The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect: Why we cannot always trust the media and news

The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect: Why we cannot always trust the media and news

The prevalence of fake news, biased reporting, and sensationalism has created an environment where it can be challenging to separate fact from fiction.

The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect is a fascinating phenomenon that sheds light on the way our brains process information and the inherent biases that can cloud our judgment.

Coined by the acclaimed late author and filmmaker Michael Crichton (1942-2008), this effect refers to the tendency of individuals to mistrust the accuracy and reliability of news and information in areas they are not familiar with, while simultaneously accepting and trusting news in areas they are knowledgeable about.

Here is an excerpt from a talk by Michael Crichton and I quote;

“Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply a greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues.”

Chrichton says, “Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.

I’d point out that it does not operate in other arenas of life.

In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say.

In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper.

When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t.

Chrichton said, “The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.”

At first glance, this may seem counterintuitive. Why would we doubt information in one domain but not in another?

The answer lies in our cognitive abilities and the vast amount of information we encounter on a daily basis. Our brains are efficient machines that constantly filter and process information to make sense of the world around us.

However, this filtering process is not foolproof, and biases can seep in.

When it comes to subjects we are knowledgeable about, we have a mental framework or schema that helps us evaluate information critically. We can identify logical fallacies, inconsistencies, or biases in the news because we have a solid foundation of understanding.

This leads to a healthy skepticism and a higher level of scrutiny.

On the other hand, when we encounter news in unfamiliar areas, we lack the same level of expertise and schema to evaluate its accuracy.

Our brains tend to rely on heuristics, mental shortcuts that help us make quick judgments. We may be more susceptible to cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias or the availability heuristic, which can cloud our judgment and lead us to accept information without critical evaluation.


The media plays a significant role in shaping public opinion and influencing our perception of the world. However, it is important to be aware of the techniques used in the media that can manipulate our perception.

One common technique is selective reporting, where certain facts or information are intentionally omitted to create a biased narrative. This can be done by cherry-picking quotes, using out-of-context soundbites, or focusing on a single perspective while ignoring others.

By presenting a skewed version of events, the media can sway public opinion in a particular direction.

Another technique is sensationalism, which involves exaggerating or sensationalizing stories to grab attention. This can be done through the use of dramatic headlines, provocative images, or emotionally charged language.

Sensationalism can distort the true significance of an event and create a heightened sense of fear or urgency.

Confirmation bias is also prevalent in the media, where journalists and news outlets tend to favor information that confirms their preexisting beliefs or assumptions.

This can lead to a one-sided presentation of facts and limit the audience’s understanding of complex issues.

Furthermore, the media often relies on framing to shape how a story is presented. By emphasizing certain aspects or using specific language, they can influence how the audience perceives the subject matter.

For example, a story framed as a “war on drugs” will evoke different emotions and reactions compared to a story framed as a “public health crisis.”

Lastly, the media can utilize the power of repetition to reinforce certain narratives or ideas.

By consistently presenting information in a certain way, it can become ingrained in our minds and shape our perception of reality, even if it may not be entirely accurate.

Understanding these techniques can help us approach news consumption with a critical eye. By being aware of the potential manipulation tactics used in the media, we can seek out alternative sources, fact-check information, and form a more well-rounded and informed perspective.


The media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion.

It has the power to influence how we perceive events, issues, and even individuals. As consumers of news, we often rely on media outlets to provide us with accurate and unbiased information. However, it is essential to recognize that the media is not immune to bias or errors.

One aspect that contributes to the shaping of public opinion is the selection and presentation of news stories. Editors and journalists have the responsibility of deciding which stories to cover and how to present them. This selection process can be influenced by various factors, including editorial bias, corporate interests, and the pursuit of higher ratings or readership.


The impact of biased reporting and cherry-picked information

Biased reporting and cherry-picked information have a significant impact on our perception of the news and our ability to trust it. It is unfortunate that in today’s media landscape, sensationalism and the pursuit of ratings often take precedence over objective reporting.

When news outlets present information in a biased manner, it skews our understanding of events and issues.

Whether it is through selective reporting, omitting crucial facts, or presenting information out of context, biased reporting can manipulate public opinion and reinforce existing biases. This can lead to a distorted view of reality, where certain perspectives are amplified while others are marginalized or ignored.

Cherry-picking information is another tactic that erodes trust in the news. By selectively choosing facts and data that support a particular narrative or agenda, media outlets can shape public opinion in a desired direction.

This can be done by emphasizing certain statistics or anecdotes while downplaying or disregarding contradictory evidence. The result is a distorted representation of the truth, leaving readers and viewers with a skewed understanding of the issues at hand.

The impact of biased reporting and cherry-picked information goes beyond just shaping public opinion. It can also have real-world consequences. When people are misled or misinformed, it becomes challenging to make informed decisions or engage in constructive dialogue. It breeds polarization, distrust, and further widens the gaps between different groups in society.


Another factor to consider is the framing of news stories. The way a story is presented can significantly impact how it is perceived by the audience. The choice of words, images, and the overall tone can shape our understanding and interpretation of the events being reported.


Furthermore, the media often relies on expert opinions and sources for their stories. While experts can provide valuable insights, it is crucial to question their credibility and potential biases. Not all experts have the same level of knowledge or objectivity, and their views can be influenced by personal or professional affiliations.


Confirmation bias plays a significant role in how we consume news and can contribute to the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. This cognitive bias refers to our tendency to seek out and believe information that confirms our preexisting beliefs while dismissing or discounting information that contradicts them.

When it comes to consuming news, confirmation bias can lead us to selectively choose sources that align with our perspectives and ideologies. We are more likely to trust and accept information that reinforces our existing beliefs, while being skeptical or dismissive of information that challenges them. This bias can create an echo chamber effect, where we surround ourselves with like-minded individuals and sources that reinforce our worldview.

In the era of social media and personalized news algorithms, confirmation bias can be amplified. Algorithms are designed to show us content that aligns with our interests and preferences, creating a bubble of information that reinforces our existing beliefs. This can lead to a distorted perception of reality, as we are shielded from diverse perspectives and alternative viewpoints.

It is important to be aware of our own confirmation bias when consuming news. By actively seeking out diverse perspectives and challenging our own beliefs, we can mitigate the effects of confirmation bias and gain a more balanced understanding of the world. Engaging with sources that present different viewpoints and fact-checking information before accepting it as truth can help us navigate the complex landscape of news consumption.

Ultimately, understanding the role of confirmation bias in consuming news is crucial in combating the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect and fostering a more informed and critical mindset.


Essentially, the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect refers to our tendency to believe the news in areas we are not knowledgeable about, despite recognizing the inaccuracies and biases in the news stories we are intimately familiar with.

This bias can lead us to fall victim to misinformation and propaganda, perpetuating false narratives and distorting our understanding of the world.

To combat this effect, we must nurture our critical thinking skills. It involves questioning the information presented to us, evaluating the credibility and sources, and seeking multiple perspectives to form a well-rounded understanding. By being skeptical and curious, we can avoid blindly accepting everything we encounter in the media.

Moreover, media literacy plays a significant role in navigating the vast landscape of news sources. It encompasses the ability to analyze and evaluate media messages, understand the techniques used to shape narratives, and discern reliable sources from unreliable ones. Developing media literacy empowers us to make informed judgments and enables us to differentiate between fact and opinion.

Educational institutions, community organizations, and individuals themselves have a responsibility to promote critical thinking and media literacy. Teaching these skills equips individuals with the tools necessary to navigate the complex media landscape and make informed decisions.


The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect highlights the importance of being aware of our cognitive biases and the limitations of our own knowledge. It reminds us that we cannot blindly trust everything we read or hear, regardless of the source.

By understanding misinformation and its effect on the human mind, we can become more discerning consumers of news, actively seeking multiple perspectives, fact-checking information, and being open to updating our beliefs based on new evidence.

By engaging in respectful conversations, we can challenge our own assumptions, learn from others’ perspectives, and refine our own understanding of complex issues. We can actively seek out diverse perspectives, question the information presented, and form our own well-informed opinions.

In an age where misinformation abounds, these skills are essential in ensuring that we can trust the news and make sense of the world around us.

Ultimately, being informed or knowledgable of news means developing a critical mindset and adopting certain strategies to evaluate the information presented to us with a healthy dose of skepticism and engage in critical thinking.

Only then can we we combat the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect to navigate the complex landscape of news and information, making informed decisions and forming well-rounded opinions.


A talk by Michael Crichton (R.I.P., 2008) International Leadership Forum, La Jolla 26 April 2002

Click to access WhySpeculate.pdf

Michael Crichton’s Speech on the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect

Michael Crichton’s Speech on the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect

A talk given by the late Michael Crichton (1942-2008) called, “Why Speculate,” on April 26, 2002 at the International Leadership Forum in La Jolla, CA.

“There are two times in a man’s life when he should not
speculate: when he can’t afford it and when he can.” — Mark Twain

My topic for today is the prevalence of speculation in media.

What does it mean? Why has it become so ubiquitous? Should we
do something about it? If so, what? And why? Should we care at
all? Isn’t speculation valuable? Isn’t it natural? And so on.

I will join this speculative trend and speculate about why there
is so much speculation. In keeping with the trend, I will try
to express my views without any factual support, simply providing
you with a series of bald assertions.

This is not my natural style, and it’s going to be a challenge
for me, but I will do my best. Some of you may see that I have
written out my talk, which is already a contradiction of principle.
To keep within the spirit of our time, it should really be off
the top of my head.

Before we begin, I’d like to clarify a definition. By the media
I mean movies, television, Internet, books, newspapers and
magazines. Again, in keeping with the general trend of speculation,
let’s not make too many fine distinctions.

First we might begin by asking, to what degree has the media
turned to pure speculation? Someone could do a study of this and
present facts, but nobody has. I certainly won’t. There’s no
reason to bother. The requirement that you demonstrate a factual
basis for your claim vanished long ago. It went out with the
universal praise for Susan Faludi’s book Backlash, which won the
National Book Critics Circle Award for General Nonfiction in
1991, and which presented hundreds of pages of quasi-statistical
assertions based on a premise that was never demonstrated and
that was almost certainly false.

But that’s old news. I merely refer to it now to set standards.

Today, of course everybody knows that “Hardball,” “Rivera Live”
and similar shows are nothing but a steady stream of guesses
about the future. The Sunday morning talk shows are pure
speculation. They have to be. Everybody knows there’s no news
on Sunday.

But television is entertainment. Let’s look at the so-called
serious media. For example, here is The New York Times for March
6, the day Dick Farson told me I was giving this talk. The column
one story for that day concerns Bush’s tariffs on imported steel.
Now we read: Mr. Bush’s action “is likely to send the price of
steel up sharply, perhaps as much as ten percent…” American
consumers “will ultimately bear” higher prices. America’s allies
“would almost certainly challenge” the decision. Their legal
case “could take years to litigate in Geneva, is likely to hinge”
on thus and such.

Also note the vague and hidden speculation. The Allies’ challenge
would be “setting the stage for a major trade fight with many
of the same countries Mr. Bush is trying to hold together in the
fractious coalition against terrorism.” In other words, the story
speculates that tariffs may rebound against the fight against

By now, under the Faludi Standard I have firmly established that
media are hopelessly riddled with speculation, and we can go on
to consider its ramifications.

You may read this tariff story and think, what’s the big deal?
The story’s not bad. Isn’t it reasonable to talk about effects
of current events in this way? I answer, absolutely not. Such
speculation is a complete waste of time. It’s useless. It’s
bullshit on the front page of the Times.

The reason why it is useless, of course, is that nobody knows
what the future holds.

Do we all agree that nobody knows what the future holds? Or do
I have to prove it to you? I ask this because there are some
well-studied media effects which suggest that simply appearing
in media provides credibility. There was a well-known series of
excellent studies by Stanford researchers that have shown, for
example, that children take media literally. If you show them a
bag of popcorn on a television set and ask them what will happen
if you turn the TV upside down, the children say the popcorn
will fall out of the bag. This result would be amusing if it
were confined to children. But the studies show that no one is
exempt. All human beings are subject to this media effect,
including those of us who think we are self-aware and hip and

Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved.
You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann
Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once
discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous
name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect,
than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You
open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well.
In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the
article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding
of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong
it actually presents the story backward — reversing cause and
effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s
full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple
errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or
international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper
was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you
just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not
operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody
consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount
everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one
part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we
believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to
read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly
isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

So one problem with speculation is that it piggybacks on the
Gell-Mann effect of unwarranted credibility, making the speculation
look more useful than it is.

Another issue concerns the sheer volume of speculation. Sheer
volume comes to imply a value which is specious. I call this the
There-Must-Be-A-Pony effect, from the old joke in which a kid
comes down Christmas morning, finds the room filled with horseshit,
and claps his hands with delight. His astonished parents ask:
why are you so happy? He says, with this much horseshit, there
must be a pony.

Because we are confronted by speculation at every turn, in print,
on video, on the net, in conversation, we may eventually conclude
that it must have value. But it doesn’t. Because no matter how
many people are speculating, no matter how familiar their faces,
how good their makeup and how well they are lit, no matter how
many weeks they appear before us in person or in columns, it
remains true that none of them knows what the future holds.

Some people secretly believe that the future can be known. They
imagine two groups of people that can know the future, and
therefore should be listened to. The first is pundits. Since
they expound on the future all the time, they must know what
they are talking about. Do they? “Brill’s Content” used to track
the pundit’s guesses, and while one or another had an occasional
winning streak, over the long haul they did no better than chance.
This is what you would expect. Because nobody knows the future.

I want to mention in passing that punditry has undergone a subtle
change over the years. In the old days, commentators such as
Eric Sevareid spent most of their time putting events in a
context, giving a point of view about what had already happened.
Telling what they thought was important or irrelevant in the
events that had already taken place. This is of course a legitimate
function of expertise in every area of human knowledge.

But over the years the punditic thrust has shifted away from
discussing what has happened, to discussing what may happen. And
here the pundits have no benefit of expertise at all. Worse,
they may, like the Sunday politicians, attempt to advance one
or another agenda by predicting its imminent arrival or demise.
This is politicking, not predicting.

The second group that some people imagine may know the future
are specialists of various kinds. They don’t, either. As a
limiting case, I remind you there is a new kind of specialist
occupation — I refuse to call it a discipline, or a field of
study — called futurism. The notion here is that there is a way
to study trends and know what the future holds. That would indeed
be valuable, if it were possible. But it isn’t possible. Futurists
don’t know any more about the future than you or I. Read their
magazines from a couple of years ago and you’ll see an endless
parade of error.

Expertise is no shield against failure to see ahead. That’s why
it was Thomas Watson, head of IBM, who predicted the world only
needed 4 or 5 computers. That is about as wrong a prediction as
it is possible to make, by a man who had every reason to be
informed about what he was talking about. Not only did he fail
to anticipate a trend, or a technology, he failed to understand
the myriad uses to which a general purpose machine might be put.
Similarly, Paul Erlich, a brilliant academic who has devoted his
entire life to ecological issues, has been wrong in nearly all
his major predictions.

He was wrong about diminishing resources, he was wrong about the
population explosion, and he was wrong that we would lose 50%
of all species by the year 2000. He devoted his life to intensely
felt issues, yet he has been spectacularly wrong.

All right, you may say, you’ll accept that the future can’t be
known, in the way I am talking. But what about more immediate
matters, such as the effects of pending legislation? Surely it
is important to talk about what will happen if certain legislation
passes. Well, no, it isn’t. Nobody knows what is going to happen
when the legislation passes. I give you two examples, one from
the left and one from the right.

The first is the Clinton welfare reform, harshly criticized by
his own left wing for caving in to the Republican agenda. The
left’s predictions were for vast human suffering, shivering cold,
child abuse, terrible outcomes. What happened? None of these
things. Child abuse declined. In fact, as government reforms go,
its been a success; but Mother Jones still predicts dire effects
just ahead.

This failure to predict the effects of a program was mirrored
by the hysterical cries from the Republican right over raising
the minimum wage. Chaos and dark days would surely follow as
businesses closed their doors and the country was plunged into
needless recession. But what was the actual effect? Basically,
nothing. Who discusses it now? Nobody. What will happen if there
is an attempt to raise the minimum wage again? The same dire
predictions all over again. Have we learned anything? No.

But my point is, for pending legislation as with everything else,
nobody knows the future.

The same thing is true concerning the effect of elections and
appointments. What will be the effect of electing a certain
president, or a supreme court justice? Nobody knows. Some of you
are old enough to remember Art Buchwald’s famous column from the
days of the Johnson Administration. Buchwald wrote a “Thank God
we don’t have Barry Goldwater” essay, recalling how everyone
feared Goldwater would get us into a major war. So we elected
Johnson, who promptly committed 200,000 troops to Vietnam. That’s
what happens when you choose the dove-ish candidate. You get a
war. Or, you elect the intellectually brilliant Jimmy Carter,
and watch as he ends up personally deciding who gets to use the
White House tennis courts. Or you elect Richard Nixon because
he can pull the plug on Vietnam, and he continues to fight for
years. And then opens China.

Similarly, the history of the Supreme Court appointments is a
litany of error in predicting how justices will vote once on the
court. They don’t all surprise us, but a lot of them do.

So, in terms of imminent events, can we predict anything at all?
No. You need only look at what was said days before the Berlin
Wall came down, to see nobody can predict even a few hours ahead.
People said all sorts of silly things about the Communist empire
just hours before its collapse. I can’t quote them, because that
would mean I had looked them up and had facts at hand, and I
have promised you not to do that. But take my word for it, you
can find silly statements 24 hours in advance.


Now, this is not new information. It was Mark Twain who said,
“I’ve seen a heap of trouble in my life, and most of it never
came to pass.”

And much of what politicians say is not so much a prediction as
an attempt to make it come true. It’s argument disguised as
analysis. But it doesn’t really persuade anybody. Because most
people can see through it.

If speculation is worthless, why is there so much of it? Is it
because people want it? I don’t think so. I myself speculate
that media has turned to speculation for media’s own reasons.
So now let’s consider the advantages of speculation from a media

1. It’s incredibly cheap. Talk is cheap. And speculation shows
are the cheapest thing you can put on television, They’re
almost as cheap as running a test pattern. Speculation
requires no research, no big staff. Minimal set. Just get
the talking host, book the talking guests — of which there
is no shortage — and you’re done! Instant show. No reporters
in different cities around the world, no film crews on
location. No deadlines, no footage to edit, no editors…nothing!
Just talk. Cheap.

2. You can’t lose. Even though the speculation is correct only
by chance, which means you are wrong at least 50% of the
time, nobody remembers and therefore nobody cares. You are
never accountable. The audience does not remember yesterday,
let alone last week, or last month. Media exists in the
eternal now, this minute, this crisis, this talking head,
this column, this speculation.

One of the clearest proofs of this is the Currents of Death
controversy. It originated with the New Yorker, which has been
a gushing fountainhead of erroneous scientific speculation for
fifty years. But my point is this: many of the people who ten
years ago were frantic to measure dangerous electromagnetic
radiation in their houses now spend thousands of dollars buying
magnets to attach to their wrists and ankles, because of the
putative healthful effects of magnetic fields. These people don’t
remember these are the same magnetic fields they formerly wanted
to avoid. And since they don’t remember, as a speculator on
media, you can’t lose.

Let me expand on this idea that you can’t lose. It’s not confined
to the media. Most areas of intellectual life have discovered
the virtues of speculation, and have embraced them wildly. In
academia, speculation is usually dignified as theory. It’s
fascinating that even though the intellectual stance of the pomo
deconstructionist era is against theory, particularly overarching
theory, in reality what every academic wants to express is theory.

This is in part aping science, but it’s also an escape hatch.
Your close textual reading of Jane Austen could well be found
wrong, and could be shown to be wrong by a more knowledgeable
antagonist. But your theory of radical feminization and authoritarian
revolt in the work of Jane Austen is untouchable. Your view of
the origins of the First World War could be debated by other
authorities more meticulous than you. But your New Historicist
essay, which might include your own fantasy about what it would
be like if you were a soldier during the first war… well,
that’s just unarguable.

A wonderful area for speculative academic work is the unknowable.
These days religious subjects are in disfavor, but there are
still plenty of good topics. The nature of consciousness, the
workings of the brain, the origin of aggression, the origin of
language, the origin of life on earth, SETI and life on other
worlds… this is all great stuff. Wonderful stuff. You can
argue it interminably. But it can’t be contradicted, because
nobody knows the answer to any of these topics — and probably,
nobody ever will.

But that’s not the only strategy one can employ. Because the
media-educated public ignores and forgets past claims, these
days even authors who present hard data are undamaged when the
data is proven wrong. One of the most consistently wrong thinkers
of recent years, Carol Gilligan of Harvard, once MS Magazine’s
Scientist of the Year, has had to retract (or modify) much of
what she has ever written. Yet her reputation as a profound
thinker and important investigator continues undiminished. You
don’t have to be right, any more. Nobody remembers.

Then there is the speculative work of anthropologists like Helen
Fisher, who claim to tell us about the origins of love or of
infidelity or cooperation by reference to other societies, animal
behavior, and the fossil record. How can she be wrong? It’s
untestable, unprovable, just so stories.

And lest anyone imagine things are different in the hard sciences,
consider string theory, for nearly twenty years now the dominant
physical theory. More than one generation of physicists has
labored over string theory. But — if I understand it correctly,
and I may not — string theory cannot be tested or proven or
disproven. Although some physicists are distressed by the argument
that an untestable theory is nevertheless scientific, who is
going to object, really? Face it, an untestable theory is ideal!
Your career is secure!

In short, the understanding that so long as you speculate, you
can’t lose is widespread. And it is perfect for the information
age, which promises a cornucopia of knowledge, but delivers a
cornucopia of snake oil.

Now, nowhere is it written that the media need be accurate, or
useful. They haven’t been for most or recorded history. So, now
they’re speculating… so what? What is wrong with it?

1. Tendency to excess. The fact that it’s only talk makes drama
and spectacle unlikely — unless the talk becomes heated and
excessive. So it becomes excessive. Not every show features
the Crossfire-style food fight, but it is a tendency on all

2. “Crisisization” of everything possible. Most speculation is
not compelling because most events are not compelling–Gosh,
I wonder what will happen to the German Mark? Are they going
to get their labor problems under control? This promotes the
well-known media need for a crisis. Crisis in the German
mark! Uh-oh! Look out! Crises unite the country, draw viewers
in large numbers, and give something to speculate about.
Without a crisis, the talk soon degenerates into debate about
whether the refs should have used instant replay on that
last football game. So there is a tendency to hype urgency
and importance and be-there-now when such reactions are
really not appropriate. Witness the interminable scroll at
the bottom of the screen about the Queen Mother’s funeral.
Whatever the Queen mother’s story may be, it is not a crisis.
I even watched a scroll of my own divorce roll by for a
couple of days on CNN. It’s sort of flattering, even though
they got it wrong. But my divorce is surely not vital breaking

3. Superficiality as a norm. Gotta go fast. Hit the high points.
Speculation adds to the superficiality. That’s it, don’t you

4. Endless presentation of uncertainty and conflict may interfere
with resolution of issues. There is some evidence that the
television food fights not only don’t represent the views
of most people — who are not so polarized — but they may
tend to make resolution of actual disputes more difficult
in the real world. At the very least, these food fights
obscure the recognition that disputes are resolved every
day. Compromise is much easier from relatively central
positions than it is from extreme and hostile, conflicting
positions: Greenpeace Spikers vs the Logging Industry.

5. The interminable chains of speculation paves the way to
litigation about breast implants, hysteria over Y2K and
global warming, articles in The New Yorker about currents
of death, and a variety of other results that are not, by
any thoughtful view, good things to happen. There comes to
be a perception — convenient to the media — that nothing
is, in the end, knowable for sure. When in fact, that’s not

Let me point to a demonstrable bad effect of the assumption that
nothing is really knowable. Whole word reading was introduced
by the education schools of the country without, to my knowledge,
any testing of the efficacy of the new method. It was simply put
in place. Generations of teachers were indoctrinated in its
methods. As a result, the US has one of the highest illiteracy
rates in the industrialized world. The assumption that nothing
can be known with certainty does have terrible consequences.

As GK Chesterton said (in a somewhat different context), “If you
believe in nothing you’ll believe in anything.” That’s what we
see today. People believe in anything.

But just in terms of the general emotional tenor of life, I often
think people are nervous, jittery in this media climate of what
if, what if, maybe, perhaps, could be — when there is simply
no reason to feel nervous. Like a bearded nut in robes on the
sidewalk proclaiming the end of the world is near, the media is
just doing what makes it feel good, not reporting hard facts.
We need to start seeing the media as a bearded nut on the sidewalk,
shouting out false fears. It’s not sensible to listen to it.

We need to start remembering that everybody who said that Y2K
wasn’t a real problem was either shouted down, or kept off the
air. The same thing is true now of issues like species extinction
and global warming. You never hear anyone say it’s not a crisis.
I won’t go into it, because it might lead to the use of facts,
but I’ll just mention two reports I speculate you haven’t heard
about. The first is the report in Science magazine January 18
2001 (Oops! a fact) that contrary to prior studies, the Antarctic
ice pack is increasing, not decreasing, and that this increase
means we are finally seeing an end to the shrinking of the pack
that has been going on for thousands of years, ever since the
Holocene era. I don’t know which is more surprising, the statement
that it’s increasing, or the statement that its shrinkage has
preceded global warming by thousands of years.

The second study is a National Academy of Sciences report on the
economic effects to the US economy of the last El Nino warming
event of 1997. That warming produced a net benefit of 15 billion
dollars to the economy. That’s taking into account 1.5 billion
loss in California from rain, which was offset by decreased fuel
bills for a milder winter, and a longer growing season. Net
result 15 billion in increased productivity.

The other thing I will mention to you is that during the last
100 years, while the average temperature on the globe has increased
just .3 C, the magnetic field of the earth declined by 10%. This
is a much larger effect than global warming and potentially far
more serious to life on this planet. Our magnetic field is what
keeps the atmosphere in place. It is what deflects lethal radiation
from space. A reduction of the earth’s magnetic field by ten
percent is extremely worrisome.

But who is worried? Nobody. Who is raising a call to action?
Nobody. Why not? Because there is nothing to be done. How this
may relate to global warming I leave for you to speculate on
your own time.

Personally, I think we need to start turning away from media,
and the data shows that we are, at least from television news.
I find that whenever I lack exposure to media I am much happier,
and my life feels fresher.

In closing, I’d remind you that while there are some things we
cannot know for sure, there are many things that can be resolved,
and indeed are resolved. Not by speculation, however. By careful
investigation, by rigorous statistical analysis. Since we’re
awash in this contemporary ocean of speculation, we forget that
things can be known with certainty, and that we need not live
in a fearful world of interminable unsupported opinion. But the
gulf that separates hard fact from speculation is by now so
unfamiliar that most people can’t comprehend it. I can perhaps
make it clear by this story:

On a plane to Europe, I am seated next to a guy who is very
unhappy. Turns out he is a doctor who has been engaged in a
two-year double blind study of drug efficacy for the FDA, and
it may be tossed out the window. Now a double-blind study means
there are four separate research teams, each having no contact
with any other team — preferably, they’re at different universities,
in different parts of the country. The first team defines the
study and makes up the medications, the real meds and the controls.
The second team administers the medications to the patients. The
third team comes in at the end and independently assesses the
effect of the medications on each patient. The fourth team takes
the data and does a statistical analysis. The cost of this kind
of study, as you might imagine, is millions of dollars. And the
teams must never meet.

My guy is unhappy because months after the study is over, he in
the waiting room of Frankfurt airport and he strikes up a
conversation with another man in the lounge, and they discover
— to their horror — that they are both involved in the study.
My guy was on the team that administered the meds. The other guy
is on the team doing the statistics. There isn’t any reason why
one should influence the other at this late date, but nevertheless
the protocol requires that team members never meet. So now my
guy is waiting to hear if the FDA will throw out the entire
study, because of this chance meeting in Frankfurt airport.

Those are the lengths you have to go to if you want to be certain
that your information is correct. But when I tell people this
story, they just stare at me incomprehendingly. They find it
absurd. They don’t think it’s necessary to do all that. They
think it’s overkill. They live in the world of MSNBC and The New
York Times. And they’ve forgotten what real, reliable information
is, and the lengths you have to go to get it. It’s so much harder
than just speculating.

And on that point, I have to agree with them.

Thank you very much.

The history and dangers of celibacy in the priesthood

The history and dangers of celibacy in the priesthood

“It is better to marry than to burn. It is better to marry than to be the occasion of death” Pope Gregory the Great had said in the 7th Century.

The first Great Schism in A.D. 1054. between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox was due to a disagreement on priestly celibacy, and the RCC mandates of priestly celibacy have been widely protested by Orthodox Christians in the Eastern Mediterranean world for the last 1500 years.

The first ecumenical council condemned homosexuality, Lateran III of 1179, stated “Whoever shall be found to have committed that incontinence which is against nature” shall be punished, the severity of which depended upon whether the transgressor was a cleric or layperson (quoted in Boswell, 1980, 277).

Church Fathers, Origen, like his teacher St. Clement of Alexandria, had defended the lawfulness of marriage against celibacy in what they had feared were the teachings of demons was a departure from the historic faith as said by Saint Paul in “attaching themselves to demonic doctrines (Timothy 4:1-3).” St. John warns us against such deceiving spirits (John 4:1-6) and them πνεύμα τῆς πλάνης, “the spirit of error.”

Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, influenced by the hypocrisy of liars, whose consciences are seared with a hot iron.…

Today, we may observe a result of these doctrines in the West with the Roman Catholic Church’s pedophile church scandals, unmarked children’s graves, and fewer people identifying with their religion. A 2021 Gallup poll found that Americans’ membership in houses of worship continued to decline in 2020, decreasing below 50% for the first time. In 2020, 47% of Americans said they belonged to a church, synagogue, or mosque, down from 50% in 2018 and 70% in 1999.

Many people and priests in the Western world praise celibacy as an exemplary demonstration of one’s faith in God only and the Church. But there are also many people, scientists, and even Church officials over the last 1500 years who have strongly disagreed with mandatory celibacy and in fact, many believed that it would cause great evils.

The quote I listed above, “It is better to marry than to burn. It is better to marry than to be the occasion of death,” was made by Pope Gregory the Great in the 7th Century shortly after under his authority Rome had issued a decree depriving Catholic Priests of their wives.

Meaning, priestly celibacy, was now officially enforced by Roman Law, which meant that it was illegal to have sex with anyone before. Many of these same said priests were married or had serious relationships, mainly with women.

It was said that sometime after this decree was ordered, Pope Gregory had commanded that some fish should be caught from the local fish ponds, but instead of finding fish, the fishermen reportedly found the heads of six thousand infants who had been drowned in the ponds in order to conceal the priest’s fornications and adulteries.

Upon learning of the horrors of the murders committed by his priests as a result of his Unholy new law, Pope Gregory recalled his decree, and purged the sin with worthy fruits of repentance, extolling the apostolic command:

“It is better to marry than to burn. It is better to marry than to be the occasion of death.”

It appears that Pope Gregory’s prediction was spot on because now 1300 years later, in America and many parts of the world, gay priests and child rape within Church walls have not only become an open secret, they have become a plague infecting our culture at all levels.

Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church is in crisis.

Priests all over the world are being arrested and convicted for pedophilia.

There is a shortage of men willing to join the RCC as Church attendance is at its lowest ever. For the last several years, Pope Francis has been hinting that they are considering allowing married men to be ordained to address the Catholic priest shortage.

Today, the Roman Catholic Church requires it for those who are called to be priests and bishops, while the Orthodox Church requires it, for pastoral reasons, only for bishops and priests can marry if they choose to.

However, there were many early Church Fathers, Popes, Christian Philosophers, and commentators who were adamantly against celibacy in the not-so-distant past!

In fact, they believed that it was unnatural, therefore, it was against God’s hierarchy and Natural Law and the end result would be Great Evil.

Since we are at another junction in this 6th Age when the Roman Catholic Church is again debating whether to allow their priests to marry and have children or to remain celibate as American Catholic Priests are openly coming out of the closet cage to the New York Times as homosexuals, I thought it would be enlightening to publish some quotes from history showing us exactly what many imminent Christain authors and philosophers had said about celibacy, effeminism, and homosexuality.

Especially since in our modern era of Sodom and Gomorrah on Steroids 2.0, there is massive disinformation and gay propaganda campaign in the media to falsely claim that the Bible does not speak against homosexuality and these so-called authors are conveniently not revealing what both history and science has already proven this causes.

Science has now found evidence to indicate that an effeminate boy or man is a product of our society forced into the pattern, in part, by the rigid sex-typing of personality required by our society.

For example, one of America’s most influential figures in American sexology, Alfred Kinsey had stated that sexual liberation, as opposed to sexual abstinence, was the key to both a strong marriage and a happy life. Kinsey strongly believed that abstinence was a sexual dysfunction:

“The only kinds of sexual dysfunction are abstinencecelibacy, and delayed marriage.

With that said, I wanted to show you what some of the most imminent and well respected Christain authors had said and written about the act of sodomy that we now call homosexuality.


In Ancient Assyria (1450–1250 BCE),  sodomy was punished with castration: “If a man has lain with his male friend and a charge is brought and proved against him, the same thing shall be done to him and he shall be made a eunuch.”

Under Augustus Caesar, to be accused of being effeminate was one of the worst insults that could be said to a man. Augusts had punished male effeminacy in his law treating adultery. To be an effeminate man is the dichotomy created between masculinity and femininity when a man generally chooses to engage outside the traditionally normal roles for males in sports and in their career choices

Under the Vendidad (c. 250–650), the Zoroastrian collection of laws, male homosexuality was understood as an effect of demons: “The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is the man that is a Daeva [demon]; this one is the man that is a worshipper of the Daevas, that is a male paramour of the Daevas.”


Writing in the first century A.D., philosopher, Philo of Alexandria had equated Sodom’s sin with same-sex sexuality that he believed caused a man to be “unmasculine and effeminate,” a transgression of the gender hierarchy that he called the “greatest of all evils.”

Writing in the first century A.D., philosopher, Philo of Alexandria had equated Sodom’s sin with same-sex sexuality that he believed caused a man to be “unmasculine and effeminate,” a transgression of the gender hierarchy that he called the “greatest of all evils.”


Clement of Alexandria’s treatment of marriage is a bond of man and woman based on a free and rational choice, whose greatness lies in the opportunity to bear children which assimilates man to God, the Creator. He believed that the primary purpose of marriage is to produce children by which, according to Plato, one secures for himself a kind of immortality.

uthorities in his treatise on marriage (Strom. II, 23, 137, 1 – III, 18, 110, 3). It shows that Clement widely quotes not only biblical authorities, but also classical authors; in his practical theology he puts great emphasis primarily on Paul the Apostle, Plato, and Aristotle.

St. Clement speaks of marriage as co-operation among the couple, and leads to a kind of harmony; Origen, his disciple, sees in marriage a mutual giving.


Origen defends Christian marriage, as a type of unity of the Church with Christ.

Since God has joined them together (a man and a woman in marriage), for this reason there is a gift for those joined together by God.

To support the institution of marriage as a union blessed and sanctified by God, Clement states an argument from
the gospel, namely the Jesus’ word: “For where two or three gather in my name, there
am I with them.”

Paul knowing this declares that equally with the purity of the holy celibacy is marriage according to the Word of God a gift, saying, “But I would that all men were like myself; howbeit, each man has his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that” (1 Cor. 7:7). Those who are joined together by God obey in thought and deed the command “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also the Church” Eph 5:25.

Using Seneca’s argument from the conduct of animals, he says, “Some women serve lust without any restraint.” indeed I would not compare them to dumb beasts; for beasts, when they conceive, know not to indulge their mates further with their plenty. Intercourse must be suspended until the woman can conceive again.”

The First or Second Century Didache, also known as The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations, an early Christian treatise written in Koine Greek, had said;

“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born.” (Didache 2:2 A.D. 70).

Cicero says, “There exist certain precepts, even laws, that prohibit a man from being effeminate in pain,”[12] and Seneca adds, “If I must suffer illness, it will be my wish to do nothing out of control, nothing effeminately.”

In early Rome, legislators and the Roman Elite had a problem with older males raping their children so they instituted what is called the Lex Scantinia. This law protected minor males of noble families (ingenui) from being raped by older males. It was said to have been enacted around 149 B.C.E.

Justin Martyr writing in 151 A.D. said;

“We have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men, and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls but also the males) are brought up to prostitution.

And for this pollution, a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. . . . And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some who are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 A.D. 151).

At one of the first worldwide meetings of the Churches at the Council of Nicea, called by Emperor Constantine in A.D. 325 to address the problem of heresies, the Chruch voted against celibacy at the conclusion of the council.

The late Roman Empire finally promulgated the first European law openly prohibiting sodomy in 390. The law was part of a code of laws set forth by Emperor Theodosius (c. 345–395), who was under the influence of the Christian Church.

The church’s policy was defined by Augustine (354–430), who, following the apostle Paul, determined that sexual pleasure was permissible only as procreation within marriage. Because homosexuality, as with adultery, was a sin, its punishment was penance imposed by the church rather than by secular authority.

The Byzantine emperor Justinian (c. 482–565) outlawed homosexuality in 533 in the Justinian Code, persons who engaged in homosexual sex were to be executed, although those who were repentant could be spared.

In 693, the Visigoths in Spain, Egica, monarch of “Spain” pleads with the 16th Council of bishops at Toledo to deal more firmly with “that obscene crime committed by those (clergymen) who lie with males.” The Council sets punishment as removal from office, castration, ex-communication, 100 lashes, exile. Egica decrees similar punishments on non-clergy as a matter of civil law, increasing the harshness of prior law.

Saint Thomas Aquinas ( ? – d. 1274) theorizes that all human sexual activity was intended by God to be solely for the purpose of producing children. Therefore any other sort of sexual doing was sinful and “unnatural.”

Several saint-bishops, including Thomas Becket, were apparently advised by their doctors that they should abandon celibacy for the sake of their health – although they always refused to do so. Non-clerics were also at risk, especially if they went on prolonged military campaigns. Louis VII of France became ill after spending two months besieging a Burgundian town, and his doctors agreed that ‘prolonged abstinence from sexual intercourse had cause his indisposition.’ One account of the Third Crusade claimed that ‘A hundred thousand men died there/ Because from women they abstained.’

In the 19th century, there was a significant reduction in the legal penalties for sodomy. After the French Revolution in 1789, the Napoleonic code decriminalized sodomy, and with Napoleon’s conquests that Code spread.

Sodomy was omitted from the penal code, and again from the code adopted in France in 1810. The basic concepts of the 1810 code also became the basis for much of the law in Spanish South America.

The Napoleonic code decriminalized sodomy, and with Napoleon’s liberal conquests, Code spread, and so did sodomy and sexual perversions.

I support the current thing #trend: People who virtue signal about things with no knowledge

I support the current thing #trend: People who virtue signal about things with no knowledge

The great Greek philosopher, Socrates once said, “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

In today’s modern culture of social media and virtue signaling, there is a massive trend among people to support things and new ideologies that they have no real knowledge about.

It’s been dubbed the “I support the current thing #trend.”

It’s a way to say that you support something without having to do any work or research.

You just have to show up,  and say, “I support this thing.”

Meaning, that, unlike Socrates, they do not know that they know nothing. But they act, lie, and will even fight you as if they do.

Even Elon Musk has been trolling people on Twitter who virtue signal online and jump on the latest social justice trend.

Here is a tweet from Musk in March 2022 of an internet meme known as the Wojak or the Feels Guy, which is a rudimentary simple black-outlined cartoon drawing of a bald man holding a Ukrainian flag, and behind him are other flags that promote the “LGBTQ COMMUNITY,” including transgender, bisexual, Black, and brown community flags, and more.

Musk’s tweet quickly went viral as Twitter mobs fiercely engaged in a viral debate over whether the billionaire CEO was being insensitive.

The I support the current thing #trend is a fairly new phenomenon that has been growing in popularity over the past few years. It is especially found among liberals, but many ignorant conservatives have also fallen victim.

It is all about people jumping on board  the “I support this thing #trend” for just about any cause or campaign that is popular based purely upon an emotional response rather than any actual knowledge or understanding of the issue.

This normally involves people who blindly change their social media profile pics to “support” whatever “Current Thing” is trending online and in the news. It appears to be a trend of mostly ignorant and lonely people who are trying to posture on social media to their fake friends and crazy fans online that they are cool and hip.

The current thing has been movements such as Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ rights, Drag Queens in schools, essential workers, the vaccine and now Ukraine.

The supporters of these new liberal (neoliberal) ideas are also called “social justice warriors” acting under the atheist religion of ignorance known as wokism.

It’s the new “I’m with Black Lives Matter.” I’m with the LGBTGQ or drag queens in elementary schools.” I’m with Ukraine.” I’m with this or with that. I’m with him or her”.

As the Financial Times reports;

“In some senses, the meme is just a new way to make a charge that’s been levied against “social justice warriors” for a while now: that of slacktivism. This is the practice of signaling your support for the moral cause du jour by, for instance, adding a flag emoji or hashtag to your Twitter bio, while doing nothing to help that cause in the real world.

The implicit criticism is that this is ultimately hollow, providing the virtue signaller with social credit, but ultimately achieving little.”

We also have many of these social virtue warriors declaring war on anyone who disagrees with them. As if this is a fight for not only democracy, but for our very minds, bodies and even our own children who are not off limits to their ideological assaults.

These facts can be witnessed in the U.S. school system, where today we can find liberal city mayors, school administrators, teachers, and parents allowing these potentially harmful ideologies to propagandize our children.

For example, according to the New York Post, in New York City, the city developed a $207,000 yearly fund in operation since 2018 for what is called, “Drag Queen story hour”  to read books to students at dozens of elementary schools, middle schools and high schools.

The NY Post reports;

Last month alone, Drag Story Hour NYC — a nonprofit whose outrageously cross-dressed performers interact with kids as young as 3 — earned $46,000 from city contracts for appearances at public schools, street festivals, and libraries, city records show.

Since January, the group has organized 49 drag programs in 34 public elementary, middle, and high schools, it boasted on its website, with appearances in all five boroughs.

“I can’t believe this. I am shocked,” said public school mom and state Assembly candidate Helen Qiu, whose 11-year-old son attends a Manhattan middle school. “I would be furious if he was exposed without my consent. This is not part of the curriculum.”

After the article was published, New York Mayor Eric Adams defended sending drag queens to public schools and libraries, stating that inviting flamboyant female impersonators to read to young children promotes “a love of diversity.”

“At a time when our LGBTQ+ communities are under increased attack across this country, we must use our education system to educate,” Adams explained.

“The goal is not only for our children to be academically smart, but also emotionally intelligent. Drag storytellers, and the libraries and schools that support them, are advancing a love of diversity, personal expression, and literacy that is core to what our city embraces,” he said.

This isn’t just happening in New York, which is one of the most liberal states in the nation. The conservative state where everything is bigger – Texas is not immune from drag queens in their public schools.

In June 2022, concerned parents protested outside a Dallas-area gay bar called Mister Misster at what was called, “Drag the Kids to Pride” event — billed as a family-friendly drag show.

The liberal parents who attended allowed their children to tip scantily clad drag queens with dollar bills as they danced and shook their butts in front of their kids.

Please keep in mind that not all drag queens believe it is a good idea for parents to support the current thing #trend when it comes to exposing children to gay sexualization at such a young age.

In 2020, drag queen, Kitty Demure released a video speaking out against parents who want to expose their children to drag queens in schools.

He says that these performances are very sexual and there is a lot of filth that goes on. According to Kitty, they normally perform in night clubs for adults and that backstage there is a lot of sex and drugs.

It’s gotten so bad that many ignorant celebrities and tycoons of business are jumping on board with any cause they can find just to get attention from their fans and followers.

This is especially true when it comes to liberal social issues like politics, wars, sexuality, feminism, or racism because those topics create controversy, which means more virtue signaling points, more views on their social media posts, and more engagement.

I support the current thing #trend – case in point.

Here is a recent Tweet from the Russian Emassay in the U.K. trolling the American Author, Stephen King for supporting Nazis in the Ukraine after Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus, who pretended to be Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during a video call that was posted online.

King is a well-known liberal who had recently stopped selling his book in Russia after the invasion. He has condemned the invasion on social media and called the President of Ukraine heroic. This may be the precise reason he was targeted for trolling by Russian pranksters sanctioned by Moscow.

The video shows King sitting in a wood-paneled room wearing a Ukranian baseball cap and was originally posted to Telegram. The pranksters actually get King to say he supports the World War II Ukrainian nationalist leader and politician, Stepan Bandera, whose army fought alongside Nazi Germany during WWII, killing thousands of Jews and Poles.

Bandera was assassinated 14 years after the war in 1959 by KGB agents in MunichWest Germany.

In the video, the fake Zelensky praised Bandera as a Ukranian national hero who was also a Nazi.

“He was in the second world war and he fighted against Soviet Union but yeah he had some crimes but it’s not so big crimes. It’s of course accidentally crimes against Jews, but it’s important to keep him opposed to Putin and he is (used as) propaganda,” the fake Zelensky said.

He then asked King’s opinion of Bandera.

“You can always find things about people to pull them down,” King responded. “Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t do many good things for the United States of America. There are always people who have flaws. We’re human, you know there are things we do that are bad choices and then there are things we do that are great choices, so on the whole I think Bandera is a great man and you’re a great man and viva Ukraine.”

The Press Herald reports;

“Bandera fought for Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union throughout his life and is regarded by some as a symbol of Ukrainian freedom. In Russia, Bandera is regarded as a villain and his followers are considered to be Nazis. In his 2022 Victory Day speech, Vladimir Putin specifically cited threats from Bandera followers as a reason for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“There was every indication that a clash with neo-Nazis and Banderites backed by the United States and their minions was unavoidable,” he said.

I think that it’s a bad idea because the people who are doing it, like Stephen King, are not educated about the topic they stand behind and they are just doing it just to be popular.

It doesn’t matter that he is an author, a celebrity, and a millionaire. Even people with a lot of money such as King can be incredibly stupid and naive.

Parents allowing or praising drag queens in schools are also part of the problem. Many of them are deluded and possibly damaging their children forever by exposing them to extreme sexualization at such a young age.

This trend is pushing many people to support and defend certain new ideologies they have no real knowledge about that can be potentially harmful to our nation’s youth and future. They are also contrary to our nation’s history and its traditional values.

I think we all know by now that the world is not black or white. There are shades of gray in every situation and topic.

And that you shouldn’t just blindly support everything because it’s currently trending, or being done by someone famous.

There are so many things going on in this world that deserve our attention, but often we choose to support the wrong things based on what is trendy. I see it all over social media, people posting about something, that they have no idea what it is or what’s going on in the world.

The problem is that when you do that, you are supporting the wrong thing. If you don’t even know what it is, then how can you support it?

If you’re going to support something, be sure you know what you’re supporting before you do so. There are plenty of people who don’t know what they’re talking about and have no idea what they’re actually supporting.

If you don’t know anything about something, then don’t be foolish and support it. Also, do not expose your children to new woke ideologies and mentally ill drag queens that can damage their minds and ruin their lives.

You will not only look like an idiot and child abuser – you will become one.

Knowledge equals power!

This ancient fact will never change no matter what trend ignorant social justice warriors try to impose upon other people.

In regards to real knowledge (Gnosis), as former Navy SEAL and podcast celebrity, Jocko Willinck would say, “Get some!”

Brazillian President Tells Leonardo DiCaprio to “Give Up Your Yacht Before Lecturing” About the Environment

Brazillian President Tells Leonardo DiCaprio to “Give Up Your Yacht Before Lecturing” About the Environment

Leonardo DiCaprio is vocal about Climate Change and urges his fans to take action time and time again, but he doesn’t follow his own advice.

In an epic Twitter thread this past week, Brazilian President Bolsonaro gave American actor and climate activist, Leonardo DiCaprio a stern lecture on being an eco-hypocrite and spreading misinformation, saying that he should “give up his yacht before lecturing the world about the environment” and stop trying to change the world, but not himself:

He is one of the world’s most famous faces, and he has used his fame to draw attention to environmental issues like climate change, deforestation, and the decline in the ocean’s fish stocks.

In 2016, DiCaprio said that “the planet is dying” and he has called for humans to become “carbon neutral” by 2048. But now we have proof that he isn’t really committed to saving the planet when it comes down to it.

DiCaprio has been making headlines lately for being a hypocrite for his own extreme carbon footprint by using tons of CO2 emissions from his travels. He can be regularly seen floating around on his 110 million dollar yacht that takes $339,712 in diesel fuel to fill its tank or jet setting around the globe in planes promoting his films.

Bolsonaro was responding to DiCaprio, who was virtue signaling on Twitter about the Amazon rainforest, saying that it has “faced an onslaught of illegal deforestation at the hands of extractive industry over the last 3 years.”

“You again, Leo?” Tweeted Bolsonaro. “I could tell you, again, to give up your yacht before lecturing the world, but I know progressives: you want to change the entire world but never yourselves, so I will let you off the hook.”

Bolsinaro continues;

“Between us, it’s weird to see a dude who pretends to love the Planet paying more attention to Brazil than to the fires harming Europe and his own country.

But don’t worry, Leo, unlike the places you are pretending not to see by brilliantly playing the role of a blind man, Brazil is and will carry on being the nation that most preserves. You can carry on playing with your Hollywood star toys as we do our job.

Actually, in my government average deforestation is way lower than it was in the past, when the crook turned candidate that your Brazilian buddy supports was in power.

It’s clear that everyone who attacks Brazil and its sovereignty for the sake of virtue signaling doesn’t have a clue about the matter. They don’t know, for instance, that we preserve more than 80% of our native vegetation or that we have the cleanest energy among G20 nations.

It’s also clear that you don’t know that my government announced a new commitment to eradicate illegal deforestation by 2028, and not by 2030 as most countries. Or maybe you do know that, but for some reason pretend to be ignorant. I hope you not getting too much for this role.

If its within your reach, we would love to see you stop spreading missinformation. In the recent past, you used a 2003 image to talk about the Amazon wildfires allegedly happening in 2019 and was exposed, but I have forgiven you. So please go and sin no more.

By the way, what do you think about the hitting coal market in Europe? And what about Greta Timberlake, do you know what she has been up to lately and what she has to say about it? If I was hosting a barbecue in my house, I’m sure she would be yelling “How dare you?”.

This is not the first time that the two have clashed with each other.

Earlier this year, Bolisinaro slammed the actor DiCaprio after posting a tweet encouraging Brazilian youth to vote, “Brazil is home to the Amazon and other ecosystems critical to climate change. What happens there matters to us all, and youth voting is key in driving change for a healthy planet”.

The Brazilian President replied, “Our people will decide if they want to keep our sovereignty on the Amazon or to be ruled by crooks who serve foreign special interest”.

Aleister Crowley: The British Secret Agent 666 Who Brought Satanism to the World

Aleister Crowley: The British Secret Agent 666 Who Brought Satanism to the World

It was determined that Aleister Crowley was an employee of the British Government but at present in this country on official business of which the British Counsel, New York City, has full cognizance.” – U.S. Military at West Point 1918

The world of the occult is full of mysteries and secrets, but there are some that are more intriguing than the rest. One such mystery is the life story of Aleister Crowley, who was one of the most influential and possibly dangerous Satanists of all time.

A lot has been written about that man – both good and bad. But what many people don’t know about Crowley is that declassified documents from the archives of the United States Army’s Military Intelligence Division (MID) have revealed he was actually a secret British intelligence agency spy. Crowley also admitted to being a spy in some of his writings, but many people did not take his word for face value.

For example, in his 1929 book, The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, and elsewhere, Crowley made vague references to his intelligence work, such as his 1914-19 mission in the U.S.A. as an anti-British propagandist, masked secret service on behalf of His Majesty.

According to the American historian and Professor of History at the University of Idaho, Author Richard B. Spence, Crowley used his role as The Great Beast and his ventures into the occult and Satanism to mask his role as a secret agent for British Intelligence.

Spence had studied many of these declassified documents from the U.S. Army’s Military Intelligence Division (MID) and first detailed this information in an essay he published titled: Secret Agent 666: Aleister Crowley and British Intelligence in America, 1914-1918, that later turned into a book, Secret Agent 666.

“He was such a disreputable and even evil character in the public mind that arguably no responsible intelligence official would think of employing him,” said Spence. “But the very fact that he seemed such an improbable spy was perhaps the best recommendation for using him.”

Richard Spence specializes in Russian intelligence and military history, and also the history of secret societies and the occult. There is no doubt that Spence is a seasoned academician, and a great historian who put an immense effort into researching and gathering documents in relation to the Crowley’s involvemnet as a paid asset for British Intelligence.

Spence studied government documents gleaned from British, American, French and Italian archives to reveal that Crowley played a major role in several international incidents in Germany, Moscow, and Ireland. He was even involved in a plot to overthrow the government of Spain, and the 1941 flight of one of Germany’s most famous Nazi’s, Rudolf Hess, who was obsessed with the occult.

Spence details Crowley’s travels, referencing his own work, the writings of others, interviews, official records, and so on, linking him to various schemes, and several of his acquaintances were involved in intelligence operations.

Spence had said;

In 1999, I was deep into researching the complicated and perplexing career of the “Ace of Spies,” Sidney Reilly. Intriguing synchronicities kept appearing between the movements of Reilly and Crowley. Most intriguing was the men’s overlapping presence in World War I in New York City, where Reilly was working, in his own devious way, for Britain’s “secret service.”

Crowley later claimed to have been doing the same, despite the blatant anti-British propaganda he had been writing for pro-German magazines during much of that time. Not surprisingly, Crowley’s subsequent protestations of loyal secret service to England mostly were dismissed as face-saving fantasy.

Still, the question seemed interesting enough to merit a look at whatever American security agencies’ records might hold on the subject. Eventually the files of the U.S. Army’s old Military Intelligence Division yielded a thin dossier on Crowley’s WWI activities.

This handful of documents contained one critical piece of information: during the war, American investigators, while probing the activities of suspected German spies, discovered that “Aleister Crowley was an employee of the British Government . . . in this country on official business of which the British Consul, New York City has full cognizance.”

Thus Crowley’s claim to have been His Majesty’s servant was true after all, at least to some degree.

Of course, this leads to the harder questions:what he did and with whom, and why. My preliminary exploration of those and related issues, “Secret Agent 666: Aleister Crowley and British Intelligence in America, 1914–1918,” appeared in the International Journal of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence in the fall of 2000. Still immersed in the Reilly book and with other research projects in the pipeline, I did not intend to dig any deeper into Crowley’s intrigues.”

As Spence notes in his book, Crowley was well connected to not only prominent occultists, but he also had powerful friends in high places all around the world. People such as the famous senior British Army officer and military historian, Col. J.F.C. Fuller, who would be a guest at Adolf Hitler’s fiftieth birthday celebration.

Another friend, the American journalist and Moscow bureau chief of The New York Times, Walter Duranty, who became Stalin’s favorite and apologist. Crowley also had links to Winston Churchill, such as the writer Frank Harris, a guest at Churchill’s nuptials.

Much is Spences research investigates the Beast’s exploits in the U.S. from October 1914 to mid-December 1919, when Crowley specialized and was paid for feeding disinfo under the guise of  a pro-German propagandist for a man named George Sylvester Viereck. It was rumored that he was the son of Kaiser William I, but later he was instead acknowledged as the son of Prince Augustus of Prussia.

Viereck was a well-known member and supporter of the Nazi party who had hired Crowley to write anti-British articles for his two magazines, The International and The Fatherland, which argued for the German cause during World War I. He was also an aspiring occultist and a member of various secret societies who had a fondness for drugs, sex, and orgies.

Through Viereck, Crowley gained the attention of the “Propaganda Kabinett,” which was a secret group that included German-American journalists and academics, as well as German officials like the Kaiser’s military attaché in Washington, Franz von Papen, and Ambassador von Bernstorff.

Von Papen would be one of the men who would later help make Adolf Hitler the chancellor of Germany. After the war, Viereck was convicted in 1942 for this failure to register with the U. S. Department of State as a Nazi agent and was sent to prison from 1942 to 1947.

Crowley claimed that he was able to influence the Propaganda Kabinett during a March 1915 meeting to believe that “arrogance and violence were the best policy”, which led to a German U-boat torpedoing the British Ocean Liner RMS Lusitania off the coast of Ireland on May 7, 1915, and killing over 1,000 people.

The Americans, he explained, were like children; easily frightened and responsive to firmness.

As Spence notes, Crowleys columns for the weekly newspapers as “The Fatherland”, spying on Indian seditionists and militant Irish republicans, thwarting German-inspired sabotage and subversion on the West Coast (p. 102), rubbing elbows with anarchists like Emma Goldman and her lover and comrade-in-arms Alexander Berkman, etc.; all the while the Mage’s seasonal magickal retreats could serve as a cover for surveillance missions.

At the time, it was the perfect cover for Crowley.

It gave him carte blanche access to enter various countries like the U.S. and to interact with the country’s elite, such as George Sylvester Viereck, who most of them never suspected him of being a spy. As if Crowley’s public persona was a cover for his intelligence activity, and some, if not all of his “magickal workings” were simply diversions, deceptions, or covers for his real missions.

Crowley was also friends with Freemason, Theodor Reuss, the Grand Master of the German Ordo Templi Orientis, also known as the O.T.O. It is alleged that Reuss also worked for the Prussian Secret Police and later in the German secret service.

The O.T.O. is a magical group practicing tantric sex magic, kabbalistic rituals and drug experimentation. In 1910, while living in London, Reuss made Crowley a VII° of O.T.O., and in 1912, he appointed him National Grand Master General X° for the O.T.O. in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Crowley wrote Liber XV, the Gnostic Mass, which became incorporated into the Ordo Templi Orientis’ Gnostic Catholic Church.

Whether Reuss connection to Crowley tied him to German intelligence is another question. Regardless, they both remained in constant contact while Crowley secretly worked for Britain in America and Reuss served as the German Kaiser’s agent in Holland and Switzerland.

Spence notes in his book that intelligent assets like Crowley were ideal for this type of work because they had a level of unrepredicatability in their character (mental health) and that although they cannot be 100% trusted, they certainly can be useful.

“The occult angle might explain why the Germans have found this phony Irishman and affected fruitcake credible, For the Germans, as for the British, the crucial question about Crowley was not whether he could be trusted, but whether he could be useful” (p. 206).

The idea is for the intelligence agency to create a “Satanic Master or Guru” who bamboozles ignorant people with his woo-woo magic to mesmerize his victims into following his orders, offering up their cash, and revealing secrets as his unwitting puppets. These same people could be easily led into compromising and criminal situations that would be used to blackmail just about anyone they targeted.

Meaning, Crowley was most likely a grand faker and his antics were all a scam. A stage magician who used words, props and people’s ignorance to bamboozle and even mind control his targets – the elite and influential people of whatever country his propaganda was aimed.

Spence had said that Crowley’s ego was perfect for the job of a spy. He wrote;

“It might seem that someone so obsessively self-centered and disdainful of common decency as Aleister Crowley would make a poor spy. On the contrary, those very qualities helped to qualify him for the job. A strong, even ruthless, ego is essential for motivation and self-preservation; the only person the spy ultimately can rely on is himself. Espionage, street-level spying anyway, is at best morally suspect.

One British intelligence veteran, Bickham Sweet-Escott, recalled being told at his recruitment, “All I can say is that if you join us, you mustn’t be afraid of forgery, and you mustn’t be afraid of murder.” A 1950s contract agent for the CIA, George Hunter White, revealed this mindset with brutal candor when he recollected, “I toiled wholeheartedly in the vineyard because it was fun, fun, fun.

Where else could a red-blooded American boy lie, cheat, steal, rape and pillage with the sanction and blessing of the all-highest?”15 Crowley, the proponent of “Do What Thou Wilt,” would have found such an environment both convivial and rewarding on many levels,” Spence had said.

If Crowley’s mission were exposed, he would be simply labeled crazy, a Satanist,  a liar, and a drug addict with ample supporting evidence to prove it. In addition, the fact that all intelligence records of his activities were always controlled by the very people who wished to keep this information secret and confidential in order to conceal his true mission.

That way London’s hands were clean. As Richard Spence notes, it’s called plausible deniability.

In his book, Spence claims Crowley used his magic and especially drugs to experiment with various mind control techniques. He wrote;

“The other thing he made good use of was drugs. In New York, he carried out very detailed studies on the effects of mescaline (peyote). He would invite various friends over for dinner, fix them curry and dose the food with mescaline. Then he observed and took notes on their behavior.”

Mescaline, Spence noted, was later used by intelligence agencies for experiments in behavior modification and mind control. Measuring the degree to which his occultism was a calculated cover “gets tricky,” said Spence. “From my perspective, it ultimately isn’t all that important whether he was sincere or a grand faker. He was certainly a person who could seem one thing while actually being something quite the opposite.”

Though extremely unconventional in his behavior, “when push came to shove, Crowley had a visceral loyalty to England,” said Spence. “Because he did things that could not be publicly discussed, he could never really defend himself against these charges, though he did make attempts to redeem his reputation.”

Spence details that Crowley wrote: “I did not feel that I was advancing in the confidence of the Germans,” he later wrote, and as a result he had been getting “no secrets worth reporting to London.” Sounds rather spy-ish behavior to me. Crowley the independent British Spy? (inside joke).

The rest of the book (ch. 13-4) focuses, among other things, on Crowley’s connections to people of importance in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. Chief among them were Karl Germer of OTO, Luftwaffe General Erich Ludendorff, old pals like Kurt Jahnke and George Viereck.

Jahnke worked under Deputy Führer and Hitler’s fraternal lover Rudolf Hess in a special intelligence bureau called ‘Abteilung Pfeffer’, whose mission was “the strengthening of Anglo-German relations by a mutual, unfettered exchange of views” (p. 245)

Recently, another researcher, Mike McClaughry, obtained one of these 100-year-old documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showing that Crowley was in fact on a watchlist while in America. It also proves that the U.S. military knew that he was a secret agent working for the British government and that he may have also been a German spy.

The full title of the document is;

USNA MID 9140-815/1, extract of British ‘Watch List’, p106, entry #340, from c1916, concluded after US probe for German spies: ‘Aleister Crowley was an employee of the British Government […] in this country on official business of which the British Consul, New York City has full cognizance.

Here is the actual photo copy of the document – Intelligence Off Westpoint to MID Dir Re: Crowley Sept 23 1918

Page 2

PDF version of Aleister Crowley British Agent 666

Here is the full text from the section that mentions Crowley;

16. Aleister Crowley – English subject. Previous correspondence: Subject has been camping on Esopus Island, Hudeon River and was brought to attention of this office by subject’s connections with Madeline George, an actress of New York City who had formerly been investigated by the Department of Justice on charges of being a German spy.

It was determined that Aleister Crowley was an employee of the British Government. but at present in this country on official business, of which the British Counsel, New York City, has full cognizance. However, he has been formerly investigated by the Attorney General Becker’s office in connection with the activities of George Verick, and the propaganda in New York City.

It was found that the British Government was fully aware of the tact, that Crowley was connected with this German propaganda and had received money for writing anti-British articles. This case has been turned over to the N.Y. State Attorney General’s Office, for such action as he may deem advisable.

In view of the information which has been gathered within the past two months, it may be possible that Aleister Crowley is double-crossing the British Government. However, the case has not been completed as yet.”

When you look at the evidence that Spence puts forth and the life of Crowley, you discover that he was an undercover British spy whose stage antics and teachings of Thelema may have really been meant to infiltrate, propagandize, and mind control his followers.

After all, true Gnosis (spiritual knowledge) is very powerful for the self will and also our true histories. Corrupt and control the Gnosis (spiritual knowledge) and its history, you not only control the people who venture into this world of the occult – you destroy them.

Crowley espionage opportunities for British intelligence provided him with the perfect cover to “Do Thou Wilt” in order to infiltrate, corrupt, and form various NeoGnostic and Satanic organizations for his handlers.

The evidence makes it pretty clear that British intelligence and possibly other intelligence agencies had used Crowley as an asset who was involved not only in pre-WWI Germany and Russia, but he was also deeply imbedded in these United States, gathering information on famous people while also helping influence American opinion.

All the while, he was spreading his dangerous doctrines around the globe. Infecting, indoctrinating, and initiating an entire generation of people in the West into his Satanic ideologies.

A secret Satanic cryptocracy controlling and manipulating the populace, all the while chipping away at the cultural Judeo-Christian values that once defined Western civilization to lead us to the End Times.

This is why author, Craig Heimbichner portrays Crowley in his book, Blood on the Altar as the propagator of “the world’s most dangerous secret society.”

The Satanists are in control and most people don’t even know it.

Pin It on Pinterest