope to begin with. Parenti, in writing, has politely ridiculed Chomsky for his "stand" on (lack of) deep conspiracies.
A response from Johnstone that doesn't match her silence during the scam...
Rob (c137)
Writes Robert's Occam's razor
Feb 25
I followed Caitlin for a long time. I even have a few of her books which has really good poetry!
But I grew upset when we were facing the boot of the biomedical surveillance state.
I almost lost my job. Friends lost theirs.
Co-workers were coerced to take this rushed experimental shot. Some have lingering issues even to this day.
She gaslit us at the time, playing like it's not a big deal. I felt disappointed with others that did the same, Noam Chomsky, Chris hedges, Michael Hudson and others that coincidentally also went along with the 911 official story.
Am I wrong to be upset that after all this time of ignoring the issue, now she's saying how it's irrelevant?
That's like the mass media saying Vietnam is irrelevant because it's over.
Or Iraq or Libya or Afghanistan....
2
Reply
Delete
Collapse
author
Caitlin Johnstone
1 hr ago
Author
I very explicitly and repeatedly opposed vaccine mandates and coercion. I still get called an anti-vaxxer to this day for doing so. You're free to disagree with my position that the lockdowns were not of major consequence relative to endlessly escalating brinkmanship between nuclear-armed powers, but I personally can't understand how you make that make sense in your head.
Thanks for posting her reply, Rob. It's interesting that the lockdowns were 2020-2021 and Ukraine was 2022. Not even overlapping. But on the larger point, I don't think agendas compete for limited attention. The more pieces of the puzzle we know about, the better we can see the overall picture, the more effective our strategy against it will be.
I haven't followed her much since late 2020, as she ignored calling out the lockdowns then. Did I miss a period where she said anything about that or the jabs?
You’ve done it again! Another great start to my Saturday. Such thoughtful insights and also your willingness to accept that you are not perfect or know everything. I love your aim to enter into situations where you might be wrong.
While I have never heard of Caitlan before now. Analyzing her words you have quoted would tell me she has an agenda and its not a good one. The person who responded to your kind, constructive criticism of her words sounds like a bully goon to shut you up. (Malone flash back) For her to rebuttal twice makes me think she was disturbed by your words. Maybe your words would enlighten a follower of hers. Also, she sounded like a tyrant. I really take offence with anyone stating that any part of the world is irrelevant. I feel bad when I hear of an animal in any environment being abused let alone a human. And you are right, we most certainly can distinguish between the ruler no matter what nationality he/she is and the people of that nation. In fact I feel that the Israeli people have been abused and used by their rulers as much if not more than anyone look at the covid vaccine situation there in Israel. And remember the newspapers "6 million Jews". Just my 2 cents.
Helene! Thanks for your kind take on my words. Yes, I also thought that a second response three hours later showed I'd hit a nerve.
Your point about the Israeli people is so well taken. I've thought about an episode called "The Victim Shield" because it is a set-up to hide behind a population--the more they suffer, the more effective your cover is as just another victim. And yes, Israel is one of the most horrific examples of the vaccine situation. I do often think of the newspapers you showed me with their pre-WWII repetition of 6 million Jews.
Feb 25, 2023·edited Feb 25, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
I gave up on her over two years ago. I was already finding her writing repetitive almost to the point of beating a dead horse. And frankly, I never liked her poetry (tastes differ) and her new peons to drug enhanced new age spirituality got on my nerves.But I still continued to read her
"None of us have figured out how deep the lies go. We all have blind spots and we need each other to point them out, gently, respectfully, kindly."
That is IT. Thank you, Tereza. If there's one thing I learned in 2020, it's to keep a wide-open mind. As human beings, we are so eager to find THE REASON and then stick to it... but life, human beings, and the universe, are far more complicated, multidimensional, and ever-changing than that. And so I try stay curious, always, even when it would be so much more comforting to build a recliner out of my beliefs and relax into it.
“I can find the links and data if Caitlin is interested.”
She’s not interested. For two years much of the comments section at her website (not substack) provided excellent material for thought and research. She no longer allows comments there. Yeah, she’s a real bastion of open discussion.
~
I thought highly of her and do appreciate and agree with much of what she covers. But comments of hers regarding lockdowns and “vaccines” tell me something’s very wrong with her.
It’s been damn near heartbreaking….but I’m over it now. Maybe if she keeps going this way she can rank up there with the charlatan Chomsky in Dismissiveness.
I’ll be blunt about Chomsky. His “nothing to see here” attitude about 9/11 and his insistence that Kennedy would have prosecuted the war in Vietnam are beyond the pale for me. And his attitude towards the “unvaxxed” is reprehensible.
Also…I am not a fan of Trump, but it should be noted that to have a visceral disgust for him as a human being while not being equally disgusted with the likes of the Queen of Chaos and the Obomber is suspect (considering the extent of what should be his “knowledge”), as was his “lesser of two evils” stumping for Clinton and his amazingly (considering his knowledge of the use of terrorists in Latin & South America) stupid comments about Assad and Syria.
I read the words left and right in there somewhere. The left/right paradigm is false. It was created by the powers that shouldn't be to keep us at each other's throats and prevent us from banding together against them.
As for Caitlin....... At first I thought she was very naive. Then all of a suden she started "hitting them out of the park". When I mentioned the fact that East European Ashkenazim Khazars are in fact in control in both the district of criminals, Tel Aviv AND Ukraine I was banned from her substack.
She constantly rants about emire this, and empire that, but she refuses to look at who is behind empire.
Agreed on the left/ right dichotomy being false. I have a playlist on the topic, which is one of the reasons I call this the Third Paradigm. And you're likely aware of Bilbo's Bitch, whose views are the same as yours (as far as I can tell.) I did an episode on his analysis of Maui: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/maui-and-the-oligarchs.
i'm glad you brought this subject up about revising our histories. Some would argue that wether we learn the truth about or histories or not, we're bound to make the same mistakes. We might, but eventually we won't. i believe the reason Caitlyn and Margaret don't want to touch the Holocaust is fear of what could happen to them if they did.
this piece by Ron Unz is a brilliant piece on how a certain group of people will destroy one's career if they disagree with what you are saying even if it's the truth. I'm a big history revisionist. Tired of hearing the "winners" version of the story. I'd rather hear the true story. You can listen to it as well. it's a great read.
That's a great point and one I'll be making in a video later today--if we do the right thing but for reasons that have been manipulated, it will come back again in a worse form. Then we'll have to go back and undo the lesson we thought we learned from it, and figure out what really happened, in order to move forward.
I've bought Rudolf Steiner's The Karma of Untruthfulness to read on an upcoming trip. This sounds like a great follow-up. Thanks for recommending.
The question is also: do oligarchs (jooz or not) see themselves eye to eye or will they self-destruct? I wonder if it is not there that lies the next 'revolution'? The collapse of the whole system by implosion. Then what? Will there be a hole, a gap allowing for one or many coherent remodeling? Someone said yesterday "Guy we are on a planet run by toddlers". Those are quite mean toddlers if so. Something will yield for sure. It's inevitable. We could imagine a domino effect but we are not prepared for any kind of collapse.
I too was fooled by Caitlin’s Noam Chomsky rhetorical analysis of the West; I.e. the West is evil not the Jews (really the Khazarian mafia). And once she turned a blind eye on the massive faults of her own country, I thought, “yep she’s a Lefty commie. I’m done”. I liked some of her poetry though. Perhaps she’s Jewish? If so it might explain her aversion to face some uncomfortable truths.
She's very critical of Australia's kow-towing to the West, particularly in the antagonism towards China. She's correct, of course, that they'd be the sacrifice zone in that war. And that nuclear brinksmanship is a thing. My guess is that she'd be more critical if she were Jewish. She's relentlessly honest with herself. I think the victim narrative is one she fell for, and thinks it's punching down. And that attention is a zero-sum game and she wants to keep it on war. But I think attention is a muscle and the more you use of it in all directions, the stronger it gets.
I really liked some of her poetry too. I was just thinking that I should brush off some of mine and include them. So thanks for the reminder that poetry has a place, or even a palace, too!
I think some of her geopolitical analysis was ok, up to a point. I didn't see your piece on Chomsky yet (but I'll check it out, thanks for mentioning it).
That she wouldn't even consider debating the possibility of the pedos running things and/or the KM, shows a block in her mental make up; a refusal, especially when more of this information is coming out. Too bad she couldn't use her analytical skills in that department. Oh well...
Anyhoo, yes, you should dust off some of your poetry. Why not? That's what I decided to do last June when I found Substack and am very glad and grateful I did. Feel free to stroll through the Victory Palace of poetry to see if there's anything you like (if/when you have some time from your busy writing schedule, of course).
BTW, I applaud your work and the trails that you're blazing. It's very "corraggio" of you, i.e. courageous (Italian, yes?)
Thank you and I will check out your poetry, it's my first love. And yes, courage or heart. It's my ex's but I told him long ago I wanted custody if things ever fell apart. He said he'd be proud for me to have it, and has stuck by that.
Believe it or not, I just found you yesterday while watching the Couey, Crawford, and Kulacz stream. Today I am watching and reading some of your other works. I like you and your ideas. In one of your posts, you said something like: Do you want to be right, or do you want to understand? That reminded me of a quote I have been saying for years: Do you want to be right, or do you want to be in a relationship? Similar ideas. I also like your statement: I am no better than anyone else. Staying humble and being wrong are very important. At 71, I see that I have been wrong more than I have been right, and it's actually more important to understand and remain open.
Wasn't that a fun triologue (is that a word?) I tuned in entirely by accident, trying to see the rest of a clip from JJ, and there I was, looming over them! It was quite the OMG!
Thank you for checking out my work. And you're absolutely correct (as opposed to right). The way I often hear it is, do you want to be right or do you want to be happy? But I do continue to put my ideas forward--sometimes being compared to a bull dog with a pants leg in her mouth. However I was never more happy than having Mathew and Liam prove me wrong--not on the idea but on them being taken in by it.
You painted a complex picture, and I haven't absorbed it all yet. I am going to re-watch. I noticed this morning that Malone is also Mal One! Haha! Is he a bad guy or a good guy? I read his substack posts, and he seems to be a good guy. But, there's his entire career of working on gene therapy, and being associated with all those dark forces in government and shady corporations. And, he was relatively unknown until the covid show, and now he's all over the place.
Mal One--Woah! That's blowing my mind. And yes, I read his stack for almost a year thinking he was a good guy. I think that's the point, the discrepancy between what he says to us vs says FOR us.
Feb 27, 2023·edited Feb 27, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
I missed your podcast where you said you'd talk about things necessary to further understanding during debate. I think any debate we entered would get buried six indents deep very quickly. But I'm willing to risk it if you are, if you're still interested in talking to me. I'd also be willing to give you a personal email address buried deep in an old comment thread. I know you get notified whenever anyone comments. I'm willing to debate any topic you'd care to, and I'll argue either side you choose for me, provided you're willing to do the same.
A few ground rules I'll abide by: I'll assume equal intellect and never demean your intelligence. I think we should not assume a common canon, as I'm sure your knowledge base exceeds mine. I do not even have a high school diploma and little formal education. (I'm a freak of nature; a story we could get into if you desire.) I am self-educated, so spotty and irregular. I will readily admit ignorance when it crops up, although I will have no trouble dealing with advanced concepts. I will avoid exception citing in an attempt to disprove rules. I will make generalizations and expect you to as well, without either of us pointing out "Not everyone is like that." I will not be making emotional appeals, but my lack of compassion is not yours, and I will not be dismissive of any such arguments you may make.
I like your ground rules for debate, Don. I'm forgetting exactly what I said--I don't usually use the word debate but maybe so. I'm usually quoting Thich Nhat Hahn that in a true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. I haven't yet done my episode on Harrison, which was likely where I planned to bring up my own rules for how I express disagreement with someone but a quick draft would be this:
1. I should be in at least 70% agreement with other things they say.
2. I should spend 70% of my time expressing where I agree with them.
3. Before talking about the disagreement, I should express why it matters.
4. Define the question and define what I mean by any terms in the question.
5. My 'argument' should be 70% facts, 20% logic and 10% conclusions.
I agree with you that I think emotional appeals are manipulation and that exceptions don't disprove the rule. I'm also self-educated in all the realms that matter, and I always assume equal intellect. But I couldn't assign a side to you without violating my rule #3--it's a waste of time for both of us unless there's a reason it matters. Thanks for prompting me to think these through. I think they'll come in handy for my next episode on Naomi Wolf & Satanic Panic.
Being able to anticipate and formulate arguments opposed to your own opinion can give you greater insight into your position; a "put yourself in the other person's shoes" approach. But no worries, I won't ask you to argue a position you don't hold and I can do it on my own without prompting.
As far as willing to change, I think that's the point of seeking a truce in the battle of the sexes. Assuming both sides are operating in good faith, concessions and compromises are inevitable if a truce is to be reached.
I framed it as a debate, true, but we don't need to get hung up on the word and it doesn't need to be so formal. Debate, argument, discussion, could all be used interchangeably.
We don't know each other well enough to pin down percentages on agreement, so I'm not sure about that one. I'll read the author you named and get back to you. I would instinctively guess that any area where we had the greatest disagreements would have the potential for the greatest growth, or conversely, the greatest potential for devolving into name calling. 😁😁😁
What makes you laugh and who are some comics you enjoy? I will be tempted to consider this whole venture a failure if we can't occasionally make each other laugh. Maybe we should use emojis until we've sorted out each other's sense of humor?
The difference between men and women is that when a woman asks you to smell something, it usually smells nice. 😂
And please don't let this be a burden in any way. You are obviously a busy woman and you don't need to feel compelled to answer me in any time frame other than at your leisure, or to answer me at all.
The benefit of having a blog or YT or radio show was that I could stop arguing with people. I could put my ideas out there and pull people who were interested, rather than try to push, which I've never found successful. So the idea of arguing for its own sake sounds like going back to something that never resulted in the discussions I wanted to have. I think that you have a group of people who see things in a similar way, with the Deimos Station set, is that right? I suggest that you read my work if you feel like you have something to learn from me, and don't bother with it, if not. That's how I approach the internet.
I wanted to like her, but at the end of the day she's got tunnel vision about a pet issue and ignored how COVID biofascism annihilated whatever vestiges of a culture of liberty her country had left.
I'm still raging about what happened in our country in the name of COVID but Australia blew my mind.
Very solid, Tereza. I turned off Caitlin Johnstone, along with several other leftists I used to respect and even admire, solely from her (non) response to the whole covid SCAM and, in particular, her silence (now confirmed as actual disinterest by your report here) during the mega lockdown in her own country and state. I could go on, but will only add that her characterization of your words about Whitney Webb is clearly distorted. Consider this "breakup" as, in a way, just another relationship/friendship biting the dust since January 2020. The psychic response to the "covid thing" has to be at the root somehow.
Johnstone doesn’t hold a candle to Whitney Webb.
In a sense, they're not comparable because Whitney is, I believe, an investigative journalist who's doing original research. I have her books but haven't dived into them yet. Most of us are putting together other people's research, like that of Seymour Hirsch, and analyzing it. Or commenting on other commentators. Investigative journalism needs to be hyper-focused but Whitney seems to also have breadth, from what I've seen of hers.
In that sense…yes, investigative journalism is not what Johnstone does, so a comparison with a meticulous researcher is unfair.
My informed opinion on Johnstone however, is that she doesn’t hold a candle to Webb in terms of the “intellectual honesty” that Johnstone likes to credit herself with.
Fully agree with you on all counts. Johnstone seems to have gone into the realm of the Counterpunch or Mother Jones type zones, once seemingly bold, now arrogant, patronizing, sour, and stuck in a bubble. Controlled by their own versions of proper "checklists" while touting themselves as being "independent" and not controlled by group think. Ironically, I believe Johnstone herself experienced some sort of 'cancellation' from Counterpunch several years prior to the scamdemic breakout (not sure of the details).
It really does pain me to say this…I’ve been so inspired and delighted to follow her work…but in Caitlin’s exchange with Tereza she said a thing or two that floored me could come from someone’s intelligence I respected.
Very disappointing, but not shocking anymore.
FWIW: I had a number of encounters with her on the covid mess, i.e. chiding her for avoiding the subject completely, and I found her to be salty and petulant. Still, not nearly as bad as Counterpunch and MJ, which have been more or less fully on the Dark Side on this issue. I will never forget the MJ cover story denouncing natural immunity as some kind of right-wing conspiracy. Utterly absurd and shameful.
Hello, it's all very interesting, now that peoople don't read the same newspapers all their lives anymore, with a style, specific readership and political slant, we are looking around at individual writers and their actions, what they say and do that we may agree or disagree with and choosing who to follow.
I was dismayed when Whitney Webb misquoted Yuval Noah Harai (who it seems we're all supposed to hate and to believe is Klaus's chief advisor), I watched the Davos address Whitney was referring to and YNH said something completely different to what she claimed he'd said.
I was dismayed when Sam Bailey banned me from both her odyssey and substack platforms for politely discussing the difference between open and closed energy systems and the literature on nutrition. I thought that substack was meant for debate and discussion, if not with the author directly then with subscribers. In other words it's meant for disagreement. Does banning me show she has something to hide? Are her arguments vulnerable?
I have thought for many years that the only important quality of intelligence is the ability to accept the possibility that everything we have been taught to believe and do believe may in fact be wrong.
And writers must allow themselves to admit that they're wrong. Cos no one knows it all.
🙏🏽
I've said that if there was anyone I agreed with completely, I would be redundant in the world and have no reason to exist. We should rigorously challenge each others' ideas but never attack the person. The only time I've banned people from my comments is if they insult people, as individuals or a group.
I know I've given you lots to look at/ read but I have several on Yuval where I also think he's being villainized and taken out of context. It's not that I'm a fan but I agree with many things he says and find them useful. I also think he's letting us know what's going on and we should thank him for that. Here are the links:
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/polarization-on-esther-perel-and yuval harari
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/yuval-harari-and-the-metawealth-miniverse
Legal Shamen & Economic Witches (only YT): https://youtu.be/Fz_6iAngaLA
and Alien Nation: https://youtu.be/I8nafyRhubI
Thank you Tereza, so glad I found you 😺
Che! So good to see you again!
I have been limiting my time on Caitlin’s website; I left for a while but missed my friend Jenny.
I have been spending more time watching Scott Ritter, Sabby Sabs, Richard Medhurst, several others on YouTube.
My portrait of Rachel Corrie is nearly finished. I’m very happy with it. As you will see, my style is far more subtle than Caitlin’s.If I can figure out a way to post it online, I will do so…or have my daughter help me lol.
My response to your post to that laptop class warrior.
(This is in case she insta bans me and deletes it)
"Shh Tereza. You're dividing the movement.
Remember lockdowns didn't hurt nobody. Said by the person who works from home. I got plenty of friends that lost their jobs due to them.
Oh and the vaccines, no big deal right?
Again more people lost their jobs due to that apartheid. I had to go through exemption paperwork and submit to nasal PCR tests weekly.
But, I don't work from home.
Max Blumenthal calls them the laptop class.
That's why they aren't concerned about the 2 weeks to flatten the curve that lasted 2 years."
Another heckler / gaslighter chimed in....
Jean Wyman
13 min ago
Teresa’s just leech. I try to not get too nego about People’s comments on here, but she routinely attacks Caitlin’s well made points in order to aggrandize herself. It’s tiresome and annoying. But also sad. There’s a couple of boys on this thread like that too. O well.
Reply
Collapse
Rob (c137)
Writes Robert's Occam's razor
just now
I followed Caitlin for a long time. I even have a few of her books which has really good poetry!
But I grew upset when we were facing the boot of the biomedical surveillance state.
I almost lost my job. Friends lost theirs.
Co-workers were coerced to take this rushed experimental shot. Some have lingering issues even to this day.
She gaslit us at the time, playing like it's not a big deal. I felt disappointed with others that did the same, Noam Chomsky, Chris hedges, Michael Hudson and others that coincidentally also went along with the 911 official story.
Am I wrong to be upset that after all this time of ignoring the issue, now she's saying how it's irrelevant?
That's like the mass media saying Vietnam is irrelevant because it's over.
Or Iraq or Libya or Afghanistan....
I've been getting Jean's comments too, including the one where she (?) says that I weaponize her name. She, of course, is who I'm quoting in the article. At this point I'm certain it's either an insult-bot or someone being paid.
Thanks for posting on Caitlin's article. I didn't realize it was her post when I replied on the laptop of luxury class--I'm glad I didn't get too detailed.
I didn't even bother to write comments on her page because I found her a lost cause as she ignored this con-vid thing as if we didn't suffer... But how dare she bring it up as if we are the problem! Victim blaming, Narcissistic or sociopathic...
I believe the attitudes toward Sept. 11 you cite in Chomsky, Hedges, et al is a key to the responses to the 'demic and the injections. Edward Curtin, whom I greatly admire, wrote an article referencing them, saying that as intelligent as they are, they lack a certain imagination that prevents them from seriously entertaining any big "conspiracy theories."
I've also found that people reach the end of their revolutionary rope. I found it with Michael Parenti and with the person who transformed Bible research, John Dominic Crossan. In both cases, I could show them exactly how their research led irrefutably to the conclusion I'd drawn--something that changed the whole way of looking at it--but they couldn't see it. It's like the ability to change is an elastic that wears out and just can't stretch any more without snapping.
Yeah, also the JFK assassination!
(From https://leftlockdownsceptics.com/alleged-cia-involvement-in-jfk-assassination-goes-mainstream-so-now-what/ )
"And then there is the psychological effect of the Big Lie which is axiomatic in gaslighting. The paradox here is that the bigger the lie, the harder it is for the mind to bridge the gulf between perceived reality and the lie that authority figures are painting as truth. I believe that the prospect of being deceived evinces a primitive emotional response on a par with staring death in the face. We are hard-wired to fear deception because we have evolved to interpret it as an existential threat. That’s why deception can elicit the same emotional response as the miscalculation of a serious physical threat. Lies told to us don’t always bear the same cost as a misjudged red light, but the primitive part of the brain can’t make this distinction and we rely on cerebral mediation for a more appropriate but delayed response. And in the long run, the lie is often just as dangerous as the physical threat. Many government whoppers – ‘safe and effective’ – do cost lives.
To avoid the death-like experience of being deceived, a mental defence is erected to deny that the lie is happening."
I talk about that, how it's easier to lie big than to lie small, in one of my YTs before I did Substack. The person's own cognitive dissonance does the work for you of "They couldn't possibly get away with that!"
The Reality Puzzle & Propaganda Playbook: https://youtu.be/X__TdauN95M
Thanks for the link to that website. Speaking of Chris Hedges and JFK, have you seen this interview with John Kiriakou? Specifically, you can jump to the obligatory "throw it in at the end" blurb starting around minute 32. What all knowing smugness by both of them, particularly Hedges:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhyQRc1vzkg
That is a mind-blowing clip! I keep going deeper and deeper into the psy-ops within the psy-ops on JFK, but they're not even descending to rung one!
I talk about the smug Hedges, who I call the Eeyore of sanctimonious political analysis, in this episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/muskrat-love-and-anarchy
The Eeyore of sanctimonious political analysis. That's precious. Will watch the episode. I also liked your metaphor in the comment referencing Michael Parenti about coming to the end of the "revolutionary rope." I do distinguish between the various voices. Coming to the end of that rope, maybe spiritually and physically, is probably very apropos for Parenti, who I have looked up to way more than Hedges and Chomsky when all were "at their best." I'm not sure the latter two had much revolutionary rope to begin with. Parenti, in writing, has politely ridiculed Chomsky for his "stand" on (lack of) deep conspiracies.
They're clearly useful idiots. They say the right conspiracies and ignore the inconvenient ones.
But there's a guy that really got on my nerves and even though I want him free, assange actively covered for 911, where hedges just avoids it.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/rXoXAmtshO95/
He also said similar things on democracy now, saying that WikiLeaks is going to expose the banks, which is more important. That didn't happen!
How to spot a limited hangout:
https://off-guardian.org/2018/01/04/how-to-identify-cia-limited-hangout/
If Assange is staying in character as controlled op, he deserves an Emmy. That would be the most commitment to a role I've ever seen.
A helpful response and my retort lol
Victory Palace
Writes The Victory Palace Poetry Stack
3 hr ago
Agreed. Can’t help but wonder what the real motivations are here.
1
Reply
Collapse
Rob (c137)
Writes Robert's Occam's razor
just now
Maybe not a motivation but a lack of motivation.
They pretend that we're the crazy ones for seeing more scams than they do.
And yet they proclaim how people are so ignorant to the scams that they see.
Hipocrisy is the currency of the privelaged.
A response from Johnstone that doesn't match her silence during the scam...
Rob (c137)
Writes Robert's Occam's razor
Feb 25
I followed Caitlin for a long time. I even have a few of her books which has really good poetry!
But I grew upset when we were facing the boot of the biomedical surveillance state.
I almost lost my job. Friends lost theirs.
Co-workers were coerced to take this rushed experimental shot. Some have lingering issues even to this day.
She gaslit us at the time, playing like it's not a big deal. I felt disappointed with others that did the same, Noam Chomsky, Chris hedges, Michael Hudson and others that coincidentally also went along with the 911 official story.
Am I wrong to be upset that after all this time of ignoring the issue, now she's saying how it's irrelevant?
That's like the mass media saying Vietnam is irrelevant because it's over.
Or Iraq or Libya or Afghanistan....
2
Reply
Delete
Collapse
author
Caitlin Johnstone
1 hr ago
Author
I very explicitly and repeatedly opposed vaccine mandates and coercion. I still get called an anti-vaxxer to this day for doing so. You're free to disagree with my position that the lockdowns were not of major consequence relative to endlessly escalating brinkmanship between nuclear-armed powers, but I personally can't understand how you make that make sense in your head.
Thanks for posting her reply, Rob. It's interesting that the lockdowns were 2020-2021 and Ukraine was 2022. Not even overlapping. But on the larger point, I don't think agendas compete for limited attention. The more pieces of the puzzle we know about, the better we can see the overall picture, the more effective our strategy against it will be.
I haven't followed her much since late 2020, as she ignored calling out the lockdowns then. Did I miss a period where she said anything about that or the jabs?
I only started following her a year ago on Ukraine, so I don't know about that.
This is why I stopped reading her at least a year ago. All rants, no solutions, and totally blind to the bio-fascism right in front of her face.
Tolerance for ambiguity is a sign of psychological health. Certainty is for fools and ideologues.
Ah Tereza,
You’ve done it again! Another great start to my Saturday. Such thoughtful insights and also your willingness to accept that you are not perfect or know everything. I love your aim to enter into situations where you might be wrong.
Thank you for your courageous writing😊
While I have never heard of Caitlan before now. Analyzing her words you have quoted would tell me she has an agenda and its not a good one. The person who responded to your kind, constructive criticism of her words sounds like a bully goon to shut you up. (Malone flash back) For her to rebuttal twice makes me think she was disturbed by your words. Maybe your words would enlighten a follower of hers. Also, she sounded like a tyrant. I really take offence with anyone stating that any part of the world is irrelevant. I feel bad when I hear of an animal in any environment being abused let alone a human. And you are right, we most certainly can distinguish between the ruler no matter what nationality he/she is and the people of that nation. In fact I feel that the Israeli people have been abused and used by their rulers as much if not more than anyone look at the covid vaccine situation there in Israel. And remember the newspapers "6 million Jews". Just my 2 cents.
Helene! Thanks for your kind take on my words. Yes, I also thought that a second response three hours later showed I'd hit a nerve.
Your point about the Israeli people is so well taken. I've thought about an episode called "The Victim Shield" because it is a set-up to hide behind a population--the more they suffer, the more effective your cover is as just another victim. And yes, Israel is one of the most horrific examples of the vaccine situation. I do often think of the newspapers you showed me with their pre-WWII repetition of 6 million Jews.
I gave up on her over two years ago. I was already finding her writing repetitive almost to the point of beating a dead horse. And frankly, I never liked her poetry (tastes differ) and her new peons to drug enhanced new age spirituality got on my nerves.But I still continued to read her
"None of us have figured out how deep the lies go. We all have blind spots and we need each other to point them out, gently, respectfully, kindly."
That is IT. Thank you, Tereza. If there's one thing I learned in 2020, it's to keep a wide-open mind. As human beings, we are so eager to find THE REASON and then stick to it... but life, human beings, and the universe, are far more complicated, multidimensional, and ever-changing than that. And so I try stay curious, always, even when it would be so much more comforting to build a recliner out of my beliefs and relax into it.
Beautifully put, Mary. I love a metaphor that makes me laugh!
“I can find the links and data if Caitlin is interested.”
She’s not interested. For two years much of the comments section at her website (not substack) provided excellent material for thought and research. She no longer allows comments there. Yeah, she’s a real bastion of open discussion.
~
I thought highly of her and do appreciate and agree with much of what she covers. But comments of hers regarding lockdowns and “vaccines” tell me something’s very wrong with her.
It’s been damn near heartbreaking….but I’m over it now. Maybe if she keeps going this way she can rank up there with the charlatan Chomsky in Dismissiveness.
I don't know, Guest, if you saw this post of mine: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/noam-chomsky-is-the-problem.
Interesting post Tereza. Thank you.
~
I’ll be blunt about Chomsky. His “nothing to see here” attitude about 9/11 and his insistence that Kennedy would have prosecuted the war in Vietnam are beyond the pale for me. And his attitude towards the “unvaxxed” is reprehensible.
Also…I am not a fan of Trump, but it should be noted that to have a visceral disgust for him as a human being while not being equally disgusted with the likes of the Queen of Chaos and the Obomber is suspect (considering the extent of what should be his “knowledge”), as was his “lesser of two evils” stumping for Clinton and his amazingly (considering his knowledge of the use of terrorists in Latin & South America) stupid comments about Assad and Syria.
Agreed on all points.
I've wondered about his longevity at MIT, a pretty high ranking CIA university to the best of my knowledge.
I read the words left and right in there somewhere. The left/right paradigm is false. It was created by the powers that shouldn't be to keep us at each other's throats and prevent us from banding together against them.
As for Caitlin....... At first I thought she was very naive. Then all of a suden she started "hitting them out of the park". When I mentioned the fact that East European Ashkenazim Khazars are in fact in control in both the district of criminals, Tel Aviv AND Ukraine I was banned from her substack.
She constantly rants about emire this, and empire that, but she refuses to look at who is behind empire.
FUCK HER!!
Agreed on the left/ right dichotomy being false. I have a playlist on the topic, which is one of the reasons I call this the Third Paradigm. And you're likely aware of Bilbo's Bitch, whose views are the same as yours (as far as I can tell.) I did an episode on his analysis of Maui: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/maui-and-the-oligarchs.
i'm glad you brought this subject up about revising our histories. Some would argue that wether we learn the truth about or histories or not, we're bound to make the same mistakes. We might, but eventually we won't. i believe the reason Caitlyn and Margaret don't want to touch the Holocaust is fear of what could happen to them if they did.
this piece by Ron Unz is a brilliant piece on how a certain group of people will destroy one's career if they disagree with what you are saying even if it's the truth. I'm a big history revisionist. Tired of hearing the "winners" version of the story. I'd rather hear the true story. You can listen to it as well. it's a great read.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/
That's a great point and one I'll be making in a video later today--if we do the right thing but for reasons that have been manipulated, it will come back again in a worse form. Then we'll have to go back and undo the lesson we thought we learned from it, and figure out what really happened, in order to move forward.
I've bought Rudolf Steiner's The Karma of Untruthfulness to read on an upcoming trip. This sounds like a great follow-up. Thanks for recommending.
The question is also: do oligarchs (jooz or not) see themselves eye to eye or will they self-destruct? I wonder if it is not there that lies the next 'revolution'? The collapse of the whole system by implosion. Then what? Will there be a hole, a gap allowing for one or many coherent remodeling? Someone said yesterday "Guy we are on a planet run by toddlers". Those are quite mean toddlers if so. Something will yield for sure. It's inevitable. We could imagine a domino effect but we are not prepared for any kind of collapse.
I too was fooled by Caitlin’s Noam Chomsky rhetorical analysis of the West; I.e. the West is evil not the Jews (really the Khazarian mafia). And once she turned a blind eye on the massive faults of her own country, I thought, “yep she’s a Lefty commie. I’m done”. I liked some of her poetry though. Perhaps she’s Jewish? If so it might explain her aversion to face some uncomfortable truths.
Interesting comparison. Were you reading when I did my Chomsky piece? https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/noam-chomsky-is-the-problem
She's very critical of Australia's kow-towing to the West, particularly in the antagonism towards China. She's correct, of course, that they'd be the sacrifice zone in that war. And that nuclear brinksmanship is a thing. My guess is that she'd be more critical if she were Jewish. She's relentlessly honest with herself. I think the victim narrative is one she fell for, and thinks it's punching down. And that attention is a zero-sum game and she wants to keep it on war. But I think attention is a muscle and the more you use of it in all directions, the stronger it gets.
I really liked some of her poetry too. I was just thinking that I should brush off some of mine and include them. So thanks for the reminder that poetry has a place, or even a palace, too!
I think some of her geopolitical analysis was ok, up to a point. I didn't see your piece on Chomsky yet (but I'll check it out, thanks for mentioning it).
That she wouldn't even consider debating the possibility of the pedos running things and/or the KM, shows a block in her mental make up; a refusal, especially when more of this information is coming out. Too bad she couldn't use her analytical skills in that department. Oh well...
Anyhoo, yes, you should dust off some of your poetry. Why not? That's what I decided to do last June when I found Substack and am very glad and grateful I did. Feel free to stroll through the Victory Palace of poetry to see if there's anything you like (if/when you have some time from your busy writing schedule, of course).
BTW, I applaud your work and the trails that you're blazing. It's very "corraggio" of you, i.e. courageous (Italian, yes?)
Thank you and I will check out your poetry, it's my first love. And yes, courage or heart. It's my ex's but I told him long ago I wanted custody if things ever fell apart. He said he'd be proud for me to have it, and has stuck by that.
Believe it or not, I just found you yesterday while watching the Couey, Crawford, and Kulacz stream. Today I am watching and reading some of your other works. I like you and your ideas. In one of your posts, you said something like: Do you want to be right, or do you want to understand? That reminded me of a quote I have been saying for years: Do you want to be right, or do you want to be in a relationship? Similar ideas. I also like your statement: I am no better than anyone else. Staying humble and being wrong are very important. At 71, I see that I have been wrong more than I have been right, and it's actually more important to understand and remain open.
Wasn't that a fun triologue (is that a word?) I tuned in entirely by accident, trying to see the rest of a clip from JJ, and there I was, looming over them! It was quite the OMG!
Thank you for checking out my work. And you're absolutely correct (as opposed to right). The way I often hear it is, do you want to be right or do you want to be happy? But I do continue to put my ideas forward--sometimes being compared to a bull dog with a pants leg in her mouth. However I was never more happy than having Mathew and Liam prove me wrong--not on the idea but on them being taken in by it.
You painted a complex picture, and I haven't absorbed it all yet. I am going to re-watch. I noticed this morning that Malone is also Mal One! Haha! Is he a bad guy or a good guy? I read his substack posts, and he seems to be a good guy. But, there's his entire career of working on gene therapy, and being associated with all those dark forces in government and shady corporations. And, he was relatively unknown until the covid show, and now he's all over the place.
Mal One--Woah! That's blowing my mind. And yes, I read his stack for almost a year thinking he was a good guy. I think that's the point, the discrepancy between what he says to us vs says FOR us.
I missed your podcast where you said you'd talk about things necessary to further understanding during debate. I think any debate we entered would get buried six indents deep very quickly. But I'm willing to risk it if you are, if you're still interested in talking to me. I'd also be willing to give you a personal email address buried deep in an old comment thread. I know you get notified whenever anyone comments. I'm willing to debate any topic you'd care to, and I'll argue either side you choose for me, provided you're willing to do the same.
A few ground rules I'll abide by: I'll assume equal intellect and never demean your intelligence. I think we should not assume a common canon, as I'm sure your knowledge base exceeds mine. I do not even have a high school diploma and little formal education. (I'm a freak of nature; a story we could get into if you desire.) I am self-educated, so spotty and irregular. I will readily admit ignorance when it crops up, although I will have no trouble dealing with advanced concepts. I will avoid exception citing in an attempt to disprove rules. I will make generalizations and expect you to as well, without either of us pointing out "Not everyone is like that." I will not be making emotional appeals, but my lack of compassion is not yours, and I will not be dismissive of any such arguments you may make.
I'm hoping we can make real progress.
I like your ground rules for debate, Don. I'm forgetting exactly what I said--I don't usually use the word debate but maybe so. I'm usually quoting Thich Nhat Hahn that in a true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. I haven't yet done my episode on Harrison, which was likely where I planned to bring up my own rules for how I express disagreement with someone but a quick draft would be this:
1. I should be in at least 70% agreement with other things they say.
2. I should spend 70% of my time expressing where I agree with them.
3. Before talking about the disagreement, I should express why it matters.
4. Define the question and define what I mean by any terms in the question.
5. My 'argument' should be 70% facts, 20% logic and 10% conclusions.
I agree with you that I think emotional appeals are manipulation and that exceptions don't disprove the rule. I'm also self-educated in all the realms that matter, and I always assume equal intellect. But I couldn't assign a side to you without violating my rule #3--it's a waste of time for both of us unless there's a reason it matters. Thanks for prompting me to think these through. I think they'll come in handy for my next episode on Naomi Wolf & Satanic Panic.
Being able to anticipate and formulate arguments opposed to your own opinion can give you greater insight into your position; a "put yourself in the other person's shoes" approach. But no worries, I won't ask you to argue a position you don't hold and I can do it on my own without prompting.
As far as willing to change, I think that's the point of seeking a truce in the battle of the sexes. Assuming both sides are operating in good faith, concessions and compromises are inevitable if a truce is to be reached.
I framed it as a debate, true, but we don't need to get hung up on the word and it doesn't need to be so formal. Debate, argument, discussion, could all be used interchangeably.
We don't know each other well enough to pin down percentages on agreement, so I'm not sure about that one. I'll read the author you named and get back to you. I would instinctively guess that any area where we had the greatest disagreements would have the potential for the greatest growth, or conversely, the greatest potential for devolving into name calling. 😁😁😁
What makes you laugh and who are some comics you enjoy? I will be tempted to consider this whole venture a failure if we can't occasionally make each other laugh. Maybe we should use emojis until we've sorted out each other's sense of humor?
The difference between men and women is that when a woman asks you to smell something, it usually smells nice. 😂
And please don't let this be a burden in any way. You are obviously a busy woman and you don't need to feel compelled to answer me in any time frame other than at your leisure, or to answer me at all.
Any issue you'd care to kick it off with?
The benefit of having a blog or YT or radio show was that I could stop arguing with people. I could put my ideas out there and pull people who were interested, rather than try to push, which I've never found successful. So the idea of arguing for its own sake sounds like going back to something that never resulted in the discussions I wanted to have. I think that you have a group of people who see things in a similar way, with the Deimos Station set, is that right? I suggest that you read my work if you feel like you have something to learn from me, and don't bother with it, if not. That's how I approach the internet.
My intent wasn't to push or argue, but to have a dialogue. Good luck and be well.