okay, tereza. likely i'm slightly off because after these trials and tribulations i kind of laughed because the closing comment summarised perfectly my thought: global versus local. for example, in oaxaca province méxico, there is still extant a system of money-less asset maintenance, exactly as described in graeber's debt book. that is still alive now and thomas hardy refers to it in at least one of his novels, when the community comes out to balance the books. and this is much closer to your caret idea, which i consider to be well thought and sound in principle and intention. i have no idea if it would work, in actuality, although i would be confident that it would perhaps with tweaks going along.
i'm laughing a bit too because if i've understood the 'gist' you both consider bit coin to be of at best questionable value and at worse the mechanism being 'pushed' by the ponzi schemers to replace the soon to splatter federal petro matter?
this brought a smile to my face because back when i wrote my own anti-economics tome that i subsequently condensed down to two economics courses, i laughed at how wikipedia at the time described it. (i didn't find my description/quotation of it.) the wiki-writer was angry because it was clear to him that it was a form of mafia protection racket. i remember that because i laughed at that writer who also claimed (or inferred) that central banking wasn't!
i have no idea if my having a degree (extended minor) in economics followed by 7 years of intense research into why everything i was taught about economics was in order to perpetuate a fraudulent cult or religion. i described it at the time as the world's biggest religion. (not 100% sure i would say that now, given that it is a tool of the they who are controlling the cull project-19.)
and i was surprised that one of the most important of the logical fallacies, imo, was not on this list. it was big in economics in my day: the fallacy of composition, which is the fallacy that 'just' because something is true in a particular or limited case, it will be true generally or in all cases.
all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and exuberant joy.
I really appreciate your insight, Guy, and that your critique of the economic system comes with credentials ;-) Yes, global vs. local is my thought also. Very interesting about Oaxaca. I have a book somewhere that describes the way of organizing labor for mutually beneficial projects. I think it was in Oaxaca. It made a lot of sense.
I'm not sure how Mathew and others can deny that the value of Bitcoin is speculative, when they're so giddy about it going to 100,000 of those banker cartel chips called dollars. Certainly the military is the mafia protection racket for the petrodollar. Are we sorry to be seeing that fail? If we can withdraw the assets (in a paraphrase of the Godfather, take the assets, leave the money), we should be relieved that the damage we're doing to other countries may come to an end.
Neshma sent me this Greg Reese report: https://gregreese.substack.com/p/bitcoin-and-the-future-of-financial. It makes the point that Gabe did, that Bitcoin was intended as a P2P currency but is now being promoted as an asset class. But I don't know that global P2P secrecy is a good thing, except under a malevolent government. I think we should stop tolerating the latter, not figure out individual ways to hide from it.
I really liked that list of logical fallacies. I've forgotten who I swiped it from, but maybe someone in the comments will claim it.
Bitcoin is the last attempt for the international banksters to hold onto power. The fact that Blackrock is purchasing billions in Bitcoin should be proof enough since Blackrock is a fiduciary for trillions of dollars in retirement accounts. One other fact worth noting is that Blackrock is investing already in Ukraine which means many retirement funds are dependent on the west winning in a corrupt contest between NATO and Russia.
Sheesh, Tereza, you sure get more than your share of patronizing interactions. I continue to appreciate how you stick with it, and even are able to share some appreciation during the exchanges. Maybe I'll have something smart to say later, but for now, just a reach out of connection and support.
Thanks for that connection and support, marta. I was just telling my daughter that when a conflict is under the surface, it's very wearing on me. I had a headache for two days while writing and responding to the Bitcoin vs. the Caret article. I knew it was going to bring to a head something that I felt was lurking.
When it's out in the open, and other people can see what I've been suspecting, then the pressure's off. I can simply quote someone, outside of their own echo chamber, and let others draw their own conclusions. I'm relieved that this isn't under the veneer anymore.
How brilliant that one you bring the conflict to the surface you feel better and the pressure is off!! That’s better than what I’ve experience, which is ‘oh sh*t now what have I done and how to do damage control’.
That Crawford piece had almost an air of Malone about it, definitely off. There’s a certain zealotry that comes with making money from crypto, almost as though the heart knows it wasn’t honestly earned and is a false profit, then the head has to invent all these silly ideas about how it’s sticking it to the dollar man. I think you might enjoy this, there are those who have survived and come out the other side https://www.asomo.co/p/the-art-of-crypto-kayfabe?triedRedirect=true
That's an excellent article, Ben. I haven't totally finished it but it's worth taking slow. I was subbed to ASOMC, don't know why I unsubbed.
The Malone comparison occurred to me too. Those long articles he wrote on his detractors. Their connection at the crypto meeting on some island, Mathew's insistence that he never stayed in the high security Malone compound, but went to a hotel instead. That just seems like a detail that is suspicious for being added. And how they broke apart just when Malone was being outted, with an elaborate story about the DMED data that's never made sense to me. If he found something significant, why didn't he publish it instead of needing Malone to?
Kayfabe all the way down. I do read many of your articles but missed that one. Here’s a pet theory taking shape hopefully in context… narrative control is more sophisticated than a simple binary but not much more. The idea occurred looking at typical voter splits, recent US as an example - you have roughly a split by thirds - Pump, Dump and didn’t subscribe - winning means only taking a little over 33% or the vocal majority perhaps. Apply the same logic to problem like DMED and consider what actors might be required to split the audience and ensure nothing of any worth emerges from the situation. Is this why they call those ‘white hats’ 33 degree? Please direct to where best to read your caret work in short form and finally what’s happened to Crow D’Appel of Nevermore who introduced me to the work of David Greaber? Thank you
I like your pet theory, Ben. In my book, I talk about that split-the-vote strategy being used to elect Taft. The incumbent, who was a shoo-in for reelection, would have never approved the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. So the money powers ran Teddy Roosevelt in the Bull Moose Party. It split the vote so that the real candidate, Taft, got more than 33%, as you say. And the FRA was signed into law a couple days before Christmas, with almost no one in attendance.
I posted a comment and note on the Bitcoin article, and a second one to Thomas Greco, who had also responded. I'll see if I can get any traction on my caret system from either of them.
The caveat on the caret is that it's hard to explain a completely new paradigm shift of global economy in a soundbite or elevator pitch ;-) But here are some articles that talk about it:
And Crow is doing great! I chatted with him the other night about his upcoming wedding in Cheran, where he is now. I think it's technology keeping him from posting, and preparations. He's invited me and I have three friends in nearby Patzcuaro, so I'm tempted but my passport also expires that month, so I'll have to see if that's even possible to renew before then. Here's my article on Cheran that has a photo of him and his beautiful fiance: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/cheran-and-indigenous-anarchy.
I remember reading the Cheran article ❤️ Try to go to Crow’s wedding if it’s humanly possible, there’s always so much that’s right when it comes to a good union. I’ll follow up on the new economic paradigm in due course, my feeling is we need to value our social capital dearly and share it with every abundance we can amongst those with whom we truly connect.
My daughter said the same! The way she said it was that I was due for an adventure and having three potential places to stay in Patzcuaro was an omen. One is the photographer of the Cheran photos I showed, one is a neighbor here who's a cultural anthropologist and just refinished a house there, and the third is a friend from here who's given tours there for two decades and now lives there. All in the same town!
And Crow says the Greater Reset is happening in nearby Morelia just before that. So many good signs!
So long as that passport can get you there the worlds is your oyster - who knows this could be an opportunity to claim asylum and Cheran looks to be an ideal place for such an adventure! https://youtu.be/Clxpougv5jc?si=Eqvu15fgPO2XerJN
I’ve always had to stay clear of Bitcoin and crypto discussions because they just don’t make sense to me - I still have no understanding of what crytpo is backed-by and how it is “mined”.
Unfortunately I have never left any discussion on the topic feeling empowered or enlightened. Attitudes like those of MC make me even less open to learning about it. Crypto “experts” like him or your YouTube commenter don’t have time to hold our hand but seem to have plenty of time to troll…
Speaking of MC, while I find him interesting on certain topics, his belittling of those he calls “chaos agents” can be a bit much, like he himself is (unwittingly?) becoming another chaos agent.
It's curious, isn't it, that they use the word 'mined.' The entire expenditure of energy is to impose an artificial scarcity. But it also mimics the existing inequality and transfers it to a new medium. If you actually wanted a unit of trade, why pattern it after an extractive model?
You put that well, Anneke, "Crypto “experts” like him or your YouTube commenter don’t have time to hold our hand but seem to have plenty of time to troll…"
And I just quoted you to someone on the chaos agents. I've found that the children's taunt "What you say is what you are" often turns out to be true.
New subscriber here... been watching Mat attempt to build bridges and then collapse back into solipsistic arrogance for years now; don't take it personally, he does this a lot.
I can see it will take me a while to untangle the threads. Maybe I should start with your book. Any critical thinking on Bitcoin and related financial issues is welcome to me, at least!
Clever plan - to allow one tribe to buy all the [?worthless] shiny gold and back the new currency on untraceable nothing-burgers. I’m for labour-backed Carets
Just came to share the above Greg Reese link and noticed my name mentioned favourably, so will now have to add more.
Haha! You think? He hasn't stopped there. I just posted a video, Substack to follow, on him asking someone scheduled to interview me if he trusted me. And his proof point was that I wouldn't denounce Russell Brand. https://youtu.be/xsrxuxjPqN0
Here’s my pennysworth: Mathew has a thing about cults, understandably given his history. But then I’ve read at least four essays from him in which he denounces Theosophy as a cult - therefore bad - seemingly oblivious to the fact that they played a major hand in introducing Jiddhu Krishnamurti to the world. A massive positive as far as I’m concerned and a huge influence in my spiritual awakening from an ignorant atheist 45 years ago.
Worth more than a penny for your thoughts, Tommy ;-) Here is the contradiction I see in Mathew's thinking. As he says, he was raised in a trauma-based mind control cult that turned his brother into a charming psychopath who probably killed people. Mathew's words. Yet he claims that had no effect on him and his ability to walk away and think clearly.
At the same time, he defines as a cult anyone he doesn't like. Are Mathew's 40K subscribers a cult? Is he controlling their minds? How is that different than Russell Brand? When I'm critical of Mathew's ideas on Bitcoin, he does a public witchhunt. He tries to turn other people against me. Isn't that what cult leaders do? And his readers went along like sheep, until I posted replies asking what they knew about me from Mathew's article, embarrassing them into realizing they knew nothing. That's what cult followers do.
Yes, I’ve noticed that tendency when criticised. (Noticed it in many who have self-esteem issues and tend to steer away since I have learnt I can do no good.) I’ve pretty much concluded that, for all his undoubted abilities, this is an open wound for Mathew.. I appreciate you wanting to defend yourself but I know that were I in your position I would disengage. Your astonishing output is ample testament to your erudition, credibility and ability.
"The ‘eco’ in economy and ecology refers to the same Greek root, oikos, the household, estate or domain. The eco-nomos is the rule, or the set of rules, for managing the domain. The eco-logos is the underlying principle, the spirit, the reason for it all—in the sense that Saint John affirms at the outset of his Gospel, “In the beginning was the Logos,” usually translated as the “Word.”
" ... Given the Greek root, you would think that the Logos would be seen as the greater of the two and supersede the Nomos. Normally the spirit and underlying principle should override and define the rules and regulations, so that the eco-logos would be the guiding force behind the economy. Not so with the globalised capitalist economy which dictates the rules to society."
But first, how about not letting Klaus Schwab decide who lives and dies in Western societies? Schwab proposes a law to die at 70, with few exceptions! [https://x.com/PolFabrice/status/1866757846836109442]
You bring up an important question: should the purpose of our economic system be giving us control of other people, or having control of our own communities? It's not possible to do both.
Within the caret system, the community can use its own labor backed by the housing without borrowing the money to pay for it. It scales up the transfer of intergenerational wealth. In a single family, that would be caring for the previous generation and passing on the gift to the next generation in order to inherit the house.
At a community level, the caret makes the same premise flexible. When you live in a house you haven't built, with infrastructure you haven't created, it incurs a social debt. Instead of a debt to the bankers, your labor provides useful products and services to the community. That's calibrated, not left to some vague 'gift economy' or centralized authority.
So you control your services, including medical, not Klaus Schwab. And hopefully we'll figure this out in the next 2.5 yrs before I turn 70 ;-)
Once there was a guy called god, god was a great guy! and suddenly he decide; you creation of my hand needs to be teached a lessons! no one will ever live past 120, and none after noah did. SantaKlauss, hum i mean satanKlauss and yaval really thinks they are god aint they lol
It seems you really triggered Mathew's trauma. I think he has been hypersensitive for months. This year was not the best for him.
You may probably know about the concept of C-PTSD. I'm not completely on board with this concept, but I'm giving it a try. One problem about this "diagnosis" is that it requires some sort of faith. At the root, there is an assumption of brain damage at some point in life, caused by psychological trauma. I don't understand this yet. But this looks to me a bit of a sleight of hand, because only a pathologist doing a post-mortem analysis seems to be able to confirm (more or less) a real case of brain damage. Which is definitely not useful for improving life's condition of people. Computer imaging of living people is not as reliable as they want the public to think it is.
So, much like ancient psychoanalysis, the conceptual development of C-PTSD relays on clever use of rhetoric and analogies. Like I said, I'm not completely on board. But, having said that, it explains a lot. And that may be why it's getting so trendy.
In Mathew's case, he seems to be showcasing a fight trauma response.
Please, read this paragraph from an expert in this topic, Peter Walker:
"Unlike the other 4Fs, fight types assess themselves as perfect and project the inner critic's perfectionistic processes onto others, guaranteeing themselves an endless supply of justifications to rage. Fight types need to see how their condescending, moral-high-ground position alienates others and perpetuates their present time abandonment."
I think it's important to mention two opinions of Walker, that sound quite plausible to me.
The first, that his typology of the types of personality according to the trauma response type is not a universal classification of personality types, but should only be used in cases of traumatized people (a problem with this is that psychological trauma seems to be a universal phenomenon in human experience, but let's leave that aside.)
The second opinion of Walker is that many patients are misdiagnosed with words like psychosis, paranoia, depression, schizophrenia, narcissistic personality disorder, borderline, and other three letter label of the wild jungle of "personality disorders", but, in reality, they are just having a trauma response.
I see this is as a honorable attempt to de-stigmatize psychiatric diagnosis, which is sometimes used as insults or terms of abuse. Which then creates flame wars on the internet. Which can be fun to watch, for those who have that hobby.
--
My own view: Mathew is very angry because this year he has realized that he has wrong in wasting so many years researching the covid fraud (all of it was a massive fraud, and all the data constitutes the biggest case of scientific fraud in all history), and he has also realized that he fell for several scams, and he even promoted them (there's a book with his name on it), and he cannot forgive himself for this.
This anger is then somatized and becomes manifest as several ailments (like migraines) and projected: he must scapegoat his pain on his inferiors (the readers and collaborators and debate partners.) He conveniently uses a topic (bitcoin) that is removed from the real cause. All this is probably done subconsciously.
Prognosis: Mathew will be sulking for a bit longer, about three months. Then he will have a crisis, and maybe he goes catatonic for ten days or so. By May or June all his ailments will resolve, he will pick up the pieces and move on to seek some life-meaning in wrong places, restarting the cycle of rage. This thought makes me sad.
How to break the cycle? By renouncing to politics completely, and then focusing on Love.
What is Love, Tereza? I suggest you consider writing a post about your views on Love, the abstract and the particular. I love to read people writing about Love. Sometimes, this topic brings the best out of writers, but it's always a difficult topic for brain-types.
Some people look inside for Love. Others, look outside. When these two types have a conversation, there is a reason storm. People fight over premises and forget the essence of the topic. Which brings me to Marshall Rosenberg and his non-violent communication doctrine. To me, as a beginner student of that, it seems that this is best applied to the personal space. The public space is very refractory to non-violence.
Tereza, did you know that Zoologists believe that the Giraffe is the animal with the biggest heart, because it has the longest distance to move blood between the brain and the rest of the vital organs? Marshall Rosenberg argued that we should pretend to be Giraffes. The man was completely crazy!
Interesting psychoanalysis, Roger. For me to conclude that Mathew is brain-damaged from childhood trauma and taking it out on me seems like him deciding I'm mentally ill. It's clear that you know Mathew well and care about him. For you and his other 36,000 subs, I think that's a worthy endeavor to understand why he does what he does and support him. For me, I think I should honor his decision to have nothing more to do with me, although I wish him well. And maybe literally.
I try to alternate my posts between male and female, rational and intuitive, mind and soul, cognitive and love. It's definitely time for the second up next. Thanks for the reminder!
Thank you for your response. To clarify, I don't know if he has any brain damage old or new, but his childhood trauma is something he has spoken about many times publicly.
I don't have more confidence in the potential future I wrote than in my astrological analyses, which for me are just literature. However, sometimes...
I will also honor his decision to have nothing to do with me, and I truly wish him well, because I practice gratitude to all my teachers, even when there is a fundamental disagreement.
Hey, Im new here and don’t know any of you, had Terezas work recommend to me by a friend. Hi Tereza👋🏻😁 seems like a very insightful group👍🏻.
Roger, wow great comment. What you said about love just instantly reminded me of Plato’s Symposium and I wanted to recommend it, if you haven’t read it already. The entire thing is an intricate analysis of love from multiple perspectives by different types of people. The conclusion, Socrates’ take on the meaning of love, in context of the lead up, is one of the most profound, poetic, and beautiful things I’ve ever read honestly. I highly recommend it.
Any good Psychology books you’d recommend? I’ve been thinking about a Jung book, my first, not sure which to go with. But I’m open to any suggestions (any author) from someone who seems to have expertise in the subject.
Welcome, PavlovPuppy, and thanks for joining. To what friend do I owe the gratitude for recommending me?
My book starts in ancient Greece, looking at the origins of democracy and money within the context of a slaveowning society. I quote Aristotle to start:
Humanity is divided into two:
the masters and the slaves;
or, if one prefers it,
the Greeks and the Barbarians,
those who have the right
to command; and those
who are born to obey.
—ARISTOTLE, POLITICS
I always like to start with definitions, which I do in this episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/what-is-love? I don't know if Plato and Socrates talk about the slaves, colonized, landless and women, who were excluded from their hierarchy. But sometimes I wonder if they made things so convoluted to avoid the obvious, that love was predicated on social status, as the word 'friend' comes from 'free' as the prerequisite for someone being considered even fully human.
Plato is always great read. No translator has found a way to make "The Banquet" boring, and they have tried for so long. My two favorite dialogues so far are: Gorgias, and Parmenides. One very comical, the other is as dense as a one of those giant stones in the pillars of Luxor temple.
Psychology books to recommend... I wouldn't recommend Jung. This business of psychoanalysis is very heady. I started reading the critics of psychoanalysis, which are often hilarious. I always recommend a book by Thomas Szasz on comedian Karl Kraus, "Karl Kraus and the Soul-Doctors" is the title. It's important to know that Vienna before the war was, in many ways, like New York has been since the war ended, and it's just so very important and so overlooked the first-hand perspective of a satirist who was a few years younger than Freud and saw the same city life and the same developments as Freud. If anyone could see through the deception, it had to be a professional fool like Kraus.
To study psychology, it's better to go directly to Kant, Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer. All socialists hate those three writers, and pretend they don't exist.
Also, Franz Brentano was kind of an important guy. To understand Freud's angle, you better read the basics about Brentano's thinking. https://iep.utm.edu/brentano/
For more recent stuff, there is Eric Berne, who died too young and too long ago, and he has a popular book "Games People Play" that is very important. By my own estimation, 75% of everything you can hear today in "pop psychology" can be traced back to that book. The other 25% is from Albert Ellis. Psychologists who are not prone to innovation. They repeat what they like. Berne had also technical books, which are upsetting to read. Psychoanalysts technical writings are not uplifting. Schopenhauer is way better in his minor works
And C.S. Lewis is a good psychologist in many of his essays.
It's a topic as old as the alphabet. We just use big words that look modern and more precise. But human behavior has always been puzzling for those who think too much.
you probly guessed i've been lurking in the shadow for all this drama to unveil ;)
Because i already told ya how i greatly appreciate all of you, so of course! i'm gonna be watching a talk on bitcoin that i do since 2020 and i am quite good at it btw. Plus lovely tereza, wits and watts M&M + gabe my techman! I didnt miss a single drop of that delicious nectar for brain.
Sadly as we all see the ending became sour... So I thought a lot about doing my usual carefree get in the rumble guy or not...and after a while i return to the first idea to share my comments since its not reducing anyone and will try to pinpoint something more crucial than carets VS btc, or global vs local. I'm talking about the US vs THEM. we all know who at this point.
I'll write something to Matt later for sure btw, maybe in a more rational than emotional speach, since the same dillema of caracter i pinpointed on the Sasha and you rumble is happening here. Kinda obvious matt and is hardearned acquired knowledge as the edgy mindset and is part of the not gentleman family that Sasha is part of. I was them once before, now i'm a gentleman. Bringing the next point.
Since i gently insert myself in many sphere of militant lets say, i have my way to understand both of you and acknowedge both of you( i tend to have this habit with religion concept too) call me heretic or gemini ,in fact i'm taurus. Where i want to go is here:
- we lost time, we lost soldiers, we divided amongst the good seed. we suposed to get rid of the bad seed. Both of you are emotionaly touched by the others and its normal cause both of you have the genius to insult each other without being insulting, i feel like watching a debate where i want both to win there point and in fact i find it quite possible! So we get back the huge waste of time where two of our most chivalreous and skilled knight went into subtly arguing over what in the end? Economics and solution, or personal pride and shame over credential and validity of our persona?
Meanwhile, this happened and i followed you by the eyes, i was follwing another debate with the ears( so thank you for doing a video+writing substack style, it suits me a lot for the flexibility) Someone from the orthodox church name Wes Huff won a debate VS Billy Carlson. NOW thats a great thing, cause one scammer amongst the gatekeeper is in the downfall, sure i feel there is a hidden scheme in it to opportunity to tranfert a wealth to another wealth and gain orthodox point. That pays well something with a good base, and depletes someone who gains wealth by poisoning lots of mind with lots of lies.
Since your whole argument was about economics, who got wealthier and who got poorer by your arguing both? I feel we all lost something, for sure both of you didnt lose a inch of your validity and worth...but we all lost an opportunity to do better aint we? Even I or whoever reads this and followed the whole thing.
Now i will link you to the crucial about the debate i am mentionning, fel free to give me any opinions of yours as they are welcome as always i know your a kind soul thats an obvious thing. Btw, can i shamefully ask, and thats why i didnt interfere altho knowing bitcoin a lot, what is the caret system? i tried find stuff on the net but i get carat gold and i think about a carrot. so... help me out. thanks =)
Theres tons of it retaken by others making good point at it, but none have in mind what i think of this. And thats the kinda stuff that would need a matt graph with your intuition in it to. well, guess it wont be anytime soon we gonna see that combo.
Lastly, I do crypto and yes i made money of it lately, also i dont regret all the studying in blockchain and how ledgers are sets and used, how to stack trade swap evade KYC ( hum nvm mind that) study coin project, how to analyze stuff use metamask and such. its all usefull as all the thing Gabe knows in tech and i dont... i'm quite jealous of him but my son will back me up on that weakness soon. All this and i still believe firmly that the old ways of trading like japan and rice or other attemps are the best way since it doesnt imply speculation, or worth made and quantified\valued around thin air. the printmachine technique is the same basicly but on steroids in crypto and thats a personal opinion. The root of this question you all worked on: bitcoin vs caret, is about wich economic way is the most appropriate in an utopic futur right? One thing i know for sure in economics... better make the money than lose the money. time is cash too... So its kindof ironicly funny how the whole debate you wisepeople got into is essentialy going against the main objective.
That last paragraph is intended to be confusing, at first it gives credit to crypto knowledge, then give more value to fundamentals, finaly it breaks both side of the cookie in crumble since the rumble went against the humble at first sought by yall. (even moOore confusing )
My respect to Tereza, Gabe, Matt and Math, For the sake of your greater discourse i will now forsake this lesser discord. aint we all so human after all? all this is writen in a positive intent thanks =)
Hi, Jean-Sebastien. First, to answer your question about carets. That's what I call the digital currency of the commonwealth in my book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607. It won't exist without the system change of taking the right to create money for mortgages away from private banks. I don't believe that any real change is possible without that.
You state that Mathew and I are both insulting each other. Could you please point out to me where I have insulted Mathew? In my previous article, I simply talked about my ideas and compared them to Bitcoin, based on his responses to Gabe. In this article, I've merely quoted him and pointed out to the commenters who joined him in his derision that they knew nothing about me from his article.
That seems like it's a one-sided aggression. And the discussion of ideas is one-sided also, on my side and with various commenters in the last article, including Gabe. There was no need for Mathew to even respond. He could have shrugged and gone back to work on Bitcoin. But instead he decided to attack me and a system he knows nothing about. Why? I don't see that as a rumble, I see that as an ambush.
I'm using the comparison to educate people about my system and how it would solve the problems pointed out by Gabe with Bitcoin. My article isn't really about Bitcoin, in which I have no interest. Instead of presenting Bitcoin and how it would solve the problems, Mathew deflects the questions with an attack. A very elaborate one, and if you think he has 'the genius to insult without being insulting' I invite you to read this again. I've done my best to highlight his insults to me without any retaliation. If you call that insulting him, I don't know how to respond. If quoting someone is insulting to them, isn't that their problem?
Dear tereza, i am pleased of the link and tommorow i will get on it to catch up right away. I urge to understand quite everything. Somestuff are still over my understanding skill or current knowledge possessed and thats why i always ask politely.
For the second part, I really thought you would see the meaning behind my external view of this. Its meant to show the waste of energy into a debate ending either way into a loss.
The correlation of speaking on better economic behavior while showing how to, by speaking of it, losing economicly. I am surprised you still want to make sure you didnt offense him.
Lets be honest, you didnt mean to insult him, but he got offended and you do know it. He DID mean to offend you, i am not taking this out in my last comments since i compared the situation with sasha the hot tempered. But still i thought compared to his personality yours would have been pleased and understand my point.
Guess not and thats why i am sorry if i do offend you by thinking on my side that you both offended each other.
When i was young and in dispute with anyone…my mother always told
me dispute cant be made alone.(schizophrenics exempt) So thats how i was raised and how i see it.
Now that this is pulled out of the way, can i ask your opinion on billy carlson and wes huff debate that served as a comparison? Whats your take on this.
After all, amongst us… it should be easy to agree on disagreeing and go back to work at what we do best. Seek truth. And i havent seen lies amongst your debate with matt compare to what i saw in the ones in wes vs carlson. All i seen is as i told. two blessed soul qui se sont blessés de leur propos, ou façon de se protéger en dévalorisant l’autre indirectement.
Maybe lot of overinterpretation like the mentaly ill part, i do think everyone on earth including me( specialy me ) is lets say playfully…« special » But it will always sound super mean to tell it to someone without first giving the personal definition of it. You got all the rights to defend yourself. As you got the liberty to list all who supports you and by deduction imply they are against matt’s thinking. you can also tell me its only in a peacefull manner this choice of defense was took.
But you also had the liberty to deal with it another way as he sure did have the same liberty. So can i have the liberty to think that you two are very very clever and deep inside both prepared their format knowing it would hurt?
Thats what i mean by lets be honest. And i honestly appreciate you all equally even with your way different mindset. I honestly wish you get both over it and work a good peace deal and make everyone happy. And i wish us all to achieve our personal goal. I am pretty sure this only gave a step back on that to everyone.
Hope i did answer your question on how i see you both guilty of hurting the other pride. correct me if i am wrong, but i guess you wont think likewise and keep the view where you are white as snow. Its ok, let time flow and think about what my m’ma teached me when i was young.
Who start something with bad intention and ends it in bad intention perpetuate that intention on the next cycle.
A lesson good for everyone anywhere anytime 😇
And i dont want to be in the next cycle, i respect your opinion, i feel for both of you. I say what i think and you asked me gently. So i answered sincerely and hope this overall view of mine is taken as a positive productive message not the opposite way✌️😅👍
If not just think of me as an old
Fool who should just be disregarded i dont mind. No need to ban me like he did to you. Otherwise i wont be able to enjoy your crispy discovery like sasha and russel. I bet more is to come so i wouldnt want to miss on that ;)
Both of you can decide right the moment to forgive and forget on such a light subject with nothing personal at first. Thats a truth.
Well good night lively tereza,
Meanwhile i went and check the links. Its your book so my only way to learn about carets is in this book? Is there any links on the net to start learning the idea? If not i will gladly buy your book. But one thing…its on .com amazon and none on .ca and the price went from 26$ to 52$ if we talking about economics i feel i’m getting ripped off by bezos and our low .71cent canadian dollars. Do you have a personal site instead where i can chip in? I did same with jamestrue and it was great! Not a penny to bezos. Got a el rey art of his and could tip as i wanted + its signed book. BTW! Congratulations 🍾 a book is great 😊 i love books 📚
So write me back on Carlson vs Wes, your book that I want to buy, and if you wish can also give a shot at my answer to your question.
I'm reading my book into my stack chapter by chapter, so here are the episodes so far. It starts by explaining the problem so won't get to the solution for 21 chapters. That will save a lot of futile discussion on the right solutions to the wrong problems ;-)
I don't actually think people should ever agree to disagree, as I say here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/we-need-to-agree-to-agree. I don't need to see myself as lily-white. But what prevents us from coming to solutions is that we think we should never disagree with our friends. It allows friendship to be weaponized. We don't want to hurt someone's feelings by showing them to be wrong, and so we don't challenge each others ideas and present them to scrutiny in a methodical way.
Did I know that my original piece, when I disagreed with Mathew, would create conflict for him? Yes, of course. But if I hadn't written my comparison of my system, it would have been because I was intimidated. The techniques I outlined would have worked to shut me down and gauge myself unworthy to open my mouth about things I clearly knew nothing about. That's what most women do, as I say here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/disagreeable-women.
I don't really believe there was a more gentle and friendly way I could have disagreed with his ideas and still expressed my regard for him as a person. I stated the latter in many places, including my enthusiastic comment on his Doc Malik interview. I have been continually warm and kind, including our phone calls, his interview of me, our many mutual friends. But I don't think kindness extends to allowing someone to abuse you, and not documenting it in the same public forum.
Wow, the energy you have🤩is it also 2am for you? Maybe its me since yesterday i went to bed at 4 am and up running at 7h22am)
Thanks for the links its great you share excerpt of your books as dean enderson do, or in totality even better😎 tommorow in freetime i will be reading you for sure !
And you know what? I wouldnt have find weakness in evading a confrontation, neither see this as a feminine concept vs machoman being ruthless. If you were a man, would have it been easier to not respond and not feel shut down by the act of refusing the discussion? I dont think so as i dont think its a gender issue and i will certainly not sign my death certificate by going in a debate over woman empowerment and man macho cliché im the alpha male prejudice. Nope not me, hehehe. Even less against skilled like you 😉 im no fool, or maybe a little lol
I am glad to read between the line that you do understood my point at first. Not acknowledging it, but at least i can go sleep knowing im not a psycho hallucinating stuff 🤪……🫣
If it can the least ease your tourment if any, I do think matt went a little bit to harsh on the way he talks back. As sasha and her girl have badmouth often in their behavior. Still thinking what a derivative of the economic subject, and still thinking wes and carlson did a great advancement meanwhile. Hope tommorow you can give me an opinion of that lady part.
Anyway the subject of your dispute is to be extinguished i hope not powered up( late… out of words…
My french brain is on, english words lacking)
Im also near extinction 😂
Good night 🌙
I’ll write back to ya after a quick dive in your book for sure if im not exasperating you yet 🙃 Would be fun to take that subject back to btc vs caret instead of tereza vs crawford so i need to get up to date huh 🙂
I have zero torment over not falling for Mathew's emotional manipulation to shut me up. You certainly wouldn't be the first in my life to recommend that I be conflict-avoidant and not hurt other people's feelings by challenging their ideas. I understand that you think that's a better way to be--go along with our friends and only challenge our enemies. I see no one as my enemy and challenge everyone on their ideas. I am immune to guilt-mongering because I don't take responsibility for other people's feelings. I do take responsibility for my own words and actions, and you haven't shown me anywhere that those demeaned Mathew.
you also have no torment over my emotional manipulation to uplift you both up lol. and you will certainly not be the last to whom i propose peace treaty. Moreover! this will definitly not be the last time i get a no to my proposition. Btw i dont mind its all fine, you do you i do me. And i still greatly appreciate your work. I still greatly appreciate is work. In the end, what he thinks of you and you think of him is irevelant. I better get back to reading your book thats what matters to me. solution , and attempt by us to make them happens.
Btw my friend hates me more then my ennemis in life LOL weird to say. My close one find me severe and strict, while the latter just evade me. So in the end I only want to correct one thing. I dont eat the medecine i gave you both. why? because I take my conflict to another level in life. its guillotine like, you either keep your head cool or its off my life. SPECIALY MY FRIENDS! So many went from friend side to stranger side. An ennemi for me is a potential threat. So wher your list is short mine is quite long.
Now why i tried rose the white flag? because i find you both extremely worthfull to the side of goodness and i wish to hear more of you and caret, more of him and is graph demystifying the elites. while you both go in that war of who hurt who while evryone is hurt. is like yesterday i said comparing to Wes vs Carlson…a pure waste.
btw, its the only thing you havent answered me yet, how you perceive the WES vs Carlson debate. and can you tell me… after comparing both duel…that the ones you two initiated as given better results then the one they did?
anyway i’m out trying to make you both agree (or agree to disagree as I learned you dont validate the expression), guess to much blood as been shed. Why i will stop there is because of that:
you understand i go along with friends and only aim ennemi. I am not that kind of favoritism fellow who help one in my circle and spit on who is not. I dont want to induct you in believing something that i am not or it will end it what you both went at and i tried to prevent that not augment it.
definition of satan: adversary
how i see relation freindship and ennemi?
both + or - relation between two soul, can always flip from one to another
i dont have friend and ennemi, i got a body and am part of a family
is an ally a friend?
i find this childish question quite revealing
As is an opponent an ennemi…
taking the fuzzy word away, their is conflit and order
no wonder they ruled them beliefs, out of chaos comes order
Soooooooooooooo. i’m back at the caret book, btw love the intro=)
i’m on a day off so i have plenty times for christmas gift and your book, its a lovely day =)
(Message for both, tech and spiritual TerraDwellers). What if Terrian Humans met at midway? In fact, tech people are very brain-reason, and spiritual people very hearty-reason. Can we balance reasons in a braihy=brainy+hearty Reason, to please Pascal? Just suppose it is a familial, ordinary meeting. Peace and Love among siblings! Tolerance, Dignity and Clemency! Good seasonal Holidays!
Well, I can't 'like' an insult without doing what Mathew did to me but perhaps I can qualify 'up his own arse.' What Mathew is known for, affectionately among his fans, is jumping from one topic to another in a way that's hard to decipher. In my comment on his Doc Malik interview, I joked that Ahmad was able to keep him on one topic--his teaching of math to students.
I think that intelligence is the ability to think clearly, and make your points known to others. I don't know if Mathew does the opposite intentionally, to confuse the issues, but I suspect it's part of his technique. He uses obscure references to imply you need to know 'Metcalf's law' or something else to 'get it.' Perhaps that's up his own arse, or perhaps that's in someone else's pocket, someone who doesn't want us to think clearly and engage in constructive dialogue. Dunno.
I'm a paying sub to MCs Rounding the Earth locals...For a while I certainly had a good sense about him. But there was a bizarre interaction here on substack chat recently (not sure that's the right term) I found so odd. Then another X interaction with Will Schryver. I felt embarrassed for M. It exposed his arrogance. (And I know we can all be cocky and react badly in the face of humiliation at times).
Something else too (which now rings alarm bells for me) is a researcher's take re WW2. I mean if you can't at this point revise your old/former learning re the holocaust, Nuremberg, National Socialism, etc and consider the 'British Empire'/City of London whilst never mentioning it was essentially directed by the Rothschilds/Jews...I genuinely wonder what's going on.
Sorry to learn of this re M. Don't suppose I'll renew my sub.
You're incredibly smart Tereza (am so far behind on the finances/bitcoin stuff, thus can't comment), super articulate too, I'd say gifted, not to mention refreshingly transparent, robust and unfailingly ethical. You add lightness to everything. x
I had to close my eyes after reading your last paragraph, Pauline. It really was a balm to my soul. I tell my daughters that you can't create conflict, you can only bring it to the surface. I have a high tolerance for conflict and it can feel like I'm attracting it. So having someone like you who's perceptive, and positively inclined towards the other person, recognize that there's a pattern is meaningful. It shows it's not just 'in my head' or from my ego.
And yes, I don't blame the average person for not realizing the history of the world wars was a lie. We all have our journeys. But Mathew writes and talks a lot about WWII and the Theosophical Society. Frankly, I've never gotten his point in all that, any more than I've understood the significance of the DMED data he spent so long analyzing and brings up constantly.
Instead of looking at the economics, and how Germany was intentionally and brutally destroyed because of they broke with the banks, Mathew makes it about some religious cult. It's mysticism that's to blame, not a banking cabal led by Rothschilds and whoever they answer to. Telling for someone who suspects that the banking cartel started Bitcoin to keep the theft going without WWIII.
I was just thinking that the Catholics kiss the pope's ring. The pope kisses the Rothschild's ring and the Wailing Wall. Whose ring do the Rothschilds and Zionists kiss? That's the one ring to rule them all.
I do Tereza. And Julius has introduced me to some splendid resources. Most grateful to him. In fact I'd just replied to a post saying I read part 1 + 2 (behind paywall but really worth it imho) of the Romanov Ritual Regicide. Though I suppose J has read many books on the subject. It was absolutely fascinating and incredibly dark/sinister. I'd not really looked into it all...felt too grim/gruesome tbh...but the attention to detail they include is remarkable. I really found it excellent.
I’ve noticed that MC is tight with Matthew Ehret (a Jew) and they do podcasts together frequently. In the last one Ehret spoke about how the Nazis made lamp shades from Jewish skin… so I think Ehret’s influence might answer why MC won’t address the JQ.
Wow. I did watch part of that roundtable (with Cynthia and another woman, yes?) but I stopped before it got to that glaring untruth. I noticed before I stopped that Cynthia was barely talking, except when ME made fairly patronizing efforts to bring her in. I wonder what she privately thinks. I've felt that she's the powerhouse researcher in that couple, and he regurgitates the same research and talking points from his college days.
I didn't know that Ehret was a Jew. It's hard to tell who would be influencing who, though. They share an agenda. When I've pointed out to Ehret that he's historically wrong about Hamilton as a hero, when he really sold out the newly-freed States to the bankers, he's never changed his same line. He's answered me but not given evidence that I'm wrong, so I know he's read my lengthy comments citing proof. That's not a historian.
I had not heard from Ehret himself about him being a Jew. I saw that mentioned in an article about the Jewish Hasbara. Once I started looking at him in that light his historical views made more sense (on the Nazis and the US banking etc).
I agree that he is quite patronizing towards Cynthia and that she is the better researcher/writer of the two. My inclination is that he is the influencer but I could be wrong. The podcast that I was referring to was just the 3 of them - the 2 Matthews and Cynthia, but MC is on numerous other podcasts with them and they host numerous roundtables. I rarely listen to the whole thing because I find Ehret’s historical “mistakes” too infuriating.
I am feeling so validated right now. What I used to push back against Matt Ehret was Level One of this information. Blue Moon of Shanghai supplies Level Four. Now I know that his obfuscating arguments back to me were the tip of an iceberg of misdirection.
I'm still so prone to doubting myself when someone with a bunch of credentials and a wide audience tells me I'm wrong without saying why. You're curing me of that, Anneke. I may not have all the information for the answer, but I have enough to be asking the question. And if someone deflects it, there's a reason.
This is such an excellent document. What's the relationship to Blue Moon of Alabama? I quoted him (I'm guessing) in my research on Ukraine.
And very interesting that Cynthia's revelations of Japan's horrific treatment of China didn't whisper a word about the Jews. I'd quoted that too. Once you know that you can't trust a historian to know or care that their history is accurate, what's left?
that tought was seen in Elsa circle for me at first 2 years ago, one old historian guy in there put some mathew facts in testing and it ended resolving about the same feeling of jumping from subject to subject mostly. what i can say is i met him in real life, talk a lot with even is mother charming lady always there for her son and vice versa. I know them and they are from a good seed. like all of you i think are as you will be reading in my other comment. If it can calrify , i do multiple learning at a crazy speed lately and when i am in speaker mode amongst my family, i sound as confusing as him towards my own. Simply put, sometimes to explain some really well hidden scheme of mostly freemasons, you ned to link some puzzle piece that at first doesnt seem logical. thats why mr crawford graph is usefull. put these over the speach of math and you get a great view of deepstate war game. Its almost impossible to vocalise that without sounding like a confusing fellow.
you know who is a rip off? None of you of course! Its Billy carlson... and now we got proof, i am eager you put your eyes on the link i sent ya in the other comment. i bet you will appreciate =)
okay, tereza. likely i'm slightly off because after these trials and tribulations i kind of laughed because the closing comment summarised perfectly my thought: global versus local. for example, in oaxaca province méxico, there is still extant a system of money-less asset maintenance, exactly as described in graeber's debt book. that is still alive now and thomas hardy refers to it in at least one of his novels, when the community comes out to balance the books. and this is much closer to your caret idea, which i consider to be well thought and sound in principle and intention. i have no idea if it would work, in actuality, although i would be confident that it would perhaps with tweaks going along.
i'm laughing a bit too because if i've understood the 'gist' you both consider bit coin to be of at best questionable value and at worse the mechanism being 'pushed' by the ponzi schemers to replace the soon to splatter federal petro matter?
this brought a smile to my face because back when i wrote my own anti-economics tome that i subsequently condensed down to two economics courses, i laughed at how wikipedia at the time described it. (i didn't find my description/quotation of it.) the wiki-writer was angry because it was clear to him that it was a form of mafia protection racket. i remember that because i laughed at that writer who also claimed (or inferred) that central banking wasn't!
i have no idea if my having a degree (extended minor) in economics followed by 7 years of intense research into why everything i was taught about economics was in order to perpetuate a fraudulent cult or religion. i described it at the time as the world's biggest religion. (not 100% sure i would say that now, given that it is a tool of the they who are controlling the cull project-19.)
and i was surprised that one of the most important of the logical fallacies, imo, was not on this list. it was big in economics in my day: the fallacy of composition, which is the fallacy that 'just' because something is true in a particular or limited case, it will be true generally or in all cases.
all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and exuberant joy.
🙏❤️🧘♂️☯️🧘♂️❤️🙏
I really appreciate your insight, Guy, and that your critique of the economic system comes with credentials ;-) Yes, global vs. local is my thought also. Very interesting about Oaxaca. I have a book somewhere that describes the way of organizing labor for mutually beneficial projects. I think it was in Oaxaca. It made a lot of sense.
I'm not sure how Mathew and others can deny that the value of Bitcoin is speculative, when they're so giddy about it going to 100,000 of those banker cartel chips called dollars. Certainly the military is the mafia protection racket for the petrodollar. Are we sorry to be seeing that fail? If we can withdraw the assets (in a paraphrase of the Godfather, take the assets, leave the money), we should be relieved that the damage we're doing to other countries may come to an end.
Neshma sent me this Greg Reese report: https://gregreese.substack.com/p/bitcoin-and-the-future-of-financial. It makes the point that Gabe did, that Bitcoin was intended as a P2P currency but is now being promoted as an asset class. But I don't know that global P2P secrecy is a good thing, except under a malevolent government. I think we should stop tolerating the latter, not figure out individual ways to hide from it.
I really liked that list of logical fallacies. I've forgotten who I swiped it from, but maybe someone in the comments will claim it.
Bitcoin is the last attempt for the international banksters to hold onto power. The fact that Blackrock is purchasing billions in Bitcoin should be proof enough since Blackrock is a fiduciary for trillions of dollars in retirement accounts. One other fact worth noting is that Blackrock is investing already in Ukraine which means many retirement funds are dependent on the west winning in a corrupt contest between NATO and Russia.
Very prescient observations, roadwarrior.
Sheesh, Tereza, you sure get more than your share of patronizing interactions. I continue to appreciate how you stick with it, and even are able to share some appreciation during the exchanges. Maybe I'll have something smart to say later, but for now, just a reach out of connection and support.
Thanks for that connection and support, marta. I was just telling my daughter that when a conflict is under the surface, it's very wearing on me. I had a headache for two days while writing and responding to the Bitcoin vs. the Caret article. I knew it was going to bring to a head something that I felt was lurking.
When it's out in the open, and other people can see what I've been suspecting, then the pressure's off. I can simply quote someone, outside of their own echo chamber, and let others draw their own conclusions. I'm relieved that this isn't under the veneer anymore.
How brilliant that one you bring the conflict to the surface you feel better and the pressure is off!! That’s better than what I’ve experience, which is ‘oh sh*t now what have I done and how to do damage control’.
That Crawford piece had almost an air of Malone about it, definitely off. There’s a certain zealotry that comes with making money from crypto, almost as though the heart knows it wasn’t honestly earned and is a false profit, then the head has to invent all these silly ideas about how it’s sticking it to the dollar man. I think you might enjoy this, there are those who have survived and come out the other side https://www.asomo.co/p/the-art-of-crypto-kayfabe?triedRedirect=true
That's an excellent article, Ben. I haven't totally finished it but it's worth taking slow. I was subbed to ASOMC, don't know why I unsubbed.
The Malone comparison occurred to me too. Those long articles he wrote on his detractors. Their connection at the crypto meeting on some island, Mathew's insistence that he never stayed in the high security Malone compound, but went to a hotel instead. That just seems like a detail that is suspicious for being added. And how they broke apart just when Malone was being outted, with an elaborate story about the DMED data that's never made sense to me. If he found something significant, why didn't he publish it instead of needing Malone to?
I used the same kayfabe, taken from Kevin Barrett, for geopolitics. Here's that article: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/ww3-vs-world-wide-wrestling.
Kayfabe all the way down. I do read many of your articles but missed that one. Here’s a pet theory taking shape hopefully in context… narrative control is more sophisticated than a simple binary but not much more. The idea occurred looking at typical voter splits, recent US as an example - you have roughly a split by thirds - Pump, Dump and didn’t subscribe - winning means only taking a little over 33% or the vocal majority perhaps. Apply the same logic to problem like DMED and consider what actors might be required to split the audience and ensure nothing of any worth emerges from the situation. Is this why they call those ‘white hats’ 33 degree? Please direct to where best to read your caret work in short form and finally what’s happened to Crow D’Appel of Nevermore who introduced me to the work of David Greaber? Thank you
I like your pet theory, Ben. In my book, I talk about that split-the-vote strategy being used to elect Taft. The incumbent, who was a shoo-in for reelection, would have never approved the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. So the money powers ran Teddy Roosevelt in the Bull Moose Party. It split the vote so that the real candidate, Taft, got more than 33%, as you say. And the FRA was signed into law a couple days before Christmas, with almost no one in attendance.
I posted a comment and note on the Bitcoin article, and a second one to Thomas Greco, who had also responded. I'll see if I can get any traction on my caret system from either of them.
The caveat on the caret is that it's hard to explain a completely new paradigm shift of global economy in a soundbite or elevator pitch ;-) But here are some articles that talk about it:
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/caretology
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-caret-system
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/mmt-and-home-economics
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/dreaming-and-scheming
And Crow is doing great! I chatted with him the other night about his upcoming wedding in Cheran, where he is now. I think it's technology keeping him from posting, and preparations. He's invited me and I have three friends in nearby Patzcuaro, so I'm tempted but my passport also expires that month, so I'll have to see if that's even possible to renew before then. Here's my article on Cheran that has a photo of him and his beautiful fiance: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/cheran-and-indigenous-anarchy.
I remember reading the Cheran article ❤️ Try to go to Crow’s wedding if it’s humanly possible, there’s always so much that’s right when it comes to a good union. I’ll follow up on the new economic paradigm in due course, my feeling is we need to value our social capital dearly and share it with every abundance we can amongst those with whom we truly connect.
My daughter said the same! The way she said it was that I was due for an adventure and having three potential places to stay in Patzcuaro was an omen. One is the photographer of the Cheran photos I showed, one is a neighbor here who's a cultural anthropologist and just refinished a house there, and the third is a friend from here who's given tours there for two decades and now lives there. All in the same town!
And Crow says the Greater Reset is happening in nearby Morelia just before that. So many good signs!
So long as that passport can get you there the worlds is your oyster - who knows this could be an opportunity to claim asylum and Cheran looks to be an ideal place for such an adventure! https://youtu.be/Clxpougv5jc?si=Eqvu15fgPO2XerJN
I’ve always had to stay clear of Bitcoin and crypto discussions because they just don’t make sense to me - I still have no understanding of what crytpo is backed-by and how it is “mined”.
Unfortunately I have never left any discussion on the topic feeling empowered or enlightened. Attitudes like those of MC make me even less open to learning about it. Crypto “experts” like him or your YouTube commenter don’t have time to hold our hand but seem to have plenty of time to troll…
Speaking of MC, while I find him interesting on certain topics, his belittling of those he calls “chaos agents” can be a bit much, like he himself is (unwittingly?) becoming another chaos agent.
It's curious, isn't it, that they use the word 'mined.' The entire expenditure of energy is to impose an artificial scarcity. But it also mimics the existing inequality and transfers it to a new medium. If you actually wanted a unit of trade, why pattern it after an extractive model?
You put that well, Anneke, "Crypto “experts” like him or your YouTube commenter don’t have time to hold our hand but seem to have plenty of time to troll…"
And I just quoted you to someone on the chaos agents. I've found that the children's taunt "What you say is what you are" often turns out to be true.
New subscriber here... been watching Mat attempt to build bridges and then collapse back into solipsistic arrogance for years now; don't take it personally, he does this a lot.
I can see it will take me a while to untangle the threads. Maybe I should start with your book. Any critical thinking on Bitcoin and related financial issues is welcome to me, at least!
• Bitcoin and the Future of Financial Freedom - Greg Reese Report
https://rumble.com/v5yrmne-bitcoin-and-the-future-of-financial-freedom.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp
Clever plan - to allow one tribe to buy all the [?worthless] shiny gold and back the new currency on untraceable nothing-burgers. I’m for labour-backed Carets
Just came to share the above Greg Reese link and noticed my name mentioned favourably, so will now have to add more.
Yes I saw that. Really well done. Thanks for the referral.
Bit late to this, but did think the 'learning about nuclear plants by. watching Russel Brand videos' comment was a bit snidey and personal actually.
Haha! You think? He hasn't stopped there. I just posted a video, Substack to follow, on him asking someone scheduled to interview me if he trusted me. And his proof point was that I wouldn't denounce Russell Brand. https://youtu.be/xsrxuxjPqN0
Here’s my pennysworth: Mathew has a thing about cults, understandably given his history. But then I’ve read at least four essays from him in which he denounces Theosophy as a cult - therefore bad - seemingly oblivious to the fact that they played a major hand in introducing Jiddhu Krishnamurti to the world. A massive positive as far as I’m concerned and a huge influence in my spiritual awakening from an ignorant atheist 45 years ago.
Worth more than a penny for your thoughts, Tommy ;-) Here is the contradiction I see in Mathew's thinking. As he says, he was raised in a trauma-based mind control cult that turned his brother into a charming psychopath who probably killed people. Mathew's words. Yet he claims that had no effect on him and his ability to walk away and think clearly.
At the same time, he defines as a cult anyone he doesn't like. Are Mathew's 40K subscribers a cult? Is he controlling their minds? How is that different than Russell Brand? When I'm critical of Mathew's ideas on Bitcoin, he does a public witchhunt. He tries to turn other people against me. Isn't that what cult leaders do? And his readers went along like sheep, until I posted replies asking what they knew about me from Mathew's article, embarrassing them into realizing they knew nothing. That's what cult followers do.
Yes, I’ve noticed that tendency when criticised. (Noticed it in many who have self-esteem issues and tend to steer away since I have learnt I can do no good.) I’ve pretty much concluded that, for all his undoubted abilities, this is an open wound for Mathew.. I appreciate you wanting to defend yourself but I know that were I in your position I would disengage. Your astonishing output is ample testament to your erudition, credibility and ability.
Thanks much, Tommy.
Bitcoin, crypto, on-line gambling, stock market... racketeering, organized crime...
It's ALL casino gambling, therefore "Mammon Worship"!
Financialization "uber alles'.
fun fact:
"Without ECOlogy, there can be NO ECOnomy".
I make that point in my book also regarding economy and ecology, in this chapter: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/what-if-money-was-no-object where I quote Susan George:
"The ‘eco’ in economy and ecology refers to the same Greek root, oikos, the household, estate or domain. The eco-nomos is the rule, or the set of rules, for managing the domain. The eco-logos is the underlying principle, the spirit, the reason for it all—in the sense that Saint John affirms at the outset of his Gospel, “In the beginning was the Logos,” usually translated as the “Word.”
" ... Given the Greek root, you would think that the Logos would be seen as the greater of the two and supersede the Nomos. Normally the spirit and underlying principle should override and define the rules and regulations, so that the eco-logos would be the guiding force behind the economy. Not so with the globalised capitalist economy which dictates the rules to society."
But first, how about not letting Klaus Schwab decide who lives and dies in Western societies? Schwab proposes a law to die at 70, with few exceptions! [https://x.com/PolFabrice/status/1866757846836109442]
You bring up an important question: should the purpose of our economic system be giving us control of other people, or having control of our own communities? It's not possible to do both.
Within the caret system, the community can use its own labor backed by the housing without borrowing the money to pay for it. It scales up the transfer of intergenerational wealth. In a single family, that would be caring for the previous generation and passing on the gift to the next generation in order to inherit the house.
At a community level, the caret makes the same premise flexible. When you live in a house you haven't built, with infrastructure you haven't created, it incurs a social debt. Instead of a debt to the bankers, your labor provides useful products and services to the community. That's calibrated, not left to some vague 'gift economy' or centralized authority.
So you control your services, including medical, not Klaus Schwab. And hopefully we'll figure this out in the next 2.5 yrs before I turn 70 ;-)
i think if you start drinking adrenochrome at 67, before reaching 70 you will look 20 and your good to go =)
i'm wearing my tinfoil hat right now ;)
so i am joking, repeating it to make sure.... just a sick joke. lol
Once there was a guy called god, god was a great guy! and suddenly he decide; you creation of my hand needs to be teached a lessons! no one will ever live past 120, and none after noah did. SantaKlauss, hum i mean satanKlauss and yaval really thinks they are god aint they lol
Hello, Tereza!
It seems you really triggered Mathew's trauma. I think he has been hypersensitive for months. This year was not the best for him.
You may probably know about the concept of C-PTSD. I'm not completely on board with this concept, but I'm giving it a try. One problem about this "diagnosis" is that it requires some sort of faith. At the root, there is an assumption of brain damage at some point in life, caused by psychological trauma. I don't understand this yet. But this looks to me a bit of a sleight of hand, because only a pathologist doing a post-mortem analysis seems to be able to confirm (more or less) a real case of brain damage. Which is definitely not useful for improving life's condition of people. Computer imaging of living people is not as reliable as they want the public to think it is.
So, much like ancient psychoanalysis, the conceptual development of C-PTSD relays on clever use of rhetoric and analogies. Like I said, I'm not completely on board. But, having said that, it explains a lot. And that may be why it's getting so trendy.
In Mathew's case, he seems to be showcasing a fight trauma response.
Please, read this paragraph from an expert in this topic, Peter Walker:
"Unlike the other 4Fs, fight types assess themselves as perfect and project the inner critic's perfectionistic processes onto others, guaranteeing themselves an endless supply of justifications to rage. Fight types need to see how their condescending, moral-high-ground position alienates others and perpetuates their present time abandonment."
http://www.pete-walker.com/fourFs_TraumaTypologyComplexPTSD.htm
----
I think it's important to mention two opinions of Walker, that sound quite plausible to me.
The first, that his typology of the types of personality according to the trauma response type is not a universal classification of personality types, but should only be used in cases of traumatized people (a problem with this is that psychological trauma seems to be a universal phenomenon in human experience, but let's leave that aside.)
The second opinion of Walker is that many patients are misdiagnosed with words like psychosis, paranoia, depression, schizophrenia, narcissistic personality disorder, borderline, and other three letter label of the wild jungle of "personality disorders", but, in reality, they are just having a trauma response.
I see this is as a honorable attempt to de-stigmatize psychiatric diagnosis, which is sometimes used as insults or terms of abuse. Which then creates flame wars on the internet. Which can be fun to watch, for those who have that hobby.
--
My own view: Mathew is very angry because this year he has realized that he has wrong in wasting so many years researching the covid fraud (all of it was a massive fraud, and all the data constitutes the biggest case of scientific fraud in all history), and he has also realized that he fell for several scams, and he even promoted them (there's a book with his name on it), and he cannot forgive himself for this.
This anger is then somatized and becomes manifest as several ailments (like migraines) and projected: he must scapegoat his pain on his inferiors (the readers and collaborators and debate partners.) He conveniently uses a topic (bitcoin) that is removed from the real cause. All this is probably done subconsciously.
Prognosis: Mathew will be sulking for a bit longer, about three months. Then he will have a crisis, and maybe he goes catatonic for ten days or so. By May or June all his ailments will resolve, he will pick up the pieces and move on to seek some life-meaning in wrong places, restarting the cycle of rage. This thought makes me sad.
How to break the cycle? By renouncing to politics completely, and then focusing on Love.
What is Love, Tereza? I suggest you consider writing a post about your views on Love, the abstract and the particular. I love to read people writing about Love. Sometimes, this topic brings the best out of writers, but it's always a difficult topic for brain-types.
Some people look inside for Love. Others, look outside. When these two types have a conversation, there is a reason storm. People fight over premises and forget the essence of the topic. Which brings me to Marshall Rosenberg and his non-violent communication doctrine. To me, as a beginner student of that, it seems that this is best applied to the personal space. The public space is very refractory to non-violence.
Tereza, did you know that Zoologists believe that the Giraffe is the animal with the biggest heart, because it has the longest distance to move blood between the brain and the rest of the vital organs? Marshall Rosenberg argued that we should pretend to be Giraffes. The man was completely crazy!
Interesting psychoanalysis, Roger. For me to conclude that Mathew is brain-damaged from childhood trauma and taking it out on me seems like him deciding I'm mentally ill. It's clear that you know Mathew well and care about him. For you and his other 36,000 subs, I think that's a worthy endeavor to understand why he does what he does and support him. For me, I think I should honor his decision to have nothing more to do with me, although I wish him well. And maybe literally.
I try to alternate my posts between male and female, rational and intuitive, mind and soul, cognitive and love. It's definitely time for the second up next. Thanks for the reminder!
Thank you for your response. To clarify, I don't know if he has any brain damage old or new, but his childhood trauma is something he has spoken about many times publicly.
I don't have more confidence in the potential future I wrote than in my astrological analyses, which for me are just literature. However, sometimes...
I will also honor his decision to have nothing to do with me, and I truly wish him well, because I practice gratitude to all my teachers, even when there is a fundamental disagreement.
Have a good catharsis, T! LOL!
Hey, Im new here and don’t know any of you, had Terezas work recommend to me by a friend. Hi Tereza👋🏻😁 seems like a very insightful group👍🏻.
Roger, wow great comment. What you said about love just instantly reminded me of Plato’s Symposium and I wanted to recommend it, if you haven’t read it already. The entire thing is an intricate analysis of love from multiple perspectives by different types of people. The conclusion, Socrates’ take on the meaning of love, in context of the lead up, is one of the most profound, poetic, and beautiful things I’ve ever read honestly. I highly recommend it.
Any good Psychology books you’d recommend? I’ve been thinking about a Jung book, my first, not sure which to go with. But I’m open to any suggestions (any author) from someone who seems to have expertise in the subject.
Welcome, PavlovPuppy, and thanks for joining. To what friend do I owe the gratitude for recommending me?
My book starts in ancient Greece, looking at the origins of democracy and money within the context of a slaveowning society. I quote Aristotle to start:
Humanity is divided into two:
the masters and the slaves;
or, if one prefers it,
the Greeks and the Barbarians,
those who have the right
to command; and those
who are born to obey.
—ARISTOTLE, POLITICS
I always like to start with definitions, which I do in this episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/what-is-love? I don't know if Plato and Socrates talk about the slaves, colonized, landless and women, who were excluded from their hierarchy. But sometimes I wonder if they made things so convoluted to avoid the obvious, that love was predicated on social status, as the word 'friend' comes from 'free' as the prerequisite for someone being considered even fully human.
Plato is always great read. No translator has found a way to make "The Banquet" boring, and they have tried for so long. My two favorite dialogues so far are: Gorgias, and Parmenides. One very comical, the other is as dense as a one of those giant stones in the pillars of Luxor temple.
Psychology books to recommend... I wouldn't recommend Jung. This business of psychoanalysis is very heady. I started reading the critics of psychoanalysis, which are often hilarious. I always recommend a book by Thomas Szasz on comedian Karl Kraus, "Karl Kraus and the Soul-Doctors" is the title. It's important to know that Vienna before the war was, in many ways, like New York has been since the war ended, and it's just so very important and so overlooked the first-hand perspective of a satirist who was a few years younger than Freud and saw the same city life and the same developments as Freud. If anyone could see through the deception, it had to be a professional fool like Kraus.
To study psychology, it's better to go directly to Kant, Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer. All socialists hate those three writers, and pretend they don't exist.
Also, Franz Brentano was kind of an important guy. To understand Freud's angle, you better read the basics about Brentano's thinking. https://iep.utm.edu/brentano/
For more recent stuff, there is Eric Berne, who died too young and too long ago, and he has a popular book "Games People Play" that is very important. By my own estimation, 75% of everything you can hear today in "pop psychology" can be traced back to that book. The other 25% is from Albert Ellis. Psychologists who are not prone to innovation. They repeat what they like. Berne had also technical books, which are upsetting to read. Psychoanalysts technical writings are not uplifting. Schopenhauer is way better in his minor works
And C.S. Lewis is a good psychologist in many of his essays.
It's a topic as old as the alphabet. We just use big words that look modern and more precise. But human behavior has always been puzzling for those who think too much.
good afternoon tereza,
you probly guessed i've been lurking in the shadow for all this drama to unveil ;)
Because i already told ya how i greatly appreciate all of you, so of course! i'm gonna be watching a talk on bitcoin that i do since 2020 and i am quite good at it btw. Plus lovely tereza, wits and watts M&M + gabe my techman! I didnt miss a single drop of that delicious nectar for brain.
Sadly as we all see the ending became sour... So I thought a lot about doing my usual carefree get in the rumble guy or not...and after a while i return to the first idea to share my comments since its not reducing anyone and will try to pinpoint something more crucial than carets VS btc, or global vs local. I'm talking about the US vs THEM. we all know who at this point.
I'll write something to Matt later for sure btw, maybe in a more rational than emotional speach, since the same dillema of caracter i pinpointed on the Sasha and you rumble is happening here. Kinda obvious matt and is hardearned acquired knowledge as the edgy mindset and is part of the not gentleman family that Sasha is part of. I was them once before, now i'm a gentleman. Bringing the next point.
Since i gently insert myself in many sphere of militant lets say, i have my way to understand both of you and acknowedge both of you( i tend to have this habit with religion concept too) call me heretic or gemini ,in fact i'm taurus. Where i want to go is here:
- we lost time, we lost soldiers, we divided amongst the good seed. we suposed to get rid of the bad seed. Both of you are emotionaly touched by the others and its normal cause both of you have the genius to insult each other without being insulting, i feel like watching a debate where i want both to win there point and in fact i find it quite possible! So we get back the huge waste of time where two of our most chivalreous and skilled knight went into subtly arguing over what in the end? Economics and solution, or personal pride and shame over credential and validity of our persona?
Meanwhile, this happened and i followed you by the eyes, i was follwing another debate with the ears( so thank you for doing a video+writing substack style, it suits me a lot for the flexibility) Someone from the orthodox church name Wes Huff won a debate VS Billy Carlson. NOW thats a great thing, cause one scammer amongst the gatekeeper is in the downfall, sure i feel there is a hidden scheme in it to opportunity to tranfert a wealth to another wealth and gain orthodox point. That pays well something with a good base, and depletes someone who gains wealth by poisoning lots of mind with lots of lies.
Since your whole argument was about economics, who got wealthier and who got poorer by your arguing both? I feel we all lost something, for sure both of you didnt lose a inch of your validity and worth...but we all lost an opportunity to do better aint we? Even I or whoever reads this and followed the whole thing.
Now i will link you to the crucial about the debate i am mentionning, fel free to give me any opinions of yours as they are welcome as always i know your a kind soul thats an obvious thing. Btw, can i shamefully ask, and thats why i didnt interfere altho knowing bitcoin a lot, what is the caret system? i tried find stuff on the net but i get carat gold and i think about a carrot. so... help me out. thanks =)
thats the debate
https://youtu.be/F7ngjtT43-4?si=MRqKeft1-HRs3JH9
thats the creepy thing about it for me and the revealing one for most (2 words; my client)
https://youtu.be/fxFjg9OEsPU?si=n81d9c1odpSafyIw
Theres tons of it retaken by others making good point at it, but none have in mind what i think of this. And thats the kinda stuff that would need a matt graph with your intuition in it to. well, guess it wont be anytime soon we gonna see that combo.
Lastly, I do crypto and yes i made money of it lately, also i dont regret all the studying in blockchain and how ledgers are sets and used, how to stack trade swap evade KYC ( hum nvm mind that) study coin project, how to analyze stuff use metamask and such. its all usefull as all the thing Gabe knows in tech and i dont... i'm quite jealous of him but my son will back me up on that weakness soon. All this and i still believe firmly that the old ways of trading like japan and rice or other attemps are the best way since it doesnt imply speculation, or worth made and quantified\valued around thin air. the printmachine technique is the same basicly but on steroids in crypto and thats a personal opinion. The root of this question you all worked on: bitcoin vs caret, is about wich economic way is the most appropriate in an utopic futur right? One thing i know for sure in economics... better make the money than lose the money. time is cash too... So its kindof ironicly funny how the whole debate you wisepeople got into is essentialy going against the main objective.
That last paragraph is intended to be confusing, at first it gives credit to crypto knowledge, then give more value to fundamentals, finaly it breaks both side of the cookie in crumble since the rumble went against the humble at first sought by yall. (even moOore confusing )
My respect to Tereza, Gabe, Matt and Math, For the sake of your greater discourse i will now forsake this lesser discord. aint we all so human after all? all this is writen in a positive intent thanks =)
Hi, Jean-Sebastien. First, to answer your question about carets. That's what I call the digital currency of the commonwealth in my book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607. It won't exist without the system change of taking the right to create money for mortgages away from private banks. I don't believe that any real change is possible without that.
You state that Mathew and I are both insulting each other. Could you please point out to me where I have insulted Mathew? In my previous article, I simply talked about my ideas and compared them to Bitcoin, based on his responses to Gabe. In this article, I've merely quoted him and pointed out to the commenters who joined him in his derision that they knew nothing about me from his article.
That seems like it's a one-sided aggression. And the discussion of ideas is one-sided also, on my side and with various commenters in the last article, including Gabe. There was no need for Mathew to even respond. He could have shrugged and gone back to work on Bitcoin. But instead he decided to attack me and a system he knows nothing about. Why? I don't see that as a rumble, I see that as an ambush.
I'm using the comparison to educate people about my system and how it would solve the problems pointed out by Gabe with Bitcoin. My article isn't really about Bitcoin, in which I have no interest. Instead of presenting Bitcoin and how it would solve the problems, Mathew deflects the questions with an attack. A very elaborate one, and if you think he has 'the genius to insult without being insulting' I invite you to read this again. I've done my best to highlight his insults to me without any retaliation. If you call that insulting him, I don't know how to respond. If quoting someone is insulting to them, isn't that their problem?
Dear tereza, i am pleased of the link and tommorow i will get on it to catch up right away. I urge to understand quite everything. Somestuff are still over my understanding skill or current knowledge possessed and thats why i always ask politely.
For the second part, I really thought you would see the meaning behind my external view of this. Its meant to show the waste of energy into a debate ending either way into a loss.
The correlation of speaking on better economic behavior while showing how to, by speaking of it, losing economicly. I am surprised you still want to make sure you didnt offense him.
Lets be honest, you didnt mean to insult him, but he got offended and you do know it. He DID mean to offend you, i am not taking this out in my last comments since i compared the situation with sasha the hot tempered. But still i thought compared to his personality yours would have been pleased and understand my point.
Guess not and thats why i am sorry if i do offend you by thinking on my side that you both offended each other.
When i was young and in dispute with anyone…my mother always told
me dispute cant be made alone.(schizophrenics exempt) So thats how i was raised and how i see it.
Now that this is pulled out of the way, can i ask your opinion on billy carlson and wes huff debate that served as a comparison? Whats your take on this.
After all, amongst us… it should be easy to agree on disagreeing and go back to work at what we do best. Seek truth. And i havent seen lies amongst your debate with matt compare to what i saw in the ones in wes vs carlson. All i seen is as i told. two blessed soul qui se sont blessés de leur propos, ou façon de se protéger en dévalorisant l’autre indirectement.
Maybe lot of overinterpretation like the mentaly ill part, i do think everyone on earth including me( specialy me ) is lets say playfully…« special » But it will always sound super mean to tell it to someone without first giving the personal definition of it. You got all the rights to defend yourself. As you got the liberty to list all who supports you and by deduction imply they are against matt’s thinking. you can also tell me its only in a peacefull manner this choice of defense was took.
But you also had the liberty to deal with it another way as he sure did have the same liberty. So can i have the liberty to think that you two are very very clever and deep inside both prepared their format knowing it would hurt?
Thats what i mean by lets be honest. And i honestly appreciate you all equally even with your way different mindset. I honestly wish you get both over it and work a good peace deal and make everyone happy. And i wish us all to achieve our personal goal. I am pretty sure this only gave a step back on that to everyone.
Hope i did answer your question on how i see you both guilty of hurting the other pride. correct me if i am wrong, but i guess you wont think likewise and keep the view where you are white as snow. Its ok, let time flow and think about what my m’ma teached me when i was young.
Who start something with bad intention and ends it in bad intention perpetuate that intention on the next cycle.
A lesson good for everyone anywhere anytime 😇
And i dont want to be in the next cycle, i respect your opinion, i feel for both of you. I say what i think and you asked me gently. So i answered sincerely and hope this overall view of mine is taken as a positive productive message not the opposite way✌️😅👍
If not just think of me as an old
Fool who should just be disregarded i dont mind. No need to ban me like he did to you. Otherwise i wont be able to enjoy your crispy discovery like sasha and russel. I bet more is to come so i wouldnt want to miss on that ;)
Both of you can decide right the moment to forgive and forget on such a light subject with nothing personal at first. Thats a truth.
Well good night lively tereza,
Meanwhile i went and check the links. Its your book so my only way to learn about carets is in this book? Is there any links on the net to start learning the idea? If not i will gladly buy your book. But one thing…its on .com amazon and none on .ca and the price went from 26$ to 52$ if we talking about economics i feel i’m getting ripped off by bezos and our low .71cent canadian dollars. Do you have a personal site instead where i can chip in? I did same with jamestrue and it was great! Not a penny to bezos. Got a el rey art of his and could tip as i wanted + its signed book. BTW! Congratulations 🍾 a book is great 😊 i love books 📚
So write me back on Carlson vs Wes, your book that I want to buy, and if you wish can also give a shot at my answer to your question.
Always a pleasure to talk with you
Good night 👋
I'm reading my book into my stack chapter by chapter, so here are the episodes so far. It starts by explaining the problem so won't get to the solution for 21 chapters. That will save a lot of futile discussion on the right solutions to the wrong problems ;-)
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/how-i-became-who-i-am
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/0-in-the-beginning-was-the-purpose
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/01-a-democracy-of-slaveowners
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/greece-lightning
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/libya-swept-away-by-the-currency
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/what-if-money-was-no-object
I don't actually think people should ever agree to disagree, as I say here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/we-need-to-agree-to-agree. I don't need to see myself as lily-white. But what prevents us from coming to solutions is that we think we should never disagree with our friends. It allows friendship to be weaponized. We don't want to hurt someone's feelings by showing them to be wrong, and so we don't challenge each others ideas and present them to scrutiny in a methodical way.
Did I know that my original piece, when I disagreed with Mathew, would create conflict for him? Yes, of course. But if I hadn't written my comparison of my system, it would have been because I was intimidated. The techniques I outlined would have worked to shut me down and gauge myself unworthy to open my mouth about things I clearly knew nothing about. That's what most women do, as I say here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/disagreeable-women.
I don't really believe there was a more gentle and friendly way I could have disagreed with his ideas and still expressed my regard for him as a person. I stated the latter in many places, including my enthusiastic comment on his Doc Malik interview. I have been continually warm and kind, including our phone calls, his interview of me, our many mutual friends. But I don't think kindness extends to allowing someone to abuse you, and not documenting it in the same public forum.
Wow, the energy you have🤩is it also 2am for you? Maybe its me since yesterday i went to bed at 4 am and up running at 7h22am)
Thanks for the links its great you share excerpt of your books as dean enderson do, or in totality even better😎 tommorow in freetime i will be reading you for sure !
And you know what? I wouldnt have find weakness in evading a confrontation, neither see this as a feminine concept vs machoman being ruthless. If you were a man, would have it been easier to not respond and not feel shut down by the act of refusing the discussion? I dont think so as i dont think its a gender issue and i will certainly not sign my death certificate by going in a debate over woman empowerment and man macho cliché im the alpha male prejudice. Nope not me, hehehe. Even less against skilled like you 😉 im no fool, or maybe a little lol
I am glad to read between the line that you do understood my point at first. Not acknowledging it, but at least i can go sleep knowing im not a psycho hallucinating stuff 🤪……🫣
If it can the least ease your tourment if any, I do think matt went a little bit to harsh on the way he talks back. As sasha and her girl have badmouth often in their behavior. Still thinking what a derivative of the economic subject, and still thinking wes and carlson did a great advancement meanwhile. Hope tommorow you can give me an opinion of that lady part.
Anyway the subject of your dispute is to be extinguished i hope not powered up( late… out of words…
My french brain is on, english words lacking)
Im also near extinction 😂
Good night 🌙
I’ll write back to ya after a quick dive in your book for sure if im not exasperating you yet 🙃 Would be fun to take that subject back to btc vs caret instead of tereza vs crawford so i need to get up to date huh 🙂
I have zero torment over not falling for Mathew's emotional manipulation to shut me up. You certainly wouldn't be the first in my life to recommend that I be conflict-avoidant and not hurt other people's feelings by challenging their ideas. I understand that you think that's a better way to be--go along with our friends and only challenge our enemies. I see no one as my enemy and challenge everyone on their ideas. I am immune to guilt-mongering because I don't take responsibility for other people's feelings. I do take responsibility for my own words and actions, and you haven't shown me anywhere that those demeaned Mathew.
you also have no torment over my emotional manipulation to uplift you both up lol. and you will certainly not be the last to whom i propose peace treaty. Moreover! this will definitly not be the last time i get a no to my proposition. Btw i dont mind its all fine, you do you i do me. And i still greatly appreciate your work. I still greatly appreciate is work. In the end, what he thinks of you and you think of him is irevelant. I better get back to reading your book thats what matters to me. solution , and attempt by us to make them happens.
Btw my friend hates me more then my ennemis in life LOL weird to say. My close one find me severe and strict, while the latter just evade me. So in the end I only want to correct one thing. I dont eat the medecine i gave you both. why? because I take my conflict to another level in life. its guillotine like, you either keep your head cool or its off my life. SPECIALY MY FRIENDS! So many went from friend side to stranger side. An ennemi for me is a potential threat. So wher your list is short mine is quite long.
Now why i tried rose the white flag? because i find you both extremely worthfull to the side of goodness and i wish to hear more of you and caret, more of him and is graph demystifying the elites. while you both go in that war of who hurt who while evryone is hurt. is like yesterday i said comparing to Wes vs Carlson…a pure waste.
btw, its the only thing you havent answered me yet, how you perceive the WES vs Carlson debate. and can you tell me… after comparing both duel…that the ones you two initiated as given better results then the one they did?
anyway i’m out trying to make you both agree (or agree to disagree as I learned you dont validate the expression), guess to much blood as been shed. Why i will stop there is because of that:
you understand i go along with friends and only aim ennemi. I am not that kind of favoritism fellow who help one in my circle and spit on who is not. I dont want to induct you in believing something that i am not or it will end it what you both went at and i tried to prevent that not augment it.
definition of satan: adversary
how i see relation freindship and ennemi?
both + or - relation between two soul, can always flip from one to another
i dont have friend and ennemi, i got a body and am part of a family
is an ally a friend?
i find this childish question quite revealing
As is an opponent an ennemi…
taking the fuzzy word away, their is conflit and order
no wonder they ruled them beliefs, out of chaos comes order
Soooooooooooooo. i’m back at the caret book, btw love the intro=)
i’m on a day off so i have plenty times for christmas gift and your book, its a lovely day =)
Lol if we disagree to disagree, does it mean that we agree ? I find this funny … boy … i’m a fool when tired 🥱
(Message for both, tech and spiritual TerraDwellers). What if Terrian Humans met at midway? In fact, tech people are very brain-reason, and spiritual people very hearty-reason. Can we balance reasons in a braihy=brainy+hearty Reason, to please Pascal? Just suppose it is a familial, ordinary meeting. Peace and Love among siblings! Tolerance, Dignity and Clemency! Good seasonal Holidays!
I never took to MC, up his own arse
Well, I can't 'like' an insult without doing what Mathew did to me but perhaps I can qualify 'up his own arse.' What Mathew is known for, affectionately among his fans, is jumping from one topic to another in a way that's hard to decipher. In my comment on his Doc Malik interview, I joked that Ahmad was able to keep him on one topic--his teaching of math to students.
I think that intelligence is the ability to think clearly, and make your points known to others. I don't know if Mathew does the opposite intentionally, to confuse the issues, but I suspect it's part of his technique. He uses obscure references to imply you need to know 'Metcalf's law' or something else to 'get it.' Perhaps that's up his own arse, or perhaps that's in someone else's pocket, someone who doesn't want us to think clearly and engage in constructive dialogue. Dunno.
I'm a paying sub to MCs Rounding the Earth locals...For a while I certainly had a good sense about him. But there was a bizarre interaction here on substack chat recently (not sure that's the right term) I found so odd. Then another X interaction with Will Schryver. I felt embarrassed for M. It exposed his arrogance. (And I know we can all be cocky and react badly in the face of humiliation at times).
Something else too (which now rings alarm bells for me) is a researcher's take re WW2. I mean if you can't at this point revise your old/former learning re the holocaust, Nuremberg, National Socialism, etc and consider the 'British Empire'/City of London whilst never mentioning it was essentially directed by the Rothschilds/Jews...I genuinely wonder what's going on.
Sorry to learn of this re M. Don't suppose I'll renew my sub.
You're incredibly smart Tereza (am so far behind on the finances/bitcoin stuff, thus can't comment), super articulate too, I'd say gifted, not to mention refreshingly transparent, robust and unfailingly ethical. You add lightness to everything. x
I had to close my eyes after reading your last paragraph, Pauline. It really was a balm to my soul. I tell my daughters that you can't create conflict, you can only bring it to the surface. I have a high tolerance for conflict and it can feel like I'm attracting it. So having someone like you who's perceptive, and positively inclined towards the other person, recognize that there's a pattern is meaningful. It shows it's not just 'in my head' or from my ego.
And yes, I don't blame the average person for not realizing the history of the world wars was a lie. We all have our journeys. But Mathew writes and talks a lot about WWII and the Theosophical Society. Frankly, I've never gotten his point in all that, any more than I've understood the significance of the DMED data he spent so long analyzing and brings up constantly.
Instead of looking at the economics, and how Germany was intentionally and brutally destroyed because of they broke with the banks, Mathew makes it about some religious cult. It's mysticism that's to blame, not a banking cabal led by Rothschilds and whoever they answer to. Telling for someone who suspects that the banking cartel started Bitcoin to keep the theft going without WWIII.
I was just thinking that the Catholics kiss the pope's ring. The pope kisses the Rothschild's ring and the Wailing Wall. Whose ring do the Rothschilds and Zionists kiss? That's the one ring to rule them all.
I've found this book by Russian Orthodox Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich (1926) to be such a history gem...especially informative re the Rothschild empire.
https://ia903007.us.archive.org/14/items/secret-world-government/secret-world-government.pdf
You and Julius are two deep researchers on this. I'm sure you sub him but just in case, this is his latest: https://juliusskoolafish.substack.com/p/the-third-rome-holy-russia-tsarism.
I do Tereza. And Julius has introduced me to some splendid resources. Most grateful to him. In fact I'd just replied to a post saying I read part 1 + 2 (behind paywall but really worth it imho) of the Romanov Ritual Regicide. Though I suppose J has read many books on the subject. It was absolutely fascinating and incredibly dark/sinister. I'd not really looked into it all...felt too grim/gruesome tbh...but the attention to detail they include is remarkable. I really found it excellent.
THANK YOU for that link - high on my priority list but still haven't got to Cherep-Spiridovich yet.
I’ve noticed that MC is tight with Matthew Ehret (a Jew) and they do podcasts together frequently. In the last one Ehret spoke about how the Nazis made lamp shades from Jewish skin… so I think Ehret’s influence might answer why MC won’t address the JQ.
Wow. I did watch part of that roundtable (with Cynthia and another woman, yes?) but I stopped before it got to that glaring untruth. I noticed before I stopped that Cynthia was barely talking, except when ME made fairly patronizing efforts to bring her in. I wonder what she privately thinks. I've felt that she's the powerhouse researcher in that couple, and he regurgitates the same research and talking points from his college days.
I didn't know that Ehret was a Jew. It's hard to tell who would be influencing who, though. They share an agenda. When I've pointed out to Ehret that he's historically wrong about Hamilton as a hero, when he really sold out the newly-freed States to the bankers, he's never changed his same line. He's answered me but not given evidence that I'm wrong, so I know he's read my lengthy comments citing proof. That's not a historian.
I had not heard from Ehret himself about him being a Jew. I saw that mentioned in an article about the Jewish Hasbara. Once I started looking at him in that light his historical views made more sense (on the Nazis and the US banking etc).
If you are interested he is mentioned on page 62 of this: https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/The-Jewish-Hasbara-in-All-its-Glory.pdf
I agree that he is quite patronizing towards Cynthia and that she is the better researcher/writer of the two. My inclination is that he is the influencer but I could be wrong. The podcast that I was referring to was just the 3 of them - the 2 Matthews and Cynthia, but MC is on numerous other podcasts with them and they host numerous roundtables. I rarely listen to the whole thing because I find Ehret’s historical “mistakes” too infuriating.
Thank you, Anneke, I downloaded that document for posterity: https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/The-Jewish-Hasbara-in-All-its-Glory.pdf.
I am feeling so validated right now. What I used to push back against Matt Ehret was Level One of this information. Blue Moon of Shanghai supplies Level Four. Now I know that his obfuscating arguments back to me were the tip of an iceberg of misdirection.
I'm still so prone to doubting myself when someone with a bunch of credentials and a wide audience tells me I'm wrong without saying why. You're curing me of that, Anneke. I may not have all the information for the answer, but I have enough to be asking the question. And if someone deflects it, there's a reason.
This is such an excellent document. What's the relationship to Blue Moon of Alabama? I quoted him (I'm guessing) in my research on Ukraine.
And very interesting that Cynthia's revelations of Japan's horrific treatment of China didn't whisper a word about the Jews. I'd quoted that too. Once you know that you can't trust a historian to know or care that their history is accurate, what's left?
Came across Larry Romanoff a few years ago.
To him, M Ehret - a Jewish Canadian dilettante - seems 'nothing more than an exceptionally clever con artist' :-)
I think L might be spot on.
(I first came across Courtney Turner via George Webb Sweigert. She's also done podcasts with interesting but limited hangout, Richard Poe.)
Also Richard Poe, David Gosselin and Peter Duke 🙄
... David A Hughes https://dhughes.substack.com/t/the-nazi-connection
that tought was seen in Elsa circle for me at first 2 years ago, one old historian guy in there put some mathew facts in testing and it ended resolving about the same feeling of jumping from subject to subject mostly. what i can say is i met him in real life, talk a lot with even is mother charming lady always there for her son and vice versa. I know them and they are from a good seed. like all of you i think are as you will be reading in my other comment. If it can calrify , i do multiple learning at a crazy speed lately and when i am in speaker mode amongst my family, i sound as confusing as him towards my own. Simply put, sometimes to explain some really well hidden scheme of mostly freemasons, you ned to link some puzzle piece that at first doesnt seem logical. thats why mr crawford graph is usefull. put these over the speach of math and you get a great view of deepstate war game. Its almost impossible to vocalise that without sounding like a confusing fellow.
you know who is a rip off? None of you of course! Its Billy carlson... and now we got proof, i am eager you put your eyes on the link i sent ya in the other comment. i bet you will appreciate =)