Yes he's controlled op in my view. I call anyone who doesn't talk about (and emphasize) that money is the medium that keeps us shackled, as either controlled op, or not up to par in their thinking, still unable to see the most wretched reasons for the way things are. I also think these semi-celebrities have got such a great opportunity to start something new but they say stupid things like "be more loving" or something like that, which will get us nowhere. David Icke says things like that as a solution. SMH.
Sacred Economics is actually a very strange mix. It does an extremely sophisticated explanation of how money works. There's a lot of truth in there--he earned that Yale economics degree. But he misses the most important part of how money's created through mortgages. And then he gives these simplistic solutions that are exactly what you say, "be more loving." That's too much at-odds with his intelligence to be real.
It's been a major turning point in my thinking to see usury and usurped as the same. I'm certain that it's part of the psyops. Lending money at interest isn't the problem. That's a sensible thing to do--who would lend money otherwise when you're putting it at risk for loss but you have no gain? It gives a fair way of delaying the repayment for a greater return. It's fair to both lender and borrower.
But in our system, the bankers usurp ownership of the properties so that they issue the credit and the repayment goes to them, same as feudalism. And if the buyer defaults, they own it outright. Charles disguises this with some mumbo-jumbo.
Tereza, we must talk. I really felt Charles is not a good player. In Asheville NC, he has a little cult here. He connects/collaborates with Ceara Foley-who used to or perhaps still does run an herbal school in Asheville. She calls herself an herbal witch and was a leader for RFK Jr campaign. I have much to share about a personal experience with volunteering for the RFK JR campaign, about the healing arts community here, the Ayurvedic Institute, David Newman who sang for RFK Jr selfie line when Charles introduced him in Asheville. I have so much to say about Lex Fridman, Charles, Rising Appalachia the band, The Esalen community. I have written to Charles with no reply. I wrote a post on all this. So much to add here.
So interesting Jae Bee. Rising Appalachia, too! It's funny, the way they were being promoted in my feed made me suspicious of them. And very slick and well groomed. Have I said I'm from Appalachia? I've been listening to Josiah & the Bonnevilles lately. In this episode I recite the lyrics from his song Appalachian Rage. It's one of two times I've started crying: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/appalachian-rage.
And Lex Friedman. I've noticed he only interviews men. Please link your post so I can check it out in the meantime, but I'd be happy to talk.
It is true the so called disidence is still a minefield for various reasons. Yesterday, I realized how some radicals on Youtube are in fact working for the state services in order to spot real disenters preventively. There is a political party, suposedly revolutionary communists which strangely, and against all marxist orthodoxy, call for war with islam. His leader walks MSM tv programs, presented as "a dangerous communist", only to discover with joy that he hates islam just as the audience.
Alan Soral claims that the degree of real disidence can be tested by the degree of repression power exerces on the supposed dissident. We have judges in jail for sueing the judiciary mafia. That's real. And even so it could still be a stunt. Some claim Assange was-is a double agent. There are rumors Alma Assad, the English spouse of Bachar al Assad is in fact a MI6 agent. There have been similar cases in the past. The state doesnt shy before any kind of nasty trick. It has the monopoly of violence, the monopoly of truth, the monopoly of narrative and the monopoly of money.
Then there are the covid disidents I was hanging with. Some look legit, some look agents. Everytime I tried to further into outdoor visible protests I found this underlying hypocritical bourgeois attitude which effectively stopped me. A good deal of new age magical thinking, a lot of protonazi individuals, mostly uneducated people having real a few books but without a long universitarian education. I dont mean universitarians are culturally superior, they can be very ignorant about the material realities of life and how things really work, but it general their minds are not full of marine monsters, aliens, or Hitler slogans.
Since a formal kind of disidence such as real political revolutionary groups are totally crushed by the system, the informal disidence becomes a blob where lines are blurred. You can agree with someone on one point but disagree in another fundamental point which ultimately prevents you from uniting and build any meaningful political action. Many people woke up but they are still dreaming.
Democracy was never intended to empower the plebs but to guarantee that the rich and powerful could buy anybody and that everybody was effectively bought off. This is the perfect system for the marchandise to flow unmolested regardless of who sits where. That was the case in old Athens, where he maritime merchants controlled the votes, and that is the case in British style bicameral parliamentary liberal democracies.
But this is only the surface. When you scratch a little and manage to have an honest conversation with a member of the inner power rings, they will admit that corruption is unavoidable in a market system but that is preferable to any other option. This is both a self-justification and a blank check for further corruption, crime and chaos.
This system double standards, twisted ethics, liquidity, fake narratives, hollow spectacle relativity and cosmetic truths are a consequence of this, a psychic industry meant to grease the gears of a monster machine where every screw is faulty. The machine is consequently covered by layers of grease and becomes a ball of grease. The Great Greaseball.
This debate was alive in the ancient world and crystalised in the Peloponese war. Most of the state cities supported Athens because as someone put it:.I'd rather live one day free in Athens than spend the rest of my life eating the Spartan black broth.
As former "socialist" Spanish president put it. "I prefer to live homeless in the streets of New York than have a regular life in the Soviet Union...
This hedonist mindset dominates the western left and liberals, so corruption can only dig deeper until a new Phillip of Macedonia overruns Athens again and a new paradigm is set up to thin the ball of grease. We will be able to see the decrepitude of the stumbling machine underneath, just like in Athens.
Hi, Yoni. I find that equating real dissidents with the amount of censorship is somewhat self-defeating. It implies that if you're reading someone, they must be a spook. And conversely, someone like Robert Malone can claim street cred because of censorship--but that's the first thing a spook would do, right?
When I look at all the inversions of history in the Bible, and inversions of history in history, it makes me wonder if the roles of Athens and Sparta may have been reversed. The paradigm of rule over others by usurping the land comes from Athens and the archons, along with the illusion of choice that undermined anarchy by co-opting the smallholder farmers. Laurent Guyenot's Anno Domini calls into question if ancient Rome even existed. The usurping of Greek mythology and merely changing the names is a lack of imagination, to say the least. And I have a draft article called Slouching Towards Bethlehem that has some very disturbing history, that I've only seen in translated Greek, on the torture of Greeks to convert them. It's just a question in the back of my mind that keeps nagging at me to explore it.
Tereza, I'd like to see what you have to say about the origins of A Course In Miracles, and in particular Dr. William Thetford's well-documented CIA connections. I believe he headed MK-ULTRA Subproject 130: Personality Theory, while at Columbia University between 1971-1978. Thetford and Dr. Helen Schucman "channeled" ACIM in or shortly before its publication in 1975. Its media promotion along with that of thematically related New Age material continued well through the 1980s. Shucman reportedly had nothing but shame, regret, and raging vitriol for "that goddamned book" on her deathbed, saying it was the worst thing that ever happened to her.
Sure looks like a psyop to me! But you're clearly very deep into this thing. I wonder what it looks like to you?
Hello, Shy Boy. I have a systematic process for determining whether a 'scripture' can be considered possibly the 'word of God' or whether it has to be eliminated as not possible: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/lies-that-kill-the-words-of-god. In that article I look at the directness of that claim and whether it contradicts itself internally or contradicts what I believe--in my case, my only dogma that I'm no better than anyone else.
In 20 yrs of studying it daily, I've gone through the 1700 pp several times. I've never found any internal contradiction. Nor does it contradict my dogma--which it couldn't do since seeing others as equal is the prerequisite for recognizing others as One. Every other scripture, except the Tao and some Sufi scripts, fails this test miserably. Not even close.
It's interesting that Helen would say she had shame and regret. I've heard her described as a stout little woman wearing high heels to an event in a field. What resonates to me about the origin story is that it required two people to agree on a common goal--something I've described as the most powerful force in the world.
Much of the Course is written in iambic pentameter--Shakespeare's meter. I have one book that displays it in broken lines so you can recognize the pattern. I have another book of Helen's own poetry and there's no comparison. She was utterly incapable of writing these 1700 pp that continue to be ones I want to read and get more out of. Maybe you think I'm easily amused but I don't think there's another book I've reread once.
But Helen's response makes sense of something--I've wondered if the glossary and Q&A were her own addition. Those are the only times that use the name Jesus, which is strange if it's supposed to be dictated by Jesus but he then refers to himself in the third person. I don't know if you've followed my work showing that the story of Jesus was written to control the opposition to the Roman Empire: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/jesus-is-the-og-psy-ops and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/jesus-rebel-or-imperialist?
I appreciate the background. I've also wanted to do a search-and-replace on all the male terms for Father, Christ, Holy Spirit. It makes no sense to me that all the personifications for divinity would be male. It's gotten so annoying to translate them in my mind that if I could find a new scripture that met my criteria, I'd consider it. As it says, there are many roads to the same truth. This was written for people who loved the language and story of the gospels. It reinterprets them in a way that's consistent with its truth, but it's more convoluted for me. Any suggestions? Otherwise I may have to just write it.
Were you not aware of Thetford's CIA background in MK-ULTRA? That seems hard to believe, with all the other connections you've made. We all have our blind spots, I suppose. Or maybe you just don't want to talk about it? Fair enough, if so.
If you're interested, I'd love to see you get in touch with Elizabeth Nickson on the topic. She's been looking into MK-ULTRA lately, as apparently her mother was a subject.
Hmmm ... I just responded with six paragraphs and a link explaining my process for analyzing whether a scripture is a fake, and you answer that we all have our blind spots and maybe I don't want to talk about it? Did you read my article?
In all of my episodes exposing Robert Malone, Sasha Latypova, Mathew Crawford and Elizabeth Nickson, I analyze is what they say and do for discrepancies and contradictions. I'm not looking for those controlling the opposition. It's only after I find inconsistencies between who they say they are and what they say that I start digging into why. There are three options: naive, complicit, captured. My first assumption is that they're just naive. But when I examine what they're saying, as I did here for Charles, and find a pattern of rhetorical tricks, I have to reconsider that they're intentionally misleading.
So two people I've identified as ethically conflicted--Elizabeth and Mathew--both come out saying A Course in Miracles is CIA mind control. But neither they nor you want to argue the fundamental logic of its ethically consistent 1700 pp. Tell me your system for determining what's true.
The Course isn't a personality cult. It's a systematic process of changing your way of seeing from guilt, blame and fear to giving others the same benefit of the doubt that you'd want them to give you. If I hadn't come to the same conclusions on my own before I read it, I'm sure I would have rejected it. I don't decide what to think based on who says it. My interest is in ideas, and only secondarily people when the ideas they present are twisted.
Oh, and Joe is a friend. From his words, he's learned more about Jesus from me. We've had a lot of fun dissecting the narratives. He goes further into the linguistics and I go deep into the zealot history and Josephus.
Yes he's controlled op in my view. I call anyone who doesn't talk about (and emphasize) that money is the medium that keeps us shackled, as either controlled op, or not up to par in their thinking, still unable to see the most wretched reasons for the way things are. I also think these semi-celebrities have got such a great opportunity to start something new but they say stupid things like "be more loving" or something like that, which will get us nowhere. David Icke says things like that as a solution. SMH.
Sacred Economics is actually a very strange mix. It does an extremely sophisticated explanation of how money works. There's a lot of truth in there--he earned that Yale economics degree. But he misses the most important part of how money's created through mortgages. And then he gives these simplistic solutions that are exactly what you say, "be more loving." That's too much at-odds with his intelligence to be real.
It's been a major turning point in my thinking to see usury and usurped as the same. I'm certain that it's part of the psyops. Lending money at interest isn't the problem. That's a sensible thing to do--who would lend money otherwise when you're putting it at risk for loss but you have no gain? It gives a fair way of delaying the repayment for a greater return. It's fair to both lender and borrower.
But in our system, the bankers usurp ownership of the properties so that they issue the credit and the repayment goes to them, same as feudalism. And if the buyer defaults, they own it outright. Charles disguises this with some mumbo-jumbo.
Always glad to get your thoughts, denise!
Tereza, we must talk. I really felt Charles is not a good player. In Asheville NC, he has a little cult here. He connects/collaborates with Ceara Foley-who used to or perhaps still does run an herbal school in Asheville. She calls herself an herbal witch and was a leader for RFK Jr campaign. I have much to share about a personal experience with volunteering for the RFK JR campaign, about the healing arts community here, the Ayurvedic Institute, David Newman who sang for RFK Jr selfie line when Charles introduced him in Asheville. I have so much to say about Lex Fridman, Charles, Rising Appalachia the band, The Esalen community. I have written to Charles with no reply. I wrote a post on all this. So much to add here.
So interesting Jae Bee. Rising Appalachia, too! It's funny, the way they were being promoted in my feed made me suspicious of them. And very slick and well groomed. Have I said I'm from Appalachia? I've been listening to Josiah & the Bonnevilles lately. In this episode I recite the lyrics from his song Appalachian Rage. It's one of two times I've started crying: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/appalachian-rage.
And Lex Friedman. I've noticed he only interviews men. Please link your post so I can check it out in the meantime, but I'd be happy to talk.
It is true the so called disidence is still a minefield for various reasons. Yesterday, I realized how some radicals on Youtube are in fact working for the state services in order to spot real disenters preventively. There is a political party, suposedly revolutionary communists which strangely, and against all marxist orthodoxy, call for war with islam. His leader walks MSM tv programs, presented as "a dangerous communist", only to discover with joy that he hates islam just as the audience.
Alan Soral claims that the degree of real disidence can be tested by the degree of repression power exerces on the supposed dissident. We have judges in jail for sueing the judiciary mafia. That's real. And even so it could still be a stunt. Some claim Assange was-is a double agent. There are rumors Alma Assad, the English spouse of Bachar al Assad is in fact a MI6 agent. There have been similar cases in the past. The state doesnt shy before any kind of nasty trick. It has the monopoly of violence, the monopoly of truth, the monopoly of narrative and the monopoly of money.
Then there are the covid disidents I was hanging with. Some look legit, some look agents. Everytime I tried to further into outdoor visible protests I found this underlying hypocritical bourgeois attitude which effectively stopped me. A good deal of new age magical thinking, a lot of protonazi individuals, mostly uneducated people having real a few books but without a long universitarian education. I dont mean universitarians are culturally superior, they can be very ignorant about the material realities of life and how things really work, but it general their minds are not full of marine monsters, aliens, or Hitler slogans.
Since a formal kind of disidence such as real political revolutionary groups are totally crushed by the system, the informal disidence becomes a blob where lines are blurred. You can agree with someone on one point but disagree in another fundamental point which ultimately prevents you from uniting and build any meaningful political action. Many people woke up but they are still dreaming.
Democracy was never intended to empower the plebs but to guarantee that the rich and powerful could buy anybody and that everybody was effectively bought off. This is the perfect system for the marchandise to flow unmolested regardless of who sits where. That was the case in old Athens, where he maritime merchants controlled the votes, and that is the case in British style bicameral parliamentary liberal democracies.
But this is only the surface. When you scratch a little and manage to have an honest conversation with a member of the inner power rings, they will admit that corruption is unavoidable in a market system but that is preferable to any other option. This is both a self-justification and a blank check for further corruption, crime and chaos.
This system double standards, twisted ethics, liquidity, fake narratives, hollow spectacle relativity and cosmetic truths are a consequence of this, a psychic industry meant to grease the gears of a monster machine where every screw is faulty. The machine is consequently covered by layers of grease and becomes a ball of grease. The Great Greaseball.
This debate was alive in the ancient world and crystalised in the Peloponese war. Most of the state cities supported Athens because as someone put it:.I'd rather live one day free in Athens than spend the rest of my life eating the Spartan black broth.
As former "socialist" Spanish president put it. "I prefer to live homeless in the streets of New York than have a regular life in the Soviet Union...
This hedonist mindset dominates the western left and liberals, so corruption can only dig deeper until a new Phillip of Macedonia overruns Athens again and a new paradigm is set up to thin the ball of grease. We will be able to see the decrepitude of the stumbling machine underneath, just like in Athens.
Hi, Yoni. I find that equating real dissidents with the amount of censorship is somewhat self-defeating. It implies that if you're reading someone, they must be a spook. And conversely, someone like Robert Malone can claim street cred because of censorship--but that's the first thing a spook would do, right?
We agree about democracy in ancient Athens. This is the first chapter of my book: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/01-a-democracy-of-slaveowners.
When I look at all the inversions of history in the Bible, and inversions of history in history, it makes me wonder if the roles of Athens and Sparta may have been reversed. The paradigm of rule over others by usurping the land comes from Athens and the archons, along with the illusion of choice that undermined anarchy by co-opting the smallholder farmers. Laurent Guyenot's Anno Domini calls into question if ancient Rome even existed. The usurping of Greek mythology and merely changing the names is a lack of imagination, to say the least. And I have a draft article called Slouching Towards Bethlehem that has some very disturbing history, that I've only seen in translated Greek, on the torture of Greeks to convert them. It's just a question in the back of my mind that keeps nagging at me to explore it.
I first encountered Charles Eisenstein online about 15 years ago. I've always distrusted him.
Lex Fridman is a joke. Obviously a spook.
Tereza, I'd like to see what you have to say about the origins of A Course In Miracles, and in particular Dr. William Thetford's well-documented CIA connections. I believe he headed MK-ULTRA Subproject 130: Personality Theory, while at Columbia University between 1971-1978. Thetford and Dr. Helen Schucman "channeled" ACIM in or shortly before its publication in 1975. Its media promotion along with that of thematically related New Age material continued well through the 1980s. Shucman reportedly had nothing but shame, regret, and raging vitriol for "that goddamned book" on her deathbed, saying it was the worst thing that ever happened to her.
Sure looks like a psyop to me! But you're clearly very deep into this thing. I wonder what it looks like to you?
Hello, Shy Boy. I have a systematic process for determining whether a 'scripture' can be considered possibly the 'word of God' or whether it has to be eliminated as not possible: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/lies-that-kill-the-words-of-god. In that article I look at the directness of that claim and whether it contradicts itself internally or contradicts what I believe--in my case, my only dogma that I'm no better than anyone else.
In 20 yrs of studying it daily, I've gone through the 1700 pp several times. I've never found any internal contradiction. Nor does it contradict my dogma--which it couldn't do since seeing others as equal is the prerequisite for recognizing others as One. Every other scripture, except the Tao and some Sufi scripts, fails this test miserably. Not even close.
It's interesting that Helen would say she had shame and regret. I've heard her described as a stout little woman wearing high heels to an event in a field. What resonates to me about the origin story is that it required two people to agree on a common goal--something I've described as the most powerful force in the world.
Much of the Course is written in iambic pentameter--Shakespeare's meter. I have one book that displays it in broken lines so you can recognize the pattern. I have another book of Helen's own poetry and there's no comparison. She was utterly incapable of writing these 1700 pp that continue to be ones I want to read and get more out of. Maybe you think I'm easily amused but I don't think there's another book I've reread once.
But Helen's response makes sense of something--I've wondered if the glossary and Q&A were her own addition. Those are the only times that use the name Jesus, which is strange if it's supposed to be dictated by Jesus but he then refers to himself in the third person. I don't know if you've followed my work showing that the story of Jesus was written to control the opposition to the Roman Empire: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/jesus-is-the-og-psy-ops and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/jesus-rebel-or-imperialist?
I appreciate the background. I've also wanted to do a search-and-replace on all the male terms for Father, Christ, Holy Spirit. It makes no sense to me that all the personifications for divinity would be male. It's gotten so annoying to translate them in my mind that if I could find a new scripture that met my criteria, I'd consider it. As it says, there are many roads to the same truth. This was written for people who loved the language and story of the gospels. It reinterprets them in a way that's consistent with its truth, but it's more convoluted for me. Any suggestions? Otherwise I may have to just write it.
Were you not aware of Thetford's CIA background in MK-ULTRA? That seems hard to believe, with all the other connections you've made. We all have our blind spots, I suppose. Or maybe you just don't want to talk about it? Fair enough, if so.
If you're interested, I'd love to see you get in touch with Elizabeth Nickson on the topic. She's been looking into MK-ULTRA lately, as apparently her mother was a subject.
https://elizabethnickson.substack.com/about
I already learned about Jesus from Joseph Atwill as well as Valliant & Fahy. I'll have to check out your take on it. Thanks!
Hmmm ... I just responded with six paragraphs and a link explaining my process for analyzing whether a scripture is a fake, and you answer that we all have our blind spots and maybe I don't want to talk about it? Did you read my article?
In all of my episodes exposing Robert Malone, Sasha Latypova, Mathew Crawford and Elizabeth Nickson, I analyze is what they say and do for discrepancies and contradictions. I'm not looking for those controlling the opposition. It's only after I find inconsistencies between who they say they are and what they say that I start digging into why. There are three options: naive, complicit, captured. My first assumption is that they're just naive. But when I examine what they're saying, as I did here for Charles, and find a pattern of rhetorical tricks, I have to reconsider that they're intentionally misleading.
Here's my article on Elizabeth, whose book on MK Ultra and her mom I've read: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/elizabeth-nicksons-hate-speech.
So two people I've identified as ethically conflicted--Elizabeth and Mathew--both come out saying A Course in Miracles is CIA mind control. But neither they nor you want to argue the fundamental logic of its ethically consistent 1700 pp. Tell me your system for determining what's true.
The Course isn't a personality cult. It's a systematic process of changing your way of seeing from guilt, blame and fear to giving others the same benefit of the doubt that you'd want them to give you. If I hadn't come to the same conclusions on my own before I read it, I'm sure I would have rejected it. I don't decide what to think based on who says it. My interest is in ideas, and only secondarily people when the ideas they present are twisted.
Oh, and Joe is a friend. From his words, he's learned more about Jesus from me. We've had a lot of fun dissecting the narratives. He goes further into the linguistics and I go deep into the zealot history and Josephus.