All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2024 - Clif High
43:25
Trivivium
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello humans, hello humans.
Much later, still in the 26th.
Yeah, man.
Still Friday 26th, much later in the day, heading back outland or outbound now.
So they're gonna Boris is doing okay.
He's very much at risk still.
The poison is probably left his body pretty completely.
He does not appear to be having any internal bleeding at all, but I had to leave him hospitalized.
He's got to stay there for several days to get rehydrated and then to be able to figure out which of these um types of chemicals he will respond to that to stimulate appetite.
So that basically it's um super intensive GI support for a couple of days, and uh it was a weird medical mystery thing that I should probably do talk about a lot after I get done suing these fuckers.
Um in any event though, so I wanted to talk about a couple of other things.
Um I'm not uh uh people may think that I'm uh you know being nasty to Carrie, uh Carrie Cassidy, and I'm not.
I'm just um uh you know, I just don't like people that are that or I don't like discussions that are that casual about technical issues that they stray over into absolute fantasy, and that's what uh a lot of Carrie's uh technical discussions end up being is a is a um uh fantastic voyage kind of thing, right?
She thinks AI can float through the air and attach to a human.
Anyway, though, so uh I'm not really I like Carrie's spirit, I like the fact that she's fierce and that she uh you know supports herself and so on, um, you know, supports her position, even though she's not technically astute to be able to, in my opinion, uh effectively evaluate that um position that she's taken.
So um what I want to talk about though was uh for a moment I want to go and divert and uh and talk about um this guy Jeff Berwick.
Okay, Jeff is uh sort of a weird character, he's got a like everybody, he's got a tainted reputation.
Uh he's now married, he's got a kid, he's uh expat Canadian, um living in Mexico.
Uh basically he's you know he's an anarchist and he's an NR capitalist, an anarcho-capitalist, I think that's what they call themselves.
He's an anarchist, but he's a capitalist because he recognizes that capitalism is the only system that works.
Um, so uh he had run across a particular book that was this um uh apocalypse uh book, uh an apocalypse of Yankovich or somebody.
Um anyway, and so he started reading it.
The book is uh uh it's not even interesting to me because I've been into this shit for so long, and like Jeff's only in his 50s, right?
So uh I've got an additional 20 plus years studying esoterica, actually, probably 30 or 40 years because Jeff is only just now getting into it, right?
He's only just now getting into the existence of the Elohim worship cult and all of that kind of stuff.
Anyway, though, uh the point here is to discuss the idea of critical reasoning and critical reading.
They go hand in hand.
So there's this thing called the uh tibia, okay, or trivial, excuse me, trivial, try.
Uh tri uh vivium or or three um facets of life, and these are the three pillars uh of the mind, and these are grammar, where you understand what the words mean and have exact rules as to how the words should join together for communication,
and then there's logic, which is um uh rigid analysis of the thoughts that are are uh being expressed in your grammar, and then there is um and you know the uh logic must always conclude uh with a self-referential um success of a proof.
Um, and then the final uh element Is rhetoric.
And rhetoric is the ability to understand grammar and logic and to use your grammar and your logic in a very uh specific kind of a way in order that you may become um convincing.
Wow, a hawk just sitting there looking at me.
Um so rhetoric is the ability to be persuasive.
You can just think of it that way.
The great orators from rhetoric, we get oratory, okay, which is the designed display of rhetoric, the actual expression of rhetoric.
So you could be doing rhetoric and merely write it down and persuade people by uh writing, and you could put it in a substack, people could read your substack, and they could make the same conclusion that you do, or the conclusion you want them to make, because this is rhetoric and you want to be persuasive, and then you would um uh you'd take that um rhetoric, and you you could persuade people via substack and writing.
If you were to get up and do a speech of it, that would be oratory, okay.
But oratory is a minor subset of rhetoric, it is not one of its own pillars.
Hang on, what the hell?
Um so it's not one of its own pillars.
Uh so the pillars are grammar, logic, and rhetoric.
Anyway, so um I look at this uh book that uh had uh Jeff Berwick captivated for a while, and I see a whole bunch of red flags with it instantly because I know how to do critical reading, because I know how to do critical reasoning.
So on the other side of the trivium is the um is the analysis aspect of that, right?
And so the other side of the trivium also begins with grammar, and it is the ability to analyze grammar to see that the grammar is correct.
Basically, so we have the trivium, which is you could think of as the presentation of uh your ability to understand grammar, your logic and your rhetoric expressed out, and then on the other side of that is we have the uh reception part of that, the the ability to receive that with what is known as critical mind or critical thinking, okay, sometimes also called critical analysis.
Um, and this is the ability to uh think appropriately about what is being presented to you so that you're not just like a normie and you don't just accept it and go with it.
So you will note that none of our current generations are being trained in this shit, right?
Uh they stopped training it here in the United States be uh uh in my lifetime.
The only reason I was not affected by it was that I was educated uh at a very key point in my life in Europe, and I was educated in uh in a formal military fashion from ancient military traditions in Europe, and we did the the trivium, right?
We had this, we had oratory, we had critical reasoning, critical thinking, you would have to get up and debate, debate is an aspect of these two, right?
Debate joins the critical pre or the presentation with the critical analysis, where you go back and forth to determine what is factual, what is true.
All of these things go to the idea of understanding our reality.
So I've been trained in critical thinking, and then later on, being a programmer, you really have to.
This is what made me a good programmer was that I had this basis of understanding how to analyze and what the um uh the effects are of the steps and what you need to do and all of this kind of stuff, right?
And so um, so as a good programmer, but also programming further trains you in critical thought at very deep levels because you start recognizing design patterns in the larger scheme of things, right?
Uh anyway, so critical thinking involves the ability to critically assess the stuff you're reading or hearing.
So there's an aspect of this, this critical reading, which is really critical reception, because if someone is uh giving you oratory, you're not reading it, but you still need to think about it in an appropriate way to analyze it to make sure that they're not trying to snow you, right?
And so I am what is known as a critical thinker, and I'm also very critical of the information that I keep receiving from a lot of people because it's basically bogus, but because it doesn't pass the analytical part of the um the experience here with the trivium, right?
And so their their use of the trivium, their use of uh grammar, logic, and rhetoric fails.
And so when it fails, um when it fails, it does so under critical analysis.
You say, oh no, this is bogus, I don't need to go any further because from this point on, all they're this is the beauty of logic, is that I can see certain things and say, nope, from this point on, I don't need to see anything else this person is offering, because within the logic that they've presented, here is an underpinning of the logic that is failed, and thus everything stacked on top of this underpinning also fails.
So their whole uh construct of what they're trying to get across and their rhetoric is invalid.
And mostly all of the shit being presented these these days is all invalid, and mostly it's not being presented appropriately by people that have been trained to be persuasive, provide logic, etc.
etc.
So it's kind of uh, you know, uh amateur hour, right?
Even worse than amateur hour, it's trios, people coming out trying shit.
You know, they it's it's I'm not being denigrating because they should try shit in order to be self-educating, because they're sure as fuck not getting educated by the school system, especially not in these uh effective tools of life.
Anyway, though, so getting back to the critical reading or critical reception part of it, right?
And so here we have this uh book that is presented to Jeff.
He knows the publisher, uh he said he was going to talk to the publisher here during the anarcho-polco conference and get some more information about it, and so on.
But I investigated the book, I got a got a copy of it uh electronic, I got a copy of it printed.
You do this as part of your routine just to make sure that what's being presented in a written fashion is also being uh presented in the printed fashion, right?
You always double check to make sure that there's not duplicity going that way.
In other words, did they make a special PDF just for you, and that book is not as um as that PDF is made out to you.
You gotta be critical about this kind of shit and make decisions about that, right?
So, with the book Jeff is involved with this apocalypse of whoever the fuck, um, that person, that book is said to have had author unknown.
Well, that's a big flag, okay.
Uh if it's author unknown, or they you know, there's all different kinds of things, reasons that an author might be um not known.
It might be that that is an ancient book.
And so I know a bunch of books that where we have a uh a nominal author.
So from a lot of Hindu books are so ancient, it says it's a it is obscribed by history does it thus and so, right?
And uh so you know that they're not really sure who wrote it, but they and it's so fucking ancient that it it emerged about the same time as this particular famous guy, so they say, well, this famous sage, you know, had something to do with all of this, right?
And so you um you you if you find that you've got a book where they're saying we don't know who wrote it, and we're publishing it anyway, and there is no history of the attribution of this book, no history of when it first appeared, all of that kind of stuff, then that's a huge red flag.
You know, that is something that should be thrown that instantly and violates uh critical reasoning.
Um because books don't actually end up that way.
So if you read this book that Jeff is enthralled with, I I found I read it, and um I found that it was written by a Jewish woman, okay?
It was written by a Jewish woman in the last five years.
Now these are conclusions that I have made by the language itself in the book.
Um the fact that they say this is ancient or could be ancient, we don't know who wrote it, and all this other stuff is something that my critical analysis dismisses.
It's not pertinent.
It is in fact intended to persuade, and it's intended to persuade you to think that this book is valid, ancient, etc.
etc.
When it is not.
Uh, you can tell by the language that it was written in the last five years.
You can tell by the language that it was written by a female.
Uh you can tell by the language that that female supports the Elohim worship cult if she is not indeed part of it.
And also by the way in which the book expresses history, which is you know, so much as bullshit.
So um, So I like books that say we think possibly this could have happened this way and gives gives themselves the wiggle room on all of this.
None of those kind of things, none of those expressions are in this book that uh Jeff has gotten uh uh thinking about, right?
If you read in that book, it's always definitive um uh declarative statements.
The Atlanteans were like this, the people from Atlantis.
Well, it's like, how the fuck do you know, right?
There they want you to think that the person that wrote that book was concurrent with Atlantis, and may have been, you know, concurrent with Atlantis.
But if that were the case, then the book would have to be older than seven or ten thousand years, and you would see that all of the various different um uh attributes of um ancient books would also be here, and we see none of those.
Okay, so someone's making a shitload of money off this book.
It all goes back to this individual woman out of um someplace in Florida, she's the publisher.
If you go look at the publishing house and track her down or track it down, you find out it's a single-person operation.
Well, that's that itself is another uh red flag, right?
This kind of so I do not think that the woman who published it is the author and is the promoter of it.
I think that there's more people involved with it.
Uh, my conclusion in in this whole situation.
I have no definitive knowledge of this.
I took it so far and said, okay, these are my conclusions.
I needn't pursue this any further.
I I read the first uh, I think maybe in the first six pages of the book, not its little introduction.
Uh in the first six pages of the book, I found that several of the pillars, several of its assumptions that it's stating are not valid, so I dismissed everything else that was was in that book.
It was there to present a particular idea, to present a particular mindset, to come up with a particular philosophy that they want you to uh adopt, and they're doing it in such a way that they're basically this book is designed for non-critical thinking normies that won't examine the source of the material itself.
This is what irritates all the people uh that I get into uh religious discussions with, because I always go back to the original source or as close as we can get it.
So, you know, getting involved with discussions with the Jews or Christians and stuff, it's like, no guy, you can't make that statement that such and such is true, you know.
Um Deuteronomy does not say that.
Let's go look at the original source.
And in Deuteronomy, it says the gods were given tribes, the earth was split up among the gods, and that Yahweh was given no land, but he was given this tribe, uh the Essenes as his herd.
And there he then, thereafter, because these this is the way these people work, he set about conquering territory and taking over territory in these proxy wars using his Essenes that later on become the Judeans.
But if you go all the way back to Deuteronomy and many of the different Torahs, because there's like a thousand different versions of the Torah itself, uh over time, uh, and you know, this ship was not codified until the 1300s, right?
But anyway, so you go and you look at all of this stuff, and you find out that um, you know, the the Deuteronomy is uh, you know, 32 um and uh verse 8 through 12 or 15 or something, um, is not as it's said in the Bible, right?
This is all designed to create a an illusion.
All of these illusions are falling off now as more and more people like myself come back and say, no, let's look at the original source material, you people are full of shit about this idea, you know, you gotta really re-examine it.
It didn't, it wasn't said that way, it didn't exist that way.
Um, you know, those words are not there, and so you know, it's like, okay, we now have a uh whole society that's starting to become critical thinkers.
This is part of the uh hypernovelty, is that as you get to the point where authority falls off, you Have to come up with some mechanism for properly analyzing the world you live in.
And so I would suggest, just as an aside, that if you had somebody that was a really good teacher, they could probably make a fairly good living here in the future just doing uh the trivium on both sides up to the um uh aspect of debate and teach people critical thinking, uh, you know, whether through books or whatever videos or this kind of thing.
Anyway, though, so in critical thinking, you have critical reading, and so the very first thing you do with critical reading, just as I would do with a computer program.
So if I'm given a new job or a new task and it involves computer code, the very last thing I will do in that in that particular operation is to read the code.
Before I read the code, I'm gonna read all the change notes, I'm gonna read find out who the personalities were, the history of the uh code involved, and this is what you should do with all the books you read.
You know, how do you know that it's not a um an Elohim worship cult mind control MK Ultra kind of thing uh that's been intruded into your life in order that you might be persuaded to have a adopt a particular view, right?
Dye your hair and chop your nuts off, that kind of thing.
Um so you always examine the um you know, they say you can't judge a book by its cover, and that is quite true.
But before you judge that book, you had better judge that cover for what the fuck it can tell you about what's in the contents of that book.
And so many of these books, you could, if you examine them quite appropriately and did critical analysis at a metadata level of the book itself, that is to say, you were really delving into the cover of the book, its history, etc., you may find that you don't want to read the book, it's not worth it, it's a waste of your time.
So I will frequently I've got a shitload of books that I'll buy, I'll get into a couple of pages, because it had passed part of at least enough of the metadata analysis, you know, its content analysis, its creation analysis, and its history analysis for me to be interested in the potential contents.
And then usually when I get these books, uh mostly they're they're not PDF, they're only print.
That's why I have a bunch of these guys.
Uh, but usually when I get them, I'll read into them a few pages, and then I'll say, okay, there's the flaw, right?
And say these are not books you read for fun, these are books you read for education, for getting facts, and so on.
And if you find out that, oh, well, you know, sometimes they'll have an assumption or two that is wrong, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate their other um uh conclusions and projections.
Uh many books, though, that's not the case.
Many books, the very first flaw says, Oh, well, these people are goofier than fuck.
So, like anybody like um, even online, uh, Dustin Nemos, right?
He's a big Elohim worship cult guy, but he doesn't go into Elohim worship cult at all, uh, you know, and he's banging on the Jews without understanding the Jews were victims, truly were victims, you know, as much as they want to claim victimhood, they never claim victimhood about the thing that they legitimately can,
which is 2,000 years of abuse by space aliens, leading to a Stockholm syndrome uh masquerading as a religion and a culture, and that's by the way, what got me turned into uh the Washington State Fusion Center, which is this um counter-terrorism organization blend of uh homeland security and what other kind of weird ass organizations we've got here in the state that I haven't been paying attention to.
Um, but anyway, the ADL and the um APAC uh turn me into those fuckers, and they've been monitoring me for some time now.
So if you're following me, they're gonna look at your address and probably scope you out too.
Sorry about that.
Um anyway, just just the way our world is at the moment.
So um, like Dustin Nemos, he doesn't acknowledge the Elohim, the Elohim in the in the building, right?
The gods in the um in the Torah, the fact that it's all plural and that they all have names.
And here's the thing: we found there are tens of thousands of names of the actual Elohim themselves.
Uh, there's a lot of books that list uh hundreds and hundreds of them.
I found one book that had 1600 names uh listed of the Elohim, most of them ending in L, right?
And so uh uh we we know a lot of the names.
It's not just the few that are carried over in the Torah and a few that are carried over into the Bible.
There's a bunch of them in the Talmud, if you know how to look for them, but there are also other ancillary books.
So there were over a thousand copies of the Torah and over a thousand uh different, I say not copies, but versions.
There were a thousand versions of the Torah that were finally codified in like 1300s.
And that's when we see that the word Jew starts coming into things.
Didn't exist until then.
So Jews were not part of the original Old Testament, not part of the Torah or the Bible happenings.
They're a later uh event here.
So any book I run across, or anybody's thinking that I run across, like Dustin Nemos, where he says the Jews did this and he's assigning it to uh biblical time frames, uh, you know, back uh 2,000 years plus, uh that understanding is flawed.
And so any logic that uh uses that as one of its bases as one of its foundations is necessarily flawed and can be discarded because the Jews were not involved in things 2,000 years ago in the Middle East, and so you need a fine level of discrimination here.
This level of critical thinking drives people fucking nuts.
That's why a lot of people don't don't want to talk to me.
I don't think that they dislike me per se, but I am disruptive to their um to their harmony, to their wa, okay.
So Japanese word, wa meaning harmony.
Um so I'm disruptive to them because I do do critical thinking, and I express that critical thinking, and I say, no, I can't accept your what you're saying because of you know, it violated uh your assumptions violate uh this particular aspect of our reality or are not supported by it, ergo your conclusions that are based on those assumptions are also invalid or likely to be invalid to the point that I needn't consider them, right?
It's just no point.
Um a waste of my time.
So that's a good part of the critical thinking, good part of critical reading or critical acceptance, is that you you don't get into these things where you um waste your time on this shit.
You get so far and you can just throw it away.
Okay, this guy's you know failed on these past five assumptions that aren't valid, so why should I read for a sixth?
You know, if the other five aren't there, then none of the um conclusions will be valid.
And so that's what you need to do, in my opinion, in terms of reading all this new material, especially online.
And so I I can read vast quantities.
I have a software program that also aids me because it um aids me to read on computer screens up to 2,000 words a minute, um, or higher, really, if I want to set it that.
I usually around 2200 words a minute.
Um but as soon as I get to a so I can go really quick to the point where I say, nope, nope, that that conclusion's invalid, throw this thing out, not worth pursuing this PDF, right?
And uh off I go.
So um, so in my opinion, that book that Jeff's got hold of, he fell for it, okay?
Because he doesn't do critical reading, because he was never trained in it, he accepted it with a without analyzing the cover, and so he didn't know what he was getting into, and so he assumed when he got into it that it was as presented uh with this weird ass old or modern form uh of an old language.
So it is written as though it could be ancient, but the writing and the expression of that as though it could be ancient is not due to uh translation but due to a deliberate artifacts, artifice.
They were attempting to make this uh book sound as though it could be really, really, really old.
But the way they use the language, the grammar, which I can analyze, and the vocabulary and the lexical construction of it tells me it was written in the last five years.
Maybe maybe it was written slightly before that and and you know, tightened up and published in the last five years, something along those lines.
But it's it's a modern book.
I can also tell by the uh way the language is used that it was a feminine mind that wrote it, right?
Sometimes homosexuals will have a feminine mind expression uh when they write.
And so you couldn't 100% for sure say it wasn't written by a male homosexual, but it sure reads feminine.
Uh So it's my assumption it was written by a woman, especially since there's this single woman operation that is behind the publication of it all.
Anyway, though, it's a bogus book, a bunch of horse shit.
Left out so much, included so much weird shit, not even worth reading.
Not even particularly good philosophy, very much Pablum, and does not relate to our real-world experience.
Especially doesn't relate to the real world experience that we're going to be encountering in our near future here as we shift out of these feminine energies into a much more masculine-dominated reality as we um uh get out from underneath the uh Elohim worship cult and their and their eight genders, and they're they're attempting to destroy the society by querying everything.
Um that's gonna take uh you know what they say BDE, big dick energy.
Uh so you're gonna have to have a testosterone, and we're gonna have to just you know do this shit.
And we're starting to, right?
No more bullshit.
I just not gonna take it, I'm just gonna push you back on those weird ass assumptions and shit that you're spouting out.
And this this means, of course, that my interactions with most fucking people are gonna be not too pleasant for me or them because of this point of contention, and it's gonna get uh increasingly worse as we go further into hypernovelty.
Um so uh when you get a book like that, you first examine the cover.
You know, what can you tell about the contents by examining who who published it, who theoretically wrote it, can you validate that all of this kind of stuff?
It only takes you a few minutes, you get very practiced at this, so you can analyze books very quickly.
That's something else that pisses people off when you know, uh, like Carrie Cassidy says, yada yada yada, you know.
I've got all these drawings and uh and I've got a whistleblower, uh William Tompkins, and he worked for 40 years for the Secret Space Program and all of that.
It's like, no, Carrie, that's all lies, and none of that is true.
Can we move on?
Or do you want to try and defend this guy?
She doesn't defend him, she just keeps restating her position that he's a whistleblower and has uh authority, but she never defends him, right?
Same thing with uh her whistleblower Mark Richards, the convicted murderer in prison.
She doesn't really defend him, she just keeps restating that that you can believe it or not, but that's her belief, and she's putting it out there.
And it's like, okay, Carrie, we don't believe it.
We hear you believe it, and that denigrates you our opinion of your uh ability to provide information because we know you're providing bullshit uh from this um Mark Richards guy, and also from William Tompkins.
Now, and as Jay Widener had noted uh on the uh show the other day when he was uh irritating Carrie and she was irritating him back, he had noted that he had spent maybe 300 hours with William Tompkins and became convinced the guy was a liar.
Uh I I can get at that point really fucking quick because of my ability to do this this uh critical analysis, right?
Because of the fact I've been trained in it, and then I was trained, as I say, by the nature of my work, and it's that level of stuff that allow me to to go in to uh and be a change agent, so I can go into an organization, see who the fuck tarts are, see who needs to be fired,
or move themselves out, and also what the circumstances are that these people are operating on, and then I can go down into the technical stuff that they think they can accomplish, and I can show them by the um uh the actual uh technical specifications that what they think they can get out of this won't happen, and it was because they were not reading this shit correctly.
So critical reading helps you in your job, it helps you in your life, you know, and and it certainly helps you uh make your way uh through a lot of this um shit that we're in here now.
Now I wish I had had my critical reading uh stuff on when I first came in contact with these CBDs, and I would have investigated what was actually in the fuckers.
It was a long chain of circumstances that led to me accidentally poisoning my dog here for the last couple of years with this CBD product.
As we'll I'll explain when we get into forming the lawsuit and doing the AI discussions.
I'm trying to set it up so I can do screen shares and um in a comfortable fashion and do a bunch of um uh interactions with the AI and then record it so you'll be able to see it and uh you know and duplicate these effects.
Uh then, okay, and so after you've done the critical reading for the cover, done the metadata analysis on the PDF, uh, you know, uh sleuthed your way through the uh the people that might have produced it, that sort of thing, uh then you can actually get into the material itself.
And in the material itself, uh you also apply a whole series of uh of critical matrices, these critical matrices, uh again, you start by noting assumptions, noting um uh casual kind of uh stuff that otherwise you're gonna your mind's gonna pass by.
And you'll see it in sentences where they say, um, you know, yada yada yada, this happened in uh such and such a time, and then they'll present some conclusion because of what they think that that stuff meant within the nature of the context of that time.
But then in each and every one of those cases, you need to uh until you're you're satisfied that that particular author has done their due diligence and is not presenting you with some uh wild ass horseshit idea, then you'll have to examine their assumptions and say, okay, so in the first chapter, what are they telling me in a hidden fashion uh about their assumptions, right?
And so um, like uh one of the first flags there is uh in that book with Jeff is that they start talking off about the Atlanteans, okay, Atlantis.
Well, we do not know what the fuck those people called themselves.
We don't know what the name of their city was.
Plato is our source for that word Atlantis, and if you go back into the uh into the Greek and into the descriptions from there, it may be that he is just simply saying it it's uh Atlantis because it was reachable by the Atlantic Ocean and not the name that the people provide in themselves.
And then it that book just starts going really fucking bizarre by all of these kind of assumptions.
So it's like if I'm uh meeting somebody and they come down and they stand here and they're space alien and they say, Hi, I'm Bob from the Pleiadians, or I'm Paul from the Pleiadians.
Uh, you know, I I'm from the I'm a Pleiadian, I'm from the Pleiades.
And it's like, okay, but get this dude, Pleiades only exists as a constellation from Earth.
So what do you people really call yourself?
What's the name of your planet?
So someone doing that, they're not going to know your frame of reference and come in and slot themselves into your frame of reference and respond with that frame of reference.
So someone you may well meet a space alien and therefore they say they are from the uh uh A E E T D, right, however you want to pronounce it, um, planet.
That's that's what they call their planet, and that their planet is in such and such, and they would have to describe to you where it is relative to Earth because the Pleiades as a constellation is 110 parsecs thick.
So it involves many different star systems that are all seen from our perspective as being interjoined and connected.
But if you were in any of those star systems, you're not going to see yourself interjoined or connected with them.
So if you were to get in your spaceship and you were to go to one of these planets and you hop out, you're gonna say, hey, I'm from Earth.
I'm from, you know, this particular solar system, which is gonna be meaningless to those fuckers because you're giving Them your frame of reference.
And you would not know unless you spent considerable time with their social order, you would not know what their frame of reference was for your location.
And so you can see these kind of things being written in books.
So any book that tells me that you know Atlantis was like this, other than saying we think it was located here and giving you the whole history and all of that.
Any other book that comes on up like this um apocalypse book that uh Berwick had come across where they stated as a definitive conclusion or a or a declarative statement, these guys are full of shit.
It's bullshit.
I can just disregard it right there.
I read through it uh enough to ascertain that the point of it is a um uh it's basically an apology for Judaism, okay?
The whole book.
Um it's uh Elohim worship cult uh supporting uh background material, basically, and so it's like oh hey, this one has a real agenda to it.
They are using rhetoric, they're trying to be persuasive, and they're trying to be persuasive around absolute horseshit, which, as we see with Jeff Berwick, is accepted, you know.
So the way that they put it out, Jeff Berwick accepted that.
He doesn't read critically, he's a normie in that regard, right?
He may think of himself awake, but he does not operate in a critical mind.
He just bumbles along like any other normie uh and sort of reacts to what he's exposed to.
Uh, what I do though is I don't usually react, I respond.
So I'll analyze before I respond.
And thus we get a um entirely different dynamic when we approach things that way, and so I I'm not uh falling for this um apocalypse of uh Yankovich or whatever the fuck it is.
Um book.
I mean, it's a you know, it's a made-up name, made up word or whatever.
So um there is there's a lot of that right out in the woo world.
Most, probably 80 to 90 percent of all the woo people I disregard, they're full of shit, right?
Um they're there trying to make a presentation, trying to make their own money, regurgitating stuff that has no uh uh logical or or uh factual foundation, and they're just uh regurgitating it as though it does, in order that it serves their purpose of selling their books or whatever.
Um that 80 or 90 percent, though, there are you know, there's about 10 to 12 percent in there somewhere uh of all of the woo people that don't do that, that do have some level of critical analysis, and um, and do attempt to put out um like accurate kind of thing where they list their assumptions or at least discuss them and these kind of things in the books.
So there are uh the esoteric books, but here's the thing, guys.
Anyone that is writing that way is not writing in what you guys will think of as a pleasant manner, they'll be writing as though they were presenting technical material, though, so it'd be very much like reading a technical manual, as you see when you get into thinking in destiny.
It's not like a book you read for enjoyment, right?
It's not like um uh, you know, a book in the month club novel or something, it's a very much technical, very, very, very deeply technical, and um is presented that way, and so most of the books I favor are that way, they are uh uh self-refer referentially contained, and their um uh metadata uh supports that, you know.
So it becomes a uh an interesting situation here when you start getting into it, and you'll start saying, Oh, well shit, you know, I thought this book was legit, and then you look into it just a little bit and you find out, oh geez, and you gotta throw that out, right?
And so the thing is the they are counting on the fact that you won't be able to throw out an idea once you've taken it on, which is pretty much the case.
Most ideas you take on, you keep.
So I'm gonna be stopping for fuel here and have to go and do some chores on the way home.
Been gone so long, I'm gonna have to stop and pick up some food.
And then maybe I'll do another one of these discussions after that.
Anyway, though, so critical reading, critical thinking, critical reception is the way to go.
You know, you gotta be a critic.
You gotta be critical about this shit.
We're all critical in uh or we should be in life, and if you're not, you get taken advantage of all the fucking time.
And if it happens often enough, then you get it, right?
Something will come and eat you because you're so fucking stupid, you're not um awake and aware of what's happening.
So I do not think um uh Carrie Cassidy is awake.
All right, so she thinks she is, and I know that she is simply not aware.
She knows some things, but it hasn't percolated enough that it altered her ability to analyze everything once she found out how many uh uh deep fakes uh are in our narodyme in the social order.
So, you know, 9-11 was a deep fake, Kennedy's assassin assassination was a deep fake.
Uh, you know, most of the uh the stuff starting World War II was a deep fake, there were not six million Jews killed by the Germans, that's a deep fake.
Uh all different kinds of stuff, and you keep going back, right?
If you keep going back, you find out that this six million number keeps popping up all the time.
The Jews were claiming six million were killed in in the Russian Revolution.
Um they were claiming in the 20s that there was another six million killed in this um uh genocide.
In fact, there was 20 plus million killed in the Holomador, uh, starving them out in in Russia by the Bolsheviks, which are the Elohim worship cult that took over Russia.
So they they they starved 20 million plus people to death.
Um so we live in a really fucking brutal uh reality, and uh to ignore that to have this polyana uh view of things is a lack of critical thinking, and it dooms you to being one of the cattle, you know.
So I don't I don't really associate with the cattle.
I can't stand to talk to the normies usually.
I get into trouble talking with the normies.
I had to talk with normies uh at the um the vet here at the emergency vet in the vet hospital, and it is it can be quite the chore to communicate effectively to people that are operating in that narodive.
Um, because they just don't really accept and don't really know uh what the fuck you're talking about, and it causes them hardship to even try and think about it.
Anyway, guys, I gotta shut this off.
Uh work on critical thinking and uh look it up, you know.
Look up uh trivium and and how it works and get books on it and read it and sh anyway.
▲
Export Selection