Souls & Roles

Mathew, Russell, Yuval

A listener once defined what I do as socio-spirituality: taking a hard look at the reality IN the world while questioning the reality OF the world. With people, however, I reverse it into spiritual-social. I see and speak to the part of them that wants the best for everyone, the spark of God, the soul that’s a drop containing the ocean of all of us.

Each soul, however, is playing a role in the dream. And sometimes those are in conflict, especially when someone is leading a double life. There are only two agendas, as there are only two sides in every war: sovereignty and empire—power over your own life or power over others. In a war, those who fight against each other are on one side and those who instigate and profit from it on the other.

My focus is on ideas. I evaluate economic ideas by whether they lead towards or away from community sovereignty, which is the only form that doesn’t replicate power over others. I don’t believe anything because of who said it, nor do I reject it. That’s how Trump Derangement Syndrome worked—it got liberals to be against anything Trump was for and for anything he was against. Knee-jerk reactionary thinking got us into this mess. It won’t get us out.

When someone responds to a challenge of their ideas with a character attack, they are using intimidation to prevent free discussion. The same goes for rhetorical tricks like guilt by association. To answer these isn’t just defending yourself, or ‘defending the guilty,’ but defending the ability to think without intimidation or influence.

And that’s why I am again responding to Mathew Crawford.

---

from carets to caricature

In December, I posted Bitcoin vs. the Caret. I showed how Bitcoin might be a good bet to preserve your financial sovereignty in the short term, but doesn’t solve the problem of enabling sovereignty for all communities. I do a point-by-point comparison of how my Caret system could do that, logistically.

In response, Mathew posted a parody hit piece in which he described me as mentally ill and having learned everything I know from Russell Brand. I respond to that here:

Not content with that, Mathew contacted someone scheduled to interview me and asked if he trusted me. The reasons he shouldn’t included that I won’t denounce Russell Brand. This is an attack on my ability to think, as Mathew shows in Russell Brand Part 5:

I'm not saying that Russell Brand is a rapist. I repeat: I can't know that with any certainty. But my experience and intuition tells me that there are few variables that better correlate with rapiness than a guy who wants to start a yoga studio.

Women are different from men. They are attracted to the guru types, so long as they are sufficiently beautiful or charming. They generally face either cognitive dissonance or blackmail that binds them emotionally. And typically, they do not change course until they or many others have been hurt very badly. I suspect that this is at least part of the reason we have seen so many women of questionable character thrust into positions of power over the past generation. Where a man might tell in 20 seconds when he walks into a sex cult masked as a yoga studio in a strip mall, Katie Griggs found magic in 20 seconds, which is apparently believable to a lot of other women…

As a woman, I think with my vagina. Being driven by my hormones, when a sexy guy walks in, my ability to reason flies out the window. Women are different than men this way. The presence of hot babes in yoga pants doesn’t impair the discernment of men in the least. That’s why they don’t bother using beautiful women in ads—what good would it do?

---

king of the underworld

To be clear on my current view on Russell, I fully believe he was an important asset to the Illuminati before and during his marriage to Katy Perry. I think they were King and Queen of the Underworld until he left, abruptly, in 2012.

Since the 2023 sextroversy, I think that he is fully again under their control: the religious conversion, the shilling for Trump, the promotion of others I see as controlling the opposition like RFK, Malone, Kirsch, Gabbard, etc. There are many others in this category if we define Trump as part of the WEF agenda, as I do.

So the question is whether Russell was thinking and speaking for himself in the decade in between. Why does it matter? If we’re deciding what to believe rather than who, it doesn’t matter at all in terms of ideas. But it provides important clues on what can’t be said, if he was allowed to speak on the vaccines but reeled back in 2023. What changed?

In 2009, he was one of the only celebrities speaking out on Palestine and Israel. I know because I was doing a radio show with episodes like “Friends Don’t Let Friends Commit Genocide.” It was a hard time to be speaking out. In 2009 is also when he and Katy Perry got together. Assigned to him?

When he walked—ran?—away, he left $22M on the table as his half of Perry’s income during their 14-mo marriage. That doesn’t seem like someone motivated by greed. And he went back to college in Geopolitics and Comparative Religions, which seems pretty obscure. His podcast interviewed his professor, his jiu-jitsu teacher, the owner of his neighborhood deli. He did luggage commercials. Low profile, not well paid.

With nearly 7M subscribers, Russell was leading the opposition. He didn’t need to be cancelled to give him street cred. If that was the purpose, they should have cancelled him for his views on Moderna and the vaccine. The sextroversy made him lose followers among the opposition, especially among men who rushed to condemn a rapist. Women took a more nuanced view, at least in my comment threads.

What did they not want Russell to speak about, under this scenario? My guess would be Israel. That’s the endgame, now in play.

---

a kiss is just a kiss

What about that infamous kiss on the forehead of Yuval Noah Harari, troubadour of the WEF? Below I’ve attached the episodes I’ve done on Yuval. In the most recent, he repeats the false narratives soon after Oct 7th, revealing his hand. In the earlier ones, however, he presents many ideas that support community sovereignty, with which my readers will likely agree.

Was this the truth emerging from someone who, in his soul, wants the WEF to fail? Or a sophisticated way of gathering those thinking clearly, and then leading them off a cliff? I listened again to my playlist on Yuval and found it still very relevant. It goes deep into the important questions of sovereignty and how to counter false logic and premises. I think it’s some of my most nuanced analysis.

Mathew, however, isn’t looking for nuanced analysis. He doesn’t care about ideas but only whose side you’re on. There are only two sides—sovereignty and empire, which gets everyone to fight each other instead of figuring the way out. Poisoning relationships in secret and posting ridicule in public isn’t what someone does who wants to promote clear thinking. And only thinking clearly will create a way out.

---

I analyze Yuval Noah Harari's "This is a War on the Mind & Soul" and compare two older Jordan Peterson interviews of Benjamin Netanyahu in "Whose Land is It Anyway?" and Maajid Narwaz's response to it. I also list over a dozen recent articles that counter the recent propaganda.

I analyze his 2018 talk for Penguin Books moderated by Russell Brand, called The Future of Work. Rather than selling us the Great Reset, he seems to be warning us against it and using provocative terms like 'useless class' to mobilize us into taking control of our lives and communities.

How is conflict between couples and war between nations the same and different? In a talk on polarization, Esther and Yuval discuss fighting and make up sex, Israel and Palestine, Russia and Ukraine, and small democracies. I find agreement with both in surprising areas while pointing out the logical fallacy that there is no right or wrong.

The controversy continues over Russell Brand & YNH: was Russell fooled or is he part of the plot? I analyze an interview Yuval did with Daniel Soylesisi on superfluous people, medicine as body upgrades, drugs and computer games for the masses, the degradation of family and happiness, and the market as a replacement for "the intimate community." I have to wonder if Yuval is a 'truth double agent' because his warning is so clear. I end with a plan to send the oligarchs into space in Elon Musk's 'cockrocket' so they can get their food from a lab and live forever while all us superfluous people can live our short, brutish lives on the land.

In Russell Brand's interview, Yuval looks at nations as spells cast by legal shaman. I answer that we need economic witches to take back the commons. I look at how nations prevent people from feeding themselves in India and profit from climate change at the COPs. Yuval states that nations make us care about the stranger but I find Israel negates that point. I imagine California breaking into 4 Swedens or 100 Icelands to be a manageable size for matrix government. Nuclear disaster, climate change, and runaway technology can all have small solutions more effective than the patriarchal pyramid of power.

'Connectualizes' Russell Brand's interviews of six atheists: Yuval, Yannis Varoufakis, Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying & Edward Snowden, with four theists: Iain McGilchrist, Alister McGrath, Ben Shapiro & Sadhguru. Looks at moral superiority as a more important dividing line than religion. Quotes Yuval in saying that money is the most successful story ever told, and Yannis that democracy is a fig leaf for oligarchy. Explains the 'truthish lies & legal fictions' of nations, corporations & money as stories that normalize both physical and economic violence.