A word about yesterday’s exchanges

A brief word on an exchange yesterday under the post titled A project Gone Awry: Transcribing a Kaufman Interview. Ordinarily I don’t much care what goes on in the comments here. People get in arguments, change the subject, sometimes get testy. All in good human fun, as the people who frequent this blog are usually smart and opinionated. However, I took issue yesterday with Maarten for the following reasons:

  • One, he attacks people who have checkered pasts for that reason alone. Redemption does not exist in his world, that is, if you are on his hit list. Apparently you’ve got to be Caesar’s wife to enter the arena of the Scamdemic and have credibility. The two people he attacked. Dr. Andy Kaufman and Dr. Tom Cowan, each went into medicine with belief in the system, and became disenchanted and disaffected. They each chose new paths. The financial fallout from such moves is too much for most to endure, but these two men acted on their consciences. I admire them. Those who remain in the system, who maintain belief or who have doubts but are afraid to speak up are far less credible, in my mind, than those who turn their backs.

The photo above, by the way, is me, a real human being with good and bad qualities, abilities and shortcomings. That’s how I look, now at age 70. My wife took the picture, as you can see by the shadow. Photography is a strong point for neither of us.

  • Maarten brought us two videos, which I watched, both by a man calling himself Another Perspective, for whom there was no vetting, no background check, but a mere forceful presentation given automatic credibility by Maarten because it was critical of Dr. Andrew Kaufman. (For the record, I found both fatally flawed. They start with the presumption that Sars-Cov-2 had been isolated and can be broken down into genetic components that are then found with 100% accuracy by the RT-PCR machine. This is impossible. The man appears to be a professional “fact checker,” something done only by people who believe in the scam, and something well described by James Corbett.)
  • He attacked me in a very personal way, making reference to my activity on blogs in Montana over ten years ago. This gave me the creeps, as all except three of those blogs are now dead. I’ve long suspected that every single word we place on a blog is saved somewhere in perpetuity. But to search for and find my comments from such a long time ago is a background check. Just as with Kaufman and Cowan, Maarten was vetting me too. I’ve got nothing criminal in my past, nothing to hide save occasional burst of temper. I have staying power, that is, after fourteen years of this nonsense, I am still at it while all the others have fallen by the wayside. I have always, except during a brief interval trying to reinvent this blog, used my real name. I thought that hiding behind a pseudonym, a necessity for people who have to answer to their “superiors,” was for me cowardly. I own my words, which includes mistakes I’ve made. I don”t care. That’s the best learning tool available. I answer to no one in life save my wife. This does leave me open to attack, but as I say, the feeling that Maarten was sneaking around and looking for dirt on me, as he has done with Kaufman and Cowan, gave me the creeps. (By the way, I long ago purged this blog of all exchanges with those people, at least all I could find. I had moved on, and this blog had so changed in substance that there was no place for them here.)
  • When I called him out, laid out in some very Maarten-like challenge words, questions and shortcomings in his comments that I wanted clarified, he went silent. In purely human terms, he snubbed me. I’ve been snubbed in better places than this, but still, I don’t like it. That part is just personal.
  • He referred to those of us who do not buy into the existence of the virus or of the disease called Covid 19 as “Covid deniers.” That’s a propaganda technique, and a strange thing to say.

At first I merely closed off comments on the post so I could gather my senses and behave properly. I then decided that the best course of action was to remove the offensive comments, which I did. With them went every response to those comments, including my own.

The comments are still alive and in the trash bin, which I think does get emptied by WordPress on occasion. I’ve got time to think about it, and if I approve them again, all the responses will reappear to. I’ll probably put everything back today or tomorrow. But for right now, Maarten has, in my view, gotten carried away with his own mental and moral superiority, and that chafes. He is not banned, as he’s been a friend of the blog for too long for such an indignity.

I do, however, need a break from him, and probably, he from me.

53 thoughts on “A word about yesterday’s exchanges

  1. So hard to escape the thesis-antithesis-synthesis box constructed and maintained meticulously by our self-appointed masters. Need to escape? What about at least considering the possibility of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on viable alternatives to the truth as it is perceived today? This conventional hamster wheel is going nowhere.


  2. How did a 757 make a 16′ hole in the Pentagon on 911…. Kaufman and the bunch may not be perfect but at least they ask those questions….

    Liked by 1 person

  3. That’s a great picture of you Mark looking healthy , fit and nowhere near your age. You must have a good wife there !!
    It’s getting beyond ridiculous now with all the double/ treble bluffing and extremely difficult to ascertain who is genuine and who isn’t. You look like a genuine guy to me and I’ve noticed that you’re always willing to let commenters have a go at persuading you to their way of thinking if they can back it up . So many blog owners aren’t. It’s THEIR way or no way , full stop.
    I think Mark just gets out of bed the wrong way some mornings and is ripe for a fight with just about anybody. I don’t think it’s personal .
    Keep up the good work. I don’t comment a lot but I DO read your blogs .
    PS Fauxlex once accused me of being opposition because apparently I was listed under several names. Can I just explain that there is nothing untoward about this. What happens is that the required name deletes itself and because I don’t post often I forget the name I have been using. It’s usually a version of my real name. Unlike you I’m not confident enough in my offerings to give my real name. Just thought I’d clear that one up.


    1. Was it even a question in the discussion yesterday whether or not Mark was a real person? I didn’t see anything like that, so I find this strange and almost like a backwards way to insinuate that Maarten is not the real person that Mark is.

      Clearly, we are all real people, whether using our birth names or not. The feelings expressed yesterday are real as can be, on all sides. The question is always related to agendas, and that question will forever be a mystery to me on all sides.


    2. Also, yes, if I told you to not be a sock puppet, that is still advice I would stand by. If you show up under many names, there will always be a natural suspicion. And if you are who I think, I encouraged you to stick around as long as you were just interested in the content and not making trouble.

      To say you just forgot your name is maybe plausible once. At that point, pick a name and stick around with it. If you are using the same device and registered, it remembers your name. This is why it is a hallmark of legitimate people, and multiple names/no login is more probable to be less legitimate. If you are just against signing up with WordPress, fine. I said before and will say again, as long as you aren’t here to stir up trouble there is no problem.


    3. Lol, try bringing up flat earth. So much for an open mind. And yes it is both disappointing and frustrating . No one is perfect though but it would be nice to see continued growth in those who few who seem to be searching for truth.


  4. While I cannot deny that Maarten “kicked the hornets nest”, I am fascinated by the response. There ought not be any sacred cows, and it seems that Maarten attacked a sacred cow here. To question Kaufman is par for the course, or at least it should be. There was nothing inherently offensive about what he was saying. I also did not feel that your Montana blogging background was “personally attacked” so much as it was… “mentioned in passing”. Methinks you protest too much there. The background details are things you have spoken about at various times yourself. You cannot be so open about your identity (something I am not brave enough to be), yet at the same time protest so strongly at the mere mention of the background that you have repeatedly spoken about.

    On the ad hominem thing, I think that it has been mightily exaggerated the extent to which such an approach was relied upon by Maarten. It is not always wrong to consider such things. Maarten did not SOLELY question that aspect. He also linked to those videos thoroughly questioning the content of Kaufman’s arguments. So it was not any kind of exclusive reliance on ad hominem. It was all-encompassing. Which, again, is only a problem if Kaufman is off limits.

    Anyway, I would be remiss to not mention that I myself have serious doubts about Kaufman. He and Icke seem to have defended my Chromosome 8 post more strongly than I ever did. That information was found very early in the coronamania process, and was rightly questioned by a scientist in the comments. I did not fight with that commenter. My post had asked if I was wrong, and someone explained why I was essentially wrong. So be it. Because of this, I pushed the Chromosome 8 thing no further. It was left to gather dust. Anyway, imagine my surprise that 5 months later Icke and Kaufman ran with it in a way that Kaufman especially should have known better. He did mention some of the inherent issues with the finding, but he still used the heck out of it. If anything gives me the creeps, that gives me the creeps. He knowingly utilized my finding, which he knew wasn’t as big as it seemed, to further his arguments. Again, that’s what gives me the creeps.

    Aren’t these the questions that we should be asking? You took exception to the linked Kaufman critique videos because they seemed to treat PCR as a flawless process. I also had that same criticism, but it’s not a reason for me to completely disregard the remaining content. While I didn’t personally attack Kaufman, I certainly wasn’t about to continue linking to him. It is also not like Maarten is making anti-Kaufman posts. He merely questioned the guy in response to his being linked again here.

    You also mentioned PCR having a role in a major life event…again, kudos for being so open about this. It is confusing however to see that you accepted the PCR result in that case, but we are supposed to totally trash those Kaufman critique videos because they are not tough enough on PCR? They were critiques of Kaufman’s arguments, and it’s not like we need to include all valid critiques of PCR for any critique of Kaufman to be legitimate. If you accepted PCR in the past, then you do realize that PCR can sometimes work under the right circumstances with proper procedure. My main gripe on the Chromosome 8 thing is that it was sloppy procedure for the WHO to be using such short primer sequences, and ones that have not been checked against human DNA! So basically, we can critique PCR-adjacent information without having to totally trash PCR. Arguments against Kaufman can be valid without a full critique of PCR.

    I do not get great vibes out of Kaufman and his rise, and I speak from experience given the way my own content was unexpectedly utilized. With that said, I also agree with you wholeheartedly that PCR is garbage for trying to test a population for a murky viral boogeyman. It is possible to agree that PCR is being misused, but still have doubts about whether Kaufman is a new controlled opposition guy. It seems probable that he is.

    Even still, I think a whole heck of a lot of people are controlled opposition, and I still might watch them to try to suss out whatever truths might be lurking beneath the surface of their information. Truth begins in lies.

    All in all, I think Maarten absolutely rocked the boat, but I also think that he was not wrong to rock the boat. This post frames him as bad and creepy and wrong to have rocked the boat. I cannot agree. It is what we are supposed to be doing here. The response he has received has been more interesting than the boat rocking itself.


    1. Over at CTTF, Josh linked to a document that purports to be a COINTELPRO guide for disrupting online forums. https://archive.is/9NS27#selection-271.4-271.509

      In the list of ’25 Rules for Disinformation,” number five reads:

      Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth…

      Another unpopular title that COINTELPRO could add to that list would be “disinfo agent.” I can’t imagine anything making a disinfo agent happier than getting everybody all up in arms about whether or not this or that person is a disinfo agent.

      Am I accusing Maarten or Fauxlex of being disinfo agents? No. But it’s always in the back of my mind that virtually anyone I read or interact with online in the conspiracy community is a disinfo agent. I mean, come on, how old are we, and how long have we been on the Internet? I genuinely don’t understand why Maarten and Fauxlex are being so dramatic about it.

      Many of us now agree MMG is disinfo. Many of us also agree that, disinfo or not, his early papers (particularly Manson and JFK) were game-changing truth bombs. So maybe Kaufman’s a disinfo agent delivering similar truth bombs to facilitate his “meteoric rise” (the term Maarten hilariously uses to describe his becoming well-known among the handful of people in the conspiracy community). Maybe he’s a disinfo agent who’s as full of shit from the get-go as Dallas Goldbug. Maybe he’s somewhere in between, like Dave McGowan. Maybe he’s sincere and delivering truth bombs. Maybe he’s sincere and completely full of shit. We have no way of knowing. Why be drama queens about it?


      1. Dramatic? I hadn’t said a word in the exchange yesterday. Not a word. And I only made the comment above today because I believed Maarten to deserve such a defense. Your comment, the post above, and the responses to Maarten yesterday were those that were dramatic. To try and attach the label dramatic to myself in this little spat is completely upside-down and absurd. That sort of thing seems drawn right out of your cointel guidelines.

        The more appropriate response to Maarten questioning Kaufman would have been to defend Kaufman. Instead, we saw a coordinated ad hominem attack on Maarten, the whole thread from yesterday being pulled, and a new post in the morning framing Maarten as badly as possible. That wasn’t right, and I stand by my defense of him. None of this needed to be anything more than an honest discussion of the merits of Kaufman and his arguments. Instead, it has seemed like Maarten poked a stick where absolutely forbidden and the nastiness has been what has come in response.

        If there has been anyone following those disruption guidelines, it has certainly not been me. I said that I’ll never know from any side where the agendas lie. This kind of comment above, Scott, certainly reeks of exactly the kind of accusation that you sought to stick against Maarten and myself. I can’t speak for anyone but myself.

        This stuff is nasty and I want nothing more to do with it, for the time being. Yikes.


        1. Eh, you’re right, Fauxlex, I got carried away. In my defense, I will say that in yesterday’s exchange, I did exactly what you said the “appropriate response” would be and limited my comments to defending Kaufman against the charge of “unethical financial dealings” and other points in his background, even though I have no opinion on whether’s he’s disinfo or not and don’t care. I didn’t attack Maarten and tried to debate him on his own terms. My response here in this thread was gratuitous and regrettable and I’m done with it too.


          1. Amen. I will have to try and dig up what you said yesterday because you may well have taken that approach. If so, good on you. I never had any issue discussing Kaufman freely, pro and con. Especially if we’re going to keep linking to him.


    2. Forgive me if I’m mistaken but I seem to recall to maarten accused me of being a bot once upon a time. I got a kick out of his accusation seeing as I know I ain’t a bot but I agree with him that Kaufman has no clue what he’s talking about when it comes to pcr ans exosomes. Don’t know if it’s his hustle or not though. Chromosome 8 has 145 million base pairs per the narrative by the way.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. SMJ, you often speak in such esoteric language that I myself was willing to believe that you were a bot. Don’t speak in your intentionally coded fashion if you don’t want such accusations. You were talking about “wizard’s stories and one stone’s discreet packets of light”. You love to speak in code. Don’t put that on us. Express yourself in a manner that is not intended to be inscrutable and such things will not happen.


        1. The father of nuclear psience has hermes the thrice great on his coat of arms and einstein means one stone and photons(quanta) are discrete packets of light per the narrative. There is nothing esoteric about what I type.


  5. come on man, Kaufmann does not have a passionate bone in his body; he speaks of the most horrendous crimes against us as if he is reading a storybook to kindergarteners. It does not make you suspicious that his voice and expressions are so artificial. And then there is the fact that he is siding with Icke. Of course he is controlled opposition.

    By the way, it is good that mark lets the people have their say, but he has the bad habit of ignoring what he does not want to deal with, even when it is important and should be dealt with. But steve kelly did the same to me also:
    I told you that the most important issue here is really not the lies and scams of the governors but the fact that the people believe it; in a classroom of 40 children, the problem is not the two bullies but the 38 who let themselves be bullied; therefore i have continuously try to get you boys to focus on the law because BELIEVING IN THE NECCESSITY OF LAW shows that you do not see one of the main ways you are controlled.. from the inside out.
    Now, you will say that since the law is not going away, there is no point in discussing it, but in fact, once you see that all these crimes and lies can be perpetrated so easily because you have been domesticated by “the LAW”, then you will see things (and do things) from a different perspective.

    It is, as if you are all eternally discussing the ways in which an apple in front of you is poisoned, but you are not really looking at how you allowed it to get poisoned.


    1. Lol he does come across as numb doesn’t he. I think maybe he is a disinfo agent and not a very good one. He related a quote from a little girl it was I think to assert that the Spanish Flu was indeed real which can easily deter a slight skeptic into believing the same about covid. Has he said covid doesn’t exist? Not sure. These type always ring alarm bells for me because if he really has a medical background and is a skeptic why isn’t he bellowing his message to the medical community instead of fringe skeptics like us.


      1. numb… is a much better word…thank you…rigid is good also; artificial is not so suitable is it?
        But in any case, the way a man talks says everything doesn’t it?
        look at the guy..it is not just a style; it says something important that he does not seem to feel much of anything when he speaks…

        and see how i am ignored? I love it..

        …though i must say i agree also that he spoke of the Spanish flu as real and has never said flat out this is a psy op, has he…


  6. Maarten’s MO is not to attack someone based on the content of their words, which I implored him to do yesterday. Instead he took a sideways approach, and attacked the man’s character. I took that as both ad hominem and passive aggressive and I stand by that. His words about me and the Montana blogs ten years ago were not made in passing, but were an insinuation. He’s saying he’s been looking into my background as well as Kaufman’s. Fortunately, I am clean. All I ever did was piss people off, a gift. I did not realize that that I had better abilities at this stuff than I had on display in those days. I outgrew them.

    Concerning the crime against my daughter, the PCR was used as it was intended, to compare DNA strands, and not to diagnose disease. That was my exact point. I don’t think Kaufman did anything with your post but expand and enlighten us on the subject, and I was surprised to see you back away from it as you did.

    My judgment is that Kaufman is an honest man. Part of that judgment might well be the flak he is catching. I’ve listened to his words, hours of them over the months. I get a sense that he has very good understanding of subject matter, especially of the sloppiness of the Wuhan virology. We are now at a point where virologists have arrived at 10 having started at 1 and having skipped everything in between. They have not isolated a virus, my point with the videos that Maarten brought to the fore. There can be no show without a star, and they failed to uncover it.

    All in all, a bad performance on Maarten’s part, and even worse today with your Tony Clifton post. I took it private. What a passive aggressive shot!

    I’ve got in hand an excellent paper brought to us by a reader from Stefan Lanka. I’ll write it up next week. Right now I am tired of y’all.


    1. By the way, if you’re going to take down Kaufman as controlled opposition, then do me one more favor. Take down David Crowe. His death reminds me of Dave McGowan’s, fake written all over it. If Crowe was fake, then yeah, so too is Kaufman. Imagine that Crowe was put in place years in advance of the scam, only to give false hope and then die, Bill Hicks style.

      Shit. But also, so too is the virus fake as everything else. It bugs me that you guys give it credibility. This thing is very big and smart, more so than me. I got a bad feeling that Judy Wood is laughing at me right now.


    2. My backing away from that chromosome 8 post should prove that I really am an honest truth-seeker. Do not be surprised, I follow the evidence wherever it leads. Shouldn’t we all?

      And “a bad performance” from Maarten? I didn’t see a performance out of his comments. Scrutiny, yes. Performance, no.

      Once again, I do not understand why you cannot accept those Kaufman critique videos unless they include your own personal favorite PCR critiques. They don’t speak to isolation of the virus, ergo we cannot take their Kaufman critiques seriously?

      It is absurd to me that Maarten’s comments are being framed as a performance, when it is the response to his comments that have seemed like such a production. He has not even commented for days. Yes, he attempted to scrutinize Kaufman after another Kaufman-related post here. That has now lead to this fascinating response of an all-out attack right back at him. That has seemed more like the performance, if anything. Make sure we make Maarten look as bad as possible for daring to scrutinize Kaufman.

      And I still don’t see what was so sideways about his approach, which also involved the videos questioning Kaufman’s arguments. Not exclusively the Amazon gift card thing. This response is what feels like an exclusive attack on character…Maarten’s character.

      And on the Tony Clifton thing, I can’t believe how humorless we have gotten if we can’t enjoy that the source of our discussion here shares the name of one of the great hoaxers of all time. It’s funny! Maarten had nothing to do with that, but again it is somehow being framed as something to count against him. How exactly do you interpret that as a shot? In the same way that Maarten mentioning your reputation in Montana blogging is somehow an attack or insinuation or creepy? I am not understanding the things that are being considered shots. I am seeing the situation be spun and spun and spun in a way that has made me dizzy.

      The Tony Clifton performance was my way of trying to get everyone to remember that this doesn’t need to be so serious. I have no horse in this race…I just hate seeing Maarten framed in such a sideways manner for basically doing what I thought we do here…scrutinize information connected to hoaxes.


      1. It’s like covering a horse race and talking about everything but the horses. Failure to discuss isolation of the virus is critical, as viruses are the horses. This is why your explosive post was so important. How did human genome sequences seep in? Because they had not isolated the virus! Truth seeking 101.

        The videos that Maarten brought in were just as James Corbett described … who fact checks the fact checkers? If they too neglect to talk about horses, is not the circle complete?

        Maarten’s non-response is as I expected. I did not want to give him the boot, as I knew he would self-boot. He was undermining my work, undermining Kaufman, and doing so by means of distraction. He wanted to divert us to a sideshow about some offense no so important, making it seem important, in the same way he wanted to talk about my activities ten years ago, sideshow and distraction. And one of the commenters brought it up. This is textbook how to derail a blog post.


        1. I just…don’t think that’s a fair or realistic assessment of what Maarten did here at all, and the textbook “how to neutralize” seems like what I am seeing in response to him, not what I saw FROM him. His scrutiny was completely on-topic. It is not derailing a topic to apply scrutiny to the topic.

          And you can disagree with it a hundred different ways, but the Kaufman critique videos can still be considered credible regardless of whether or not they do a full critique of PCR. I simply disagree with the logic you describe there. Much as I agree they went easy on PCR, it has nothing to do with their criticism of Kaufman’s arguments.

          Obviously we don’t see this one the same way, but like I said, let’s not take ourselves too seriously. You all seem to suggest Maarten had an agenda, but I am seeing more of an agenda in how Maarten is being neutralized in response. I keep seeing these references to that derailing textbook, yet I don’t see Maarten guilty of any of that. So I am confused by the continued insinuation that he is guilty of those tactics.

          You act like you did some kind of kindness to not boot him, but I don’t understand what kind of justification there ever could have been for a booting. Apart from you personally just being sick of his scrutiny on your content. Maarten made, what…3-4 comments, related to the content? The problem seems to be that he scrutinized something that was not fair game for scrutiny.


          1. For both Cowan and Kaufman, Maarten attacked their personal integrity, calling Cowan “despicable.” I’ve listened to both at great length, and while I can be and have been fooled, I did not sense dishonesty in either. Cowan’s mistake was one of good intention, as I see it, Kaufman’s simply not that big a deal.

            For Maarten I never for a second thought of booting him, and only mentioned that he “self-booted” so I would not have to do anything anyway. But for a guy whose been around so long and made so many valuable additions, not a chance. Just stop with character assassination.

            As for his attacks on me, I find his method of argumentation annoying and generally refuse to succumb. He reduces everything to one question, and demands that everything be set aside and that one question, usually loaded (with my photo analysis, distortion caused by length of lens), making it the final word. He did indeed set aside everything I’ve ever done with photos based on that one item. Did I boot him? Of course not. But I did not buy his MO. My work has produced for me enlightenment. Others simply ignore it. That’s life.

            In fact, after this kerfuffle, I was reminded that we had accrued a long list of banned people, most of whom are gone for good anyway, but including Minime, who can be annoying. I wiped the slate clean, as blog policy is that bans are not permanent, that people make mistakes, but redemption is always available, even for Despicable Cowan. Even Skink is welcome back.

            ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐


            1. You still keep framing this as attack on yourself, which is absolutely absurd. I just can’t see past all the spinning going on here. Maarten made a few comments to scrutinize a guy who we ought to scrutinize. This response seems highly coordinated and full of a tremendous amount of spin.

              Good day to you. Dislike and disagree with him all you want, but THIS response is the only character assassination going on here.

              Become incredulous and indignant

              (You have been extremely prone to to this lately, much to my confusion)

              Associate opponent charges with old news

              (You’re talking about Cowan above, not anything he did with Kaufman)

              Demand complete solutions
              Vanish evidence and witnesses
              Ignore proof presented

              (The Kaufman critique videos, not worthy in your opinion because they do not also critique the PCR process)

              Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents

              (The post above)

              If there is anything that seems to be playing out “by the book”, it is this hilariously coordinated attack against him. If you’re going to tell me that all these people just suddenly came out of the woodwork to attack Maarten in a manner perfectly in line with your own attack, quite frankly I don’t believe you.


              1. I enlisted no one. It seems Maarten has antagonized more than me. I’ve only been in touch with Pete Fairhurst, and him only to commiserate about our age and running from Father Time. He put up a comment that did not immediately appear on screen and thought it was in Limbo.

                Did you bring Skink here to attack me? Of course not.

                I’ll let everything else go, as maybe you’re right, but again, on the PCR and the videos that Maarten brought in, if at this late date it is not well understood among us that the RT-PCR test is flawed and completely unreliable and being used only as a means of creating numbers of fake “infected” people, then we are not on the same page.


            2. And yes, I had already noticed that you cleared the entire list of moderated commenters immediately after publishing the post above. Blog policy, eh? Alright then. Writing a post attacking one of the writers of the site then clearing out the entire moderation list is, uh, quite an interesting set of moves. I do not see why there would be a connection between the two moves, unless it was to open the floodgates. I wasn’t going to say anything about it, but you mentioned it here. So be it.

              As I said, consider me on hiatus. It absolutely reeks around here, and I want nothing more to do with it.


              1. Only Minime chimed in from the banned list, and has behaved himself. Skink came in to attack me. That’s it. Everyone else on that list was long stale. [PS – I have routinely done this over the years, and if you read the commenting policy, you’ll find that bans are never meant to be permanent. In fact I had not looked at that list in months, and it was only brought to my attention as I stumbled on a comment by Minime in Trash, not moderation. He had been routinely commenting over the months, and no one had seen a word, as his comments did not go to moderation, but straight to trash. I thought that to be enough humiliation, and while at it, I removed the rest, stopping to think about Skink, who I know despises me.]


                1. MiniMe was there for very good reason, and some others on that list had been basically stalking me at one point, with threatening comments. Your decision to clear that list immediately after your Maarten attack post baffles me, and a lot has baffled me here the last few days.

                  Best wishes, I want nothing to do with this place for the time being.


                  1. I have noticed during your tenure where that you’re a little thin-skinned when it comes to commenters, and think they are stalking you. I doubt it. But that list was, as I say, stale. I made no connection to anything about Maarten when i did that, only Minime, who was, in my view, treated unfairly for a long period of time.


                    1. I am not thin-skinned, Mini-Me is openly here to disrupt and you let him in like that is a virtuous thing for you to do. Mark, leave me alone. I want nothing more to do with this conversation.


        2. Maarten argues by insult, ridicule, and grandstanding. Frequently. He is a master of pejorative expression, or so he seems to think. Maarten jumps on debunkings of the “shills of pseudoscience”, seemingly gleeful (or excited, at least) at the apparent takedowns. Sometimes though, he doesn’t fact check his own fact checkers.
          Here is a recent comment by Maarten, illustrating most of the above. My comments are in parentheses.

          Maarten Rossaert   Sept 24, 2020
          “Wait a second, wait a second …(a little grandstanding, flag-waving, “hey, Maarten here, I’ve got some ‘real’ facts here that’ll show up you and your guy.”  Like beginning a comment to me with “SMH….”, to show how stupid I am, or one to Mark with plenty of exclamation points “Oh, Lawd!! The irony!!!!, as in “I really caught you red-handed.”)
          "… this is the same Andrew Kaufman who was disciplined for misappropriation of grant monies.  (fair enough, no character assassination so far)
          "Kaufman’s not a virologist. He’s a psychiatrist by training, but after being disgraced he began marketing himself (he was disciplined, but Maarten wants us to ignore the apparently contrite Kaufman’s satisfaction of his disciplinary terms, and to now label him “disgraced”, then to effectively sneer at his “marketing” of himself, giving it an air of dirtiness) as a “natural healing consultant, inventor, public speaker, forensic psychiatrist, and expert witness.”
          "He teaches that any COVID vaccines (correction.  He said it about one particular vaccine that was/is under development) are for the purpose of creating “genetically modified” human beings through electroporation and the insertion of foreign DNA into cells. This claim has been roundly debunked.  (yes, the ‘factcheckers’ jumped on this, and did what they’re paid to do.  Except they got it wrong, and Kaufman appeared on Spiro’s channel and documented every statement that he had made regarding the particular vaccine, debunking the debunkers.)
          "This guy is almost as bad as Tom Cowan.  (translation:  Cowan is BAD.  Kaufman is almost THAT BAD.) Can’t they find (ex-)doctors who are not morally compromised to shill for this tOxIcItY pseudoscience?  (another oblique swipe by Maarten, throwing that “ex” in there, then adding to their “badness” by calling them morally compromised.  And besides that, they are “shills” for toxicity pseudoscience, like Jim West, myself, and anybody else who wants to throw their hat into that ring.) I get the feeling that these guys cut a deal to stay out of jail by joining the disinformation squad." (ending with a nonsensical insult)

          More about debunking:

          Regarding two videos Maarten posted, supposedly showing “misinterpretations and manipulations of data. He (Kaufman) is not a credible source of information.” I watched part of the first. We are immediately hit with this blatant misrepresentation of Kaufman’s premise in the “disclaimer”: “To provide scientific evidence that refutes the claim made by the psychiatrist Dr. Andrew Kaufman that the symptoms of covid 19 are caused by host exosomes rather than a coronavirus.” I decided not to spend more time picking it apart. (for those interested in diving into it more, David Crowe comes in early in the comment section and does an excellent job of debunking the debunkers.)

          The second video has this warning early on, “Kaufman is endangering people.” The presenter then refers to a 2014 paper “Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent”, which was retracted, believe it or not, the same month of Event 201. Kary Mullis is referenced in the paper, and the author says, regarding pcr, “these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The test can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.” The video presenter claims these words show that pcr can detect viruses, but fails to acknowledge that even in HIS best case scenario, genetic particles (sequences)/(proteins), may or may not be from a virus…..A slide is shown of “Applied Biosystems” Covid 19 Combo Kit, labeled “RT-PCR test intended for the presumptive qualitative detection of nucleic acid from sars-cov-2.”, and the word “presumptive”, and its relevance here, is simply ignored in the video.

          My experience here so far makes me wonder why Maarten is here. He wrote an excellent article about the Rockefeller Snake-Oil Empire and their benzene drugs, once upon a time. Why did he write that piece? Was it just to ingratiate himself with some of the people here, to put himself in position to pursue the mission that he appears to be on?


          1. trying to repost this part of my comment above

            Maarten Rossaert Sept 24, 2020

            “Wait a second, wait a second …(a little grandstanding, flag-waving, “hey, Maarten here, I’ve got some ‘real’ facts here that’ll show up you and your guy.” Like beginning a comment to me with “SMH….”, to show how stupid I am, or one to Mark with plenty of exclamation points “Oh, Lawd!! The irony!!!!, as in “I really caught you red-handed.”)

            … this is the same Andrew Kaufman who was disciplined for misappropriation of grant monies. (fair enough, no character assassination so far)
            Kaufman’s not a virologist. He’s a psychiatrist by training, but after being disgraced he began marketing himself (he was disciplined, but Maarten wants us to ignore the apparently contrite Kaufman’s satisfaction of his disciplinary terms, and to now label him “disgraced”, then to effectively sneer at the “marketing” of himself, giving it an air of dirtiness) as a “natural healing consultant, inventor, public speaker, forensic psychiatrist, and expert witness.”

            He teaches that any COVID vaccines (correction. He said it about one particular vaccine that was/is under development) are for the purpose of creating “genetically modified” human beings through electroporation and the insertion of foreign DNA into cells. This claim has been roundly debunked. (yes, the ‘factcheckers’ jumped on this, and did what they’re paid to do. Except they got it wrong, and Kaufman appeared on Spiro’s channel and documented every statement that he had made regarding the particular vaccine, debunking the debunkers.)

            This guy is almost as bad as Tom Cowan. (translation: Cowan is BAD. Kaufman is almost THAT BAD.) Can’t they find (ex-)doctors who are not morally compromised to shill for this tOxIcItY pseudoscience? (another oblique swipe by Maarten, throwing that “ex” in there, then adding to their “badness” by calling them morally compromised. And besides that, they are “shills” for toxicity pseudoscience, like Jim West, myself, and anybody else who wants to throw their hat into that ring.) I get the feeling that these guys cut a deal to stay out of jail by joining the disinformation squad. (another nonsensical insult


            1. Mainly, I find your analysis above to be extremely silly. Kaufman WAS an ex-doctor, by just about any fair measure. Pointing out the past impropriety is a legit observation, to say that isn’t it strange that these types always have something like that to find?

              You are trying to frame a legitimate set of observations in the most exaggerated possible way to frame Maarten as badly as you possibly can. I don’t understand why you would care so strongly to do so.


          2. I have never once felt insulted or ridiculed by Maarten in debate. Grandstanding, we are all guilty of. And why exactly do you care so strongly to be sure to frame Maarten in such a negative light here, OregonMatt?


            1. -“I find your analysis above to be extremely silly.” .

              Not just silly, but “extremely” so? I don’t think so, whichever pejorative term you choose to use.

              -“Pointing out the past impropriety…to say that isn’t it strange that these types always have something like that to find?”

              “these types”…your method of smearing is more subtle than Maarten”s

              -“ You are trying to frame a legitimate set of observations in the most exaggerated possible way to frame Maarten as badly as you possibly can.”

              I was not part of the most recent exchanges (re Kaufman), just an observer up till now. Nevertheless, I am seeing a repeating pattern that mirrors what I experience here personally. All, I repeat, all of the “exaggeration”, as you call it, stems directly from Maarten”s pejorative remarks, name-calling, clever drive-bys, and negative labeling. “Frame” Maarten? Maarten does that for himself. By his arduous and shrill efforts to smear the “shills of toxicity pseudoscience” he frames himself as the “shill of snake-oil Rockefeller style”, though he might prefer to call it something else. That would appear to be his mission.

              I am reporting on what I have seen here, and what I have been involved in while here. Those who run this venue are free to choose its direction.


              1. Do you have a problem with adverbs or something? Yes, extremely silly. Apparently in your book, adverbs are a huge red flag. Or should I just say…a red flag. Not a huge one. Wouldn’t want to out myself.


              2. That is exactly my question to you, by the way. You were not involved in any way, yet here you are all of a sudden leading an identical charge against the target, right in line with the main points being pushed elsewhere.

                That reeks. This whole place reeks right now.


              3. And if you are denying framing Maarten in as negative a light as possible, you are a liar, plain and simple. You are picking him apart as you picked apart my adverbs, as though that meant anything.

                You are a liar, and I want nothing to do with you, or this blog anymore while this topic is still active. There seems to be a silent army lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce if needed.


  7. COVID-DENIER? That was the best he could do? I suppose you’re also a Climate Change denier and a filthy flat earther as well.


  8. I almost replied to Mark’s final reply to Maarten on the Kaufman post as follows: “Game, set and match”

    But I decided to stay out of what appeared to be a private spat that needed dealing with privately. I checked in again to the post some time later and was surprised to find that the should-have-been-private comments were gone. This concerned me in a “Bob’s your uncle” sort of way. I remembered a similar thing happening then to a post by him that I had called out directly. I don’t remember the precise details [the joys of being an early septuagenarian!] The post comments, maybe even the post, were memory holed, not something that I am comfortable with at all because that is the oppositions game

    So I was relieved to see that Mark had addressed this in his usual direct manner with this post, kudos Mark.

    Spats such as this do not really help the cause. Major psyops like Coronabaloney, by far the biggest that I’ve ever known, are inevitably complicated and are plagued by endless smoke and mirrors; by design. It is difficult enough to see through the fog and so, emotional reactions, and personal stuff, should be left out of it. There is plenty of room for strong opinions and exchanges of view without getting personal.

    The personal stuff is a distraction. It plays straight into the Crown’s hand


  9. It’s a true American virtue to attack an integrity of a person by looking for dirt in person’s life. Or by trying to undermine his credibility by picturing him as immoral, unethical… in reality, none of it matters, the only thing that matters is the truth. First psychological response to realizing y’ve been conned is anger, usually projected at the messenger. Since the messenger is guilty of shattering yr worldviews or beliefs, ya oughtta kill him, right? That’s supposed to be a satisfying feeling, removing frustration from your sight, right? It reminds me of that joke where shots are fired first, questions asked later, where everybody laughs at the irony of a situation that can’t resolve itself since all actors are dead. But state of affairs here at PoM ain’t exactly hilarious, so I guess y’all need to step back a bit. Just don’t ruin everything built here because of one disagreement. Btw, doesn’t last name Kaufman sound suspicious to ya for starters? It’s not German in origin, but I’ll say no more as ya oughtta realise this kind of clues on yr own. Or not.

    I never liked Maarten for my own reasons, but he deserves a thorough analysis and outing if ya were planning to confront him, Mark. Clues and hints are obvious if ya read his texts carefully enough, giving ya plenty of headroom for confrontation. And, mind ya, it’s yr blog and yr ru!es.


    1. I really hate that attitude where , if the messenger has a Jewish sounding name or even a name that could be construed as Jewish before spelling modification , the message is immediately deemed suspect and consigned to the rubbish bin.
      It’s so lazy .
      It should always be about the message and whether IT can stand up to scrutiny or not.


  10. if this comment does appear, I’ll say that I still check in here only because of writers like Fauxlex and Stephers, NOT because of Mark, who still seems to be as insufferably arrogant as he was when trolling Montana blogs and, despite his claim otherwise, fairly close-minded when it comes to spiritual matters and the occult. if karma exists, it’s in clear display as his EVERYTHING IS FAKE schtick gets directed at him. it’s just like Alex Jones getting all miffed at the Bill Hicks theory (which I actually find pretty compelling).


    1. the Covid question really is playing havoc with many a popular blog. Commenters are all getting pretty steamed up and nasty with each other over whether the virus actually exists , what it is and what it isn’t.
      If nothing else it’s certainly serving the PTB by keeping our minds fully occupied and creating dissent. What are they trying to keep our eyes off?


    2. I have no problem with anyone’s spirituality and myself over the past few years have drifted towards reincarnate beings, that is, our bodies and minds are so remarkable that a mishmash of organisms in a puddle could not possibly have brought us into being. I don’t know what “insufferably arrogant” means other than I pissed people off, a special gift of mine. If ever I met insufferably arrogant, it would have been Kailey and Budge, and you who had the arrogance to demean my older brother without having ever met the man. You stay off of him, I’ll leave you alone.


  11. Hey everyone, I am going to close the comment thread here, as there is nothing more to be fleshed out. Keep in mind that Maarten is still on board as a writer and commenter, if he decides to use those privileges.


Comments are closed.