Ramblings: Sven Svenson, Dr. Ross McKittrick, Jaws, birds and moral courage

I had to chuckle this morning as I turned to the MMG page for the latest output, a piece called “Who is Greta Thunberg“, written by “Sven Svenson.” Who, I wondered, is “Sven Svenson? Why do people who turn up there wish to remain anonymous? I ask that question knowing that in my one formal encounter with the group, the piece on the McCartney twins, which I had been led to discover by MMG, that I asked to remain anonymous. I became a “Friend in Colorado.”

Why did I do that? In my case, it was not a case of having something to hide, some career to protect. I have outed myself on this blog from the beginning. My theory was that I had nothing to hide, and that even if I did, people would discover me anyway. I had learned before becoming a blogger and using pseudonyms as a commenter that people could always identify my writing style. I do have a voice, such as it is.

I chose to remain anonymous out of a sense of modesty, either real or false. I did not want to thrust myself into the Miles Mathis’s spotlight. At that time I admired the man, thought him to be genuine, and was yet to ask the question “Who is Miles Mathis?”

Anyway, the Sven Svenson piece is a good take-down of Greta Thunberg. I am only going to cite a small part, because it is something I see regularly.

“We’re told by the major media outlets that her U.N. speech was “tear-filled”. Go watch the speech, I beg you. There are no tears. There is, however, the sound of a voice modulating itself to sound distraught. You’ve heard that same artificial strain if you’ve ever seen a school shooting “survivor” being interviewed right after the event. When you’re truly distraught, your voice has a very distinct and unforced waver to it. Greta’s voice is that of a stage actress simulating an emotional state on cue.”

Returning from our recent vacation and on an overseas flight, I re-watched the movie Jaws. It has, in my opinion, held up remarkably well in the 44 years since its release. I accept that the special effects are not terribly good, that it is easy to see that the shark is not a real shark. Even so, when Hooper, played by Richard Dreyfus, goes underwater to inspect a ship that is dead in the water and has large holes in its hull, a face falls into view and I jumped! My wife sitting next to me laughed at this, and so did I. I remember viewing the movie for the first time in 1975 with a group of friends, and we all jumped! 44  years later, knowing that scene was on the way, I still jumped. (“44”, which equals “8”, sometimes turns up for real in life.)

The movie holds up because Steven Spielberg was pulling his hair out when making it. The animetronic shark was not working right, and he was having to come up with other ways to make the film work. Because of that pressure, he did what really good film makers do, he used power of suggestion. In the opening scene, when Chrissie is eaten alive, we do not see the shark. We see her reaction to being eaten. It is so moving and powerful.

KittnerDamn but I ramble! I sat down to write about basic honesty in people, how to spot it. (I don’t know.) I can easily see that Greta Thunberg is an actress. It’s apparent in that contorted face. Why did that lead to Jaws? Because there is one huge failing in the movie. Mrs. Kintner, the mother of a child that was eaten by a shark, is indignant that Sheriff Brody knew there had been a shark attack a week before she lost her child. She approaches him and slaps him, and lets go with powerful dialogue about his hypocrisy. She is anguished, angry, distraught, and yet fails to shed one year. That scene taxed my willing sense of disbelief. It takes me back to the question I’ve asked so many times here with crisis actors, the thing that led me to write my piece called The Columbine Massacre: A Tragedy Without Tears. They spend so much money on these hoaxes.  Would it kill them to invest in a bottle of Visine?

The rambling is getting even worse, because I did not sit down to write about Greta Thunberg or Sven Svenson or Jaws or Mrs. Kintner, but rather about Dr. Ross McKittrick. He, along with Steve McIntyre, were the first to scientifically undress Michael Mann and his hockey stick. I am always on the lookout for controlled opposition, and would like to be sure that these men are genuine. I think they are. But further, in listening to McKittrick in a Heartland podcast, I heard him say what I am paraphrasing below:

We did not know when the Climate Change hoax began whether or not CO2 was a pollutant, and whether or not it was causing the planet to warm. We were forced to do the science by the hoax. It turns out that CO2 is harmless, but we have been dumping it into the atmosphere in ever-increasing quantities for decades now. Doing so has made us wealthy and greatly improved our lives. We did not know until recently that we can safely do this. We dodged a bullet.

That’s an honest statement.

One more ramble … years ago when I lived in Billings, Montana, I participated annually in the Audubon Christmas Bird Count. A group of us would walk eight miles along the Yellowstone River and beside railroad tracks and identify and count every bird we saw. Now and then we felt a rumble and knew a train was coming, and took great trouble to not only get away from the tracks, but to hide our faces in case of flying debris.

I was a serious environmentalist at that time, and still am. I firmly beleive that we should preserve our remaining wild lands*. But I realized as I felt the power of those giant trains passing by that they were bringing me my stuff. I needed them, all of us did. I live in a wooden house and drive a car made out of countless minerals and fueled by oil. Those trains are part of why we are able to have stuff, to live comfortably.

At that time, in my mind, I had demonized Exxon for being giant and evil. In Billings, they were heavily criticized by the likes of me and others for putting SO2 in the air from their refinery. The local newspaper, the Billings Gazette, had written an editorial describing the SO2 problem and pointing out that something had to be done. Because it was part of the power structure, the editorial was mere posturing, and never once did it use the word “Exxon.”

I wrote a letter, which was published in the paper, in criticism of that stance. In it, I remarked that the word “Exxon” never appeared, and suggested that the word was in short supply. So, I supplied them some Exxon’s for future use: “Exxon, Exxon, Exxon, Exxon, Exxon, Esso (oops!).” The letter got rave reviews from environmentalist acquaintances, one of whom marveled that humor could be used to advance the cause. (They are, by and large, humorless.) I always regretted that I did not end the letter with the words “Remember, Exxon is Esso too.”

I had no business having an unschooled opinion on Exxon or SO2, knowing nothing about it, not having done any homework. That bird count day, feeling that train go by, led me to remember that Exxon, big and powerful, is also little people doing their jobs. Our neighbor two doors down, Tim, was an environmental engineer for Exxon, and was also a good and decent man. While it may be true that large groups are a channel for our worst impulses, I had to conclude something else: That if I was going to be an advocate, I had to be clean of sully, no attachment to the evil that I am criticizing.

I have for years made my living in part in the the natural gas business. During the time when I believed that global warming was a real thing, I felt like a hypocrite when I cashed those checks. But I cashed them. At one time there was a movement to open up the Rocky Mountain Front in Montana to oil and gas development, assisted in heavy part by Montana’s Democratic Senator Max Baucus, now Ambassador to Japan. A meeting was held in Billings and forces for and against attended. At that meeting, even as I was known to be in the natural gas business, I stood with my environmentalist pals and spoke against it. The consequences, financially and socially, were disastrous. Those on the pro-development side didn’t look at me with disdain, but rather with utter contempt, hatred. (“He spoke against us,” said one. It was unpardonable.)

I had done something that required moral courage. I felt I had to do that. Yet I have always regretted not shutting up, as I’d be wealthier now had I done so, and my actions had no impact. But then again, I cite a line by the comedian Ron White on being arrested in a drunken state outside a bar one night. He was read his rights. Says White, “I had the right to remain silent, but I did not have the ability.”

*Perhaps I am not the only one to notice that this is contradictory. If the real agenda behind cliamte change is population control, to oppose that agenda is to promote population increase. That puts pressure on remaining wild lands. Population pressure  has always been the enemy of wild lands.

98 thoughts on “Ramblings: Sven Svenson, Dr. Ross McKittrick, Jaws, birds and moral courage”

  1. Second Law of Thermodynamics
    “The theological implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these implications when he said, “Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence.” (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)”

    “Jastrow went on to say, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken…” https://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm

    It’s not easy for anyone when the “winding down” — of Empire, institutions, the cosmos, etc. — is staring back at you. Can’t un-see what’s in our faces every day. So, what to do, fight of flight?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  2. Sven Svenson has to be MM.
    The , ” You will say” and , ” You will tell me ” is so obviously his style it can’t be fooling anybody.
    Whilst I don’t disagree with a word of what Sven ( Miles ) has to say, I’m truly puzzled as to why he’s pretending to be someone else. Am I missing an ‘in joke’? Any ideas?

    Like

    Reply

      1. Forensic document analysis, used to be all the rage, but had to be scrubbed from the Internet due to it’s exposure of many fake documents such as the entire collection of Civil War letters, is not particularly kind to the writings of Miles Mathis. Slap a couple of his posts in and which writings are similar and which are different seems to have little to do with which person (himself or guest) is listed as author. He often speaks of muses guiding him. Maybe even he doesn’t know. In other news I just got to the part of “Against the Day” where the main characters play golf. Another Pynchon predicts Miles moment in that book.

        Like

        Reply

          1. Nestled inside “Against the Day” is the most accurate, concise and (to me) logical description of 9/11, the event, it’s effect and it’s purpose, which I never believed was about money, power, laws or politics (all of which are under total control by a select few and have been since forever). All in one paragraph, actually he does it in 2 lines. As one of the few who was physically at the WTC on that day, I spent years trying to find someone who understood what I experienced, could help me make sense of it. I’ve been to every conspiracy site known to creation: the good, the bad and the ugly and it wasn’t until I hit that one page in this book did I find what I was looking for. When I got the point that I realized I was reading MM before MM existed, MM’s web site shut down. Now he’s back up again with a recap of “Gravity’s Rainbow” aka WWII was fake, which is the plot of GR. I know Pynchon isn’t an easy read but you don’t read it. You examine it for clues.

            Like

            Reply

        2. Forensic document analysis meaning… A computer statistically analyzes word frequency and things?

          And you say Pynchon predicts MM? Interesting…

          As you say below, he is a slog. I tried 20 years ago with Gravity and didn’t get far. Your comment makes me want to try again with a more tactical approach, so to speak… Use synopses and reviews to guide my reading/ skimming. Rather than just open up to p.1 and start reading like it’s a traditional novel. (Most of which I can’t get into anyway.)

          Like

          Reply

          1. Forensic document analysis uses computer models to remove common words, phrases, punctation, etc… and find the patterns, cadences and flows that make each writing style unique. It’s something that an author can’t control via a dictionary or thesaurus. It’s their writing DNA. They can either call or their own or copy someone else.

            Gravity’s Rainbow is at least 5 different authors. It’s starts with Absurdism, a 60’s academic philosophy that says it’s absurd to try to convey meaning with language. So while all of the sentences are valid English sentences in GR, none of it makes sense and most people give up. This goes on for about 200 pages. If you want to get through this first section I suggest starting with Absurd plays like Ionesco’s “The Bald Soprano” or Pinter’s “The Birthday Party” Once you see Pynchon’s gambit you can find a way through it, at least that’s what I did. After that the game for me was to identify each new writer, their style. I have a background in playwriting and I always liked the Absurdists, the Surrealists and other experimental types so it was interesting to see them all take their turn in GR. And then every so often out popped an Easter Egg: the bombing of London was faked, the war was fake, the concentration camp death were faked. Who can write this and not be arrested? Oh, yeah. I get it now. The whole corprophila, e.g. eating shit and liking it, which was the main critics complaint, why he didn’t deserve the National Book Award, to me was a comment on the reader. Anyone who actually likes GR, likes eating shit, because that’s what the book was, a steaming pile of shit. The main character, about halfway through, admits he’s lost the plot and has no idea what’s happening or why he’s doing anything. It’s breaking the fourth wall and hilarious.

            It’s all fun and games until we get to “Against the Day”. I realized this weekend that not only is Miles predicted by AtD, I am predicted too. I spent years trying to convince Phil at Let’s Roll that 9//1, NYC, at the WTC, was nothing but quiet. No sounds. I didn’t hear an siren, ambulance, fire truck, police car, radio, phone call, cry, scream, shout, nothing not a single sound during the entire event. And I told him that he was quiet during the event too, silently watching to TV waiting for news and that was the whole point. To shut the world up from the moment of the first notice until the first tower fell the entire world was silent. I tried to get Phil to see, don’t know if he ever did but Pynchon did. He says exactly that in AtD. The fake terrorist attack whose real purpose was to silence the world for a few hours. Damn. That’s what I was trying to say. That’s my takeaway from being a 9/11 witness. Miles and I are both in that book but I hope I’m nothing like him.

            Like

            Reply

          2. Boethius, I’m fascinated by this. Have never tackled Pynchon before but am going to now. Still waiting for my copy of Against the Day to arrive.

            So have you personally run GR through a forensic document analysis program, or have you simply used techniques to analyze the writing styles? And are you suggesting Pynchon may have collaborated with other authors to achieve different strands of DNA throughout the book or that he was able to simulate them himself by carefully adopting different styles? The gambit sounds similar to the adoption of different literary styles that Joyce uses to convey meaning in Ulysses. And though I think Nabokov was aiming at something quite different than, or maybe beyond, the nihilistic absurdism you describe for Pynchon, his strategies and approaches are similarly complex and puzzle-like and often wicked in the way they test the reader’s patience, using gleeful subversion and flat-out mockery of reader expectations to convey meaning. Are you familiar with him?

            Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

            Like

            Reply

          3. This really is fascinating. I am 96 pages into ATD and still waiting for a string of pearls … it is taxing. I generally put flags in a book to come back and revisit something that I wanted to remember, and there are a few in the book, which is 1,085 pages. So far I’ve got this that follows, and wonder that whoever wrote this can write it and also the other confusing stuff. I even searched thinking he might be quoting some standard folk song but no luck. It’s a long song, and I grabbed what I liked best of it:

            Love never spared a sinner,
            Hate never cured a saint,
            Soon is the night of reckoning,
            Then let no heart be faint,
            Teach us to fly from shelter,
            Teach us to love the cold,
            Life’s for the free and fearless –
            Death’s for the bought and sold!

            Like

            Reply

          4. Tantalizing quote, Mark. Can’t wait for the book to get here.
            For almost a year now I’ve been dipping in and out of Nabokov’s Pale Fire. Most of the novel consists of a fictitious character’s rambling, lunatic, “academic” footnotes for a long poem, “Pale Fire,” written by another character. The poem itself takes my breath away. I’ve read it many times and could read it many more for the rest of my life and not feel I’d begun to grasp all its subtleties and allusions…which makes getting through the rest of the book all the more daunting for me. Here’s a little sample from the poem, though, that seems relevant to what we’re talking about here.

            But who can teach the thoughts we should roll-call
            When morning finds us marching to the wall
            Under the stage direction of some goon
            Political, some uniformed baboon?
            We’ll think of matters only known to us–
            Empires of rhyme, Indies of calculus;
            Listen to the distant cocks crow, and discern
            Upon the rough gray wall a rare wall fern;
            And while our royal hands are being tied,
            Taunt our inferiors, cheerfully deride
            The dedicated imbeciles, and spit
            Into their eyes just for the fun of it.

            Like

            Reply

      2. I didn’t see MM in AtD until I got to the part about T.W.I.T (True Worshippers of the Ineffable Tetractys) a Theosophical organization run by a “Grand Cohen”, about 400 pages in. Miles spends a lot of time on Theosophy, which I had never really thought of before I read the works on his site. I still don’t see why they matter. Then a quick skim backwards and it was all Miles to me. When I got to the part about the fake terrorist attack and the world going silent for a few hours, around page 700, I was, like, it’s not just Miles, is it. The 9/11 silence was first tested with the O.J. verdict, which was issued during the trading day. The market went silent while the judge opened the envelope. The scrolling ticker tape showing trades had no trades on it. That test was the purpose of the O.J. fraud which Miles correctly saw as a fake trial but he didn’t see why.

        You can try a site like this for forensic analysis. Copy and paste into the text boxes and see what comes out
        http://www.aicbt.com/authorship-attribution/online-software/

        Like

        Reply

        1. Probably no help here but the guy who deconstructs the poem in Pale Fire sounded a lot like Col. Klink to me. (A pompous paranoid who did not realize his paradigm was designed to promote a self-justifying incompetence) Nabokov was a Zionist and I’ll bet the house he knew Werner Klemperer and I wonder if they didn’t have a laugh about the development of that character out of Nabokov’s satirical tool kit which relied at times on argumentum ad absurdum to get readers to turn the page. I can read that the promoters of Nazism, pro and con, relied on the same argumentation, but without a laugh track.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Tyrone, I’d be interested to know what evidence you have for Nabokov being a Zionist. I don’t claim to be an expert on him, but from what I’ve read, he came to America under the sponsorship of gatekeeper Edmund Wilson, who was deeply impressed with him and talked him up in the elite academic and literary circles he influenced and who were charged with influencing the public in a way that benefited power (which is obviously there job). But Nabokov regularly eviscerated the various pet projects, personalities and ideas that the cultural elite of his day were heavily promoted, being particularly nasty to “that total fake” Ezra Pound and the then-popular (or at least intended-to-be-popular) tenets of Freudism. I have seen nothing Nabokov wrote, said or did that would suggest he was a Zionist, and everything I have seen suggests he couldn’t have been further removed from Zionism or, for that matter, any other social or political or cultural or ideological movement, but if you have information that indicates otherwise, I’d love to see it.

            Like

            Reply

          2. Also, I’m waaayyyy too dumb to follow your Pale Fire/Hogan’s Heroes connection, but if Nabokov was using literature to prop up Zionism, I don’t understand why he would go to such pains to explain the Russian concept of “poshlost” to his readers. Do you think that was just misdirection, and he actually did believe an important function of literature is to prop up an author’s sociological, political and moralistic views?

            Like

            Reply

          3. Scott- Nabokov did not hide his support for the state of Israel. Like his wealthy father, who helped disassemble the Tsarist regime in favor of the Bolsheviks, Vladimir wore several masks as he and his fellow mind-benders played for both sides in the phony Cold War.
            If Nabokov wasn’t actually a dues paying Zionist, despite his statements supporting what was, in appearance, the Zionist agenda, consider that Heinrich Mueller, the head of the Gestapo, wasn’t a member of the Nazi party; I don’t think that’s a false equivalency. These parties and movements are all scams and a juiced and promoted author will read his lines accordingly.
            If you need a link, this book looks like the spin required: “Zeal for Zion: Christians, Jews, and the Idea of the Promised Land,”by Shalom Goldman.

            Like

            Reply

          4. Thanks Tyrone, I’ll check out the book. I really know nothing about his father’s political career beyond his being a Tsarist statesman. Nabokov wrote of bolshevism with such visceral, consistent and persuasive contempt that I don’t know what to make of your statement about his father, and I have been put off by others who have smeared Nabokov for having slimy family members or being in others ways connected to slimy people; I’ve just gone by what he actually said and wrote. I’m not trying to grill you and I don’t expect you to be like all prepared and at the ready with links for me, but if you can point me to an interview or a book or essay or whatever where Nabokov himself expressed his support for Israel, I’d like to see it. Thanks again. (Gonna shut up for a while. Getting really tired of seeing my own lame handle on the Recent Comments list.)

            Like

            Reply

      3. Another direct 9/11 reference in AtD is the airship Inconvenience crashing into the Campanile Bell Tower in Venice, destroying it. Nobody saw it even though the city was full of people. Just like nobody saw the first plane crash into the WTC. I was 50 yards away and I heard something but I didn’t see anything. Nobody is looking at the sky during minutes before the market opens, it’s the busiest time of the day in finance. You might ask “what about the second plane?” When I tell you it was quiet, I mean, it was quiet. Not even the second plane made a sound. What? Exactly. Nobody heard the second plane although most people saw it. That’s Pynchon again. There was only one event. One crash into one tower. That’s all they needed. Suggestion and the human mind fill in the rest. I couldn’t believe that nobody else experienced what I did. That is why I went online looking for others which I only found around page 700 of this book.

        Like

        Reply

    2. I can imagine an admirer of MM adopting some of his writing tendencies, either consciously or not, especially if sending him something with the hope that he will post it at his site.
      It is interesting to me, that whether MM is a person or a committee, that he/they are willing to publish contributions from “regular” people.
      He has added information into his papers that I have sent in to him before. I believe that Mark has experienced the same back when he was a “friend from Colorado”.

      Like

      Reply

      1. MM, like Rush Limbaugh, has his dittoheads. I know a Limbaugh dittohead who has lived here in southern Indiana all his life, where most people have a slightly Southern dialect, but this guy speaks in Limbaugh’s Chicago dialect and his speech has the same cadences as Limbaugh’s. That’s what I thought about when I read the Sven piece.

        (And if it’s a committee or if it’s Miles pretending to be Sven, that makes sense too. Limbaugh’s real function, I think–like so many toxic personalities in the media–is to be a role model. The information doesn’t matter so much as the constant neurotic “us vs. them, me vs. the world” mentality. Mathis provides his own version of that isolating and couterproductive mindset. I suspect Limbaugh mixes real callers in with fake ones and Mathis (or his group) may do the same with guest writers. He is teaching people how to think like him while believing they are thinking for themselves.

        Like

        Reply

        1. My impression, and it could be one of many purposes, that Limbaugh reinforces the illusion that Democrats are “the left” and that there are two parties that are really in opposition to each other. Thom Hartmann (is he even around anymore?) performs the same task for the Democrats.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        2. Kevin Starr had a few papers out on Miles’ site, perhaps Miles is Kevin too. Self-loathing used to be all the rage at one time. Seriously, I read Miles’ papers too, some I like, some I like a lot, and some I’m not wholly convinced about. Nobody’s perfect but as the new testament says, test all things, hold on to what’s good. I’m not a church goer, but I have read the Bible a few times.

          Like

          Reply

          3. Of course. I am wondering, and this may sound self-centric, but I have long written about the absence of tears in crisis actors. “Sven Svenson” also wrote about that, and MM would be cautious not to ever reference my work (he is not aware that I wrote about John Brown a long long time ago, reaching his same conclusion, that the man was an agent provocateur and that his death was fake). So suppose two possibilities, that he wrote the paper and realized that the part about crisis actors and tears might sound similar to what I write, or that he received the paper and read it with the same conclusion, and so decided to publish it under an alias. The paper is obviously his voice.

            Like

            Reply

          4. I think you are all making an unwarranted assumption: that Miles Mathis writes any of those papers. It seems equally likely to me that another unnamed person does the bulk of the writing, drawing together material collected by the Dittoheads, … uh, make that Mathisites. THAT person has a distinctive voice which permeates almost all the guest papers also, including the supposedly German Gerry. Anyway, this is the way it often works in the ghostwriting world. The named “author” often doesn’t even sign his own name at the bottom.

            No need for appeal to unconscious imitation.

            Like

            Reply

          5. @Maarten

            So you are suggesting that, basically, one person is writing the MM material… but not the guy in Taos?
            Why not him?
            You can still believe he is being fed his info from a committee, if you like, but considering that Mark and myself have met MM, and we both considered him legitimate at the time, why is it so difficult to believe that he is the conduit for the info on his site?

            I have mentioned this before, but I’ll say again, that during the conference, he and I had multiple conversations regarding papers from his site from several years prior to the conference. He even corrected me on some minutiae that I had mis-remembered myself!

            What would the point of a conference like that even accomplish? To have a guy who didn’t write the material, hosting a group of people who want to talk to him about said material?
            Seems like a lot of risk and time not worth it.
            If MM (the guy in Taos) is the “front” for some committe, I’m sure he is compensated well enough, that the couple of grand he received from his attendees wouldn’t be worth the risk that his “cover” would be blown.

            Also, considering that MM has published info that I have sent him, and that Mark has sent him, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that he would publish entire papers that others have sent him.

            Like

            Reply

          6. Good points BMS … I was intrigued by MM in 2016 and overlooked a great deal of things that were brought to my attention by Bob Zerunkle, but am most intrigued by the small cart-like vehicle on his porch, and further by the absence of any odors of oil painting, which I understand are potent. Did he do his painting at some other location?

            But I am open to any possibility. I just don’t know. I am highly skeptical of a highly qualified portrait painter/physicist/genealogist/researcher/scratch golfer all wrapped up in one virtually unknown person.

            Like

            Reply

          7. @Mark Tokarski

            That’s fair, and I get where you are coming from.
            I am in the unique postion of having had some time alone with MM (along with my wife) on the afternoon of the final day of the conference. Everyone else, including yourself, had left by then.
            It was my wife who expressed interest in a tour and more in-depth discussions about MM’s art.

            I cannot determine if the guy you and I met in Taos actually produced the art that we saw in his “home”… but I can say that he was knowledgeable enough about it, or a good enough bullshitter to produce time/place/relevent stories about them all.
            I even asked about the gigantic Triptych that he has posted on his website, because I didn’t see it anywhere, and wondered where it could possibly be. He had it there, disassembled and stored in his hallway leading back to the computer room. He also had the molded head that is displayed at the base of the piece. Do I know that he painted the triptych, and molded the head? Of course not. I wonder why it was there, however, if the guy in Taos didn’t make it. Just in case a guy like me asked about it? So I could… mention it online, at POM?

            I say all this because it was an intimate and unique interaction we had, and is one of the several little “tests” that MM “passed” when I was there. He didn’t offer to give us a tour… we asked for it. He didn’t offer any information about his artwork to us during the conference, unless we asked him. If it was all an elaborate stage or prop, for the benefit of “we the conference attendees”, than it wasn’t taken advantage of by MM. And other than here, I don’t talk about it with anyone.

            When you said…
            ” I am highly skeptical of a highly qualified portrait painter/physicist/genealogist/researcher/scratch golfer all wrapped up in one virtually unknown person.”
            …I had to smile. I’d be skeptical of all that wrapped up in one person that we
            did all know!

            As to the cart/vehicle that you remember seeing, I fail to see the relevence to that, in regards to whether the guy we met in Taos actually paints those paintings, or writes the papers on his site. I can safely guess that he wasn’t under some sort of house arrest, since he went out to lunch with us every day, and I went with him to the grocery store on the Friday. I thought I shared with you a photo I took of him sitting on his couch with his cat. He is wearing shorts, an not hiding any sort of ankle/house arrest device.
            We can speculate about the meaning of a golf cart like vehicle, but it is nothing more that guesswork. He also had a couple of dozen classic bicycles in his back room, but he is pretty open about repairing them and trying to sell them.

            Anyway, Maarten used the word “unwarrented”, and my point is that I feel I am somewhat warrented in my assessment of MM. Unless I am deemed a liar or part of some nefarious group sent to confuse the issue. Of course, you know that I was at the conference, so there’s that. I doubt you believe that the other attendees, myself included, were part of an elaborate plot to fool only you.

            Like

            Reply

          8. That all makes a case for him being an artist. A good one. I also made some personal assessments, that he very much wants to have a romantic relationship, and that the relationship with the guy who sat on the couch working his notes (forgotten his name) was more than we were told. If you recalled, he lectured me about what I was doing on the website at that time, telling me that the technology was not dependable. He wasn’t nice about it, and I had a sense his relationship with MM was also one of authority … whatever, even if he was right about my work, he was a dick. Don’t know what to make of it vis a vis him and MM – he obviously was not interested in any of the work beyond some science, so it had to be frightfully boring for him.

            The golf cart … his only means of transportation, could serve as a form of house arrest. That was my point, not that the law was bearing down on him (ankle bracelet), but rather, like Frank Abagnale (sp) in the movie Catch Me If You Can, he was recruited as a tool rather than being otherwise punished … told “no more kiddie porn, but we have a project and we want you to front for it … you’re going to be a vehicle by which we release a bunch of information heretofore kept secret.” You can fill in the rest … but in that case the golf cart allows him to go out fo dinner and buy his groceries (hard to lug home on a bike). It also prevents flight and makes relationships difficult. True enough he could buy or steal a car and run away … to what? The purpose of the conference then is for a lonely man to socialize, make friends. He was probably hurt that we all bailed on the last day except you two, and his focus for you was his art. I never felt a gut level connection to him, as trust is an issue with him. Not with you and your girlfriend.he saw you as genuine and interested. He probably doesn’t know who he can trust, and viewed me as a potential enemy. I was not, but my website at that time was going off in uncharted waters, and he needed distance. So he went in the attack.

            This would make him an artist. His science comes from the guy on the couch who attacked me, who has a supervisory role. The papers could come from anywhere, including him. they could either be written elsewhere and provided for him to publish, or he is given an outline of what really happened to write about it. The genealogy is sloppy, but he won’t back down. The Jew ranting is off-putting, possibly deliberately so, another form of quarantine

            That’s all I got. You provide evidence that his art is real. I speculate on everything else, in the end, not knowing anything for sure but seeing red flags all about.

            (PS: That video that got my attention, about the Tate murders, that highlights MM and directs people to him, despite all the YouTube censorship of every other topic of interest, is still,there. That, to me, makes it look like a MM promo directing traffic his way, giving us low hanging fruit, a kind of “rollout” vehicle. it should be gone but is left to stand. It was a way of reaching out to people of curious and incisive mindset, very well done, very good production values.j

            Like

            Reply

          9. @BMSeattle

            You asked a reasonable question of me; this response might get lost in the tangles of the comment thread. Forgive the slow reply.

            Why do I say that it is unwarranted to assume that the man in Taos is the primary writer of the MMC papers? (By the way, this is not a flat denial that he wrote them: I have no certain knowledge of that. I am simply stating that one should not concede the point without more thought on the matter. Here goes …)

            First, so much verbiage in this world gets printed under the name of someone who barely contributed anything to the final product. And yet the corpus of the “author” very often has a consistent tone, a single “voice.” This happens all the time, though most of us are not aware of it. Celebrities on book tours probably did not write most of their books. Even so, they go out in public and field questions and give knowledgeable answers. (Indeed, the point of most educations is to be able to answer questions about texts that one did not write oneself.) To be fair, the man in Taos—based on what we are told of his academic history—is a quick study. I am sure that he can answer queries in detail, even about the guest authors’ works on the site.

            Second, you might recall that back in 2016 there was a fair bit of discussion on sites like Cluesforum about the volume of new material being posted regularly at mwm.com. Some people crunched numbers and made comparisons to other prolific authors. No one made a conclusive argument. But suspicions were raised about the modern Leonardo who not only painted and kept abreast of modern physics and corresponded by email with hundreds of people, but also found the time to research and write brilliantly insightful papers by the dozens, year after year. No one found a smoking gun, but there was still a bit of smoke around.

            It was also in 2016 that MWM started posting material from “guest authors,” as he calls them. From 2006 to 2016 had no guest authors (if my survey today of the Updates page on that site is correct). Since then he has allowed guest contributions 46 times. Maybe it is a coincidence, but to my eyes, it appears that the turn to guest authors was a response to the questions about his seemingly superhuman prolificness. Since then, we see the same rate of new material, but less to question about how one person could produce it all.

            But there’s more … Kevin and Josh (the first two guest authors, it seems) have a certain writing voice. Yes, I think that there was some unconscious imitation of the original MWM voice, but differences remained. However, some of the guest papers with other bylines retained rather completely the MWM style, with its Nietzschean “conspiritorial We,” the frequent leading questions, and the sardonic winks. Even if a guest author were copying the house style, you would still expect certain stylistic crotchets to pop up as well. However, this seemed to me to not be the case.

            What an odd phenomenon … papers by different people that still sound like the same original person. What could it mean?

            It could mean:

            A. That the man in Taos authored all of those new guest papers along with his original output, and that the different bylines were supplied just to quell the controversy about his unusual productivity. But why do this, since the prolificness added to the mystique of the genius of Taos?

            B. That someone else (person or committee) was writing all those papers all along, and that MWM has just been the face of the group. But this really would be working the long joke … starting out a in 2006 by writing art reviews and in time turning to science and conspiracy. That seems unlikely to me.

            C. That someone else (person or committee) supplies the basic drafts of those later papers, and MWM’s job is to punch them up with his combative prose and cynical humor. (Edit [addition]: Look at the comments he inserts in colored font on guest papers, then imagine those being reworked into the body of the text; a few more tweaks and you turn a guest paper into an MWM production.) That’s the work of only a few hours a week, which could easily be accomplished by someone who also has paintbrushes to clean. Thus, the primary writing is not by MWM but by anonymous accomplices; and yet he is, in your words, still “the conduit for the info on his site.”

            You ask what was the point of the “physics conferences”? I don’t know. I surely don’t sense that any new ground was broken in the realm of physics. But I can still think of certain benefits to the MMC.

            First, they produce putative witnesses online to the reality of the person in the blog photos and his way of life. (Though, of course, they do nothing of the sort. Go knock on that door in Taos on a random day unannounced, and then let me know what the reality is there. I have seen encountered some elaborate and expensive ruses in my life. This makes me question casual assumptions. If you look at what the magician is showing you so openly in his right hand, you will miss the legerdemain of the left. I have also encountered some decently well-heeled people affecting a poor lifestyle. That ain’t hard at all.)

            Second, those conferences would be a good way to recruit fellow travelers to the cause of the MMC. While you and Mark were sizing up MWM, he was sizing up you and Mark. Mark failed the test, for sure! It was shortly thereafter that the hit piece on POM came out from mwm.com.

            Anyway, back to my word “unwarranted.” I don’t see any evidence for the assertion of MWM’s primary authorship, aside from his own say-so. And I detect traces of evidence against it, a few listed above. I am not calling you a liar or inauthentic. I simply find that there is a lot about mwm.com that does not pass my personal sniff test. It is not what it appears to be at first glance.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

          10. I think you’re reading way too much (haha) in Miles Mathis’ words.

            Why not having a lonely guy in Taos writing papers? The accusation by clowns as that Allan Weisbecker, whats in the (((name))), just reviews how much of a bad writer and researcher they are. If THEY cannot write 30 pages a day, then it is their disability, projected towards Miles Mathis or other prolific writers, to just show their OWN weakness. It is all envy, leftism in the core.

            So what if Miles Mathis has people writing for him? Kevin wrote for him, Josh did, others do. I sent him my research on Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn, both faked their deaths, but it never arrived.

            Where is this hostility coming from? This in-fighting.

            Seems like a typical jewism strategy; let us fight among each other and the wringing hands are going on.

            I have learned a lot from Miles Mathis AND his guest writers and will not go into completely baseless accusations of a “team of writers”, “controlled by Langley” or any other claim pulled out of an ass.

            At the same time I criticize his sloppiness (showing he is a (too) fast writer) and the idea we can know there is a charge field. We cannot even go into space.

            But overall we should work TOGETHER and not let us be divided by petty differences.

            Like

            Reply

          11. @Maarten
            Thanks for the detailed response. Sorry about the delay… I’ve been on vacation and I just recently saw your response to me.
            I appreciate your perspective on the matter, and I think it is reasonable, considering the evidence you see/don’t see.

            I hesitate to even write any more, because I’ve learned that this is a topic that people have strong feelings about, and nothing I can say really matters, in the end. And if even if I am to relate “convincing” evidence, it can simply be brushed aside as me being fooled by an elaborate stage act, or magic show.

            I am convinced that the MM I met in Taos has knowledge of the minutiae of his papers from as far back a 2009.(it was his paper on television shows and theme songs that I brought up with him, and he corrected an error that I made in referencing it)
            I understand that having not experienced the same interactions I had with the man, and having no reason to think that I am capable of detecting trickery, this statement means little to you, and can be easily cast aside.
            I also understand that even if I believe that MM wrote some of the papers on his site, I cannot possible know if he wrote all, or even most of them. It is entirely possible that he wrote his early papers, and not all his later ones, for example. Or that he studied them in enough depth to fool the people at his conference, but he didn’t actually write them, etc.

            As far as his art, his home, and the possibility that it was all a fake setting…again it is possible.
            Once again, nothing I can say about the details of the place (cleanliness/dirtiness of the bathroom, how comfortable his cats seemed in the home, all the books/movies/music, etc., will convince someone who is already inclined to believe it isn’t “real”. It is more likely that I was just fooled, once again. Even my interaction with him regarding his artwork, can be ignored by someone who has already made up their mind about the whole affair.

            As to the purpose behind the conferences.
            Call me a skeptic, but I fail to see how the benefits of such a get-together, outway the potential risks.
            As far as I know, I am the only person who has attended any of the conferences, that is saying I believe in the legitimacy of MM. (Mark used to defend him, but now doesn’t, as has been chronicled here at POM, and other places). And I have never publicly defended or promoted the content of any of his papers, either. I simply defend his existence.
            Plus, imagine that I had been smart enough to see the deception, I could just as easily have photos and other evidence that blows the whole MM operation out of the water!
            Perhaps you will say or think, that MM had reason to believe that I would be an easy dupe, and was invited to the conference for that reason? Again, that would have been a huge assumption and a huge risk to the entire operation. It would be much easier to fake an entire conference, and plant people at different sites around the internet, posting photos, etc, if the goal was to efficiently and safely promote the site/operation.

            (as an aside, my impression at the time, was that Miles liked Mark just fine, and had no issues/problems with him during the conference. On the last day, Miles insisted that we wait for Mark to arrive, before starting the days discussion. And he seemed surprised/disappointed when it became clear that Mark had bailed. Perhaps he was insulted, and it led to his eventual attack against Mark and POM? To me, it just emphasized the “human” side of Miles, and is further evidence that he identified with his work in a way that a simple “front” would not).

            The ironic thing (to me, at least), as that there was a time when the common argument against the existence of MM, was that no one from his conferences was coming forth with “evidence”. Why no photos or stories that would help to legitimize him as “real”?
            Of course, once someone comes forth with photos and stories, then that evidence is brushed aside and/or explained away.
            The only reason that I comment here, at POM, is that Mark can confirm that I was with him at the conference. I wouldn’t bother detailing any of this anywhere else, as I would just be labled as part of the committee, sent to confuse the issue.

            Anyway, I will finish by saying that my intent is not to argue with you, or to convince you of something that I know I cannot convince you of.
            My initial response to you was because it seemed that you were saying that one person could have written the papers at his site… but not him.
            You clarified your stance on that topic… thank you.

            All I really know about MM, is that there was a guy in Taos, who looks like the guy on his website. That guy knows enough about the papers at his site, that he can converse on them, even papers from several years earlier… information that does not cover the standard conspiracy topics, but rather could be labled as “minutiae”. The artwork that was in his “home” matched the artwork on his site, and the person in Taos was able to discuss details about every piece of art that I questioned him on. He also was able to produce and discuss art that I asked him about, that he didn’t have on “display”. (so, it wasn’t an intended part of a “stage act”)
            I’ll also add that at the time, when experience and memory was at its sharpest, Mark also was convinced that the man in Taos was legitimate. It was several years later that his mind was changed, and he became suspicious about golf carts and the lack of scent from oil paintings.

            From my perspective, all the elaborate trickery that would have needed to take place, in order to fool a few people at a conference (so that maybe one or two of them would post confirming evidence of MM), is an extremely unlikely scenario. Is it more or less unlikely than MM being as he presents himself? Opinions will differ, of course.
            I realize that my perspective is a unique one, and as I stated above, I can and do respect your perspective. I would likely have the same one, if I didn’t have the first hand experince that I did.
            Thanks again for you polite response.

            Like

            Reply

        3. In reply to Scott’s Rush remarks (Not sure where I am located on the reply thread): Amen to that. Also, I imagine ALL of Limbaugh’s callers are hires. A contrarian wouldn’t get past the off air vetter who actually answers the phones.
          That said, I’ve called into radio shows (mostly sports talk) and have gotten a word in edge wise on occasion but get cut off as soon as my erudition exceeds the grasp of their demographics. With a platform like Rush’s, I doubt they leave anything to chance.

          Like

          Reply

    3. I always thought the guest authors were to undercut the concept that MM output is impossible for one person. So occasionally in a string of papers, there will be some from a “guest” with one of those obviously fake names, and it’s obviously not written by anyone else.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I see now that MAARTEN ROSSAERT made the same logical conclusion about the guest authors being a dodge on the impossible output. The fact that he and I both independently came to this conclusion should give it more weight.

        Like

        Reply

      2. Just want to say I am extremely impressed with the write up by MAARTEN ROSSAERT here on MM above, and that he basically summed up my entire line of thinking about MM.

        I believe the conferences were part recruitment, part to create “eyewitness accounts” of people who can attest to MM being a real person.

        The artwork is an angle I have thought a lot about, and it is clearly genuine work though who knows whether the guy in Taos actually produced it. My own working theory is that there really was an artist by the name of Miles Mathis who likely died, and his persona (and art collection) was kept by intelligence as a cover for a future project TBD. This also explains the genuine back story and the art reviews pre-2006. Those were done by the real Mathis. The theory then would be something like this…the real Mathis died around 2006 and was replaced by an imposter who fronts this committee. The real tell would be asking him to paint in the same style as the artwork in front of you, but there’s no way he’d ever agree to that. This imposter would be set up in a living situation with legitimate art done by the original Mathis. Possibly a huge collection. I feel this would basically explain everything. The imposter may have been selected for their vague resemblance to the actual guy.

        The rest could be covered by ideas already given here. Anyway, that is the conclusion I have always come to with MM. As more or less the only explanation that I feel explains everything.

        Like

        Reply

  3. Limbaugh seems obsessed with fantasies about capitalism and socialism. Everyone receives state benefits (socialism). Who pays is another matter. Big business is subsidized, small business, not so much. Word art to deceive and divide and keep the commoners from storming the gated communities and mini-castles.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I agree with you and Mark about Limbaugh. As we find over and over again though, the best projects of our wily leaders serve multiple purposes. Limbaugh (and MMG) not only tell the audience what to believe, but how to react to those beliefs, how to feel about them, whom to hate as a result of them. Actually, I think all mainstream entertainment functions at this level. One of my few literary heroes, Nabokov, instructed his students not only to disregard political, moralistic and sociological ideology in an author’s work, but also to resist putting too much stock in personal identification with the main characters. Nabokov grew up in extreme privilege and members of his family were involved with Russian and American Intelligence (as another MMG guest writer points out, though none of his attempts to indict the author himself really land). He tried to introduce the Russian concept of “poshlost” to American culture, but it never really stuck, because drowning the masses in poshlost is a major part of our leaders’ strategy, and personal technology has made it easier for them to do so than ever. As has been pointed out on this blog many times before, most people walk around thinking they are having unique and original thoughts, but those thoughts have actually been implanted in them by whatever nonsense they read or watch. Personally identification with the purveyors of that nonsense is key to making that trick work, don’t you think?

      One reason I like this blog is that I identify with qualities Mark puts on display that are healthy but not necessarily gratifying to the ego. Specifically, his long history of posting stuff (which I hope will continue well into the future) that’s wildly, absurdly, outlandishly, preposterously wrong wrong WRONG…and then sooner or later seeing it, owing up to it and laughing about it. I can relate in a negative way to MM’s loner persona and cannot relate at all to Mark’s financial success, marital happiness and apparently leisurely retirement. But I love the fact that the internet has a conspiracy theory character who isn’t wallowing in bitterness and/or trying to set himself up as a guru.

      If it’s true that 99.99% of conspiracy bloggers are limited hangouts, I think a lot of thought goes into how each blogger’s personality will tap into the emotional life of the target audience, just like the personalities of news anchors, reality stars and U.S. presidents do. Mark’s persona doesn’t feel calculated to me. MM’s does.

      Like

      Reply

      2. SCOTTRC,
        https://www.youtube.com/user/georgwebb (example only)

        “Crowd-source” journalism is coming on strong. Some of the usual intelligence funding, but a new honey pot to collect the home game sluethers in one place where they can be more easily steered by the designated guru back to the hamster wheel.

        BTW, I’ve been enjoying your comments lately.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Steve Kelly–Thanks! Yeah, I confess I was briefly tempted to buy into a Dutch guy named Rob Wijnberg who has a similar thing called The Correspondent in his homeland as well as here in America. Then I thought about it for few minutes, looked at his Wikipedia page, and was embarrassed by my own gullibility. Crowd source journalism is a brilliant way for Power to collaborate with the masses on new reality constructs that seem to upend the old ones while the same old families remain happily in control.

          Like

          Reply

  4. For the record, some people have accused me of being a limited hangout / spook operation, Simon Shack’s forum even claimed that my name was chosen by committee in order to subvert Shack’s credentials, because John le Bon and Simon Shack are only one degree removed: Simon le Bon of Duran Duran!

    I’m not making this up, some fool on their forum made this accusation a few years ago. To this day I wonder how many real people frequent that forum. My honest guess is two or three. But I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong plenty of times before.

    In any event, I’m on the record as stating that ‘paid shills’ are a hoax, and I stand by that. ‘Controlled opposition’ is also a hoax.

    The People Who Run The Show seem to be going out of their way to make it obvious that the whole thing is a joke. Go and look at the lunar module from the Apollo missions. Sticky tape, aluminium foil, curtain rods, it is all there, a blatant piss-take.

    Why would TPWRTS want to ‘stop’ those of us with functioning brains from interacting online? Why would they want to get in our way? Do you honestly believe that you or I or anybody in this scene is a threat to them? Please, give me a break.

    Again, they are going out of their way to make the ruse obvious. They are not ‘hiding’ their secrets, they are not in fear of regular people waking up to the scam. They are actively encouraging us to question the TV, to question authority, to question the sticky tape on the lunar module.

    The whole framework underpinning belief in ‘paid shills’ and ‘controlled opposition’ is so flagrantly self-obsessed as to be self-parody from the outset. Nobody here, and nobody on my site or on fakeologist or on cluesforum or the MM website is ANY kind of threat to TPWRTS. To believe otherwise is to suffer from an egotistical messiah complex and/or group delusion of epic proportions.

    I used to suffer from this delusion, when I first got involved in conspiracy culture. Eventually I grew out of it, I was humble enough to admit I had allowed myself to be fooled, to buy into illogical and paranoid memes about clandestine operatives lurking in our midst. In time, I moved beyond that mindset.

    Basically, I grew up. Time for more people to do likewise, methinks.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Oh, controlled opposition is all around, but agreed, it is not used on us. It is reserved for more important dealings. We are free to roam about.

      Example: Most other countries use some form of government-sponsored health care, either direct provision or single payer or regulated private insurance. It works. Here it is not allowed, but is very popular and most people want it. We cannot have it. To prevent it it from coming about, controlled opposition steps forward and seizes the flag, his name, Bernie Sanders.

      That is true in all of politics. Every prominent Democrat is controlled. Every issue regarded as important is led by someone appointed and wearing a mask. My favorite example: Vaccinations, a racket. Who took the lead? Who made her way to national prominence as a spokesperson for opposition? Jenny McCarthy, former Playboy model who has spent more time in public naked than clothed. Issue is thereby neutralized.

      It s all about, in my view.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Jokes aside, I have thought about this a lot: at what point do I decide to stop airing my honest thoughts on this matter, and let people carry on with the LARP, sans my interjections?

        The LARP isn’t hurting anybody, at least not directly. And it seems to give a sense of meaning or purpose or accomplishment to some people, to believe themselves the opposition to ruling elite, and/or view themselves as victims of a clandestine operation of subversion.

        I suspect that one day I will remove myself from these discussions, at least on platforms beyond my own site.

        In school I was not the kind of child who told the others that Santa wasn’t real, although one time I told a family friend, a young man older than myself, that the WWF (now WWE) wasn’t real, and I felt guilty about that for a long time, because he seemed rather upset by it.

        I don’t really want to be that person.

        Then again, a number of people have told me that my paid shill skepticism assisted them in overcoming their own paranoia and/or victim mentalities, so I know there is some utility in this line of communication.

        As usual, the question of ‘what is the right thing to do’ is not an easy one to answer. At least not for me. Sometimes the pros seem to outweigh the cons, sometimes the reverse is true.

        May the Kosmos have mercy on my soul.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    3. “Again, they are going out of their way to make the ruse obvious. They are not ‘hiding’ their secrets, they are not in fear of regular people waking up to the scam. They are actively encouraging us to question the TV, to question authority, to question the sticky tape on the lunar module.”

      If we assume that to be true, then you think.. What.. They want a genuine mass awakening? Or, they want to poke holes in the old system and phase something new in? Or…?

      Weren’t you talking about sonograms as a way to damage fetuses in utero a while back? Is that one of the schemes they wish the public would wake up to…

      Like

      Reply

      1. @TIMR

        I am convinced that there will be no genuine ‘mass awakening’. The vast majority of humans alive today are no different in form or function from non player characters. They are no more capable of ‘awakening’ than a pet chihuahua is of playing the piano.

        We may wish to imagine such a thing is possible, that the regular person can begin to think for himself and challenge orthodoxy, or that the dog can play Mozart, but it is not plausible in actual reality. Therefore I do not believe that a ‘mass awakening’ is the intent of whoever or whatever is behind the grand illusion.

        So why put the truth in plain sight? Why give us images of a ‘lunar module’ made of sticky tape, aluminium foil, and curtain rods? Why tell us that the only dog to die in the 9/11 attack was named Sirius (the star of initiation)? Why number the planes 11, 77, 93 (Crowley / Thelema / Magick) and 175 (175 + 11 =186 | 186 / 2 = 93 i.e. Thelema)? Why build the black monolith sitting right across from the WTC at 55 Church St (with the phone number ending in 2001)?

        Obviously I do not ‘know’ why. All I can do is give my own interpretation, based on the available evidence. At this point in time, one interpretation I prefer over others, goes along the following lines:

        This realm we find ourselves in is not some ‘chance’ arising. There appears to be some kind of purpose behind it. We may view it as a test, or a game, or a dream, or even a nightmare, but we have the power to direct ourselves as individuals in world of both rapid change AND immutable ‘laws’ (e.g. night follows day).

        I could elaborate further but suffice for now to say I believe the number of latent thinkers — that is, people who may not yet have worked out that there is something much bigger going on, but COULD do so — is less than one per cent of the total population. Significantly less than one percent.

        The vast, vast majority of people alive today, and this includes those who move in the same conspiracy culture circles as ourselves, are more or less here to keep the place interesting, to serve the coffee, empty the garbage bins, maintain the roads, etc etc etc. This realm, whatever its purpose, requires a ready supply of non playing characters (or people who serve that function).

        This does not make them bad people, it does not make myself or those like me any ‘better’ as human beings than the NPCs. But there is a significant difference between thinking people, and the thoughtless masses. The NPC meme circa 2018 was far more accurate than a lot of people seem to have realised.

        I’ve gone into much greater detail about my perspective on all of this in material which is currently exclusive to Members of my site. If it weren’t for those Members, I wouldn’t have the ability or inclination to put so much time into writing and recording and editing my material.

        What I can do is make available for readers of PoM, at no cost, the audio files of my three-part series which deals explicitly with these questions, entitled The Conspiracy Ego Trip Framework. Anybody who is interested may send me an email, mention this PoM post, and I’ll send you direct links the mp3 files. It is about three hours in total.

        Regarding the use of ultrasound to retard fetuses in the womb, yes indeed, that was me, earlier this year. I discovered compelling evidence that even the relatively weak ultrasound devices in use decades ago have been scientifically shown to retard the growth of fetuses in the womb. This led me to look into things further and what I found shook me to the depths of my miserable soul.

        The tl;dr is that ultrasound devices today are orders of magnitude more powerful than the devices which have been shown to retard fetus growth, and there is no evidence that these devices provide any long-term benefits for the fetus/child. The corollaries which follow from this are obvious, but most people will do all they can to post-facto rationalise the use of ultrasounds, because they themselves were ultrasounded and/or had their own children blasted with this so-called ‘non-ionising radiation’.

        Does this make the elite, or the people at the top of our societies, bad or evil or malevolent? That is a very good question. My answer is no. If there is inherent ‘bad’ involved in this, I place the responsibility on the parents themselves. However, because they are, with rare exception, thoughtless and incapable of challenging orthodoxy, I don’t personally think they are evil or ‘bad’. They are just stupid, exactly as they seem designed to be.

        I hope this answers your questions.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. JLB–In your earlier post, you suggest belief in limited hangouts is a manifestation of egotistical grandiosity. I would like to suggest that characterizing the vast majority of human beings on Earth as Non-Playing Characters in a video game is egotistical grandiosity of a much higher order of magnitude.

          I’m actually more interested in spiritual development than the endlessly distracting rabbit holes of conspiracy culture. The notion that there is a lot more going on in this plane of existence–and that most people are blind to it and are unlikely (at least in their current lifetimes) to become aware of it–makes sense to me. But I, for one, won’t be paying any self-appointed gurus to fill my mind with self-glorifying notions about my exalted position in the world.

          Yes, some people who hijack threads and derail conversations just like to get attention. Others are advertising. Not everyone is a paid shill. We agree there, at least.

          Like

          Reply

          1. @ScottRC

            “I would like to suggest that characterizing the vast majority of human beings on Earth as Non-Playing Characters in a video game is egotistical grandiosity of a much higher order of magnitude.”

            You can suggest that, but unless you are willing to provide any reasoning for the suggestion, it comes off as merely an empty criticism of the messenger, rather than a response to the message.

            ‘JLB says that anybody who believes in paid shills egotistical so I will call him egotistical in response, I’m so clever’.

            My message was simple: the vast majority of humans alive today cannot and will not think for themselves, they cannot and will not go against orthodoxy, and therefore they will never see — for example — that the ‘lunar module’ was made of aluminium foil, curtain rods, and sticky tape.

            If you want to claim otherwise, then I am all ears. Tell me about the people you have spoken with who have demonstrated an ability or proclivity to think for themselves, to reconsider their own positions in the moment, to think about their own thinking, and genuinely engage in constructive dialogue on abstract and.or controversial concepts.

            Do you meet such people often?

            No, you do not. And neither do I. This is why we find ourselves on websites like PoM, JLB, Fakeologist, MM forums, etc etc etc. We search online for meaningful conversations with people who at least seem to be intelligent and thoughtful, because we know in our day to day lives, there’s not much going on upstairs with the masses, the people we interact with as colleagues, acquaintances, and yes, even friends and family.

            I will attract criticism for putting it so bluntly, your latest comment in my direction is a case in point. The difference between you and me in this case is that I’m willing to articulate conclusions based on the available evidence, whereas you want to… what exactly? What is your intention?

            To pretend that you really believe the masses are capable of thinking for themselves? To pretend that you really believe humans are all created equal? Please, give me a break. I’m all for the occasional LARP if that is what floats your boat, but I’m trying to have a serious conversation here.

            Like

            Reply

          2. @JLB
            I thought I was pretty clear that I’m as aware as you are of how ignorant the masses are. However, you seem to be devaluing the worth of everyone who hasn’t figured out what you’ve figured out. This mentality attracts people who have also figured it out and enjoy feeling superior to the so-called sheeple. It also repels people who haven’t figured it out. I have occasionally had the experience of sharing what I’ve perceived of the world with humility (though I can be as pretentious and full of shit as anyone). And then someone I considered to be hopelessly mired in ignorance and delusion had an insight or was able to put things together in a way that I never would have expected. Sometimes it happens over the course of the conversation, sometimes it happens weeks or months later. My point is that looking at the world with the belief that I’m one of the privileged few who is smart enough to see what’s going on is an ego-gratifying delusion. If I were trying to get people to pay me to read my opinions, I would absolutely embrace it, because lots of people will pay to feel smarter, superior and more exalted than the common rabble. It’s what televangelists and other purveyors of bullshit count on. But it’s obviously bullshit. That’s all I’m saying

            Like

            Reply

          3. @JLB
            I’m also completely turned off by the simplistic, black-and-white mentality you have about people who “think for themselves” and “go against orthodoxy” versus people who don’t. There’s a lot more to heaven and earth than the lies of TPTB. Determining that those who see their lies are “capable of thinking for themselves” and those who don’t see the lies are hopelessly stupid and incapable of thinking for themselves is exactly the kind of false dichotomy that mainstream lies are built on.

            Like

            Reply

          4. @ScottRC

            “you seem to be devaluing the worth of everyone who hasn’t figured out what you’ve figured out.”

            I stated explicitly in one of my earlier comments the exact opposite sentiment to what you are suggesting here.

            Did you fail to read what I wrote; did you read it and forget; or did you read it, recall full well what I wrote, but merely want to misrepresent me for some kind of rhetorical game you may be playing?

            In this instance I will put your error down to oversight rather than malice, and repeat for you what I wrote earlier:

            “The vast, vast majority of people alive today, and this includes those who move in the same conspiracy culture circles as ourselves, are more or less here to keep the place interesting, to serve the coffee, empty the garbage bins, maintain the roads, etc etc etc… This does not make them bad people, it does not make myself or those like me any ‘better’ as human beings than the NPCs. But there is a significant difference between thinking people, and the thoughtless masses.”

            I hope this is pithy enough to clear up your confusion. I do not consider myself better, in any moral or ‘human’ sense, or via some abstract notion of ‘worth’, than the person who cannot or will not think for himself.

            I am however different from the thoughtless masses in a substantial and important way. There are others out there who are also different from the thoughtless masses, and some of them partake in the conversation on websites like PoM (which is why I like to read the posts and comments here).

            Can you understand this simple distinction, Scott? The distinction between ‘better’ and ‘different’? Do you understand that to say something is different from another thing, does not entail a value judgement or comparison of ‘worth’?

            Like

            Reply

          5. Gosh, John, I really appreciate how concerned you are about my mental abilities. I actually did read the passage you quote. I also read this passage:
            “I don’t personally think they are evil or ‘bad’. They are just stupid, exactly as they seem designed to be.”
            I guess somehow, in my inferior little brain, your characterization of these “different” people as “stupid” made me think you felt superior to them. What a fool I was. Go on and keep promoting your website. I won’t bother you anymore with my idiocy.

            Like

            Reply

          6. Maybe someday, if I work real hard and apply myself, I’ll be worthy to make your coffee and empty your garbage bins. Until then, I’ll be sure to stay as far away from you as I possibly can. Okay?

            Like

            Reply

          7. @ScottRC

            “I guess somehow, in my inferior little brain, your characterization of these “different” people as “stupid” made me think you felt superior to them.”

            This may be a case of projection i.e. you feel superior to people who are more stupid than yourself, so you assume that others do as well.

            I don’t feel inherently ‘superior’ to people I am taller than, I simply see myself as taller.

            I don’t feel inherently ‘inferior’ to people who are taller than me, I simply see myself as shorter.

            Same deal with intelligence or cleverness or however we choose describe the ability or capacity for thinking.

            No need for value judgements.

            Perhaps in time you will reach a similar level of objectivity.

            Then again, perhaps not. Objectivity does not appear to me to be prerequisite for a happy and productive life, which I hope you are leading and will continue to lead.

            No animosity from my end. Good bye and good luck.

            Like

            Reply

          8. WARNING: Do not read if gratuitous assholery offends you.

            I missed this comment when it was originally posted and am so glad I found it. I assume Le Bon has left the building—I hope he has, for the time being anyway—because although I love this more than anything I’ve read in quite a while, my joy will come off as hateful, which really is a shame. Since I’m a non-playing character in his world though, my Strengths list shouldn’t include the power to hurt his feelings, so the hell with it.

            I’m a stage actor and especially love playing Polonius-like intellectual buffoons (yeah, it’s a real stretch). As soon as I read this, I copied and pasted it into Word and put it into script format. I can imagine this exchange being right at home in a Joe Orton farce.

            MAN #1: I guess somehow, in my inferior little brain, your characterization of these “different” people as “stupid” made me think you felt superior to them.

            MAN #2: This may be a case of projection i.e. you feel superior to people who are more stupid than yourself, so you assume that others do as well. I don’t feel inherently ‘superior’ to people I am taller than, I simply see myself as taller. I don’t feel inherently ‘inferior’ to people who are taller than me, I simply see myself as shorter. Same deal with intelligence or cleverness or however we choose to describe the ability or capacity for thinking. No need for value judgements. Perhaps in time you will reach a similar level of objectivity. Then again, perhaps not. Objectivity does not appear to me to be prerequisite for a happy and productive life, which I hope you are leading and will continue to lead. No animosity from my end. Good bye and good luck.

            I think a lot of actors savor well-written dialogue like food. To me, this is like a juicy steak dinner. Every word is delicious. The smugly self-satisfied, bluntly ridiculous dig about the other man’s “case of projection,” combined with the haughtily condescending protestation of not feeling superior, makes my mouth water. It could have ended with “Perhaps in time you will reach a similar level of objectivity,” and I would have been more than satisfied. But then comes that decadent dessert of benedictory bullshit at the end and oh my God it’s just exquisite. If you’re out there, John—seriously, I know our game is over and I’m just squeezing a dead joystick now, being pointlessly mean—but I’m also one hundred percent sincere. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

            Like

            Reply

          9. Just so it is understood by all, I enjoy JLB and would spend more time at his site if I didn’t have to pay for access. That’s totally his affair, mind you, and I am not complaining. People have asked on occasion why I have not monetized this site, and the simple answer is I don’t know how, but beyond that don’t want to drive everyone off. What we do here is fun.

            Anyway, JLB automatically goes to moderation when he posts comments here. I don’t cause that, I would end it if I knew how. It is some quirk in the WordPress works where they try to filter out spam … and they do a good job, but JLB takes a hit in that process. So I have to release his comments, and sometimes I get busy and you don’t see them for maybe a day or two … makes dialogue difficult.

            Like

            Reply

          10. John, you lose all credibility and respect by charging for your conspiracy work. Just like powers to be. Miles may be right about you. I agree with Scott too. I can’t trust. Grandiose complex. I will end with this; when our work reaches the critical mass of people, say 10 percent of world’s population, TPTB will disappear over night sort of speak. This is the ultimate goal after all. To make the world happy and us healthy.

            Like

            Reply

          11. @Misty

            Just in reply to your comments…

            “John, you lose all credibility and respect by charging for your conspiracy work.”
            &
            “I will end with this; when our work reaches the critical mass of people, say 10 percent of world’s population, TPTB will disappear over night sort of speak.”

            To be fair to JLB, he does have close to 100 members at his website. So I’d argue that he is producing “work” that quite a few people believe is worth paying a few dollars a month for. And I’d suggest that he is doing his part in reaching that “critical mass” you speak of.
            The membership fee is also an effective way of ensuring that those who participate at the site are serious about honest/open discussion, and zero time is wasted with the “trolling” and combative behavior that you run in to on other comment threads in this “scene”.

            You see, as much as people like to get online and attack or be beligerent in some way… none of them are willing to pay a few dollars a month to do it, apparantely.
            So it works out for those of us who have grown tired of having to read through countless comments from people who like to bitch, attack, troll, or just be contrary and try to derail a discussion. Every other “conspiracy group” I’ve participated with has (at one point or another) devolved into attacking and fighting, both with other groups and within the group itself.
            You are probably aware of how common that is. In fact, I would suggest that many people in this “scene” actually enjoy the dramas that unfold, and seek them out… either by causing them or spurring them on with goading comments. It’s conspiracy candy to them.
            Perhaps the paying members at JLB.com are getting what they are paying for?
            And that is more than just “conspiracy research”?

            That said, I do appreciate your earnest desire to wake the world up.
            Do you have a link to someplace where we can read/digest your work?
            Judging from your comment, you are doing your part, and it makes sense to share it with as many of the rest of us as possible.

            Like

            Reply

          12. For the record, I don’t begrudge anyone making money for the creation of any content people want to pay for. What annoyed me in my exchange with JLB was that he purported to be having an open and friendly discussion with me, but was in fact trying to discredit me by putting words in my mouth, making baseless assumptions about me, and psychologizing me in order to protect his brand. He has every right to promote his work here and since I’m not familiar with it, I can’t be critical of it or of the community he has attracted to his site. The samples of his overall philosophy and outlook did not appeal to me. I found it funny that he kept chastising me for refusing to spend time with free samples of a product he had failed to interest me in, so I had a little fun with him.

            Practically everywhere I go, I am marketed to. On the Internet I’m often marketed to by people who attempt to create the illusion they just want to have a friendly conversation. Usually I just have to shut up and take it. Here, I don’t. So I didn’t.

            Misty-I find it hard to imagine 10 percent of the people who read this blog-much less 10 percent of the entire population-agreeing about what is true and what is not true and who is lying and who is not. I’d be surprised if 10 percent of JLB’s membership has reached such a consensus and I don’t see it as a desiranobodyal. It seems to me that if everyone agrees, nobody grows.

            Like

            Reply

        2. I’m also fascinated by your attitude toward parents who use sonograms. You would rather put responsibility on them than the people who make the sonograms and are part of the system that propagandizes and mind-controls those parents and the vast majority of the population from cradle to grave. It seems to me that your worldview involves a convoluted form of gaslighting that I believe TPTB use to justify their continued exploitation of the ignorant. “If they’re too stupid to figure out what’s going on, they deserve whatever we do to them.”

          Attempts to understand the machinations and manipulations of the elite are exercises of the mind, and most people’s minds (including mind) have been systematically polluted. But wisdom and the capacity to do good in the world goes beyond mind, goes beyond intellect, and (I believe, anyway) can be achieved by people who don’t know what they don’t know. Which is all of us, including you and me. Not being familiar with your website, I have no idea what you’re preaching, but the little sample you’ve provided here doesn’t inspire my confidence.

          Like

          Reply

          1. @ScottRC

            As you rightly pointed out yourself, you are clearly not familiar with my work, and you therefore have no idea what you are talking about when try to pass judgement on what you imagine my conclusions and and positions to be.

            If you are interested in finding out what I am putting forward BEFORE judging it, then here is an audiochat I recorded on fakeologist about six months ago, dealing specifically with what I call the Ultrasound Hoax.

            https://fakeologist.com/blog/2019/03/22/fac538-jlb-ab/

            I can see from your comments in this thread that you are probably not really interested in constructive dialogue, not in objective truth, perhaps it is unlikely that you will listen to that call in full before replying with another snarky remark.

            For others who are following this discussion, and interested to learn more about the harms of ultrasound on unborn babies, I recommend you check out that audio, and if you have any questions, feel free to email me, make sure you mention PoM, and I will respond in short order.

            This is one of the more important topics I have delved into during my five years as a podcaster / youtuber / writer. A word of caution though: this line of inquiry, and ‘birth trauma’ in general, is one gigantic bottle of black pills. The horror.

            Like

            Reply

          2. @JLB
            Nice pivot. Yes, I have judged what you’ve “put forward” in this comment section without having read or heard all the other things you’ve written and said over the years, just as you’ve past judgment on what I’ve put forward here without having read or heard anything I’ve written and said over the years. That’s how conversations with strangers work. But your purpose in here is obviously marketing and self-promotion, not “serious conversation,” so have at it.

            Like

            Reply

    4. JLB, I’m afraid I don’t follow any of your arguments. People think you’re a limited hangout and you know you’re not. Therefore limited hangouts don’t exist? If everyone mistook you for Robert Redford, that wouldn’t mean there’s no such thing as Robert Redford.
      Furthermore, you assume that I’m assuming TPTB create limited hangouts because they’re afraid of people like me. I do not assume that. I imagine limited hangouts are just another layer on the bullshit cake. And not a particularly difficult layer to create, either. Slap a website together, barf up some content while watching mass shooter and climate change spokesperson auditions, click submit, then go photoshop some pics for the evening news. You are ridiculing beliefs about TPTB that are not necessarily shared by people who suspect the existence of limited hangouts.

      Like

      Reply

      1. @ScottRC

        Your Robert Redford comparison is a false equivalence. We already know that ‘Robert Redford’ exists so by using him in your comparison/analogy, you also appear to be doing something akin to begging the question i.e. presupposing the existence of the entity whose existence is being challenged.

        In other words, your comparison is fallacious.

        Is it possible that some government agency pays people to disrupt online forums? Sure, anything is possible. And it would be easy for them to do, if they really wanted to.

        The first question is, do we have any actual evidence that this is happening? I haven’t seen it.

        Conspiracy culture is full of people repeating the memes to one another, ‘paid shills’, ‘disingo agents’, ‘controlled op’, etc, so much so that it has become a dogma of the subculture, but does the constant repetition of these claim make them true? No, it does not.

        The next question is, is there any motive for such a thing to be taking place? I don’t believe so.

        As I explained, TPWRTS are putting the truth in our faces. If they were so worried about the truth being shared, why would they be sharing it so flagrantly and blatantly themselves? Can anybody explain this to me?

        Bonus points if you can avoid using the Michael A Hoffman II ‘revelation of the method’ meme.

        If you personally prefer to believe that a nefarious group is somehow trying to stop yourself or people like you from sharing important information or ideas with one another, that is your prerogative. My final question to you is this: would be willing to entertain the idea that, for however long you have believed this to be the case, you have been wrong?

        Like

        Reply

        1. @JLB

          I’m always willing to entertain the possibility that I’m wrong, and I often discover that I am. As you know very well, it’s pretty much impossible to know if we’re right when we talk about the various subjects that preoccupy us in conspiracy culture. The best we can do is come up with theories that make sense given what we’re seeing.

          I guess a lot of people think paid shills and limited hangouts exist in order to disrupt free discussion of what TPTB is up to. I agree with you that this theory doesn’t ring true. I also agree that conspiracy culture, like all cultures, is filled with groupthink and jingoism.

          As I explained, TPWRTS are putting the truth in our faces. If they were so worried about the truth being shared, why would they be sharing it so flagrantly and blatantly themselves? Can anybody explain this to me?

          Obviously I can’t explain what I have no way of knowing, any more than you can. Here’s a theory that comes from me thinking for myself, not allowing you or Mark or Michael Hoffmann think for me. I put this theory forward in another comment here somewhere, but I’ll repeat it here.

          The Internet, while greatly serving the purposes of propaganda, surveillance and mind control that it was obviously passed on to us for, has the disadvantage of allowing people to look at past events like the moon landing in a way we never did before. It’s easier to see the seams in the fabric of past lies. I’m sure there has always been a certain small segment of the population that isn’t easy for the TPWRTS to fool, but despite the numbing effect the Internet has on the brain, a lot of people have “woken up” to inconsistencies in mainstream consensus reality by sharing information, examining and comparing documents and analyzing pasted-up photographs on the Internet. What does Power do when the unwashed masses see through their lies? They don’t worry about it. They just infiltrate our community exactly as they have admitted to infiltrating counterculture communities throughout history and guide us to manufacture a new fake reality that serves Power just as well as, or better than, the previous fake reality did. Reality creation is an ongoing process and they know that. The ignorant masses may cling to the myth of the moon landing, but they don’t. If they have to out old stories in order to make way for new ones, they do. And that may be why TPWRTS are “putting the truth in our faces,” as you put it. If they deliberately show us the fakery in the current reality, they can then use their paid shills and controlled opposition to help us interpret our little glimpses behind the curtain, guide us to have an understanding of it that is just as devoid of truth as mainstream consensus reality is. Over time, they turn counterculture reality into a new mainstream reality that they continue to control.

          My final question to you is this: would be willing to entertain this idea even if it doesn’t fit what you have been preaching behind your paywall?

          Like

          Reply

          1. @ScottRC

            Why do you use the term ‘preach’ to describe my work, and why do you focus on the paywall element of my website?

            I’ve produced literally hundreds of videos and podcasts and articles available completely for free, available to anybody right now, including material which focuses on the kinds of topics which you ostensibly seek to discuss in this thread.

            Why try to undermine and besmirch the material you know nothing about, rather than focus on the material which anybody can access instantly, right now, should they desire to do so?

            These are questions I do not expect you to answer truthfully here in the comments section of this blog. Perhaps they may give you pause for thought in your own mind.

            Whichever part of your mind is telling you that I am somehow an enemy of yours, or that you ought to treat me and my work with disrespect, that part of your mind is doing you a disservice, in my honest opinion.

            I wish you well and mean you no harm.

            Like

            Reply

          2. You didn’t answer my question, but I’ll answer yourse, truthfully. (You also didn’t expect I would answer your question about why TPWRTS might be putting the truth in our faces, but I did.)

            Why do you use the term ‘preach’ to describe my work, and why do you focus on the paywall element of my website?

            Because it makes your perspective on the subjects we discuss here a marketable commodity that you are clearly, obviously, unambiguously marketing as you engage in discussion on this site. Because even in the comment section, outside of your paywall, you talk down to everyone here, even those you agree with. Nothing in any of the comments you have made here, to me or to people who have been nice to you, suggests that you are here to learn. You yourself say that you visit these sites to ‘observe.’ Like you are studying animals in the wild or something. Because every comment you make has the fussy preciousness of a self-protective preacher. (I wouldn’t have said those things because they are personal attacks and you may have noticed I haven’t done that as I’ve debated you. I have attacked your positions and not you personally. But you asked.)

            I don’t enjoy making that personal attack on you and I will try to mitigate it by sharing personal information of my own. My father was a minister. He was not and is not a bad person. I love him. But from the time I was a kid I could see that he clearly didn’t respect the intelligence of his congregation, even though I know he cared about them, liked them, wanted to be a force for good in their lives, and was a force for good in many of their lives. But his views on God did not evolve–they were fixed–they had to be, because in his mind, to change his views would be to risk losing his followers. And actually, I know his views did change, that he lost whatever faith he once had. He’s now long retired, admits to being an atheist, and admits he was an atheist throughout the last years of his career, but he couldn’t admit it to others and wasn’t really able to admit it to himself.

            You will probably assume I attack you because I have daddy issues, but I really don’t. I have an uncle who is also a minister, also retired, but unlike my father he has a rich and rewarding life, has been happily married to the same woman all his life, and pursues a wide variety of interests. He is one of the most engaging and charming people I know and I love him dearly. The difference between him and my father is that he respected the intelligence of his congregation. As his religious and worldviews evolved and changed, he shared them, even when they clearly went against the traditions and dogma of his church. He is able to talk with people rather than talking at them. I suppose that may be the most crucial difference between him and my father.

            I perceive that you talk at rather than with people here in this comment section. You make pronouncements like the NPC thing that I find absurd and when I challenge you on it, instead of engaging with me, you assume that I hold the same beliefs of others who have challenged you in the past (the masses aren’t ignorant–there will be an awakening–the elite are scared of people like me and trying to prevent us from speaking freely…positions I did not hold and that I gave you no reason to think I hold, but that over the years you have presumably heard many times, and have constructed ready-made responses for. In the last comment of yours that I responded to, you called for me (or anyone) to answer your question about why TPTB might be putting the truth in plain sight. Your tone clearly suggested that nobody would do it, and if they did they would only say things you’ve already heard before and that you reject (the Hoffmann meme.) But I actually did give you an answer, based on original thought (which you claim to value so highly), and you apparently have nothing to say about it.

            I don’t hate you and I don’t necessarily think you are deliberately disingenuous or intellectually dishonest. But you are here to sell something, and you are protective of what you are selling, whereas most people here (well, I’ll speak for myself)–whereas I am here to share and to learn and to be among others who are sharing and learning.

            There are lots of people here who hold views I disagree with. My natural inclination is to say nothing or to express disagreement in a diplomatic way that searches for common ground. But if someone comes in here to sell me a viewpoint and I question it and the person then goes on the attack, I attack back.

            I hope I’ve answered your questions. Do you have any intention of answering mine?

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

          3. @ScottRC

            “you talk down to everyone here, even those you agree with”

            Is it possible that this is your subjective perception, rather than an objective truth?

            “You yourself say that you visit these sites to ‘observe.’ Like you are studying animals in the wild or something.”

            I’m here to learn. That has been my raison d’etre from the moment I got involved in ‘alternative’ online conversation and material, circa 2013. What are you here for, if not to learn? And how will you learn if not by observation and discussion?

            “…as I’ve debated you”

            I didn’t even realise we were having a debate. I visit sites like this to read and to discuss, not to debate. If I am going to debate somebody, I prefer to do it properly, with set topics, defined terms, etc. I used to have structured, live, on-air debates back in the day, but my desire for that kind of interaction has waned considerably over the past few years.

            Anyhow, thank you for sharing more about your own background, it is definitely relevant to your criticisms of my persona / interaction style. I don’t agree with your criticisms of me but I believe they are sincere, you mean what you say, you are not merely being rhetorical, your background context makes everything more clear.

            I cannot and will not be everybody’s cup of tea. And I’m not your cup of tea. This is okay.

            As I said earlier, I truly wish you well. I don’t have any real enemies online, or even in ‘real life’ as far as I am concerned. My only enemies are inside my own head, I seem to defeat one but another soon takes its place, 32 years old and I still have not found peace; maybe one day, I remain optimistic.

            Like

            Reply

          4. @JLB

            Just now seeing your response and am glad there are no hard feelings. Responding to you the way I have has helped me clarify my own understanding of some things and opened avenues of exploration in other areas. Polite and diplomatic discussion has its place, but I find there’s a whole lot of wisdom to be mined from getting a little nasty. You’ve been doing this professionally for a long time now so I knew you’d have to have a thick skin. Anyway, I’m genuinely grateful you let me keep prodding you and that you kept prodding back for as long as we did.

            Even though I don’t relate to much of what you’ve posted here (that I’ve seen anyway), I relate to every sentence of your last paragraph:

            As I said earlier, I truly wish you well. I don’t have any real enemies online, or even in ‘real life’ as far as I am concerned. My only enemies are inside my own head, I seem to defeat one but another soon takes its place, 32 years old and I still have not found peace; maybe one day, I remain optimistic.

            So well said. For me, the only difference is I’m 49 and have a HELL of a lot more peace than I did at 32. I wish the same for you and that it maybe comes sooner.

            Okay, now I really am going to shut up for a while because I swear to God, every time I visit this site and look at the Recent Comments list I’m like Jesus Christ, doesn’t ScottRC have a fucking life???

            Like

            Reply

        2. (By the way, I knew the Redford thing wasn’t a perfect analogy but it was a funny line and I couldn’t resist. Also, it served the purpose of illustrating your logical fallacy: “I am A. People mistake me for B. Therefore, B doesn’t exist.” Thanks for the logic lesson though.)

          Like

          Reply

  6. “Nobody here, and nobody on my site or on fakeologist or on cluesforum or the MM website is ANY kind of threat to TPWRTS”… True (and for many reasons… but I will not elaborate on this one). I agree with the sentence quoted, but it does not void the fact that there are agents, “gurus”, gatekeepers, etc.etc. To think otherwise is not understanding the mind of the powerful.

    Like

    Reply

    1. @Lawrence

      I agree with you that there appears to be gate-keepers, individuals who appear to be making it their duty to interfere with logical, productive discourse on online forums and similar outlets.

      The key word here is APPEAR. We may view the ‘paid shill/agent’ notion as one plausible explanation for this behaviour, but are there other explanations?

      Over the years I have come to learn that some people, even relatively intelligent/educated people, enjoy playing the role of the destructive interlocutor, and this overlaps with the ‘contrarian’ mindset.

      These people will happily interfere with productive conversation, not because they are paid to do so, but because they derive satisfaction from it (consciously or subconsciously). They like to talk in circles, take conversations off topic, undermine other participants in the conversation, and so on and so forth. This is what they enjoy doing when in communication with other people.

      There is one person in particular who comes and goes from fakeologist.com, and he is a classic example of such a personality type. He quite enjoys interfering with productive discourse, and will argue back and forth over the very same topics, and repeat the very same logical fallacies, year after year after year. He will reluctantly agree with the premises of a position but then deny the conclusion, only to begin the process again.

      It would be easy to put his behaviour down to it being his ‘job’, but there is another explanation, one which is in some ways more depressing / unsettling: this is actually just how he is. This is just how some humans are. This is what they consider to be worthwhile conversation, a worthwhile way to pass the time.

      You can try to explain why a person would be this way: perhaps they discovered at a young age that playing the role of contrarian would garner them more attention (good attention or bad attention) than merely agreeing with the group. Perhaps they discovered at a young age that most people cannot articulately defend their positions, and thus came to view themselves as ‘smart’ by constantly deconstructing other peoples positions. Whatever the case, this is just how some people are.

      They APPEAR to be gatekeepers because that is the role they play (whether or not they realise it), but it does not necessarily follow that they are paid by anybody to do so.

      It has only been by way of constant observation of humans, both inside and outside of conspiracy culture, over many years, that I have come to see and understand this element of human nature. Even the relatively intelligent / educated ones can effectively be as dumb as rocks, and not only will these individuals fail to progress a conversation, they will actively undermine, for that is all they are able to do, that is their contribution to this world.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I have long believed that politics, as practiced by the general public, exists and is engaged because it gives people a sense of moral and intellectual superiority over others. The character “Obama” was constructed for this reason and made to be black and a scholar. Democrats drizzled with hubris … “look at me, I support a black man” (morally superior) and “he’s a scholar” (intellectual).

        I suggest to people on FB now and then that we are not allowed to see Trump’s tax returns for the same reason we cannot see Obama’s college transcripts … not for what they contain, but for what they do not contain. Trump is not a business mogul, and Obama is not a scholar. The men are just paid actors.

        As the song goes, “…no, no, you can’t take that away from me.” People cling firmly to mythology that reflects on their own vanity.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Well, not only that. Politics and the State in general is used (by the powerful) as a funnel for laws (by and for the powerful) which give their wishes “legality”. Do we think relevant bills and laws come out of the minds of congressmen? Hell no. Do the powerful use the conduit of Congress to make their wants/wishes legal (legislate, legalize)? Hell yes.

          Like

          Reply

      2. Yeah, I was not circumscribing it only to the scope of online written commentators… You can tell when one is well versed/lacks background in Rethoric, Grammar and Logic… I was talking about society in general… and for sure they exist and keep cashing those checks.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “You can tell when one is well versed/lacks background in Rhetoric, Grammar and Logic”

          Indeed. I sometimes wonder where I would be right now had I never been introduced to concepts concerning introductory logic, the common logical fallacies, standard form argumentation, etc etc, in my early university days.

          Had I not been encouraged to truly ‘think about my thinking’ in that way, at a relatively young age (late teens / early 20s), would I have ever stumbled upon these ideas elsewhere, later in life?

          This is one of the reasons why I like to read and listen to the reflections of others in this scene (as I call it), the fringe of the fringe, the people who are aware of media fakery and other esoteric elements which even most ‘conspiracy theorists’ cannot handle. I like to find out, what brought you here?

          How did we end up here? What were the turning points, the events in our lives which altered the path from that point forward? It seems to me that for a lot of us, a few classes in logic early(ish) in our lives made a dramatic difference.

          This is not the only way people end up here, but it appears to me to be a common element to many.

          Like

          Reply

          1. You are 32? I think back … a house full of rug rats, Sunday church, a wife I secretly hated, and the knowledge that I was trapped, my own doing, cannot abandon kids. I did break free, at great cost, but the point is that I look at you at age 32 and think that it is good to be smart when you are young. I was not.

            Like

            Reply

  7. All very interesting.
    It does seem that conspiracy mongering has become a full time occupation that very conveniently fills our heads. What would we be thinking of if we weren’t trying to fathom out a common denominator that pulls in all the disparate threads of multiple conspiracy theories to make ourselves a meaningful cloth?
    I do believe the media intentionally provides us with MacDonald quality fast food for thought, especially in the shape of photoshopped pictures. They really can’t be THAT slapdash can they ? If we can see it, so can they. For your thoughts I wanted to upload a couple of recent photos of a couple of members of the Royal Family which appeared recently in our daily rags and are outrageously amateur photoshops .Unfortunately I’m unable to do it ……………..my, lack of IT knowledge I’m afraid.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I once had a website that I could use to load photos that would become availabel to the public to view and download. I have lost that information. If anyone else has it, please supply.

      If you want to email me the photos as an attachment, I can upload them within your comment. mark at mpthct dot com.

      Like

      Reply

    2. @Elaverita
      It is interesting, isn’t it? This little discussion has made me realize that the conspiracy community, though small, has a much greater potential for market growth than the much larger (but shrinking) audience for mainstream news. If TPTB were smart, it seems like they would experiment with ways to profit from all the people who are beginning to notice that false realities from the past (moon landing, Manson, 9/11, etc.) don’t hold up to scrutiny and that current mainstream reality looks increasingly fake. Since most of the people noticing this have been primed to react to information in an emotional and ego-gratifying way, you could probably get them to pay you to point out the obvious to them–pushing the exact same buttons and using the exact same emotional triggers the mainstream media uses–as you explain how fake the mainstream media is. Over time, TPTB might be able to create a whole new fake reality for the masses, using the naivete of the very people who saw through the old fake reality and flattered themselves that they were so much smarter than all those stupid Non-Playing Character sheeple who didn’t.

      But hey, TPTB probably aren’t smart enough to think of that, right?

      Like

      Reply

    1. The fact that “le Bon” speaks against Simon Shack/Cluesforum, is quite enough for me.

      The fact that this site backs him up, is quite enough for me.
      I’m through now, you’ll be glad to know. I might check in but I no longer trust you.

      Like

      Reply

  10. “Sven Svenson” (a poor choice, as it should be Svensson):

    “All the above should be enough to close the case on Greta, and I still haven’t even touched on the biggest jaw-dropper about her. She is related to the Nobel Prize-winning scientist Svante Arrhenius.

    Never heard of him? [I have, no need to paternalize me]

    Don’t worry, Wikipedia will clue you in: [which you as a true NPC believes, see below]

    Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth’s surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. These calculations led him to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science.

    So Greta just happens to be related to the father of modern climate science. Seriously?? That pretty much flips Greta’s entire story on its head, doesn’t it? The media is not unaware of this connection, mind you. There are a few sites out there that mention it, but they pass it off as a funny coincidence, even claiming Greta was unaware of her relation to Arrhenius before she became interested in climate change. If you’re naïve enough to believe that, you will believe anything.”

    Page 3

    Not only did “Sven Svenson” brainlessly copy this Wikipedia quote and Greta’s and other mainstream claims about this “family relation”, but he also failed to do that what “he” claims; researching her genealogy.

    I did just the same thing on the same day, it is all documented on Fakeopedia, with a link to an interesting podcast, FRAC 21, about these Globalist Agenda Child Soldiers.

    Relationship Thunberg-Arrhenius:

    It is said that Thunberg is related to Nobel Prize winning chemist (1903) Svante Arrhenius (greenhouse effect)[G 6]

    Arrhenius’ mother is a Thunberg,[G 7] but her father is according to Geni Johan Petter Thunberg,[G 8] not Johan Peter Thunberg[G 9], married to Catharina Elisabeth Pettersdotter,[G 10] and not Arrhenius’ grandmother Brita Sigrid Thunberg Pettersson.[G 11]

    “If you’re naïve enough to believe that, you will believe anything”

    Well said, “Sven”. Nailed it.

    Like

    Reply

  11. Re: MM and whether it’s possible for one person to output so much material…

    A couple of years ago I “caught fire” and sat down at my computer and began to write. I did that almost non-stop, every waking hour, for just about 30 days. At the end of that time I had roughly 250,000 words on paper. I’m told that the average book page is about 250 words. If that is true then I wrote the equivalent of a 1,000 page novel in one month, including editing.

    Caveats:
    -I barely wrote anything in the ensuing months. It took half a year for me to “wind down” from the effects of such sustained output. By effects I mean such experiences as having a voice in my head (yes, literally) “narrating” all the events of the day. (“He filled a pan with water and placed it on the stove, intending to brew up the morning’s coffee with it”, etc.)

    -I recollect most of what I wrote, but a significant portion of it seemed to have arrived on the page without my assistance. There are entire essays/articles of which I have zero memory of either writing them or researching for them, yet I know that I did because others remember me doing both and because the style is so clearly my own.

    I’ve written to Miles twice. Once was to ask for visual aids to accompany many of his science papers. (Diagrams or .gifs or… something). I received no reply, however not long after that he began to diagram nuclei, and provided diagrams and an animation for his “stacked spins” theory.

    The second time was recently, in response to his paper on “Dolly’s Braces”. MM came to the conclusion that agents of the Matrix, for lack of a better term, have literally gone around the world altering copies of the film “Moonraker”, to remove the character Dolly’s braces. I pointed out to him what I felt, and still feel, was a far more sensible proposition: there were multiple prints filmed in the first place, some depicting the character with braces and some not. Audiences were shown different prints in different places at different times, after which the prints with the braces-wearing character were destroyed, leaving those who had seen that print questioning their own recollection of what they saw, which is what I assume the point of the ruse was in the first place.

    I never received a reply. To be charitable I’ll assume that he’s so very busy writing so very many things that he simply has no energy left to write a simple email. Or he just doesn’t like me and my questions, or maybe it’s something else entirely. Who knows?

    But I do know that it’s within the realm of possibility to write a quarter of a million words in one month. Whether any of those words are worth reading is different matter.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment