Hate, Healing, and Headlines

What Hath God Wrought?

In a demonstration witnessed by members of Congress, American inventor Samuel F.B. Morse dispatched a telegraph message from the U.S. Capitol to Alfred Vail at a railroad station in Baltimore, Maryland. The message—“What Hath God Wrought?”—was telegraphed back to the Capitol a moment later by Vail. The biblical quote, taken from Numbers 23:23 ("What hath God wrought!") were spoken by Balaam, a prophet in the land of Midian. He had been offered a reward by Balak, the king of Moab, if he would curse the people of Israel. With these words, Balaam confesses to Balak that a heathen prophet is not a match when the power of almighty God is at work.

Indeed.

There are many metaphors and memes circulating which seek to capture the self-evident evil and corruption which all but those blinded by “Mass Formation” and the massive FifthGen Warfare PsyOps campaign which has been deployed upon the entire world over the last three years. Of all of these, the simple binaries of heaven and hell, God and the Devil seem to distill it all down into a black, bilious bitter liquor which has withstood the test of time.

Speaking for myself, I am caught between the banal and the profoundly spiritual as I survey this twenty first century information battlescape. Oscillating between gobsmacked amazement at the transparently gross incompetence which is acting like battery acid slowly eating away at the approved narrative, and the rampant self-serving corruption, opportunism and narcissistic socio/psychopathy (is that redundant?) of key “leaders” and their respective organizations. I am reminded of my electrical engineer father’s favorite saying; “life is a sine wave”. Please forgive me of my sins, father, for I am the son and son in law of engineers, and cannot completely escape my upbringing.

This meme of boats going over a waterfall comes closest to the upward limit of banal which defines that oscillating signal. I occasionally wonder why do the oarsmen imagine that I bother to expend time, effort and treasure to warn them of the falls? Grifting? Really?

The lower limit defining the amplitude of the sine wave being my willingness to imagine and accept the limits of the evil that men do - to the earth, to nature, and to each other. During a recent podcast (Miami, Feb 07, Aubrey Marcus - watch for it!), my host referred to the rough slouching beast, the presence of which we can all sense, as “Empire”. The lust for Empire being a toxic virus which infects the minds of men.

“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. William Shakespeare

“Don't be afraid to give up the good to go for the great.”
John D. Rockefeller

Cutting across all of this is a toxic undercurrent of denial, anger and hate. Personally, I am constantly amazed by the stream of on-line (and corporate media) personalized hate which I encounter on a daily basis. Somehow hate has become trendy, a surrogate (or substitute) for sophistication.

Hate has been made cool and hip. Throwing shade is now lit, no cap. Putting others in their place has become the thing to do. Okurrr.

But is this really new, or is it an ancient human behavior? Think different from others? Burn the witch. The Galileo affair and the Catholic Inquisition. Physician nastiness, gaslighting and rejection of the findings of Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren regarding the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease. Accusations that Bobby Kennedy and Neil Oliver are anti-semitic or have exploited the tragedy of the holocaust in some way. This latter all-purpose hate accusation seems to be the corporate media go-to when “anti-vaxxer” has lost its punch. I am tempted to set a stop watch to measure how long it will take until “anti-semitic” gets thrown at me, despite my work in support of the Orthodox Jewish rabbinical courts in NYC and New Jersey.

It’s one thing when the haters just choke up the space underneath some Twitter post I may have made, but another altogether when the ferret out my personal cell phone number and come at me that way. Here is a recent text message example from a couple of days ago:

I’m totally not controlled opposition. I just sound like an agent. Deceive like an agent. Am both ahead and behind at the same time. Don’t see all the contradictions in my statements! Only someone who is controlled op will call others controlled op. Don’t process the circular reasoning. That’s not healthy

<Who is this?>

Someone who is sick of all the deception coming from you and all the other stooges. Thankfully, there’s a healthy community that is busting through the controlled alt media space and building up a legitimate alternative.

<Do you have a name?>

Yes. My name is Brandon Ross Chapman. I’ve been in the background facilitating networking between various actors in the resistance. I really wanted to believe in you.

<block>

What makes people do this sort of stuff? Didn’t their mothers teach them any manners? Or are good manners another victim of the COVIDcrisis? Its a mystery to me.

Many threads and sources for this hate; jealousy, frustration, rage, projection, guilt, tribalism, the list goes on and on. But sometimes it is just that haters will hate. Calling Dr. Jordan Peterson, global hater crisis in Aisle 3. We are in desperate need of some serious healing.

Moving on to today’s news. Maybe when the sitting POTUS and all his lackeys routinely lie, defame and deflect, perhaps it sets the tone for the rest of the country?

For any suffering under the delusion that this bioethics nightmare is over:

A bill up for consideration in the Maryland legislature would allow health care providers to vaccinate children without their parent or guardian’s consent, so long as they feel the child is able to understand the benefits and potential consequences of getting vaccinated.

The bill, introduced in the Maryland state Senate, says a minor who is at least 14 years old “has the same capacity as an adult to consent to vaccination.” The bill further states minors under the age of 14, including a minor who is developmentally disabled or unemancipated, “has the capacity to consent to vaccination if: in the opinion of the health care provider, the minor is of sufficient intelligence to understand and appreciate the need for, nature of and the significant risks and consequences of the vaccination; and the minor is able to give informed consent.”

For further information, see this linked article.

---

Link here

In Denmark, vaccination against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been with the Pfizer-BioNTech (BTN162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA vaccines. Patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection followed in our clinic received mRNA vaccinations according to the Danish roll-out vaccination plan. To monitor HCV infection, RNA was extracted from patient plasma and RNA sequencing was performed on the Illumina platform. In 10 of 108 HCV patient samples, full-length or traces of SARS-CoV-2 spike mRNA vaccine sequences were found in blood up to 28 days after COVID-19 vaccination. Detection of mRNA vaccine sequences in blood after vaccination adds important knowledge regarding this technology and should lead to further research into the design of lipid-nanoparticles and the half-life of these and mRNA vaccines in humans.

DISCUSSION

We surprisingly found fragments of COVID-19vaccine mRNA up to 28 days postvaccination in blood from chronic HCV patients vaccinated with mRNA vaccines from both Pfizer-BioNTech andModerna. Analysis of mRNA vaccine function has focused on the immune response and on protection of vaccinated individuals from SARS-CoV-2 induced severe COVID-19. The LNPs have been reported to be rapidly cleared by immune cells and mRNA is degraded by exonucleases in tissue and blood.

Apparently the authors did not know of the prior publication in Cell demonstrating persistence of injected “pseudo-mRNA” in lymph nodes for at least 60 days. But still, this new one further supports that finding.

---

Turning now to WEF world central. The testing ground for all of the brilliant new ideas that come from spending quality time with fancy hookers in Davos…

LONDON, Feb 7 (Reuters) - Britons would be limited to 20,000 digital pounds ($24,000) each if the country goes ahead with a digital currency, Bank of England Deputy Governor Jon Cunliffe said on Tuesday.

Britain's government said on Monday that it and the BoE were pressing on with work on a possible digital pound that was likely to enter circulation in the second half of this decade and be held in a "wallet" provided by banks, although no final decision has been made.

"We propose a limit of between 10,000 pounds and 20,000 pounds per individual as the appropriate balance between managing risks and supporting wide usability of the digital pound," Cunliffe said in a speech.

A limit of 10,000 pounds would mean that three quarters of people could receive their pay in digital pounds as well as holding pre-existing balances in the same account, while a 20,000 pound limit would allow almost everyone to use digital pounds for day-to-day transactions, Cunliffe said.

Money above the cap would be "swept" into a customer's commercial bank account given that a digital pound would not be a means for storing wealth, he told members of UK Finance, a banking industry body.

"At the other end, you could say I need a little wallet full of internet cash to buy things on Amazon," Cunliffe added.

---

And speaking of Europe and the North Sea, then we have this Substack-published forbidden topic bombshell from old school investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, which now has been covered by the Times of London:

How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline.

The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now

Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.

Two of the pipelines, which were known collectively as Nord Stream 1, had been providing Germany and much of Western Europe with cheap Russian natural gas for more than a decade. A second pair of pipelines, called Nord Stream 2, had been built but were not yet operational. Now, with Russian troops massing on the Ukrainian border and the bloodiest war in Europe since 1945 looming, President Joseph Biden saw the pipelines as a vehicle for Vladimir Putin to weaponize natural gas for his political and territorial ambitions.

Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, “This is false and complete fiction.” Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: “This claim is completely and utterly false.”

Biden’s decision to sabotage the pipelines came after more than nine months of highly secret back and forth debate inside Washington’s national security community about how to best achieve that goal. For much of that time, the issue was not whether to do the mission, but how to get it done with no overt clue as to who was responsible.

Per the Times:

"After the attack, Washington rejected allegations that the US was involved. “The idea that the United States was in any way involved in the apparent sabotage of these pipelines is preposterous. It is nothing more than a function of Russian disinformation and should be treated as such,” the US State Department said.

Adrienne Watson, a US National Security Council spokesperson, said: “This is utterly false and complete fiction.”

---

And in recent news closer to home, Dr. Mattias Desmet is no longer able to teach his own book at his home university. A sad story of hate and censorship which he covers in exacting academic detail in this fascinating case study of how the modern Ivory Tower reacts to heretics. Link to the full article provided in the headline title. As discussed above, the hate just does not seem to be letting up. For those who want to better understand why so few academics are willing to speak out about what is going on, reading about this saga should dispel any confusion you may have.

The psychology of totalitarianism - A book for burning?

Mattias writes:

On January 25, 2023, Ghent University banned the use of my book The Psychology of Totalitarianism in the course “Critique of Society and Culture”. That happened in the aftermath of a media storm that erupted in September 2022 following my interviews with Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones. I already wrote about that in a previous Substack essay.      

Following these media appearances, Ghent University launched an investigation into my scientific integrity and the quality of my teaching materials, which eventually led to the banning of my book. Why did they actually start this procedure? Concerns about the quality of education, I hear people say. I agree that scientific integrity is of crucial importance.

In fact, the Faculty had been having difficulties with me for quite some time. Actually, for about fifteen years. Because, for example, I think the quality of current scientific research in the field of psychology is very problematic and I say so out loud. But mainly because of my critical voice during the corona crisis. Because of this, I’ve had several interviews with the Research Director and Dean of faculty in 2021. They always emphasized my freedom of speech, but also that they were concerned about me. I appreciate their attempts to engage in dialogue, but I want to ask them this: isn't concern about dissent opinions one of the most grievous symptoms of our times?

I continued articulating my own opinion anyway, but not without consequences. I was kicked out of the consortium for clinical psychology of the Faculty of Psychology in 2021. The rationale was that my colleagues no longer wished to associate with me due to my public statements about mass formation during the corona crisis. That was pretty honest and straightforward language: excommunication for dissent opinion.                     

In September last year, another step was taken. This was when the Faculty of Psychology decided to investigate my scientific integrity and whether the teaching material I use in the course “Critique of Society and Culture” is of adequate quality.     

This procedure against me, which eventually led to the banning of my book in January 2023, is quite complex. It reads a bit like Franz Kafka. Several councils and committees were involved and it is not easy to describe this bureaucratic tangle in a way that does not become utterly boring. I'm going to try it anyway on a later occasion, but first I'm going to focus on the capstone of the logic of the process.                                                                                                                          

The most serious accusation against my book is that it’s full of errors and sloppiness. When I asked about those errors and inaccuracies, I was referred to a number of critiques circulating online. This is of crucial importance: the verdict on my book largely rests on the quality of those critical reviews. 

A closer inspection of those reviews revealed to me that the style was frequently rather offensive, insulting, and in some cases downright vulgar. Why did Ghent University only select these extremely negative reviews of my book to assess its value? Why none of the dozens of positive or more neutral ones?

Extremely negative and emotional reactions are rarely accurate. That's why I usually don't respond to them. Sometimes the best response is silence. However, in this situation I will respond. What is at stake is no small matter. It is about the question on what grounds a university decides to ban a book.

The critical reviews of my book that were taken into account by Ghent University were written by different authors. Discussing all the texts would be a titanic task, so I’m going to start with the most crucial one.     

The critical review of Professor Nassir Ghaemi was the most important one. One of the committee reports referred it several times. I will attempt to discuss this criticism in a dry, technical manner. It might not be much fun for you to read, but anyone who really wants to know the grounds of the accusations that led to the banning of my book might find it worthwhile.         

Professor Nassir Ghaemi's criticism can be found in an article called “Post-Modern Anti-Science Ideology: The Real Source of Totalitarianism” and on Youtube, in a recording of a special session at the 43rd annual meeting of the Karl Jaspers Society of North America. (See minutes 31 to 52 for Professor Ghaemi's contribution and several other, shorter statements he made in response to other contributions.)

It was not easy to find a format to respond to the tangle of criticisms. I decided to first assess all points of criticism that were concrete, objective in nature, and that could be unambiguously judged on their correctness in that regard. Together with one of the proofreaders of my book, I found seven such critiques in the article and the video recording. We discuss them below. At a later stage we may also discuss the more substantive criticisms of Professor Ghaemi.

The full details are provided in the substack essay, for those who wish to read further.

A never ending story. Galileo di Vincenzo Bonaiuti de' Galilei would have undoubtedly experienced a bad case of Deja Vu if he were sitting in on these deliberations at the University of Ghent.

---