Thank you very much, all very good points I think. As far as I am concerned anybody doing something for money who must already have enough is suspect. I can't say I am loaded with money, but my wife and I have enough and I will not ask for donations on my WordPress site.
The truth should be free, and as I already know and understand more than Robert Malone it seems I am really not impressed with him, albeit he has said some useful things.
As regards controlled opposition it seems he is. The narrative cannot go too quickly as we follow a timeline similar to WW2. A pain perhaps but there is a lot of sorting out to do.
I look forward to reading your post. It's an intriguing comparison you make, Michael.
I'm not sure if you mean the $25M or paid subs for Robert but I share your thinking on the latter both personally and in terms of designing an economy. I reserve the right to turn on paid subs, and I don't condemn those who do, but I saw no reason to create a class system for subs if I didn't need to.
And my economic system has four interactive ones within it: a subsistence economy for participation in food production, a reciprocal system for local goods and services backed by the housing, a trade system in the national currency, and a gift economy for ideas that can be infinitely replicated. Truth definitely falls in that category ;-)
Re $25M or paid subs I would say both to be on safe side! I mean help, to even consider that sum, is his reputation worth that much??
I count my reputation as nothing now at 62 years of age, although I do not want to be unfair tarred for something I did not do or say. I can be a fool, and old fool now, but perhaps I am a little wiser.
A worker is worthy of his wages, but problems arise when people manipulate the truth or string things out for gain and certainly Robert seems to be doing that.
In the New Testament the apostle Paul kept his tent making trade going rather than ask for money so the truth he told would not be tainted.
And Jesus said freely you have received freely give.
I like those 4 points of your economic system, thank you for that.
Malone has always creeped me out, even before I found out he is creepy.
Intuition, I guess, from the way he spoke.
Perhaps certain characteropathies have telltale signs that the subconscious picks up.
Malone plays dumb, but he knows a lot more than he pretends to.
Originally he said the shots are advised for those with conditions and safe within third trimester of pregnancy. Based on what? There's no data and he knew it! What a lying asshat!
He took the jab for "long con-vid". Ok, sure whatever... But....
According to the scripture of virology of the church of symptoms, not causes:
He's a vaccinologist!
Even vanderbosche said they all know that vaccinating after infection causes issues.
Malone was a part of a shots testing program in Brazil, which later on had issues, blamed on another bs, zika virus. Never mind that virus never caused that before.
Final point... Just by his wealth, he's going to be able to intimidate people by suing.
But it helps us in that it makes him out to look like a litigious jerk, suing people, not corporations or agencies lol.
I had only been reading him and liked pretty much everything he wrote. My friend, who has good 'spidey senses' said she thought he was a fake and I denied it. Then I saw a clip of him dismissing the idea, and I went back chagrined and told my friend she was right. It wasn't what he said--although he didn't say anything substantive, which was telling--but something about him. I just couldn't kid myself and my gut feel.
When I researched him on Wikispooks, my friend's site, it came up roses except for one critic, to whom he was a 'person of interest.' That happened to be my friend Joe Atwill, who you read about in the Jesus Psy-Ops. When we talked, one of his points was that someone who knew as much as Robert did professionally about what was in the shots would NEVER have taken them. So he knew he was lying from that point on.
I'm guessing you probably also read CJ Hopkins. His one today about the Limited Hangout of the Covid Twitter files was interesting, and explained to me what a limited hangout was. It fits what Peter Zweig and Glenn talk about in my Reset/ Ukraine episode. And I think now that's Malone's function. He's revealing just what he needs to to keep the narrative contained.
Tereza, I read this post of yours before Christmas and wanted to leave a comment but, as usual, got diverted. So an hour ago, immediately after finishing the Audible version of Joseph Atwill’s book “Caesar’s Messiah”, I re-read the post, then got to this comment. And now I can’t remember what I wanted to say. Synchronicity, right?
Jack! I was just thinking of you and wondering if you were still in my orbit. Did you listen to CM after my episode? You are an amazing scholar. That makes CM much more fresh in your mind than mine. What did you think of it?
Oh! So that’s how I discovered CM! It was you who planted that seed. It all comes back to me now. I did see your post, Jesus is the OG Psy Ops. That’s how I heard about CM—I didn’t discover it independently only to find you coincidentally discussing it in your comment. Duh. I almost want to say Thank God it was just another symptom of my recent brain fog. For a moment there, I had these fleeting thoughts that you were my own personal controlled opposition and had used your AI surveillance system to monitor my Audible account :) So thank you for dispelling that bit of temporary paranoia. Damn, it wasn’t synchronicity after all. (At least now I don’t have to revisit Jung.)
In defense of my memory, now that you’ve prompted me I recall that I snuck a peak at your post in the middle of a visit by two friends from graduate school whom I hadn’t seen since before the pandemic, and we literally spent 14 or 15 hours per day for almost a week discussing every play, movie, and series we had seen in the last three years (and more), and my head is still spinning. So please pardon my memory lapse. (There is another reason or two for my recent brain fog, but I won’t go into that here.)
Now that that is cleared up (thank you!), with regard to CM, Atwill had me at hello. But that’s because his conclusions seem rather obvious (once clearly stated) to anyone who’s ever studied the early history of gnosticism—especially the suppression of gnosticism that continues to this day by the previously blatantly named “Roman” Catholic Church. However, his scholarship was impressive and, to me at least, definitive. I don’t believe in “settled” science or history, but his scholarship approaches that mark (which, for me, probably means that it articulates my own previous unarticulated sensibility).
I now recall the comment I was going to make about controlled opposition. It was that quote from Lenin: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it yourself.” For me, it sums up the simple strategy of all empires, and, along with Atwill's book, reminds us that the Twitter files are nothing new, that the technology may have changed in the last few millennia, but lies, propaganda, dominant narratives, psyops, and controlled opposition have existed since the dawn of time. There is truly nothing new under the sun. (I have always suspected the Ecclesiastes was mistakingly allowed into the Hebrew Bible.)
Also, just a related aside, ever since reading your book, I’ve wanted to thank you for your explanation of the origins of democracy as a defense of Empire and also perhaps as the original anathematization of anarchism in western thought. That one idea continues to dramatically transform my personal political philosophy. Of course, my own personal mythos is that Empire is Yaldabaoth’s favorite flawed aeonic and material manifestation, so perhaps that should be no surprise. But thank you for disabusing me of a falsely sacred value and contributing to my gnosis (no matter how painful).
Lastly, now that I’ve read CM, I need to revisit Ki Longfellow’s novel, The Secret Magdalene. Please don’t tell me you did a video on that novel and that you know Ki, even if that is true; I have enough rewiring of my memory to do for one day.
I think "Your Own Personal Jesus" needs a new song, "Your Own Personal Controlled Op" ;-) What I tell myself and friends, when we forget things, is that it's because there are 30 things we're remembering. Something's got to give.
I will definitely be telling Joe he had you at hello, which he'll get a kick out of. And the rest of your praise that is exactly what he was aiming for, I think. He's offered to do a podcast with me and I think that's the nudge I needed to get that technology together.
Tell me more about Ecclesiastes?
"Anathematization of anarchism," I'll need to quote that if I can pronounce it. And yes, let me know if I can butcher any more sacred cows for you. That's a big one and it does change everything, I've found.
I have NOT done a video on Mary Magdalene but I want to! My theory is that no women exist in the Bible (Torah and NT) because they weren't worth the mention. Every named woman represents a territory. At the same time that Judea was rebelling, Magdala had an insurrection so fierce that the Romans were said to have run out of trees to hang people on, often with their children hung around their necks. When Jesus is presented as the only person whose torture matters, I feel it's an important context.
Every woman is named Mary, including the sisters Martha and Mary. The name comes from Mar, Greek for the sea, right, and the god of war? It means a troublemaker. Molly is a form of it, and gun moll is related. So the virgin Mary is, I think, a reference that she's innocent of rebelling. Mary Magdala is, I think, the town of Magdala being under Caesar's control again.
Do you always give homework assignments that even the greats have never sorted out, including everyone from Shakespeare and Tolstoy to Bob Dylan?
Okay, but anything I write is vanity and blowing in the wind….
I am always confused when I read the scholarly debate about whether gnosticism originated with the Christians or Jews (as if it must be one or the other). My own personal view is that gnosticism did not flow from any religious philosophy, but is the default of all human spirits. Qohelet certainly had all the right questions and nailed the framing of the human condition, and it is the voice of that spirit I read and not the bankrupt answers/reprimands to obey God and trust Him to make it all right ex post facto in some future judgement, which IMO are the obvious edits and additions of later orthodox scribes and censors to head off Qohelet’s most excellent question “How do I/we make straight what God has made crooked?”, which is one of the first contemplations of gnosis.
BTW, I think there is enough linguistic evidence to suggest that the original text was written by a foreign female. In its uncorrupted form, I imagine this as the lamentation of Sophia herself, possibly expressed not through wise Solomon but rather through wiser Queen Sheba, and it applied not just to this world, but very likely even to the Pleroma and the ineffable transcendent androgyne of the gnostics.
BTW, I prefer to think that Sophia’s action to birth this place and its demiurge was totally independent and not an act from ignorance. It was instead the first act of sovereignty. (In gnostic lingo, perhaps Sophia, too, like Christ, is a divine self-originate.) I think she never repented and never will. Her lamentation is that this world, along with the Pleroma, are both just two of the infinite Russian nested eggs of Reality.
So, I prefer to think of Sophia as a rebel—the mother of all those New Testament Marys. Her message, I think, is that the vaunted gnosis of this world is hardly the whole story. But I leave that for another day perhaps.
If Tereza & Co. hasn't had a chance to read Mattias Desmet's The Psychology of Totalitarianism and have been affected by its detractors, then, at the very least, I would advise this review of Desmet's work:
Small suggestion? Do better: read The Psychology of Totalitarianism once or twice and communicate directly with its author. He's open to conversations, I've learned.
PS: Love your videos, Tereza. What ever I can do to make them better is minuscule. I'll read James Reagen's review but I'd urge you to review John Water's review before doing your vid. Jus' sayin'.
Regarding the Malone lawsuit, here's the general definition of defamation: "Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation".
However, Malone qualifies as a "limited-purpose public figure" with respect to the covid vaccine discussion, opening himself up to public questioning and criticism on that subject.
It appears that none of what was the Breggins were quoted as saying qualifies as "intentionally false", but even false statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversy are not considered defamatory unless they meet the "actual-malice" test.
In fact, the Breggins lawyer could make an argument that Malone is the one acting with "actual malice", that the accusations and slurs in the filing are without merit, and it is the Breggins reputation which has actually been harmed.
Oooh, that's a really good point. I've been meaning to send the Breggins a note, and that's an excellent point to include. I've continued to read Robert's Substack and read the first part of his book, which includes a foreword by RFK and essays by many people I admire. He writes well and makes sense, and I keep doubting myself. And then I keep reminding myself of the contradictions between his words and actions--when he says in the recent Declaration that no doctor should be intimidated into silence. That's exactly what he's doing with this suit.
Thank you very much, all very good points I think. As far as I am concerned anybody doing something for money who must already have enough is suspect. I can't say I am loaded with money, but my wife and I have enough and I will not ask for donations on my WordPress site.
The truth should be free, and as I already know and understand more than Robert Malone it seems I am really not impressed with him, albeit he has said some useful things.
As regards controlled opposition it seems he is. The narrative cannot go too quickly as we follow a timeline similar to WW2. A pain perhaps but there is a lot of sorting out to do.
It may seem bizarre, but here is my link anyway.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/02/07/timeline-anticipated-events-in-world-war-3/
And forgive me, but if I may summarize the excellent 3 propaganda points:
1) name things the opposite of what they are, - talk balls
2) it's easier to lie big than lie small, - talk big balls
and
3) the best defense is a good offense. - throw your balls at the enemy.
As regards the best approach to dealing with such tactics it is simple: just kick the balls back.
Or kick the enemy in the balls. That should do it.
Hahaha! I like your strategy.
I look forward to reading your post. It's an intriguing comparison you make, Michael.
I'm not sure if you mean the $25M or paid subs for Robert but I share your thinking on the latter both personally and in terms of designing an economy. I reserve the right to turn on paid subs, and I don't condemn those who do, but I saw no reason to create a class system for subs if I didn't need to.
And my economic system has four interactive ones within it: a subsistence economy for participation in food production, a reciprocal system for local goods and services backed by the housing, a trade system in the national currency, and a gift economy for ideas that can be infinitely replicated. Truth definitely falls in that category ;-)
Re $25M or paid subs I would say both to be on safe side! I mean help, to even consider that sum, is his reputation worth that much??
I count my reputation as nothing now at 62 years of age, although I do not want to be unfair tarred for something I did not do or say. I can be a fool, and old fool now, but perhaps I am a little wiser.
A worker is worthy of his wages, but problems arise when people manipulate the truth or string things out for gain and certainly Robert seems to be doing that.
In the New Testament the apostle Paul kept his tent making trade going rather than ask for money so the truth he told would not be tainted.
And Jesus said freely you have received freely give.
I like those 4 points of your economic system, thank you for that.
Malone has always creeped me out, even before I found out he is creepy.
Intuition, I guess, from the way he spoke.
Perhaps certain characteropathies have telltale signs that the subconscious picks up.
Malone plays dumb, but he knows a lot more than he pretends to.
Originally he said the shots are advised for those with conditions and safe within third trimester of pregnancy. Based on what? There's no data and he knew it! What a lying asshat!
He took the jab for "long con-vid". Ok, sure whatever... But....
According to the scripture of virology of the church of symptoms, not causes:
He's a vaccinologist!
Even vanderbosche said they all know that vaccinating after infection causes issues.
Malone was a part of a shots testing program in Brazil, which later on had issues, blamed on another bs, zika virus. Never mind that virus never caused that before.
Final point... Just by his wealth, he's going to be able to intimidate people by suing.
But it helps us in that it makes him out to look like a litigious jerk, suing people, not corporations or agencies lol.
I had only been reading him and liked pretty much everything he wrote. My friend, who has good 'spidey senses' said she thought he was a fake and I denied it. Then I saw a clip of him dismissing the idea, and I went back chagrined and told my friend she was right. It wasn't what he said--although he didn't say anything substantive, which was telling--but something about him. I just couldn't kid myself and my gut feel.
When I researched him on Wikispooks, my friend's site, it came up roses except for one critic, to whom he was a 'person of interest.' That happened to be my friend Joe Atwill, who you read about in the Jesus Psy-Ops. When we talked, one of his points was that someone who knew as much as Robert did professionally about what was in the shots would NEVER have taken them. So he knew he was lying from that point on.
I'm guessing you probably also read CJ Hopkins. His one today about the Limited Hangout of the Covid Twitter files was interesting, and explained to me what a limited hangout was. It fits what Peter Zweig and Glenn talk about in my Reset/ Ukraine episode. And I think now that's Malone's function. He's revealing just what he needs to to keep the narrative contained.
Tereza, I read this post of yours before Christmas and wanted to leave a comment but, as usual, got diverted. So an hour ago, immediately after finishing the Audible version of Joseph Atwill’s book “Caesar’s Messiah”, I re-read the post, then got to this comment. And now I can’t remember what I wanted to say. Synchronicity, right?
Jack! I was just thinking of you and wondering if you were still in my orbit. Did you listen to CM after my episode? You are an amazing scholar. That makes CM much more fresh in your mind than mine. What did you think of it?
Oh! So that’s how I discovered CM! It was you who planted that seed. It all comes back to me now. I did see your post, Jesus is the OG Psy Ops. That’s how I heard about CM—I didn’t discover it independently only to find you coincidentally discussing it in your comment. Duh. I almost want to say Thank God it was just another symptom of my recent brain fog. For a moment there, I had these fleeting thoughts that you were my own personal controlled opposition and had used your AI surveillance system to monitor my Audible account :) So thank you for dispelling that bit of temporary paranoia. Damn, it wasn’t synchronicity after all. (At least now I don’t have to revisit Jung.)
In defense of my memory, now that you’ve prompted me I recall that I snuck a peak at your post in the middle of a visit by two friends from graduate school whom I hadn’t seen since before the pandemic, and we literally spent 14 or 15 hours per day for almost a week discussing every play, movie, and series we had seen in the last three years (and more), and my head is still spinning. So please pardon my memory lapse. (There is another reason or two for my recent brain fog, but I won’t go into that here.)
Now that that is cleared up (thank you!), with regard to CM, Atwill had me at hello. But that’s because his conclusions seem rather obvious (once clearly stated) to anyone who’s ever studied the early history of gnosticism—especially the suppression of gnosticism that continues to this day by the previously blatantly named “Roman” Catholic Church. However, his scholarship was impressive and, to me at least, definitive. I don’t believe in “settled” science or history, but his scholarship approaches that mark (which, for me, probably means that it articulates my own previous unarticulated sensibility).
I now recall the comment I was going to make about controlled opposition. It was that quote from Lenin: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it yourself.” For me, it sums up the simple strategy of all empires, and, along with Atwill's book, reminds us that the Twitter files are nothing new, that the technology may have changed in the last few millennia, but lies, propaganda, dominant narratives, psyops, and controlled opposition have existed since the dawn of time. There is truly nothing new under the sun. (I have always suspected the Ecclesiastes was mistakingly allowed into the Hebrew Bible.)
Also, just a related aside, ever since reading your book, I’ve wanted to thank you for your explanation of the origins of democracy as a defense of Empire and also perhaps as the original anathematization of anarchism in western thought. That one idea continues to dramatically transform my personal political philosophy. Of course, my own personal mythos is that Empire is Yaldabaoth’s favorite flawed aeonic and material manifestation, so perhaps that should be no surprise. But thank you for disabusing me of a falsely sacred value and contributing to my gnosis (no matter how painful).
Lastly, now that I’ve read CM, I need to revisit Ki Longfellow’s novel, The Secret Magdalene. Please don’t tell me you did a video on that novel and that you know Ki, even if that is true; I have enough rewiring of my memory to do for one day.
I think "Your Own Personal Jesus" needs a new song, "Your Own Personal Controlled Op" ;-) What I tell myself and friends, when we forget things, is that it's because there are 30 things we're remembering. Something's got to give.
I will definitely be telling Joe he had you at hello, which he'll get a kick out of. And the rest of your praise that is exactly what he was aiming for, I think. He's offered to do a podcast with me and I think that's the nudge I needed to get that technology together.
Tell me more about Ecclesiastes?
"Anathematization of anarchism," I'll need to quote that if I can pronounce it. And yes, let me know if I can butcher any more sacred cows for you. That's a big one and it does change everything, I've found.
I have NOT done a video on Mary Magdalene but I want to! My theory is that no women exist in the Bible (Torah and NT) because they weren't worth the mention. Every named woman represents a territory. At the same time that Judea was rebelling, Magdala had an insurrection so fierce that the Romans were said to have run out of trees to hang people on, often with their children hung around their necks. When Jesus is presented as the only person whose torture matters, I feel it's an important context.
Every woman is named Mary, including the sisters Martha and Mary. The name comes from Mar, Greek for the sea, right, and the god of war? It means a troublemaker. Molly is a form of it, and gun moll is related. So the virgin Mary is, I think, a reference that she's innocent of rebelling. Mary Magdala is, I think, the town of Magdala being under Caesar's control again.
Rewiring complete! Let the brain fizzle begin!
“Tell me more about Ecclesiastes?”
Do you always give homework assignments that even the greats have never sorted out, including everyone from Shakespeare and Tolstoy to Bob Dylan?
Okay, but anything I write is vanity and blowing in the wind….
I am always confused when I read the scholarly debate about whether gnosticism originated with the Christians or Jews (as if it must be one or the other). My own personal view is that gnosticism did not flow from any religious philosophy, but is the default of all human spirits. Qohelet certainly had all the right questions and nailed the framing of the human condition, and it is the voice of that spirit I read and not the bankrupt answers/reprimands to obey God and trust Him to make it all right ex post facto in some future judgement, which IMO are the obvious edits and additions of later orthodox scribes and censors to head off Qohelet’s most excellent question “How do I/we make straight what God has made crooked?”, which is one of the first contemplations of gnosis.
BTW, I think there is enough linguistic evidence to suggest that the original text was written by a foreign female. In its uncorrupted form, I imagine this as the lamentation of Sophia herself, possibly expressed not through wise Solomon but rather through wiser Queen Sheba, and it applied not just to this world, but very likely even to the Pleroma and the ineffable transcendent androgyne of the gnostics.
BTW, I prefer to think that Sophia’s action to birth this place and its demiurge was totally independent and not an act from ignorance. It was instead the first act of sovereignty. (In gnostic lingo, perhaps Sophia, too, like Christ, is a divine self-originate.) I think she never repented and never will. Her lamentation is that this world, along with the Pleroma, are both just two of the infinite Russian nested eggs of Reality.
So, I prefer to think of Sophia as a rebel—the mother of all those New Testament Marys. Her message, I think, is that the vaunted gnosis of this world is hardly the whole story. But I leave that for another day perhaps.
I've got a lot of catching up to do. You've produced a lot of very interesting analyses, Sister. Thank you!
If Tereza & Co. hasn't had a chance to read Mattias Desmet's The Psychology of Totalitarianism and have been affected by its detractors, then, at the very least, I would advise this review of Desmet's work:
https://johnwaters.substack.com/p/the-psychology-of-a-hatchet-job?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
That's funny, Reggie, I'm in the process of making a video on this topic based on this critique: https://jimreagen.substack.com/p/on-the-psychology-of-totalitarianism. I'll look at the John Waters too.
Small suggestion? Do better: read The Psychology of Totalitarianism once or twice and communicate directly with its author. He's open to conversations, I've learned.
PS: Love your videos, Tereza. What ever I can do to make them better is minuscule. I'll read James Reagen's review but I'd urge you to review John Water's review before doing your vid. Jus' sayin'.
Regarding the Malone lawsuit, here's the general definition of defamation: "Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation".
However, Malone qualifies as a "limited-purpose public figure" with respect to the covid vaccine discussion, opening himself up to public questioning and criticism on that subject.
It appears that none of what was the Breggins were quoted as saying qualifies as "intentionally false", but even false statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversy are not considered defamatory unless they meet the "actual-malice" test.
Source: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/defamation
Thanks for that clarification, John. "Actual malice" is an interesting concept. It does seem like that would be hard to prove, in this case.
In fact, the Breggins lawyer could make an argument that Malone is the one acting with "actual malice", that the accusations and slurs in the filing are without merit, and it is the Breggins reputation which has actually been harmed.
Oooh, that's a really good point. I've been meaning to send the Breggins a note, and that's an excellent point to include. I've continued to read Robert's Substack and read the first part of his book, which includes a foreword by RFK and essays by many people I admire. He writes well and makes sense, and I keep doubting myself. And then I keep reminding myself of the contradictions between his words and actions--when he says in the recent Declaration that no doctor should be intimidated into silence. That's exactly what he's doing with this suit.
Yes it is, Suzanne! A Rich Man's Trick 3.5 hrs. Very interesting.
Thanks for the link!