Division Catalysts

our enemy's most powerful weapon

John Carter has a couple articles that, taken together, provide an excellent primer on the topic of how to make sense of the complex information environment that we are in. The first is about evaluating sources of information. The second is about the relationship between conspiracy and system. I agree with the thesis John puts forward in both articles with one exception. I believe there is a lot of utility in making the deliberate decision to “trust” some individual sources, especially if you have a good bead on that individual’s motivations. In the current age where interaction with some of these individuals is possible, the ability to build connection with such individuals via direct communication provides the dissident class an essential advantage if we are to prevail in the ongoing spiritual conflict.

System vs. Conspiracy

Our enemies that comprise the managerial class enjoy support from the two main sources that John articulates in his excellent essay. The systemic support is coordinated by the fact that particular policies and practices promote the class interests of the managerial elite. They don’t need to conspire to enjoy these effects, but that does not mean that they don’t conspire. They do, but the benefits enjoyed by such conspiracy are marginal to those facilitated by common class interest. Where dissidents will have an advantage in this conflict will be our ability to build more robust trust relationships to engage in “conspiracies” of our own. Now, we won’t have to be secretive about it because our beliefs and what we are trying to promote are demotic (at least in America), but they can be considered conspiracies anyway as the activities I’m alluding to fit the definition.

Divide et Impera

The managerial class cannot afford to allow the dissident class to coagulate into a cohesive force. We pose an existential threat to their rule, and so whether coordinated by system or conspiracy, they will interfere with our ability to unify. Sowing distrust is the simplest and most effective means of accomplishing this end. The agents responsible for implementing these means I will refer to henceforth as division catalysts (DCs). DCs may be acting in good faith, or not. At the end of the day it is their impact that matters. I believe that those acting in good faith could take something away from this article and perhaps recognize that we don’t always have to agree on everything in order to coalesce into an effective conglomerate capable of supplanting the managerial class. Those acting in bad faith can get fucked.

What is a Division Catalyst?

DCs are those individuals that can be relied upon by the managerial class to interrupt the formation of robust trust relationships within dissident networks. To be clear, DCs are not necessarily aware of the role they are playing. To use a very straightforward example, there are persuasive arguments that can be made that QAnon was an astroturfed psychological operation that targeted the dissident class. Applying the litmus test of cui bono retrospectively, I find this to be highly plausible. For anyone who spent any time on the internet from 2017-2020, I hope it is easy to see how followers of “Q” in comments sections could be divisive. If not, I have another example. The motivation for this article was my online interaction from one of the individuals in the “there is no virus” crowd. This is just one additional example of an issue associated with DCs. Other issues including flat earth, moon landing, zero point energy, abortion, religion and climate change all provide the potential for dissidents discussing things in good faith to disagree, and this disagreement can sow division within this nascent community if it isn’t handled with grace. This article is my attempt to draw attention to this issue and provide a framework for how to mitigate the threat DCs pose to Americans.

Example Interaction

The following interaction was had across two separate substack comments sections. The initial interaction started with a comment I left on Mathew Crawford’s article on time economics (which incidentally is relevant to the point I’m trying to make here). This will be long, but it is important to see the entire context to appreciate the point I’m trying to make, which also includes my thoughts about what is essential to our class interest as dissidents.

Grant:

Taking the time to communicate concisely and effectively is critically important for everyone that has good intentions. It doesn't matter if you're right if no one can hear you secondary to poor etiquette. To be clear, I'm not talking about PC or CRT. Those are methods to control communication, etiquette facilitates communication. Some with bad etiquette are simply incompetent communicators with good intentions. Others are acting in bad faith. You're right that there is often no quick way to tell the difference, although I do have a couple litmus tests I use.

I like thinking of flat earth, snake venom, "there is no virus" etc. as DDoS attacks. Has a less kooky ring to it vs. calling them psyops, although I will probably only use it with those that are somewhat tech savvy. Thanks as always for your efforts to communicate important issues Mathew!

“Slandermen”

Hello "Dr". Could you please explain some "virus" functionality to me, you know, the lack of motile function, reproductive capacity, ATP function, unevidenced pathogenic potential, the entire NIH virus library being fraudulent and address say, why "viruses" happen to only "do stuff" when they're apparently inside cells (yet have no means to actually infect cells, as they're resultant and discarded to be recycled, broken down by say mechanisms including say, protease functionality). Perhaps you would like to mention how no supposed "virus" has ever been shown to be causative nor has contagion been evidenced, while thousands of factors known to be causative in disease are ignored? Perhaps also, you want to mention how "virus" classification works and remind us about the amount of toxins and huge amounts of chemical alteration involved in standard virology practice which lacks even the most basic scientific requirements?

Grant:

I don't know where to start other than to say we are probably on the same side in this war of wars. The fact that a simple disagreement about something causes you to reflexively engage me in conversation starting off with obvious condescension is informative. I don't mean to offend, but to use my language from my original comment, you are either an incompetent communicator, or less likely, acting in bad faith to derail productive conversation and consume my attention. Given my overall position that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be allocated towards virology or public health (I just wrote an article title the myth of public health, in fact), my beliefs regarding immune function and viruses shouldn't concern you. What should concern you is how easy it is for the establishment to completely isolate you from anyone in any position of power or influence, and neutralize you politically. If you can accept that not everyone will believe everything that you believe, right or wrong, and start focusing on the issues we MUST agree on to live together in a civilized society you can stop being part of the problem, and become part of the solution. Once we have secured freedom of speech and a radical cultural commitment to pursuing truth and accuracy in science and academia over ideology (it will likely require divorcing both from government) then it might make sense for you to spend your time criticizing scientific orthodoxy without any credentials or scientific background. Right now, no one can hear you.

“Slandermen”:

Oh is that so? See, what allowed for "covid" (and various other similar frauds)? That's right, belief in "virus" functionality, contagion, pasteur methodology. So if those fundamentals aren't addressed, more "covid" sort of fraud. Oh and your appeal to institution tells me a fair bit. Btw, I called out covid fraud in January 2020 on medicalxpress. In this article (comments at the bottom), please do tell me how inaccurate it is: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-01-global-coronavirus.html

Grant:

Your belief that viruses don't exist/aren't responsible for disease is a sufficient condition for intense skepticism of the federal government's funding of virology (including gain of function research), attempts to prohibit economic activity, and coercion of individuals to accept particular medical treatments etc., but it is not necessary. I vigorously oppose all of those things while believing that viruses exist and are pathogenic. I argue that the fundamental problem is not beliefs about viruses, but the extent to which the government is involved in public health and medicine.

In your astute comments on the medicalxpress article (that no one heard), you mention the opioid crises. What caused that? A variety of factors to be sure, but none more critical than government involvement and support. The Joint Commission (JCO) specifically provided guidance that directly contributed to the development of this epidemic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6139759/ If you've never worked in a hospital, you can't know how powerful JCO guidance is at governing behavior. At first glance, it doesn't seem like the government is involved, but a more robust analysis reveals that most state governments require JCO accreditation to receive medicare and medicaid payments. Last I checked, these payments collectively comprise the largest market share of healthcare expenditures in America. Control the funding/incentives, control the outcome.

In order to live together in a prosperous society we don't have to believe the same things about viruses, religion, medicine, or almost any topic. We only have to agree that the government has no place using coercion to regulate behavior by deferring to what a technocratic elite (that we probably agree is almost universally wrong about everything) believes is optimal. Fortunately, if you live in the U.S. the law of the land has an amendment that reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I believe an honest interpretation of things like the commerce clause implies that all of these draconian measures you associate with a belief in "virus" functionality are already illegal. Maybe if we work together, we can get to a point where this is understood and culturally accepted. As difficult as this objective may be to achieve, it is infinitely more attainable than convincing a significant number of people with a scientific background that viruses don't exist in the current environment. In the current environment, our ideological enemies use "the virus doesn't exist" as a thought stopping technique to destroy the credibility of anyone who questions the mainstream narrative. Even if you are right, functionally you are working to ensure that a global technocratic elite is able to achieve a strategic victory in this war of wars. Even if trying to convince people viruses don't exist isn't counterproductive and doomed to failure, it wouldn't have done anything to prevent, say, the opioid crises. I urge you to consider your priorities and objectives.

I believe it is possible to get to a world where your positions can be openly discussed by people with and without expertise alike, letting the public decide what to believe without Disinformation Governance Boards interfering. We aren't there right now. Again, no one can here you.

On a side note, you mention your sister is a geneticist, does she subscribe to your position on viruses? If she has inside anecdotes pertaining to BMGF fraud, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would be interested to hear them.

“Slandermen”

"I vigorously oppose all of those things while believing that viruses exist and are pathogenic" Based on? Feel like explaining "virus" "reproductive" function, internal energy, motile function? Feel like disproving thousands of factors known to be causative in disease before you jump to conclusions, based on assumption about viruses? What's your classification of "viruses" based on? Btw, I "made" "TMV" (the first "virus") while simultaneously disproving contagion. Did you know the entire NIH virus library is fake synthetic shit? What's the history of fraud associated with "viruses" like? Remember when scurvy and pellagra were considered contagious and they weren't? How about vitamin A's importance in measles? Vitamin D and RTIs? Ebola, smallpox, AIDS, polio/GBS/AFM/various myelitis issues (they're basically the same)?

It was here that I let “Slandermen” have the last word. After all, I took a lot of time and effort to lay out an argument that effectively demonstrates that given Slandermen’s stated motivations, my unwillingness to stipulate that viruses don’t exist is inconsequential. He went through the enormous comment I made above and masterfully isolated the only point of disagreement that we had. This is the behavior of a highly effective DC.

The interaction continues…

3 months later Winston Smith had a thought provoking post that touches on the legitimacy of virology. Having had some time to think about the exchange I had above, I formed a strong opinion and wanted to share my thoughts about how the dissident community should prioritize examinations of the legitimacy of virology (and other non-essential common beliefs).

Grant:

It really doesn't matter, at least not for the moment. Everyone that thinks achieving some sort of consensus on the scientific validity of anything is required to resist tyranny/promote liberty is wrong. THIS belief is the stupid, dangerous belief that we must attack and destroy. We will all believe different things about the nature of the universe and truth. Building an effective coalition to resist a dystopian collapse into neoserfdom requires incorporating people who believe the earth is round and flat, people who think viruses exist and don't, people who believe in God and atheists etc. There is a tendency for freedom loving individuals to think a particular belief is the lynchpin for tyranny that if removed we'll all be free. They get so excited about it, so emotionally invested in sharing the incontrovertible evidence. Guess what? Almost every mainstream belief is completely and totally fucked. If you don't believe me, just find any no-shit expert in any field and ask them what heterodox beliefs they have about their field. They will always have at least a few. The idea that there is just one issue that if we just convince everyone then the lynchpin of tyranny will be removed and we'll all be free is a seductive illusion. If there is such a lynchpin, it is based in philosophy and/or spirituality. Some sort of succinct way to internalize that we don't have to agree about everything to trust one another and build an effective sociopolitical coalition around something simple that we can all agree is mutually beneficial. I think this is the NAP, but whatever it is, it is what we need to be searching for, not arguing about this shit. If we ever do combine our efforts to secure a more or less free society government funding of science disappears then you don't have to worry about other people spending their money researching stupid shit that is a waste of time. In a free society we won't have to worry about public health officials setting draconian policy based on lies, because there won't be public health officials. Someone tell me how I'm wrong. Someone tell me how we all have to agree about the particulars of germ theory in order to be politically successful in achieving our mutually desired end state of a free society.

“sir isO”

Your initial statement annoys me.

"It really doesn't matter, at least not for the moment. Everyone that thinks achieving some sort of consensus on the scientific validity of anything is required to resist tyranny/promote liberty is wrong."

All of the medical tyranny BS, vaccines, pharmaceutical BS (consider the industrial profiteering motivations and such) is predicated on germ theory.

Gl answering that.

See, if the belief, support of germ theory horseshit doesn't exist, none of that shit can result.

Wtf are people wearing masks, taking vaccines, prescription drugs, eating homogenized toxified (by companies that sell pharma shit) food, etc?

So I get aggro hey. If you try deflect from that, consider me your enemy.

From what I see you are trying to conflate issues of dichotomy, that is, you are suggesting truth is as BS as falsehood, suggesting, correctness is not as important as fallacy. So in effect, because germ theory is entirely BS, you try to equate terrain theory as also being BS. and trying to distract from addressing that. When it is in fact, only germ theory that is entirely BS, which is why it is so popularized and prevalent in "freemason", industrial, exploitative, tyrannical WHORES' SHIT.

Can you show me any example of terrain theory being used for tyranny, industrially, institutionally exploitative malicious means? What the fuck do you think that means?

Left hand down.

Enemies then, roger that. I was disturbed to see another individual seemingly incapable of addressing the straightforward argument that I'm attempting to make, namely, that we can’t prioritize building a scientific consensus on any particular issue over building a political consensus if we want to be successful¹. Scrolling through the comments I was relieved to ultimately learn that “sir isO” is just the most recent nom de plume of “Slandermen”, who after changing his name and deleting his comments from our prior exchange decided to engage again.

To What End?

We can’t ever know the motivations of others with certainty. What we can work out is the practical effects they exert. Slandermen self-identified as an enemy, and I believe this is apt. DCs function to serve the managerial class. Whether by virtue of system or conspiracy, whether engaging in good faith, or bad, they must be treated as enemies if they insist on pursuing conditions antithetical to strategic political success of the dissident community. As dissidents, our views are necessarily heterodox and heterogeneous. This is both our greatest strength, and our greatest vulnerability. To fortify our defenses against this vulnerability, we must focus on what we have in common, namely, our class interest. We must recognize this class interest in the face of powerful incentives and malign actors converging to ensure that we don’t. This is what will allow us to synthesize a dynamic common operating picture (DCOP) to better understand what avenues will promote our class interests so that this implicit knowledge may coordinate our behavior and so that we may develop some effective conspiracies of our own towards supplanting the ruling class.

Are We Worthy?

Expecting everyone to agree with “the narrative” is what our enemies are guilty of. If we’re to be worthy of supplanting the managerial elite, we must demonstrate that we are competent enough spiritually and emotionally to allow for disagreement within the ranks, at least on a macro level. A part of the process will be a particularization where you can expect more agreement on core beliefs and values at a more local level. This is consistent with the constitution and federalism. Expecting the homogeneity that our enemies expect at the national level would only prove that we are not worthy of cultural dominance within America. Such an expectation foretells that if we are politically successful, that we will engage in the same intolerance the managerial elite so proudly exude in denouncing all those who may disagree with the hyper-reality they inhabit as “deniers”. It takes emotional intelligence and proficiency in the competency of self-regulation to disagree with people while still being able to work towards a common goal. If we can’t get our shit together and embrace this by taking responsibility for our own emotional competence, we don’t deserve to achieve cultural hegemony, and would fail to make the world a better place in the event that we did.

Friend-Enemy

To be absolutely clear about the point I am trying to make, if you can’t develop the competence required to appreciate and respect others within the dissident community when they don’t agree with you about a particular belief that is not essential to promoting our class interest, then you are not one of us. You may appear to participate in the movement, but the overall impact of your efforts will be to sow division and retard our progress on the path towards strategic victory. If you’re reading this, operating in good faith, and think I’m a stupid asshole because I believe viruses and gravity exist, you need to get your shit together. If you haven’t already, establish behaviors that underlie optimal cognitive function so that you can get your head right and get on our side of the fight.

If you are not one of us, you are one of them

1. Successful politically that is.