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.
My impression of Sacred Economics (reread it last year) was that Eisenstein seemed to believe the former theory of fractional reserve banking / money multiplier effect which has now been usurped by Richard Werner’s empirical analysis indicating that credit creation (ie that banks create money out of nothing everytime they issue a loan or mortgage) is more likely. In my day , they were still teaching fractional reserve banking but I think since Werner’s 2016 paper in the Int’l Journal of Financial Analysis, at least some economics departments have quietly shifted to teaching credit creation.
I also had the impression that he generally had a strong analysis (besides the credit creation) of the problem but the solutions didn’t feel quite right to me and tbh despite reading and rereading the solution chapters I still couldn’t figure out what he was getting at and how we could possibly get from here to there. As you’ve pointed out, he’s clearly missing a deeper political analysis (or even a better international analysis since his book gives the impression of being a universalist / objective viewpoint while being largely Eurocentric).
Tereza for starters if the economy were of any worth, we wouldn't need to lend money for ordinary things like cars and houses. But further, it causes perturbations for money to be treated as having intrinsic value in itself. It must not appreciate or depreciate. Money needs to be treated as a measurement and purely as a measurement, sort of like inches. We don't need to borrow inches, we don't lose inches if we make a bad gamble. If loans were to exist, they should only be charged for admin charges. Especially now, with money being digital.
It's really hard to get one's head around what money really is. We have been imbued with a perspective of money that is based on faulty assumptions. One is that money needs to be scarce. That is purely a patriarchal mental condition that needs to be analyzed before it sends us all to kingdom come. We are swimming in a sea of patriarchy. It is everyone's fault - the men for keeping it going and refusing to discuss it thus become aware of it, and women because they act like doormats to everything male (male bibles, male constitutions, etc)
Money is the vehicle of our enslavement. I hope you can see this. The bankers don't have to work 30 years to get the money, but you do. It's a preposterous system. Money is not a bad thing per se, but money that comes with debt is. And so why do the bankers deserve a percentage of the principle for lending the money that comes from thin air? Just look at those proportions, are they justified for what they have done to earn it? What do they have to do to get the money? They have a lot of complicated papers, yeah, that must have taken some time, they have a staff, yeah that costs money. But the money itself, where are they getting those numbers from? Simply from thin air Tereza! So why must we think it's ok for them to get interest when a fee for the admin of lending would be more than sufficient for services? (Not that there's much admin now, with numbers going from screen to accou in a split second)
The way money was invented is just no longer relevant. Nobody has gold and that's what money was founded on. People don't have jobs anymore, (or very few) so money isn't based on wages either. The entire idea of money based on interest helps no one but the bankers and they are irrelevant too now. We don't need chaperones, we can transfer money from our account to a screen just like they can.
People have to know also that a title for property does not make the titleholder the owner. They are merely tenants.
Yes about Charles, anyone who does not emphasize that money is what is keeping us enslaved, is hiding the truth. We should hold Charles's "feet to the fire" and anyone who purports to be in this truth movement. This is fostering the kind of world we need to be in, a world based on truth, not on politeness alone.
We cannot free ourselves by love alone. We must get off their systems and that means we must have systems that we can escape to.
I love your blogs and videos Tereza. Keep them up woman!
I think this is exactly the kind of conversation that we need to be having, denise. And of course, I agree about the bankers. They are usurping ownership of the homes when they create the money for the mortgage. No argument there.
Let me understand better how your system works, particularly when property changes hands. Who does have the right to issue money? When you say 'transfer money from our account to a screen,' where is that account? How does money get into it? Can the user create whatever numbers they want or are there limits? What is the money backed by? How do you determine who gets to live in a house they didn't build?
I love that you ask questions, it means you have a fertile and open mind,
Money can be issued any way you want. I would like either of these two ways.
1. Issued by hours worked.
2. Issued by based on a commodity such as marijuana, hemp, seeds, something that is infinite and has value to humanity.
As for land and property - I envisage that everything stay the same that exists, nobody should lose anything. And we transition to another system. First it will mean that we buy land because we are in this system and need to transition out of it as coherently as possible. This method has to be coordinated so that we cannot be wiped out so easily.
I envisage this happening this way -
We stop paying interest. First we muster those who pledge to the group that they will do it. It is best to do it with a buddy for moral support (we are building a new baby after all, and baby's have two parents!)
We stop paying interest on the rational that the credit for interest is never included into the economy. So it has to be paid back but the supply of money doesn't account for it. So it can never be paid back without incurring bankcrupties and loss of property (homes, cars, etc)
It is hard to see the math to this when we are looking at it as an individual unit, as a "citizen". It has to be seen in the aggregate. You have to take an aerial view to be able to see how this works overall which I think you have done, but needs to go further.
If the money isn't put into the money supply, then it cannot be paid. If people asserted that reasoning, there is nothing the bankers could stand on.
But the next part is the most delicious...
With the saving of that interest (sometimes it is a few hundred dollars), half of it you keep for yourself, pat yourself on the back for being so courageous, and the other half goes to someone in your local area who needs it, who you want to help or a small business, or anything that keeps the money local.
That way you get the support of the community. And it could really help as it is an ongoing donation every month! It would help everyone.
But few people have the cojones to do this. However we can talk about it as talking is what summons things into our reality.
I would love to have a discussion with you, and record it. I had a podcast called "Sirens Say" but I couldn't find any sirens who wanted to talk about these serious subjects. So women then end up being co-consipirators with patriarchy. Patriarchy is violent. Peerness is what we need to head towards. Men and women, boys and girls, equality of say, equality of voice. Systems that enable everyone to have voice. There will be no need for regular "leaders", leadership if it's organic, needs to be dynamic, fluid, temporary, to make way for the next one and the next. It is not something that has a "fixed term". That idea is simply patriarchal, their ideas are all very linear and skeleton-like. It's women who fill it out, who give it substance and wholeness. Our culture is having a crisis of balance.
BTW, as Julius Skoolafish will confirm, issuing money as essentially a receipt for hours worked is the Feder system used by National Socialism. They repudiated the debt of reparations for WWI imposed by the bankers who'd funded the war on both sides. And rebuilt from the Weimar inflation into the greatest economic powerhouse of Europe--without invading any other country or enslaving any other race.
Destroying this model was the sole purpose of WWII. So your ideas have a historical precedent, if we reject the propaganda against it.
Thanks for that thoughtful reply, denise. To compare economic designs, I think that you need to define measurable results so that you can run a simulation to figure out what will accomplish your goals best. Here are the criteria I look at:
1. Increase the exchanges of local goods and services.
2. Increase local homeownership.
3. Increase small local businesses.
4. Increase small local landlords.
5. Increase multigenerational families staying in the area.
There are many intangibles, but these seem to me like they'd be measures of family and community self-reliance.
I'd be happy to do an interview sometime. I've found it helps to have some questions defined ahead of time. Let me know if you'd like to set that up. Thanks again!
This is so refreshing. Thank you for this. I have been critical of Charles (perhaps for different reasons than you note here) since I joined NAAS (the online network his ex-wife runs) for a short period until I opened my eyes. In that space, him, his ex-wife and his most devout cult-like followers were all very pseudo-spiritual and it led to a whole lot of groupthink, censorship, and some people were kicked out for simply having beliefs that differed from others.
I can't stand phonies, least of all, new age phonies who fake being open minded, compassionate, spiritual, etc. I'm confident most of them are/were narcs and many just engaged in spiritual bypassing. There was a mass of people who left the network when I was there partly because of Charles' "live and let live" approach - which means he never actually had any strong beliefs in, well, anything, and he always took the path of least resistance. His fake optimism/naivety is also a nice little shield to not have to honestly criticize much of anything. He's very strategic like that.
All said, I think he's a coward in every sense of the word and it became even more apparent in his writing and after when he became RFK Jr.'s advisor. When you believe in nothing, it's easier to be swayed - and he is easily swayed. Never one to rock the boat.
Reading other comments here, I'm heartened to see that I'm not alone in my feelings and that other people have similar experiences.
Thank you Rozali. Others in the comments on Deep Fakes also mentioned NAAS and had some bad experiences with it. It makes me wonder if one of the purposes that's been set for Charles is to discredit spirituality, and particularly A Course in Miracles. It associates many of the concepts with his superficial pop-spirituality.
One reader termed what I do socio-spirituality: taking a hard look at the reality IN the world while questioning the reality OF the world. To do only one is like only moving one foot--you go in circles. Thanks for reading.
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.
Like many others, I found Eisenstein’s pieces like Mob Morality and the Unvaxxed of solace when things were going mad.
I don’t know if he means well, is just misguided, genuinely believes what he says, or is intentionally misleading the opposition.
Regardless, something about his pieces didn’t feel right to me (intuition I know!). I posted this comment in response to his More Naïveté Please article to try to articulate my thoughts :
In a nutshell, I think we can still hold people’s humanity without accepting abuse, while advocating for our needs, while holding them accountable , while challenging their ideas and their actions…and while not electing them to positions of power, wanting an intimate relationship with them etc.
The choice isn’t between situationism (so everyone can just do whatever they want regardless of its impact on others) vs dehumanisation (so any “bad” actors are exterminated)..there is a third way (third paradigm??) that respects everyone’s dignity and humanity without letting them do hurtful things to others.
I love the Sudbury Valley School which was based on democratic principles with no teachers or classes or exams or homework. Older kids taught younger kids. Problems were resolved by “council” (kind of like a jury of peers). If a kid hit another kid, both got called to council to have a heartfelt conversation about it and the aim was not to dehumanise or “punish” for the sake of punishing but to ensure both left feeling better and stronger together and more connected afterwards. And sometimes there would need to be accountability or reparations eg if a kid littered everywhere, they may be asked to clean it up by council, after a conversation that respected their dignity. Or if a kid was constantly kicking up a fuss in a particular room, they may be not allowed there for a while. The kids democratically voted who the adults would be sort of hanging out and supervising, and I think possibly also who council would be.
In the second one, I think you'll like my conversation with William at the end. It concludes with this, that confirms your point in the comment:
"Women: don’t allow yourself or other women to be insulted, even by a friend. Superiority is the cold form of hatred. Don’t be nice and acquiesce to those who put you or others down. When they gaslight you that you’re over reacting or being emotional, call them on their bullshit."
My formula, that seems similar to what you're saying, is love the person, challenge the ideas, and that women are good at the first but bad at the second, and men are bad at the first but good at the second. But I saw you liked Logic is your Friend, so you know that.
I also say that the first step in forgiveness is removing someone's ability to do further harm. Charles fucking Eisenstein skips that step.
I also found his early pieces, like CoraNation one very comforting in all the madness. But I think now that was intentional, to set us up.
Yes! One of the biggest lessons I learnt in escaping an abusive relationship was that logic was important. Especially when the silly mushy feelings seem to be running the show.
I have lots of Charles’ books and followed his writing for over a decade, so it’s really disappointing that you went through this experience.
It occurred to me this morning that I've made a clean sweep of 'feminist men.' Every one of them speaks over and for women, and uses it as a tool, likely to get laid. The first was someone I'd followed for four decades, who I wrote about in my first piece on tonic masculinity: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/tonic-masculinity-and-feminine-wiles.
At that time, I named Charles as another feminist man but felt he was legit. Then came to my conclusion that he was using the language we women resonate with, but taking it from other sources and twisting it for a nefarious purpose. I don't use that word lightly. Both in economics and spirituality, he's diverted the energy that would go into a solution intentionally so that it leads nowhere--or worse.
Once you know that someone's lied, you can never again say they wouldn't do that. All you can ask is whether they're doing that now. Beyond any doubt, in my own experience, Charles lied about my phrase being his. So when I look at the other places where maybe he was naive, or just mistaken, or followed the wrong advice, I no longer give him that benefit of the doubt. And, once you see it, neither will you.
Oh and there's a funny story about the third feminist man, who I stalked for two years at the farmer's market and then had one date with, where he talked over me, showed off his esoteric knowledge, and bullied me into a strategy for how I should present my concept of tonic masculinity.
But also charming! I read your stack of quotes and loved them, but memorized this to repeat to my friends: "The harsh reality is that if women raise their standards, most of us will be single. The problem isn’t women’s bad taste. It’s that they are fishing in a sea of garbage, then trying to turn the garbage into something worthwhile after the fact."
Ha, feminist men are the bane of my existence! And Nora Samaran’s if her Wordpress is anything to go by. At least with an outright sexist man it’s obvious and I can just up and run lol, but a feminist man will truly waste my time.
Every feminist guy likes the*idea* of equality but most don’t really know how to live it.
I studied sexism in intimate relationships (psychology) and couple therapy a few years back. Terry Real opened my eyes to sexism in relationships in “How Can I Get Through To You?” This echoes your point that each sex needs a bit more of the quality usually prescribed to the other. Men need to care more. Women need to be more assertive (“speak softly and carry a big stick” lol).
This later led me to Carmen Knudsen-Martin’s Socio-Emotional Relationship Theory which is probably the best approach I’ve seen for addressing gender and power. She also pointed out that men in theory were on board with equality but in practice talked over their partners, dismissed them, assumed the power to define reality etc.
Which is all a super long winded way of saying I’m really glad I found you. Like you, I think we need to create freedom from oppression in the home before we have much hope of doing it more broadly. Unfortunately, the freedom community hasn’t quite got this yet…maybe because many are men opining about new models of economics lol. All I can say to that is: I would love to have a cuppa with their wives.
How has it taken me 68 yrs to find feminism in its true gendered, in-relationship with men role? I'm staying for the first couple nights in San Diego with my middle daughter, who's moved into her own place for the first time in her life. And is also in a serious relationship--who I'll get to meet!--for the first time in eight years since a bad relationship that caused her to move across country.
So I have your Poorna Bell article open to show her: In the Restful Home of Women Who Live Alone. I LOVE living alone.
And you're so right about the 'carry a big stick' although it think it's really 'have the deed to the house in your name only.' On a David Graeber article, I loved his statement, "An ‘opinion’ is what you have when you don’t have any power.” It's not that women aren't using their skills in negotiating. It's that we're starting from a position of no power.
And you, LoWa, are the best birthday present! I'm very glad I found you too.
Yes, I subscribed to his Sub-stack over a year ago, perhaps longer but unsubscribed. I don’t remember the reason but there was something off putting, maybe unauthentic. I also felt the same with Steve K.
Like many, Eisenstein fell prey to virulent censorship; that does not excuse him, but his Coronation essay evidences this. I am not sure if he's a paid opposition. That is sad because I like his work on the Gift Economy a lot, but I discovered him AFTER having come to a similar conclusion. In the WEF model, the tyranny of social credit will rule all.
Not in the Benevolent Model, which is coercion-free. If going along with ownership rights, we cannot avoid the privatization of nature and the pyramidal structure because money organizes centralization. The Market is a Religion, and Money is its Sacrament, which we must overcome at some point.
The very idea of owning land came along with the realization that some lands have more natural resources than others. One more reason why the Benevolent Society is in favor of Planetary Stewardship. I just wrote a new blog about this.
Hello, Mind Awakened (I don't know if you prefer not using your name, so I'll err on the side of caution). Are there other writings of Charles' that present a different view from what I quoted from Coronation? I wasn't sure if there's something that shows this was the result of virulent censorship. It seemed to me that he was able to publish something that did get picked up nationally, while even a feel-good writing of mine on 'lessons from the Coronavirus' got censored in Nextdoor. And on his own site, it doesn't seem he'd be censored.
It's interesting that you came to a similar conclusion before reading his Gift Economy. I think that's why his work on spirituality resonated with me. That's why it feels important, to me, to start out with what our goals are for a new economic system, rather than the method. Without measurable goals, there's nothing to use to compare systems. To me, the gift economy is reliant on individual generosity, while keeping those individuals dependent on serving the Usurpers, as I call the bankers. It skips over the community, so there's no support network or exchange mechanism to keep things fair, especially in the important realm of home ownership.
I did just see your new blog! I think we disagree on terminology--I see 'ownership' as taking responsibility for the care and maintenance, along with giving back to the previous generation and passing the gift on in a better form to the next. But I think our intent is the same.
Interesting... According to Daniel Pinchbeck (his former friend), Eisenstein was being very well paid to work on the Trump campaign. If you want I can see if I can track down how much exactly he was being paid. I think I remember something like 30k/month.
Personally, I think it's old news that RFK is controlled opposition at this point (although he did write a great book), so I guess that means we can safely file Eisenstein alongside RFK.
I'll look into and get back to you. I think it was after RFK threw his support behind Trump, though I'm sure he was getting paid before that point as well.
"What are the clues that someone might be paid to control the opposition?"
I didn't know Charles Eisenstein, so my first clue was his family name. Then, after having a look at his essays on his website ("Coronation" and one in 4 parts called "Pandemania"), I quickly saw that he behaves like most politicians who criticize the government measures during the "pandemic" but never denounce the fact that the pandemic was fake, as were all the other pillars of the operation: virus, tests and vaccines.
Personally, I don't decide to trust someone or not based on their name. Sage Hana found that a Danish woman's name made people trust him. I just talked to a young woman wearing a kaffiyeh and she said none of her Jewish family would talk to her anymore. People are individuals. None of us have been made who we are.
So I would work backwards. I first decide if I agree with them. Even then, I wouldn't assume they've been paid to control the opposition just because I don't. I'm surrounded by people who don't see the 'pandemic' the way I do, including my daughters. I'm certain none of them are paid.
What Charles practices is deception, along with Robert Malone, Sasha Latypova, Mathew Crawford. They present themselves one way but their words, when analyzed, reveal another. It's the deception and diverting away from the culprits that led me to look at the name Eisenstein. In doing a search on whether he was Jewish, I found the YT interview of Do Jews Run the World? and that was a clincher. The question is phrased to mislead.
Still reeling after seeing Sasha Latypova interact, following critique. My gosh. Dumbfounded. I watch how people engage with criticism closely as a sign of fraudulent intent. She and Dr Yeadon where two I really trusted in. Goes to show that collating info and inquiry is my job and seeing how I still want to be lazy and follow another is a set up for deceit. I like Caitlin Johnstone because she references the work within that's required to learn regulation and withdraw projections from people. Otherwise we see things through an egoic trauma lens. It doesn't matter what you know if your still meeting violence with violence. Spirituality is key. Im just learning now to see with a wider view. Thankyou for your work.
Sigh. Agreed, Lynley. I still don't know what to make of her.
I also love Caitlin and don't at all think she's a secret agent of the Deep State, or anything like that. And her spirituality and bluntness are two of the things that have drawn me to her most. Yet I do think she has her blind spots (sorry, I don't want to pile on): https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/caitlin-johnstone-and-free-speech.
I might have violated your "fundamental principle", but when it comes to people of influence, the fact that he had a Jewish name was, in the context, the first clue that put me on my guard, before the reading of his essays could confirm that first impression. I share your fundamental principle that all people are inherently good, but I see it within the scope of humanity. The people belonging to the category that has been "chosen" by the evil god have been ipso facto set apart from the great human family and, when in a position of influence, cannot, in my opinion, benefit a priori from a positive prejudice.
What a harrowing journey and hard won experience. I'm sorry you went through all of that when all you wanted was to help other people through something that had given you value. My oldest daughter is getting her hours, with expensive supervision, to be a licensed therapist. She does bereavement counseling for children. Her husband is trying to become a firefighter, after not being able to find another job as a mechanical engineer when he took time off after his mom's death. There's no doubt in my mind that the more worthwhile the work is, the more hoops they make you jump through to do it.
I went to some salt springs recently with two of my daughters and we were eavesdropping on a couple of women talking about their yoga trips. Afterwards, my bereavement daughter was doing a summary: "And then I went alone to Africa, which was hard since I only have one leg, but I got to meet one-on-one with _____ and he's SO inspirational, it was worth everything I went through." They were one-upping each other on the ordeals and sacrifices they'd made for these gurus. It confirmed exactly the culture of abuse you're talking about--just short of the rape.
On someone's article about P Diddy, they were pointing out the bottles of oil that contained--what is it? K?--that functions like the date rape drug. It makes the person conscious but with no inhibitions and no memory. You're brave to be speaking out.
I once had someone rufie my drink, years before I knew what that was. I blamed myself for mixing liquors, even though I'd never blacked out from drinking before and hadn't had that much. It wasn't until a decade later that I put it together, the drink that he'd practically poured down my throat before leaving the bar. You're right to remind women, in particular, to trust your gut. It's a slimy world.
However, I've also done a couple pushing back against the label New Age to describe everything that isn't a hierarchical religion. How I define propaganda is truth interwoven with lies into a seamless garment. If you recognize the truth and swallow the lies, they win. If you recognize the lies and reject the truth, they win. It's a painstaking process, but I think the weave needs to be unravelled thread by thread. That's why my method of argument starts with stating the question and then defining all the terms. I don't think we should sacrifice spirituality. And you're not gullible--there's something in yoga and Ayurveda that resonated with you, as you state at the end. Reject the cult and keep the truths that you found, including the hard lessons.
Thanks for sharing all that. RE: Lierre Keith- we connected once and she told me how many death threats she gets. I love her.
She is awesome and so is her book.
That’s awesome to hear about your daughter going to school to work with children. They need it. And I think he might be better off being a firefighter. They were OUR heroes during Hurricane Helene. My neighbors and I were stuck on an “island” created by the hurricane as our roads were blown out or underwater. The government was no help. Even recently our one road of fixed only because the neighbors chipped in to fix it. I have so much love and respect for firefighters.
Hmmm… I am not familiar with exactly this date drape oil may be, but I believe it.
I know we are all prone to manipulation. And there is still some valuable knowledge and experiences from my time in the yoga/ayurveda world that will continue to use as I get back on my feet to my new life as a Nutritional Therapy Practitioner and Autoimmune Health coach. I still want do massage therapy too. I love working with people face to face and holding space for them. Yes! Reject the cult and keep the truths. The Ayurveda Institute didn’t like hearing or me talking that I was vaccine injured or and healed myself when I stepped out of the Ayurveda/yoga world. The Esalen people did not either.
Thanks for sharing the articles! I will check them out. Btw -you are good at spotting the phonies. Such as Sasha Latypova. I had a personal experience with her in Substack, just asked some
questions-made some comments and she laughed, put me down and blocked me immediately. The questions were about dental anesthetics and how did I end up in hands of Scientology MD Dr David Minkoff by referral of my dentist! lol. I know now. Much to write! I have sooo much to write about. But they kept trying to poison me and isolate me so I don’t speak up. What is interesting about Scientology its roots are a twisted version of Hinduism and Buddhism- and actually leading to santanism. Scientology sells business “tech” to dentists, chiropractors, physical therapists, vetnarians , and they have many front groups. And of course very connected to Hollywood.
I'm glad to have that confirmation of my reading of Lierre. She seemed very humble and authentic. Her arguments were systematic and well researched. And every section started with her own personal story of why she'd been so passionate about being a vegan. Trying so very hard to do the right thing, no matter the sacrifice. I think that desire needs to be honored when it's used to manipulate us. Our love is being used against us, and the answer is still love--just a more savvy kind.
I think it was Lierre who led me to conclude that the second most powerful force in the universe is a person who changes their mind. No one could be more compelling than her account--nor more threatening to the dogmatic.
I've thought that vegans are the left version of the right-to-lifers. Rather than deal with the complex issues in which we are all complicit, they both take one category in which absolute innocence can be projected--animals and fetuses. Then they make it their one issue, so they can be purists--and blame everyone else. No one is more judgmental, I've found, than a vegan.
Your new life as a Nutritional Therapy Practitioner and Autoimmune Health coach sounds fabulous. And yay for massage therapy!
I see what u are saying. I agree he’s not “controlled”, but he is a part of the group of people actively destroying western civilization. There is no doubt, given all that’s transpired just in the last 25 years, that there is a group of people that’s hell bent on destroying the family unit and the individual.
I've been avoiding the phrase 'controlled opposition' because it says that he himself is being controlled, not that he's consciously leading others in a direction that will make their opposition futile. As my analysis here shows, he's not opposing anything. There is no conspiracy, no deliberate intent. There's no point in figuring what and how 'they' are doing this because there is no 'they.'
For my readers, seeing what's happening as deliberate is the starting point. So his 80,000 subs are not there. Eisenstein's proven lies, usurping of others' writing without attribution (Gavin also wrote that he's done this to him and there are more famous examples than me, which is irrefutable), and his use of rhetorical tricks tells me that he's not just naive. If he's not being paid, what do you see as his motivation?
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.
The whole history in general is mind boggling. I'm Irish and from an early age I wondered how does so much of my history seem to only be recorded as 'myth'.
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.
I get that you're a true believer, and that makes sense of your apparent unwillingness to look into the earthly origins of your holy writ, despite having no compunctions to do the same to other, older, and more widespread texts. That's all I really needed. At this point, I don't expect you to have anything substantial to say about Thetford, Shucman, or their scene. So you can spare me another six-paragraph deflection!
But thanks for the link on Elizabeth, I'll definitely read that one. One of the things I appreciate about you is that you can't seem to help but attack other "conspiracy" thinkers. This is the healthy immune response that prevents the premature formation of mass movements which are easily coopted. It's very much Mat Crawford's style too.
On further thought, I'll add a systematic analysis of your comments, for the sake of other readers:
1. I've given the basis of how I analyze if something can or cannot be the word of God. I don't believe in believing, which is making up your mind ahead of the facts. But I absolutely reject the idea of any God who loves some more than others or one more than all. That kind of God is a monster.
2. On that basis, I have to eliminate the possibility of the Bible as a 'channeled text.' Your criteria seems to be 'old' and 'widespread.' That means that God used to speak but doesn't anymore, and its validity is proven by the use of force and torture. I don't find that logical.
3. The only possible way in which a loving God could be real is if the world is not. I neither believe nor disbelieve in the world, which means I consider the possibility that God exists. You either believe in God the monster or that there is no meaning in life. Those are the only other two choices.
4. Lumping together attacks on 'conspiracy thinkers' as good or bad, without regard for the reasons, is the same as lumping together critiques of scriptures without caring about the reasons. It says that only the form matters but not the content.
5. I don't attack people, I challenge ideas. You refuse to engage on the basis of ideas, and attack me when I won't join you in attacking others. As I point out often, that's the typical response for boys, shy or otherwise. They don't understand the difference between challenging ideas and attacking people. Although there are many notable exceptions to that rule among my readers.
Tereza, this is just silly. I asked you a direct question about your opinions or feelings on the origin of ACIM, which I'll remind you is a published book from the mid-1970s, with author credits and all that. You pulled the dumb politician's trick of answering the question you wished I'd asked, about the content of the book or evidence for its divine origins. I don't really care about what you think of the contents, which anyone can read for themselves, or whether you thought Shucman's poetry was any good or what kind of shoes she wore. I'm not especially interested in the moral posturing that you are calling "ideas", but rather in historical evidence, political consequences, alliances, agendas, and attitudes. I don't think that has much to do with my gender, but cheap shots are always welcome!
I politely gave you a second chance to say something about Thetford or MK-ULTRA, giving you the benefit of the doubt: perhaps you were in a hurry or just a little scattered when you wrote your first response. You could have said that Thetford had nothing to do with it. Or you could have said that MK-ULTRA is a myth, or whatever. Plenty of simple and clear direct responses were possible. There is plenty of evidence for MK-ULTRA, much of which dates from when Crawford was in diapers. It's easy to find. You don't have to associate it with other Substack authors that you've, um, "challenged ideas" with. I sure didn't!
Your linked article on Nickson says only "We had some friendly exchanges regarding her book on MK-Ultra mind control experiments, which I read." OK, great, you read her book. Any conclusions you'd like to share with the class here? No? Well, like I said earlier, that's fine, and tells me quite enough all by itself.
Your position appears to be that Thetford's work doesn't matter even enough to acknowlege, let alone refute, and that Shulman was really channeling the divine word, essentially because it says what you already want to hear. This is, quite frankly, some sad old New Age sophistry in a skimpy garb of willful ignorance. It's only funny because you do historical criticism of religious texts. Atwill at least is concerned with who writes what, when, and why. I checked his book again: he didn't mention you.
Your readers are such smart cookies, I’m sure they understand very well that one can, by choosing axioms and cherry-picking evidence, reach any conclusion one’s heart desires. “That’s Logic!,” as Dodgson wrote.
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!
My impression of Sacred Economics (reread it last year) was that Eisenstein seemed to believe the former theory of fractional reserve banking / money multiplier effect which has now been usurped by Richard Werner’s empirical analysis indicating that credit creation (ie that banks create money out of nothing everytime they issue a loan or mortgage) is more likely. In my day , they were still teaching fractional reserve banking but I think since Werner’s 2016 paper in the Int’l Journal of Financial Analysis, at least some economics departments have quietly shifted to teaching credit creation.
I also had the impression that he generally had a strong analysis (besides the credit creation) of the problem but the solutions didn’t feel quite right to me and tbh despite reading and rereading the solution chapters I still couldn’t figure out what he was getting at and how we could possibly get from here to there. As you’ve pointed out, he’s clearly missing a deeper political analysis (or even a better international analysis since his book gives the impression of being a universalist / objective viewpoint while being largely Eurocentric).
Tereza for starters if the economy were of any worth, we wouldn't need to lend money for ordinary things like cars and houses. But further, it causes perturbations for money to be treated as having intrinsic value in itself. It must not appreciate or depreciate. Money needs to be treated as a measurement and purely as a measurement, sort of like inches. We don't need to borrow inches, we don't lose inches if we make a bad gamble. If loans were to exist, they should only be charged for admin charges. Especially now, with money being digital.
It's really hard to get one's head around what money really is. We have been imbued with a perspective of money that is based on faulty assumptions. One is that money needs to be scarce. That is purely a patriarchal mental condition that needs to be analyzed before it sends us all to kingdom come. We are swimming in a sea of patriarchy. It is everyone's fault - the men for keeping it going and refusing to discuss it thus become aware of it, and women because they act like doormats to everything male (male bibles, male constitutions, etc)
Money is the vehicle of our enslavement. I hope you can see this. The bankers don't have to work 30 years to get the money, but you do. It's a preposterous system. Money is not a bad thing per se, but money that comes with debt is. And so why do the bankers deserve a percentage of the principle for lending the money that comes from thin air? Just look at those proportions, are they justified for what they have done to earn it? What do they have to do to get the money? They have a lot of complicated papers, yeah, that must have taken some time, they have a staff, yeah that costs money. But the money itself, where are they getting those numbers from? Simply from thin air Tereza! So why must we think it's ok for them to get interest when a fee for the admin of lending would be more than sufficient for services? (Not that there's much admin now, with numbers going from screen to accou in a split second)
The way money was invented is just no longer relevant. Nobody has gold and that's what money was founded on. People don't have jobs anymore, (or very few) so money isn't based on wages either. The entire idea of money based on interest helps no one but the bankers and they are irrelevant too now. We don't need chaperones, we can transfer money from our account to a screen just like they can.
People have to know also that a title for property does not make the titleholder the owner. They are merely tenants.
Yes about Charles, anyone who does not emphasize that money is what is keeping us enslaved, is hiding the truth. We should hold Charles's "feet to the fire" and anyone who purports to be in this truth movement. This is fostering the kind of world we need to be in, a world based on truth, not on politeness alone.
We cannot free ourselves by love alone. We must get off their systems and that means we must have systems that we can escape to.
I love your blogs and videos Tereza. Keep them up woman!
I think this is exactly the kind of conversation that we need to be having, denise. And of course, I agree about the bankers. They are usurping ownership of the homes when they create the money for the mortgage. No argument there.
Let me understand better how your system works, particularly when property changes hands. Who does have the right to issue money? When you say 'transfer money from our account to a screen,' where is that account? How does money get into it? Can the user create whatever numbers they want or are there limits? What is the money backed by? How do you determine who gets to live in a house they didn't build?
I love that you ask questions, it means you have a fertile and open mind,
Money can be issued any way you want. I would like either of these two ways.
1. Issued by hours worked.
2. Issued by based on a commodity such as marijuana, hemp, seeds, something that is infinite and has value to humanity.
As for land and property - I envisage that everything stay the same that exists, nobody should lose anything. And we transition to another system. First it will mean that we buy land because we are in this system and need to transition out of it as coherently as possible. This method has to be coordinated so that we cannot be wiped out so easily.
I envisage this happening this way -
We stop paying interest. First we muster those who pledge to the group that they will do it. It is best to do it with a buddy for moral support (we are building a new baby after all, and baby's have two parents!)
We stop paying interest on the rational that the credit for interest is never included into the economy. So it has to be paid back but the supply of money doesn't account for it. So it can never be paid back without incurring bankcrupties and loss of property (homes, cars, etc)
It is hard to see the math to this when we are looking at it as an individual unit, as a "citizen". It has to be seen in the aggregate. You have to take an aerial view to be able to see how this works overall which I think you have done, but needs to go further.
If the money isn't put into the money supply, then it cannot be paid. If people asserted that reasoning, there is nothing the bankers could stand on.
But the next part is the most delicious...
With the saving of that interest (sometimes it is a few hundred dollars), half of it you keep for yourself, pat yourself on the back for being so courageous, and the other half goes to someone in your local area who needs it, who you want to help or a small business, or anything that keeps the money local.
That way you get the support of the community. And it could really help as it is an ongoing donation every month! It would help everyone.
But few people have the cojones to do this. However we can talk about it as talking is what summons things into our reality.
I would love to have a discussion with you, and record it. I had a podcast called "Sirens Say" but I couldn't find any sirens who wanted to talk about these serious subjects. So women then end up being co-consipirators with patriarchy. Patriarchy is violent. Peerness is what we need to head towards. Men and women, boys and girls, equality of say, equality of voice. Systems that enable everyone to have voice. There will be no need for regular "leaders", leadership if it's organic, needs to be dynamic, fluid, temporary, to make way for the next one and the next. It is not something that has a "fixed term". That idea is simply patriarchal, their ideas are all very linear and skeleton-like. It's women who fill it out, who give it substance and wholeness. Our culture is having a crisis of balance.
BTW, as Julius Skoolafish will confirm, issuing money as essentially a receipt for hours worked is the Feder system used by National Socialism. They repudiated the debt of reparations for WWI imposed by the bankers who'd funded the war on both sides. And rebuilt from the Weimar inflation into the greatest economic powerhouse of Europe--without invading any other country or enslaving any other race.
Destroying this model was the sole purpose of WWII. So your ideas have a historical precedent, if we reject the propaganda against it.
Thanks for that thoughtful reply, denise. To compare economic designs, I think that you need to define measurable results so that you can run a simulation to figure out what will accomplish your goals best. Here are the criteria I look at:
1. Increase the exchanges of local goods and services.
2. Increase local homeownership.
3. Increase small local businesses.
4. Increase small local landlords.
5. Increase multigenerational families staying in the area.
There are many intangibles, but these seem to me like they'd be measures of family and community self-reliance.
I'd be happy to do an interview sometime. I've found it helps to have some questions defined ahead of time. Let me know if you'd like to set that up. Thanks again!
This is so refreshing. Thank you for this. I have been critical of Charles (perhaps for different reasons than you note here) since I joined NAAS (the online network his ex-wife runs) for a short period until I opened my eyes. In that space, him, his ex-wife and his most devout cult-like followers were all very pseudo-spiritual and it led to a whole lot of groupthink, censorship, and some people were kicked out for simply having beliefs that differed from others.
I can't stand phonies, least of all, new age phonies who fake being open minded, compassionate, spiritual, etc. I'm confident most of them are/were narcs and many just engaged in spiritual bypassing. There was a mass of people who left the network when I was there partly because of Charles' "live and let live" approach - which means he never actually had any strong beliefs in, well, anything, and he always took the path of least resistance. His fake optimism/naivety is also a nice little shield to not have to honestly criticize much of anything. He's very strategic like that.
All said, I think he's a coward in every sense of the word and it became even more apparent in his writing and after when he became RFK Jr.'s advisor. When you believe in nothing, it's easier to be swayed - and he is easily swayed. Never one to rock the boat.
Reading other comments here, I'm heartened to see that I'm not alone in my feelings and that other people have similar experiences.
Thank you Rozali. Others in the comments on Deep Fakes also mentioned NAAS and had some bad experiences with it. It makes me wonder if one of the purposes that's been set for Charles is to discredit spirituality, and particularly A Course in Miracles. It associates many of the concepts with his superficial pop-spirituality.
One reader termed what I do socio-spirituality: taking a hard look at the reality IN the world while questioning the reality OF the world. To do only one is like only moving one foot--you go in circles. Thanks for reading.
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.
Jae Bee, I wrote a comment on this post with an overview of my experience. I suspect we might share some of the same criticisms / findings
Thanks for sharing. I will catch up and check it out!
Like many others, I found Eisenstein’s pieces like Mob Morality and the Unvaxxed of solace when things were going mad.
I don’t know if he means well, is just misguided, genuinely believes what he says, or is intentionally misleading the opposition.
Regardless, something about his pieces didn’t feel right to me (intuition I know!). I posted this comment in response to his More Naïveté Please article to try to articulate my thoughts :
https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/more-naivete-please/comment/70481503
In a nutshell, I think we can still hold people’s humanity without accepting abuse, while advocating for our needs, while holding them accountable , while challenging their ideas and their actions…and while not electing them to positions of power, wanting an intimate relationship with them etc.
The choice isn’t between situationism (so everyone can just do whatever they want regardless of its impact on others) vs dehumanisation (so any “bad” actors are exterminated)..there is a third way (third paradigm??) that respects everyone’s dignity and humanity without letting them do hurtful things to others.
I love the Sudbury Valley School which was based on democratic principles with no teachers or classes or exams or homework. Older kids taught younger kids. Problems were resolved by “council” (kind of like a jury of peers). If a kid hit another kid, both got called to council to have a heartfelt conversation about it and the aim was not to dehumanise or “punish” for the sake of punishing but to ensure both left feeling better and stronger together and more connected afterwards. And sometimes there would need to be accountability or reparations eg if a kid littered everywhere, they may be asked to clean it up by council, after a conversation that respected their dignity. Or if a kid was constantly kicking up a fuss in a particular room, they may be not allowed there for a while. The kids democratically voted who the adults would be sort of hanging out and supervising, and I think possibly also who council would be.
Very well written comment on CE's thread. I forget what order you've read my ones on Charles in, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt until I found that HE'd usurped my phrase Tonic Masculinity and claimed it as his own. Now I only refer to him as Charles fucking Eisenstein. Here are those two: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/tonic-masculinity-goes-viral and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/eisenstein-and-the-toxic-ten.
In the second one, I think you'll like my conversation with William at the end. It concludes with this, that confirms your point in the comment:
"Women: don’t allow yourself or other women to be insulted, even by a friend. Superiority is the cold form of hatred. Don’t be nice and acquiesce to those who put you or others down. When they gaslight you that you’re over reacting or being emotional, call them on their bullshit."
My formula, that seems similar to what you're saying, is love the person, challenge the ideas, and that women are good at the first but bad at the second, and men are bad at the first but good at the second. But I saw you liked Logic is your Friend, so you know that.
I also say that the first step in forgiveness is removing someone's ability to do further harm. Charles fucking Eisenstein skips that step.
I also found his early pieces, like CoraNation one very comforting in all the madness. But I think now that was intentional, to set us up.
Yes! One of the biggest lessons I learnt in escaping an abusive relationship was that logic was important. Especially when the silly mushy feelings seem to be running the show.
I have lots of Charles’ books and followed his writing for over a decade, so it’s really disappointing that you went through this experience.
It occurred to me this morning that I've made a clean sweep of 'feminist men.' Every one of them speaks over and for women, and uses it as a tool, likely to get laid. The first was someone I'd followed for four decades, who I wrote about in my first piece on tonic masculinity: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/tonic-masculinity-and-feminine-wiles.
At that time, I named Charles as another feminist man but felt he was legit. Then came to my conclusion that he was using the language we women resonate with, but taking it from other sources and twisting it for a nefarious purpose. I don't use that word lightly. Both in economics and spirituality, he's diverted the energy that would go into a solution intentionally so that it leads nowhere--or worse.
Once you know that someone's lied, you can never again say they wouldn't do that. All you can ask is whether they're doing that now. Beyond any doubt, in my own experience, Charles lied about my phrase being his. So when I look at the other places where maybe he was naive, or just mistaken, or followed the wrong advice, I no longer give him that benefit of the doubt. And, once you see it, neither will you.
Oh and there's a funny story about the third feminist man, who I stalked for two years at the farmer's market and then had one date with, where he talked over me, showed off his esoteric knowledge, and bullied me into a strategy for how I should present my concept of tonic masculinity.
But also charming! I read your stack of quotes and loved them, but memorized this to repeat to my friends: "The harsh reality is that if women raise their standards, most of us will be single. The problem isn’t women’s bad taste. It’s that they are fishing in a sea of garbage, then trying to turn the garbage into something worthwhile after the fact."
Ha, feminist men are the bane of my existence! And Nora Samaran’s if her Wordpress is anything to go by. At least with an outright sexist man it’s obvious and I can just up and run lol, but a feminist man will truly waste my time.
Every feminist guy likes the*idea* of equality but most don’t really know how to live it.
I studied sexism in intimate relationships (psychology) and couple therapy a few years back. Terry Real opened my eyes to sexism in relationships in “How Can I Get Through To You?” This echoes your point that each sex needs a bit more of the quality usually prescribed to the other. Men need to care more. Women need to be more assertive (“speak softly and carry a big stick” lol).
This later led me to Carmen Knudsen-Martin’s Socio-Emotional Relationship Theory which is probably the best approach I’ve seen for addressing gender and power. She also pointed out that men in theory were on board with equality but in practice talked over their partners, dismissed them, assumed the power to define reality etc.
Which is all a super long winded way of saying I’m really glad I found you. Like you, I think we need to create freedom from oppression in the home before we have much hope of doing it more broadly. Unfortunately, the freedom community hasn’t quite got this yet…maybe because many are men opining about new models of economics lol. All I can say to that is: I would love to have a cuppa with their wives.
Oh and here's the full comment on David Graeber: https://substack.com/@thirdparadigm/note/c-111188321
How has it taken me 68 yrs to find feminism in its true gendered, in-relationship with men role? I'm staying for the first couple nights in San Diego with my middle daughter, who's moved into her own place for the first time in her life. And is also in a serious relationship--who I'll get to meet!--for the first time in eight years since a bad relationship that caused her to move across country.
So I have your Poorna Bell article open to show her: In the Restful Home of Women Who Live Alone. I LOVE living alone.
And you're so right about the 'carry a big stick' although it think it's really 'have the deed to the house in your name only.' On a David Graeber article, I loved his statement, "An ‘opinion’ is what you have when you don’t have any power.” It's not that women aren't using their skills in negotiating. It's that we're starting from a position of no power.
And you, LoWa, are the best birthday present! I'm very glad I found you too.
https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?q=carmen+knudson+martin+gender+power&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&t=1745396411715&u=%23p%3Dt7fKBXpqbNcJ
“I’ve found logic to be a girl’s best friend … and presumably, also a guy’s” lol
Yes, I subscribed to his Sub-stack over a year ago, perhaps longer but unsubscribed. I don’t remember the reason but there was something off putting, maybe unauthentic. I also felt the same with Steve K.
Like many, Eisenstein fell prey to virulent censorship; that does not excuse him, but his Coronation essay evidences this. I am not sure if he's a paid opposition. That is sad because I like his work on the Gift Economy a lot, but I discovered him AFTER having come to a similar conclusion. In the WEF model, the tyranny of social credit will rule all.
Not in the Benevolent Model, which is coercion-free. If going along with ownership rights, we cannot avoid the privatization of nature and the pyramidal structure because money organizes centralization. The Market is a Religion, and Money is its Sacrament, which we must overcome at some point.
The very idea of owning land came along with the realization that some lands have more natural resources than others. One more reason why the Benevolent Society is in favor of Planetary Stewardship. I just wrote a new blog about this.
Hello, Mind Awakened (I don't know if you prefer not using your name, so I'll err on the side of caution). Are there other writings of Charles' that present a different view from what I quoted from Coronation? I wasn't sure if there's something that shows this was the result of virulent censorship. It seemed to me that he was able to publish something that did get picked up nationally, while even a feel-good writing of mine on 'lessons from the Coronavirus' got censored in Nextdoor. And on his own site, it doesn't seem he'd be censored.
It's interesting that you came to a similar conclusion before reading his Gift Economy. I think that's why his work on spirituality resonated with me. That's why it feels important, to me, to start out with what our goals are for a new economic system, rather than the method. Without measurable goals, there's nothing to use to compare systems. To me, the gift economy is reliant on individual generosity, while keeping those individuals dependent on serving the Usurpers, as I call the bankers. It skips over the community, so there's no support network or exchange mechanism to keep things fair, especially in the important realm of home ownership.
I did just see your new blog! I think we disagree on terminology--I see 'ownership' as taking responsibility for the care and maintenance, along with giving back to the previous generation and passing the gift on in a better form to the next. But I think our intent is the same.
Interesting... According to Daniel Pinchbeck (his former friend), Eisenstein was being very well paid to work on the Trump campaign. If you want I can see if I can track down how much exactly he was being paid. I think I remember something like 30k/month.
Personally, I think it's old news that RFK is controlled opposition at this point (although he did write a great book), so I guess that means we can safely file Eisenstein alongside RFK.
Hello, Crow! Interesting. Trump campaign, not RFK? Before RFK threw his support to Trump? And yes, RFK did write a great book.
I asked Daniel how much Eisenstein was getting paid and he said "I think 20k", as in 20k/month.
Awaiting further info.
I'll look into and get back to you. I think it was after RFK threw his support behind Trump, though I'm sure he was getting paid before that point as well.
"What are the clues that someone might be paid to control the opposition?"
I didn't know Charles Eisenstein, so my first clue was his family name. Then, after having a look at his essays on his website ("Coronation" and one in 4 parts called "Pandemania"), I quickly saw that he behaves like most politicians who criticize the government measures during the "pandemic" but never denounce the fact that the pandemic was fake, as were all the other pillars of the operation: virus, tests and vaccines.
Personally, I don't decide to trust someone or not based on their name. Sage Hana found that a Danish woman's name made people trust him. I just talked to a young woman wearing a kaffiyeh and she said none of her Jewish family would talk to her anymore. People are individuals. None of us have been made who we are.
So I would work backwards. I first decide if I agree with them. Even then, I wouldn't assume they've been paid to control the opposition just because I don't. I'm surrounded by people who don't see the 'pandemic' the way I do, including my daughters. I'm certain none of them are paid.
What Charles practices is deception, along with Robert Malone, Sasha Latypova, Mathew Crawford. They present themselves one way but their words, when analyzed, reveal another. It's the deception and diverting away from the culprits that led me to look at the name Eisenstein. In doing a search on whether he was Jewish, I found the YT interview of Do Jews Run the World? and that was a clincher. The question is phrased to mislead.
Still reeling after seeing Sasha Latypova interact, following critique. My gosh. Dumbfounded. I watch how people engage with criticism closely as a sign of fraudulent intent. She and Dr Yeadon where two I really trusted in. Goes to show that collating info and inquiry is my job and seeing how I still want to be lazy and follow another is a set up for deceit. I like Caitlin Johnstone because she references the work within that's required to learn regulation and withdraw projections from people. Otherwise we see things through an egoic trauma lens. It doesn't matter what you know if your still meeting violence with violence. Spirituality is key. Im just learning now to see with a wider view. Thankyou for your work.
Sigh. Agreed, Lynley. I still don't know what to make of her.
I also love Caitlin and don't at all think she's a secret agent of the Deep State, or anything like that. And her spirituality and bluntness are two of the things that have drawn me to her most. Yet I do think she has her blind spots (sorry, I don't want to pile on): https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/caitlin-johnstone-and-free-speech.
I might have violated your "fundamental principle", but when it comes to people of influence, the fact that he had a Jewish name was, in the context, the first clue that put me on my guard, before the reading of his essays could confirm that first impression. I share your fundamental principle that all people are inherently good, but I see it within the scope of humanity. The people belonging to the category that has been "chosen" by the evil god have been ipso facto set apart from the great human family and, when in a position of influence, cannot, in my opinion, benefit a priori from a positive prejudice.
Spot on. (My like function doesn't work)
https://open.substack.com/pub/jaebeethinksforherself/p/we-need-love-and-wisdom?r=oqu7n&utm_medium=ios
I wrote some on here
I'll post my comment here and there, Jae Bee.
What a harrowing journey and hard won experience. I'm sorry you went through all of that when all you wanted was to help other people through something that had given you value. My oldest daughter is getting her hours, with expensive supervision, to be a licensed therapist. She does bereavement counseling for children. Her husband is trying to become a firefighter, after not being able to find another job as a mechanical engineer when he took time off after his mom's death. There's no doubt in my mind that the more worthwhile the work is, the more hoops they make you jump through to do it.
I went to some salt springs recently with two of my daughters and we were eavesdropping on a couple of women talking about their yoga trips. Afterwards, my bereavement daughter was doing a summary: "And then I went alone to Africa, which was hard since I only have one leg, but I got to meet one-on-one with _____ and he's SO inspirational, it was worth everything I went through." They were one-upping each other on the ordeals and sacrifices they'd made for these gurus. It confirmed exactly the culture of abuse you're talking about--just short of the rape.
On someone's article about P Diddy, they were pointing out the bottles of oil that contained--what is it? K?--that functions like the date rape drug. It makes the person conscious but with no inhibitions and no memory. You're brave to be speaking out.
I once had someone rufie my drink, years before I knew what that was. I blamed myself for mixing liquors, even though I'd never blacked out from drinking before and hadn't had that much. It wasn't until a decade later that I put it together, the drink that he'd practically poured down my throat before leaving the bar. You're right to remind women, in particular, to trust your gut. It's a slimy world.
One of the books that really made an impression on me is The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Kieth. Do you know it? I made this episode about it: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/animal-husbandry-is-the-new-vegetarian.
However, I've also done a couple pushing back against the label New Age to describe everything that isn't a hierarchical religion. How I define propaganda is truth interwoven with lies into a seamless garment. If you recognize the truth and swallow the lies, they win. If you recognize the lies and reject the truth, they win. It's a painstaking process, but I think the weave needs to be unravelled thread by thread. That's why my method of argument starts with stating the question and then defining all the terms. I don't think we should sacrifice spirituality. And you're not gullible--there's something in yoga and Ayurveda that resonated with you, as you state at the end. Reject the cult and keep the truths that you found, including the hard lessons.
Thanks for sharing this with me, and here's one on the New Age label: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/terry-wolfe-spits-on-spirit.
Thanks for sharing all that. RE: Lierre Keith- we connected once and she told me how many death threats she gets. I love her.
She is awesome and so is her book.
That’s awesome to hear about your daughter going to school to work with children. They need it. And I think he might be better off being a firefighter. They were OUR heroes during Hurricane Helene. My neighbors and I were stuck on an “island” created by the hurricane as our roads were blown out or underwater. The government was no help. Even recently our one road of fixed only because the neighbors chipped in to fix it. I have so much love and respect for firefighters.
Hmmm… I am not familiar with exactly this date drape oil may be, but I believe it.
I know we are all prone to manipulation. And there is still some valuable knowledge and experiences from my time in the yoga/ayurveda world that will continue to use as I get back on my feet to my new life as a Nutritional Therapy Practitioner and Autoimmune Health coach. I still want do massage therapy too. I love working with people face to face and holding space for them. Yes! Reject the cult and keep the truths. The Ayurveda Institute didn’t like hearing or me talking that I was vaccine injured or and healed myself when I stepped out of the Ayurveda/yoga world. The Esalen people did not either.
Thanks for sharing the articles! I will check them out. Btw -you are good at spotting the phonies. Such as Sasha Latypova. I had a personal experience with her in Substack, just asked some
questions-made some comments and she laughed, put me down and blocked me immediately. The questions were about dental anesthetics and how did I end up in hands of Scientology MD Dr David Minkoff by referral of my dentist! lol. I know now. Much to write! I have sooo much to write about. But they kept trying to poison me and isolate me so I don’t speak up. What is interesting about Scientology its roots are a twisted version of Hinduism and Buddhism- and actually leading to santanism. Scientology sells business “tech” to dentists, chiropractors, physical therapists, vetnarians , and they have many front groups. And of course very connected to Hollywood.
I'm glad to have that confirmation of my reading of Lierre. She seemed very humble and authentic. Her arguments were systematic and well researched. And every section started with her own personal story of why she'd been so passionate about being a vegan. Trying so very hard to do the right thing, no matter the sacrifice. I think that desire needs to be honored when it's used to manipulate us. Our love is being used against us, and the answer is still love--just a more savvy kind.
I think it was Lierre who led me to conclude that the second most powerful force in the universe is a person who changes their mind. No one could be more compelling than her account--nor more threatening to the dogmatic.
I've thought that vegans are the left version of the right-to-lifers. Rather than deal with the complex issues in which we are all complicit, they both take one category in which absolute innocence can be projected--animals and fetuses. Then they make it their one issue, so they can be purists--and blame everyone else. No one is more judgmental, I've found, than a vegan.
Your new life as a Nutritional Therapy Practitioner and Autoimmune Health coach sounds fabulous. And yay for massage therapy!
Interesting experience with Sasha.
I see what u are saying. I agree he’s not “controlled”, but he is a part of the group of people actively destroying western civilization. There is no doubt, given all that’s transpired just in the last 25 years, that there is a group of people that’s hell bent on destroying the family unit and the individual.
Agreed.
Eisenstein isn’t “paid” to be controlled opposition, he IS controlled opposition. Same as Risch.
I've been avoiding the phrase 'controlled opposition' because it says that he himself is being controlled, not that he's consciously leading others in a direction that will make their opposition futile. As my analysis here shows, he's not opposing anything. There is no conspiracy, no deliberate intent. There's no point in figuring what and how 'they' are doing this because there is no 'they.'
For my readers, seeing what's happening as deliberate is the starting point. So his 80,000 subs are not there. Eisenstein's proven lies, usurping of others' writing without attribution (Gavin also wrote that he's done this to him and there are more famous examples than me, which is irrefutable), and his use of rhetorical tricks tells me that he's not just naive. If he's not being paid, what do you see as his motivation?
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.
The whole history in general is mind boggling. I'm Irish and from an early age I wondered how does so much of my history seem to only be recorded as 'myth'.
Excellent point. The Celts have been some of the most courageous warriors against imperialism in the world. You read this one, I think: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/03-white-slavery.
And this one looks at whether all people started from there, or maybe just the race of giant overlords: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/a-royal-flush-and-irish-pharaohs.
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.
I get that you're a true believer, and that makes sense of your apparent unwillingness to look into the earthly origins of your holy writ, despite having no compunctions to do the same to other, older, and more widespread texts. That's all I really needed. At this point, I don't expect you to have anything substantial to say about Thetford, Shucman, or their scene. So you can spare me another six-paragraph deflection!
But thanks for the link on Elizabeth, I'll definitely read that one. One of the things I appreciate about you is that you can't seem to help but attack other "conspiracy" thinkers. This is the healthy immune response that prevents the premature formation of mass movements which are easily coopted. It's very much Mat Crawford's style too.
On further thought, I'll add a systematic analysis of your comments, for the sake of other readers:
1. I've given the basis of how I analyze if something can or cannot be the word of God. I don't believe in believing, which is making up your mind ahead of the facts. But I absolutely reject the idea of any God who loves some more than others or one more than all. That kind of God is a monster.
2. On that basis, I have to eliminate the possibility of the Bible as a 'channeled text.' Your criteria seems to be 'old' and 'widespread.' That means that God used to speak but doesn't anymore, and its validity is proven by the use of force and torture. I don't find that logical.
3. The only possible way in which a loving God could be real is if the world is not. I neither believe nor disbelieve in the world, which means I consider the possibility that God exists. You either believe in God the monster or that there is no meaning in life. Those are the only other two choices.
4. Lumping together attacks on 'conspiracy thinkers' as good or bad, without regard for the reasons, is the same as lumping together critiques of scriptures without caring about the reasons. It says that only the form matters but not the content.
5. I don't attack people, I challenge ideas. You refuse to engage on the basis of ideas, and attack me when I won't join you in attacking others. As I point out often, that's the typical response for boys, shy or otherwise. They don't understand the difference between challenging ideas and attacking people. Although there are many notable exceptions to that rule among my readers.
Tereza, this is just silly. I asked you a direct question about your opinions or feelings on the origin of ACIM, which I'll remind you is a published book from the mid-1970s, with author credits and all that. You pulled the dumb politician's trick of answering the question you wished I'd asked, about the content of the book or evidence for its divine origins. I don't really care about what you think of the contents, which anyone can read for themselves, or whether you thought Shucman's poetry was any good or what kind of shoes she wore. I'm not especially interested in the moral posturing that you are calling "ideas", but rather in historical evidence, political consequences, alliances, agendas, and attitudes. I don't think that has much to do with my gender, but cheap shots are always welcome!
I politely gave you a second chance to say something about Thetford or MK-ULTRA, giving you the benefit of the doubt: perhaps you were in a hurry or just a little scattered when you wrote your first response. You could have said that Thetford had nothing to do with it. Or you could have said that MK-ULTRA is a myth, or whatever. Plenty of simple and clear direct responses were possible. There is plenty of evidence for MK-ULTRA, much of which dates from when Crawford was in diapers. It's easy to find. You don't have to associate it with other Substack authors that you've, um, "challenged ideas" with. I sure didn't!
Your linked article on Nickson says only "We had some friendly exchanges regarding her book on MK-Ultra mind control experiments, which I read." OK, great, you read her book. Any conclusions you'd like to share with the class here? No? Well, like I said earlier, that's fine, and tells me quite enough all by itself.
Your position appears to be that Thetford's work doesn't matter even enough to acknowlege, let alone refute, and that Shulman was really channeling the divine word, essentially because it says what you already want to hear. This is, quite frankly, some sad old New Age sophistry in a skimpy garb of willful ignorance. It's only funny because you do historical criticism of religious texts. Atwill at least is concerned with who writes what, when, and why. I checked his book again: he didn't mention you.
Cheers!
Glad that you've satisfied yourself, Shy Boy. And I have no fear that you've misled my other readers, who can follow a logical argument.
Your readers are such smart cookies, I’m sure they understand very well that one can, by choosing axioms and cherry-picking evidence, reach any conclusion one’s heart desires. “That’s Logic!,” as Dodgson wrote.