I agree with you (as would K) - it's seems so abundantly clear that the whole 'culture war' woke vs. anti-woke stuff is designed to sow discord. Which is such a timeworn tactic one would think people would be wise to it by now, and focus not necessarily on, say, the trans people themselves, but on the people promoting the woke-ism/political correctness.
Part of the underlying intention behind K talking about her parallel world is to describe a place where the cabal no longer have any influence - thus there isn't any woke/anti-woke stuff going on at all. So Katrina is initially just baffled by the whole thing, but then she gets increasingly irritated by it and given the impossibility of shutting her up she decides she's going to jump in and try and do something about it, in her own particular idiom, of course.
In her world there is no cadre of bad guys promoting 'woke' - instead the vast majority of people simply don't even think about non-hetero types, or people with 'gender incongruence' (to use the strict medical terminology) or 'intersex', as these things are simply understood as 'rare variations of physiological or brain development' rather than having any moral issue attached. This also happens to be my own view - on the one paw I don't like woke people shoving these things in people's faces and enforcing 'political correctness' (because I for one don't have a problem with people being different so long as it doesn't harm anyone else, so I don't need to be told not to be prejudice, so to speak), whilst on the other I don't like prejudice towards people who are different. Ironically, I would imagine that most of the people who are different would rather not be the centre of attention, let alone used as ammunition in a deliberately devisive culture war.
Anyhow, Katrina is absolutely not shy of swearing like a trooper to get people's attention! She's a great believer in what Oscar Wilde said - 'the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about'.
The alien stuff (if you mean the sci-fi story I recently posted), by the way, is a sort of offbeat postmodern take on Katrina (she's an actress, amongst other things, in her world); it kind of does the 'what if' thing. So it was sort of written as a movie idea, if you see what I mean.
Can she practice what she preaches? Absolutely. And that is going to get her into a lot of trouble. At the present time in the story as you've have joined her, she is, if she was honest, still in the adjustment phase, not to mention frantically learning as much as she can about the world, given as far as she is concerned it has a completely alternate recent history - so it's like she has landed in an unknown foreign country without speaking a word of the language. So you may have to hold those thoughts for now...
Wow! OK, yes, you're so right about not taking sides. I find it ridiculous that now trans has gone ape people simply turn against it. Trans has always been around and always will be and the fact of it going ape doesn't mean we should turn against it, it's just being weaponised to divide us. People's buttons are so easy to push, it's pathetic.
So interesting about Lia Thomas and the name. The mind simply boggles.
I do find sexual identity interesting because I feel my brain is very male in a certain way, that is that I'm very logical and analytical and my brain doesn't turn to mush when people are said to have died (not that I can understand sophisticated logic mathematical style at all but just talking basic logic), in fact, I think I'm more logical than most men really - OK it's just my opinion - but my sexual identity is strictly female.
I get bisexual, of course, but the non-binary thing I do find quite confronting because I've simply never encountered that until recently and now I see people who identify as non-binary and yes they seem non-binary too and I wonder how that can be a recent phenomenon and whether it's just always been there but people have suppressed it. Non-binary I do find intriguing I must say.
Although I was familiar with the phenomenon of intersex (which takes various forms) I also learnt recently the percentage - 1.7% - and what would be interesting to know is how intersex people tend to identify, for example, are people who identify as non-binary more likely to be intersex.
[Evie - I'm putting this bit in square brackets because you might not be aware that when I reply to comments about an article written in Katrina's voice I have to distinguish between me [Evie] and her [K] - yeah, I know it probably comes across as if not confusing then a bit postmodern, but it's fun and it works. Anyway - I'll actually reply separately as K - also bear in mind that Katrina's post was written two years' ago, as it were - obviously you and I have 'advance knowledge' which she doesn't - this is the point in the story when the timelines are about to diverge - this is going to be fun]
[K] Thank you for sharing! And for your comment! You are the first to share one of my journal entries! Yay! This is great because so far I've mostly only got people from my swim club subscribing.
Anyway - yes, you are totally right in everything you say. By the way it's the next day now so the wine has worn off. Sorry about all the swearing.
With regards to sexual identity vs. gender identity - my point about neuroscience is that these two have been proven to be kind of separate. For most people however it doesn't seem (or manifest itself) in that way because there is a perfect 'congruence' between the two. So any 'deviance' from that 'norm' becomes really noticeable. Neuroscience has shown, however, that 'sexual orientation' is a product of certain specific areas of the brain. One interesting thing is for example the similarity of those areas for, say 'hetero male' and 'lesbian female'. So clearly this isn't necessarily 'biological gender-specific'.
Another thing I should say - and we've got this right in my world, is that I think this world's classification system is all wrong. There should be a clear separation between LGB - which is simply sexual orientation - and the 'T' and all the others, which is nothing to do with sexuality and those T+ people have the same variety of sexual orientation as everyone else, hetero or LGB. Personally though I think all the other letters are ridiculous and only serve to annoy people.
In my world we have a designation 'H' which stands for 'hermaphrodite' - this might be a version of what in this world is designated with 'I' meaning intersex. For most hermaphrodites (i.e. born with aspects of both male and female reproductive organs) in our world the treating specialist would wait until the child's 'gender identity' becomes fully formed (around the age of 7) and then the child will know whether they identify as male or female - at which point, potential treatment options are discussed with regards to removing the 'wrong' bits. Obviously the kind of treatment is similar to that received by transitioning trans people. But in terms of the prejudice, this doesn't really happen in my world because we understand all these things in simple medical terms - in other words, none of these things are a 'choice', so there's no 'moral' issue - 'morality' is associated with things people can choose, in that sense. Which seems reasonable to me.
I'm right with you on the logical and analytical brain thing - I'm like that. Yes, I do get really emotional at times although this is often about matters of principle. Even though we can talk about male and female differences in the brain this doesn't mean that certain ridiculous stereotypes are true - like 'women are more emotional' and 'men are more analytical' - that's bollocks. That's like saying women can't do logic - I fully suspect this is a hangover from centuries of patriarchy. So there is a certain socio-cultural aspect here. Interestingly, because brain-gender configuration (identity) happens epigenetically (i.e. influenced by external triggers) if a female grows up in a patriarchal society then her brain really will 'conform' to these stereotypes, and, being denied access to the same kind of education as men, and constantly being told 'you don't think rationally', all those neural connections in her brain may well resolve themselves into conformity (same applies to the designated 'role' for men, of course). This is one of the great positive things about our liberal socialist system - it allows the same education and lack of pressure for both males and females.
Non-binary - I don't get this either! Same with 'queer'. I thought 'queer' was simply another slang term for homosexual male! So we don't have a 'Q'. We also don't have a '2' (I found out this is specific to 'two-spirit people from Turtle Island' - I mean, that's just ridiculous. Not two-spirit people, but they should have their own designated code! Like I said, designed to irritate.
When I say I'm a 'B' (which is just sexual orientation, not gender - I mean we don't have 'M' and 'F' do we!) there's still a significant individual thing there - like I have quite specific (aesthetic) ideas about what kind of women or men I find attractive. And I often tell people I'm like 90% lesbian, because when it comes to blokes I'm really picky lol. Maybe the problem is that this natural variation in what people find attractive, for heterosexuals as much as anyone else, has been given these ridiculous 'letter designations' when actually it's simply 'variety'. I think this is specifically exaggerated in order to annoy people, stoke up the culture/identity war, and control people. In my world we have a kind of 'live and let live' attitude - and this is partly because the society itself does not cause 'chronic psychological stress' due to malevolent government. People aren't anxious or stressed so they have no one out-group to blame.
With regards to the percentage you mentioned, 1.7% - if this incorporates all of those silly letters then I think that's probably about right, from a purely 'natural variation' point of view.
But yes, this has been stoked up out of all proportion precisely to fuck with people - that's why I've called it a psyop. Oh - I've had a look at your Substack and I love your attitude so I'm definitely going to subscribe [Evie: obviously I already did that - assume this is the first time K has met you].
Don't worry about my case officer, by the way - he's one of those old-school British private school types still nostalgic for the glorious days of Empire. I didn't realise such types still existed! It's nice, though - it's the kind of person I used to have to deal with.
Anyway, I have to get off to the gym. Nice to meet you and see you later!
[K] Oh - forgot to say - I really like your avatar by the way! Did you do it yourself? Where did you get it? I want one.
Oh, I'm going to be late. Nevermind. One thing I'm intrigued about your site is finding out about all the psyops that wouldn't have happened in my world since 9-11 was exposed at the time. From what I can gather so far about the differences between our worlds this really was the turning point. Bear with me on this one though because I'm still researching all these differences. I also noticed there's a lot of kind of 'fake historical info' that's been inserted into the records. Clearly the Miles Mathis stuff shows this. Obviously for a historian this is disconcerting to say the least. I noticed, for example, that you are convinced the moon landings happened. In my world they didn't, so maybe this is another parallel world difference. Some people in my world are, funnily enough, still convinced that they did happen, but that NASA used their 'secret' technology to do it (Paperclip and all that, foo fighters etc.). We have some really intriguing conspiracy theories in my world so I'll have to write about them at some point. I think you'll like them. I'm a big believer in the usefulness of examining 'what-if' questions in history - it helps understand the 'what-actually-happened' question. It also, as I'm sure you'd totally get, helps us with the Holmesian 'eliminate the impossible and whatever remains' method.
Anyway, I seriously have to go or I'll be in trouble.
I didn't do my avatar, I just got it from an ad for a Halloween costume! I think I just looked up "female Sherlock Holmes" to find it.
Yes, the Russian shooting was posted with people discussing who was responsible. I'm like, the first question isn't who it's "what actually happened." Yes and I'm a big fan of "eliminate the impossible ..."
I have to say I have no doubt in the reality of the moon landings ... and what supports that belief is that it's clear that Bill Kaysing, the first person to say we didn't go, allegedly Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne - a joke that has gone over the heads of the disbelievers - is clearly an agent as is Dave McGowan who wrote Wagging the Moondoggie.
[k] Ah - yes, the wonderful Dave McGowan! Now there's a character! Did you know there's a British impressionist (not a painter, an impersonator/comic) called Alistair McGowan? Really funny guy and I'm wondering if they're related. That would be totally amusing.
I agree with you about Kaysing. I know what you're on about there.
Curiously (I'm going to have to look into this a lot more) I believe some of my world's Apollo footage is different to yours. Now there's a mystery! What I can say though is that in our world there was a lot of scandal about NASA, essentially withholding lots of information, and that's kind of where the moon landing conspiracy theory originates. So it's not really a 'did it or did it not' happen, but more of a psychological question. Psychology is obviously one of the most important aspects of psyops. In my experience, when a person (or group) is targeted for a psyop then an analyst will do a very comprehensive psych analysis first of all. Operation Mathis is a classic - it's clear the Langley committee are very good at playing on his prejudices and, indeed, exacerbating them. Although the other option is that they made him the proverbial offer you can't refuse.
You'll have to bear with me on all this though - I'm still in the learning (about the differences) stage. Which explains my welcome to dexos article. I'm still going through the adjustment process.
Did you mention you thought Dave McGowan's death was faked? That's definitely the truth. Same with Bowie - I was really surprised to find he was 'dead'. People don't really need to fake their own deaths anymore in my world. I think that's what they call cognitive dissonance...
how did your world manage to transcend the 55 mile limit that has hindered this Earths explorations into the plasmafold of space?
how did they propel the craft, mitigate the searing temperatures and radioactive belts, evade cosmic particles ,and adapt to the psychological trauma of any genuine space -travel conveniently evaded by this world pseudo-science priests , yet very well explored by the best speculative fiction writers during the 1950's into the early 1980's, especially in the brilliant and groundbreaking 'psychologically considerate' sci-fi of Barry Malzberg and JG Ballard.
[K] What's a plasmafold? I've not heard that term before. Can you describe it, either linguistically or mathematically/scientifically? Can you point me towards any observational studies/data of it? I'd be interested to read some academic papers on the subject.
Also, how does this plasmafold thing interact mathematically with the laws of physics of the adjacent reference frame? Is there a ring-pass-not involved? What does this barrier look like and how does that interact with the two reference frames either side of it? Surely we could design some experiments to study it and collect data and describe it mathematically and so on. Perhaps we could even use it as a source of energy. What do you think?
I'm also interested to know what the consequences of your view of the world are with regards to philosophy, ontological questions, teleology, whether some demiurge/creator exists and if so what the character of that entity is and why he/she/it designed the universe in this specific way out of all the infinite options available. What does it all mean for the species known as 'human'? Are humans the pinnacle? God's chosen species? What does that mean for morality?
These are the really interesting questions, I think, which arise from these 'alternative theories of reality' (as opposed to somewhat infantile and derogatory appellations like 'flat earth' - the term 'FE' doesn't help anyone and only serves to insult).
Although if there is a simple scientific question it could be something like 'how come the physical laws of celestial mechanics appear to be true for exo-objects, but not here on this planet (the orbiting moons of Jupiter, for example)? It's the relationship between the different sets of laws in the reference frames that intrigues me, you see.
[K] Just firing off a quick note, as I thought of two more things whilst I was on the bike (they get me to do that a lot, so I just dissociate). 1/ I remembered at these silly American college swim meets they have a weird-length race of 1650 yards (I suppose that's near enough 1500m, which is a standard distance) - but they do it in their 50 yard pool. So how many times 50 is there in 1650? Yeah - that's right - 33! No further explanation required.
2/ I think names are important and given they do often have a sense of humour (it brightens up their day) they will often choose names which do in fact have an oblique reference or meaning (dates are similar of course). What I mean is you can often analyse the names in a kind of lateral thinking way and decode/decipher it.
Ah - a 3/ I've had a chance to peruse some of your writings - we really do have a different timeline. Astounding! And if all this 'revelation of the method' stuff is true then this world has a very, very different psychology to it and it means I really am in the Underworld, as I suggested in a previous journal entry.
I predict that a lot more is going to pop into my head soon enough.
I'll choose this comment to reply on for the rest of what I need to say. I don't think either of us will mind Petra reading it.
Given some of the aforementioned errors of judgement so far I am going to guess that, if you think I am some kind of deep cover agent (beyond your clearance level) then perhaps by repeated insults you are enhancing my cover or something? Well, if that's the case then trust me, it's not necessary.
On the other paw, I'd imagine you already knew that, and I was half-right when I said you are simply having some professional fun with, I don't know, some stuffy old limey roiling in cold war nostalgia or whatever.
On the other paw, one immediately thinks of the trigger, followed by the action (protocol - you've probably got a flow chart or something). Again, we can use a bit of psychology here. It's the vehemence and vitriolic nature of your insults which smacks of desperation - in other words, it's not aggressive, its defensive. If it's defensive, what are you scared of? What don't you want me to say and where don't you want me to go? Are you trying to tell me simply to 'back off'? If so, just say so. But then again, you don't know enough about me or my intentions - again, try asking. You'll get a lot more out of me if you treat me with respect.
In view of all this, I am more than 50% certain that you are on the Operation Mathis desk (whether that really is at Langley or you work remotely is another question - it's not important). Or Mantis, rather. If this is the case then you have been even more foolish because it never even occurred to you that we might, just, share the same objective!
That really didn't occur to you, did it? Admit it.
My instinct/intuition is telling me the three of you (or however many you are) are just a bunch of never-grown-up frat boys with zero inkling of the bigger picture. Early to mid-twenties I'd say. Here's another of your errors - you said at the end of your comment that you thought 'his other work is excellent tho' - that's revealing. You see what makes you so aggressively defensive is that you really, really don't want his science to become public knowledge. Believe me, I perhaps understand the reason for that far better than you do. That's the bigger picture.
I'm going to take another break for a while but I think I have more things I need to say, so I'll be back. But what I will say is that if you are on the Mantis desk, as I suspect, then I'd like to professionally congratulate you on a job well done. Sincerely.
As you are doubtless aware (including some of the reasons) the truth is I utterly despise the man. He has no redeeming qualities.
[2] You asked me some science questions, specifically about the atmosphere and the electron. Obviously, these two questions are related and you didn't choose these two randomly. They are in fact vitally important. So now we come to the bigger picture I mentioned.
From a certain point of view I am at a disadvantage here because I don't know how much you know, let alone understand. So I'll have to tread carefully - but from a certain point of view, maybe you have a need to know.
As you are doubtless aware (I'm going to assume this is the case) Mathis' scientific work has practical consequences. Serious, practical consequences. I can well understand why it would need to be kept from the public. If you are worried that I am intending to reveal all of this stuff to the public (in the form of my stories) then don't be. I do not write 'hard' sci-fi. I can't stand hard SF because it detracts from the narrative. Human beings see the world through stories, not facts (as I'm sure you know), meaning they engage with characters. The online persona you've chosen, of course, makes the people with whom you interact react in a very predictable way. I'm sure you find it useful in that regard, even if it is one-dimensional and repetitive (I can well understand it must be boring/frustrating for you - I'd advise having multiples on the go, lol). That's why I suggest you have a refresher course about narrative theory and psychology and all the rest of it.
So, no, I do not intend to start revealing stuff. But there is a certain need for a drip-feed. I would only do it in a soft (i.e. character-based) way. Given what I said about humans seeing the world through stories, they will assume it's fiction. You will have noticed after all that Mathis doesn't believe in parallel worlds so this is a logical contradiction with Katrina saying she's from a parallel world - she simply won't be believed (I'm not giving you any more spoilers - you'll just have to trust me on that one - I have, however, provided some clues in other comments elsewhere, which you are doubtless reading - including a few very recent ones).
Back to the science, sorry. I'm guessing your point is why doesn't the atmosphere boil off into the vacuum of space. Well, actually it does. But as you know the atmosphere gets thinner the further up you go until you get to the ionosphere and exosphere, plus of course the magnetic field. One mistake is in thinking that space is, actually a vacuum - in the sense of 'totally empty'. Of course it's not totally empty. Liquids and gases may boil off, sure, but solids don't - the chemical bonding is much stronger after all. Mathis would say that space is full of a 'charge field' - it may help if you think of the charge field like, say, a huge tank of water - i.e. it's a medium. That medium offers resistance and force/momentum/impetus - yes, depending on the polarisation. Which is where the electrons come in, I presume.
As far as Mathis is concerned, electrons are just photons with an extra spin (just as protons/neutrons are electrons with extra spins). He has even supplied diagrams for some of the atomic nuclei. I haven't gotten round to matching some of these diagrams with crop circle designs but, well, maybe you'd best make sure he doesn't make that connection (or at least it says they were all faked). Same goes for the wow signal, by the way. As you will be aware by now I deciphered that signal. I'm surprised you haven't told Mathis to 'prove that it's fake' by examining the mathematics in it. It's quite straightforward.
Bigger picture again. Likewise, distract him from making the connection between elasticity (of the material out of which the photon is made) and speed limits, let alone positing the existence of other particles made of different materials with different elasticities and therefore different max velocities (see particle accelerator experiments).
Technological possibilities from this 'new science'. Given Mathis' psych profile there are two options - give him the offer he can't refuse, or make him into a useful idiot. If the former, then it's not him maintaining his website, and he's off at one of your secret research facilities building interstellar probes. Remember this kind of tech will get you up to a large fraction of lightspeed, making interstellar travel possible. If it is possible, then that means the 'zoo hypothesis' is true which completely changes the nature of the game, doesn't it? If there's a bigger fish, that is? I mean, maybe if the cabal switch from real events to fake events they might just escape retribution - what do you think?
Well, I'm going to leave it there for the moment because I've given you a great deal to think about.
As for Mathis' psych profile - he is arrogant, self-centred (it's all me me me), bitter and resentful (because of his science being rebuffed - so you piggyback on it), misogynist and a whole load of other negative traits. I'm all in favour of your committee at Langley, as I've indicated. If you want any help, let me know, and I'll be glad to give it.
But from now on, let's show each other some professional courtesy, eh?
Very interesting, K, about the race length. And yes names are very, very important and often hilarious. After I suspected that the first person to say we didn't go to the moon, Bill Kaysing, may have been an agent planted to encourage disbelief in order to undermine the disbelievers when they called out the real lies, my first port of call was Spookipedia where 'ol Billy's nephew, Dietrich von Schmausen, was mentioned. I did have a laugh over that, couldn't help myself. Turns out that Dietrich is an alien scientist with videos on YouTube where he speaks in a fake German accent and has an alien brain sitting in formaldehyde on his desk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6irQ2j3xqY
Yes, they do like to amuse themselves. Apparently, court jesters were also intelligence agents in olden times.
[K] I didn't know that about his nephew. That's v amusing!
One thing I would note as an observation with regards to Kaysing is that one shouldn't discount the double-bluff idea (trust me, it works). This is a repeating pattern of course - in my experience it's often the case that the first 'conspiracy theory' to emerge in the wake of an event is the spook-controlled theory - this acts like a honeypot of course, sets the focus and tone of the debate/investigation, misdirects people, and most importantly it sets up a later straw man - in the sense that it will be 'imbued with inherent debunkability' - so when that later does get debunked, the entire set of conspiracy theories get debunked, thus creating a cover story - or rather, convincing the general public there never was a conspiracy.
It's a tried and tested method. So, what I'm saying here I think is that there isn't a logical link between 'the originator of the conspiracy theory is a spook' and 'therefore the official narrative is true' or 'therefore the conspiracy theory isn't true' - there's a sort of internal logic to it, but that's not all there is.
The moon landing stuff, and some aspects of the 9-11 event, is probably going to be an issue where we're going to have to agree to disagree so as not to upset each other! I don't like upsetting people I like and I don't like being upset either.
That's not to say, of course, that I don't have an open mind - and your work is looking more and more convincing - which raises some really intriguing psychological questions which I shall have to go away and meditate on.
I should also say - compared to those other two commenters, you are a breath of fresh air and very welcome! Thank you!
Couldn't agree more with the double bluff, however, I'm the only person as far as I know to suspect these two of being agents in relation to the moon landings. Double-bluffs don't work on those kinds of odds.
Don't know anyone who says Bill is an agent at all while a number of people recognise Dave as an agent over what he says on other things, not the moon landings. Also what is so clear but moon hoaxers cannot see it is that in the case of Bill everything he says is clearly nonsense and would never come out of the mouth of a person with his job title ... obviously the propagandists predicted correctly moon hoaxers wouldn't pick that up because what I notice in them including in my sister is that they don't immerse themselves in the opposing argument to check they're correct, they rely purely on their current knowledge and ability to work things out from that.
Also, there are three of them, I don't know if you've encountered them before. The other one is called Trollhunter - a projection if ever I heard one - in fact, if you read any of their posts with the words 'psychological projection' in mind (i.e. accusing others of what they do themselves) then you'll get them immediately.
They work as a kind of tag-team - whether they are just three wacky friends or three spooks pretending to be 'flat earthers' is a good question. I'm going for the latter because there is a blatant dissonance, or total lack of internal logic, between the ability to think rationally, write well, display intelligence, whilst at the same time harbour belief in utterly ludicrous ideas - it's a dead giveaway. I may write an article about this kind of psychology actually.
So, I've taken to calling them 'the three stooges'. Fortunately, given that this is my own site, that means I can block their arses at any time - I'm going to give them one more chance - if they persist in simply hurling insults then I'm not going to allow them to vampirically suck out people's time and energy here.
Maybe it's my British politeness coming through here!
I really don't like that kind of nastiness for the sake of it. I haven't been pushed to block anyone yet although I've certainly felt like it - not necessarily because they insult me but just because I don't want their nonsense clogging up my comments. There's one guy, 9/11 Revisionist, who I did consider blocking ... but then he blocked me - not that I blame him because he wants to believe what he wants to believe and I tell him the evidence doesn't support what he insists on believing ... and people who want to believe things don't want a yappy voice around constantly telling them they have no evidence to support that belief.
[Evie] I finally got fed up and blocked them. I may end up deleting the entire exchange too, instead of having it clogging up the comments.
People like that are very strange. If they're not ridiculously over the top agents pretending to be trolls then they need to see a psychiatrist. Well, even if they are over the top agents they need to see a psychiatrist. If they ever pop up on your own site I wouldn't indulge them.
Ram has just messaged me privately. So far not exactly abusive so I'll engage a little further. I think good move to block them. You could easily delete their comments but then despite the fact that I really don't want dumb comments clogging my comments I'm also really opposed to censorship. Proton Magic who I follow (who - oh dear - doesn't believe in dinosaurs) warns people that he's going to block them so a good way to avoid clogging and abuse I guess is to simply warn people from the getgo and that way you're clearly not censoring but moderating. All in all on this occasion I say you're perfectly within the "not censoring" limits to delete. Ad hominem attacks a priori are really a good enough reason to delete I think.
Yay! I thought you'd like it!
I agree with you (as would K) - it's seems so abundantly clear that the whole 'culture war' woke vs. anti-woke stuff is designed to sow discord. Which is such a timeworn tactic one would think people would be wise to it by now, and focus not necessarily on, say, the trans people themselves, but on the people promoting the woke-ism/political correctness.
Part of the underlying intention behind K talking about her parallel world is to describe a place where the cabal no longer have any influence - thus there isn't any woke/anti-woke stuff going on at all. So Katrina is initially just baffled by the whole thing, but then she gets increasingly irritated by it and given the impossibility of shutting her up she decides she's going to jump in and try and do something about it, in her own particular idiom, of course.
In her world there is no cadre of bad guys promoting 'woke' - instead the vast majority of people simply don't even think about non-hetero types, or people with 'gender incongruence' (to use the strict medical terminology) or 'intersex', as these things are simply understood as 'rare variations of physiological or brain development' rather than having any moral issue attached. This also happens to be my own view - on the one paw I don't like woke people shoving these things in people's faces and enforcing 'political correctness' (because I for one don't have a problem with people being different so long as it doesn't harm anyone else, so I don't need to be told not to be prejudice, so to speak), whilst on the other I don't like prejudice towards people who are different. Ironically, I would imagine that most of the people who are different would rather not be the centre of attention, let alone used as ammunition in a deliberately devisive culture war.
Anyhow, Katrina is absolutely not shy of swearing like a trooper to get people's attention! She's a great believer in what Oscar Wilde said - 'the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about'.
I'm going to have to think about that one.
The alien stuff (if you mean the sci-fi story I recently posted), by the way, is a sort of offbeat postmodern take on Katrina (she's an actress, amongst other things, in her world); it kind of does the 'what if' thing. So it was sort of written as a movie idea, if you see what I mean.
Can she practice what she preaches? Absolutely. And that is going to get her into a lot of trouble. At the present time in the story as you've have joined her, she is, if she was honest, still in the adjustment phase, not to mention frantically learning as much as she can about the world, given as far as she is concerned it has a completely alternate recent history - so it's like she has landed in an unknown foreign country without speaking a word of the language. So you may have to hold those thoughts for now...
[K] You are flattering me, Sir. I shall possibly end up going all a flutter, wave my dainty fan around before my face and giggle girlishly!
Wow! OK, yes, you're so right about not taking sides. I find it ridiculous that now trans has gone ape people simply turn against it. Trans has always been around and always will be and the fact of it going ape doesn't mean we should turn against it, it's just being weaponised to divide us. People's buttons are so easy to push, it's pathetic.
So interesting about Lia Thomas and the name. The mind simply boggles.
I do find sexual identity interesting because I feel my brain is very male in a certain way, that is that I'm very logical and analytical and my brain doesn't turn to mush when people are said to have died (not that I can understand sophisticated logic mathematical style at all but just talking basic logic), in fact, I think I'm more logical than most men really - OK it's just my opinion - but my sexual identity is strictly female.
I get bisexual, of course, but the non-binary thing I do find quite confronting because I've simply never encountered that until recently and now I see people who identify as non-binary and yes they seem non-binary too and I wonder how that can be a recent phenomenon and whether it's just always been there but people have suppressed it. Non-binary I do find intriguing I must say.
Although I was familiar with the phenomenon of intersex (which takes various forms) I also learnt recently the percentage - 1.7% - and what would be interesting to know is how intersex people tend to identify, for example, are people who identify as non-binary more likely to be intersex.
[Evie - I'm putting this bit in square brackets because you might not be aware that when I reply to comments about an article written in Katrina's voice I have to distinguish between me [Evie] and her [K] - yeah, I know it probably comes across as if not confusing then a bit postmodern, but it's fun and it works. Anyway - I'll actually reply separately as K - also bear in mind that Katrina's post was written two years' ago, as it were - obviously you and I have 'advance knowledge' which she doesn't - this is the point in the story when the timelines are about to diverge - this is going to be fun]
[K] Thank you for sharing! And for your comment! You are the first to share one of my journal entries! Yay! This is great because so far I've mostly only got people from my swim club subscribing.
Anyway - yes, you are totally right in everything you say. By the way it's the next day now so the wine has worn off. Sorry about all the swearing.
With regards to sexual identity vs. gender identity - my point about neuroscience is that these two have been proven to be kind of separate. For most people however it doesn't seem (or manifest itself) in that way because there is a perfect 'congruence' between the two. So any 'deviance' from that 'norm' becomes really noticeable. Neuroscience has shown, however, that 'sexual orientation' is a product of certain specific areas of the brain. One interesting thing is for example the similarity of those areas for, say 'hetero male' and 'lesbian female'. So clearly this isn't necessarily 'biological gender-specific'.
Another thing I should say - and we've got this right in my world, is that I think this world's classification system is all wrong. There should be a clear separation between LGB - which is simply sexual orientation - and the 'T' and all the others, which is nothing to do with sexuality and those T+ people have the same variety of sexual orientation as everyone else, hetero or LGB. Personally though I think all the other letters are ridiculous and only serve to annoy people.
In my world we have a designation 'H' which stands for 'hermaphrodite' - this might be a version of what in this world is designated with 'I' meaning intersex. For most hermaphrodites (i.e. born with aspects of both male and female reproductive organs) in our world the treating specialist would wait until the child's 'gender identity' becomes fully formed (around the age of 7) and then the child will know whether they identify as male or female - at which point, potential treatment options are discussed with regards to removing the 'wrong' bits. Obviously the kind of treatment is similar to that received by transitioning trans people. But in terms of the prejudice, this doesn't really happen in my world because we understand all these things in simple medical terms - in other words, none of these things are a 'choice', so there's no 'moral' issue - 'morality' is associated with things people can choose, in that sense. Which seems reasonable to me.
I'm right with you on the logical and analytical brain thing - I'm like that. Yes, I do get really emotional at times although this is often about matters of principle. Even though we can talk about male and female differences in the brain this doesn't mean that certain ridiculous stereotypes are true - like 'women are more emotional' and 'men are more analytical' - that's bollocks. That's like saying women can't do logic - I fully suspect this is a hangover from centuries of patriarchy. So there is a certain socio-cultural aspect here. Interestingly, because brain-gender configuration (identity) happens epigenetically (i.e. influenced by external triggers) if a female grows up in a patriarchal society then her brain really will 'conform' to these stereotypes, and, being denied access to the same kind of education as men, and constantly being told 'you don't think rationally', all those neural connections in her brain may well resolve themselves into conformity (same applies to the designated 'role' for men, of course). This is one of the great positive things about our liberal socialist system - it allows the same education and lack of pressure for both males and females.
Non-binary - I don't get this either! Same with 'queer'. I thought 'queer' was simply another slang term for homosexual male! So we don't have a 'Q'. We also don't have a '2' (I found out this is specific to 'two-spirit people from Turtle Island' - I mean, that's just ridiculous. Not two-spirit people, but they should have their own designated code! Like I said, designed to irritate.
When I say I'm a 'B' (which is just sexual orientation, not gender - I mean we don't have 'M' and 'F' do we!) there's still a significant individual thing there - like I have quite specific (aesthetic) ideas about what kind of women or men I find attractive. And I often tell people I'm like 90% lesbian, because when it comes to blokes I'm really picky lol. Maybe the problem is that this natural variation in what people find attractive, for heterosexuals as much as anyone else, has been given these ridiculous 'letter designations' when actually it's simply 'variety'. I think this is specifically exaggerated in order to annoy people, stoke up the culture/identity war, and control people. In my world we have a kind of 'live and let live' attitude - and this is partly because the society itself does not cause 'chronic psychological stress' due to malevolent government. People aren't anxious or stressed so they have no one out-group to blame.
With regards to the percentage you mentioned, 1.7% - if this incorporates all of those silly letters then I think that's probably about right, from a purely 'natural variation' point of view.
But yes, this has been stoked up out of all proportion precisely to fuck with people - that's why I've called it a psyop. Oh - I've had a look at your Substack and I love your attitude so I'm definitely going to subscribe [Evie: obviously I already did that - assume this is the first time K has met you].
Don't worry about my case officer, by the way - he's one of those old-school British private school types still nostalgic for the glorious days of Empire. I didn't realise such types still existed! It's nice, though - it's the kind of person I used to have to deal with.
Anyway, I have to get off to the gym. Nice to meet you and see you later!
[K] Oh - forgot to say - I really like your avatar by the way! Did you do it yourself? Where did you get it? I want one.
Oh, I'm going to be late. Nevermind. One thing I'm intrigued about your site is finding out about all the psyops that wouldn't have happened in my world since 9-11 was exposed at the time. From what I can gather so far about the differences between our worlds this really was the turning point. Bear with me on this one though because I'm still researching all these differences. I also noticed there's a lot of kind of 'fake historical info' that's been inserted into the records. Clearly the Miles Mathis stuff shows this. Obviously for a historian this is disconcerting to say the least. I noticed, for example, that you are convinced the moon landings happened. In my world they didn't, so maybe this is another parallel world difference. Some people in my world are, funnily enough, still convinced that they did happen, but that NASA used their 'secret' technology to do it (Paperclip and all that, foo fighters etc.). We have some really intriguing conspiracy theories in my world so I'll have to write about them at some point. I think you'll like them. I'm a big believer in the usefulness of examining 'what-if' questions in history - it helps understand the 'what-actually-happened' question. It also, as I'm sure you'd totally get, helps us with the Holmesian 'eliminate the impossible and whatever remains' method.
Anyway, I seriously have to go or I'll be in trouble.
I didn't do my avatar, I just got it from an ad for a Halloween costume! I think I just looked up "female Sherlock Holmes" to find it.
Yes, the Russian shooting was posted with people discussing who was responsible. I'm like, the first question isn't who it's "what actually happened." Yes and I'm a big fan of "eliminate the impossible ..."
I have to say I have no doubt in the reality of the moon landings ... and what supports that belief is that it's clear that Bill Kaysing, the first person to say we didn't go, allegedly Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne - a joke that has gone over the heads of the disbelievers - is clearly an agent as is Dave McGowan who wrote Wagging the Moondoggie.
[k] Ah - yes, the wonderful Dave McGowan! Now there's a character! Did you know there's a British impressionist (not a painter, an impersonator/comic) called Alistair McGowan? Really funny guy and I'm wondering if they're related. That would be totally amusing.
I agree with you about Kaysing. I know what you're on about there.
Curiously (I'm going to have to look into this a lot more) I believe some of my world's Apollo footage is different to yours. Now there's a mystery! What I can say though is that in our world there was a lot of scandal about NASA, essentially withholding lots of information, and that's kind of where the moon landing conspiracy theory originates. So it's not really a 'did it or did it not' happen, but more of a psychological question. Psychology is obviously one of the most important aspects of psyops. In my experience, when a person (or group) is targeted for a psyop then an analyst will do a very comprehensive psych analysis first of all. Operation Mathis is a classic - it's clear the Langley committee are very good at playing on his prejudices and, indeed, exacerbating them. Although the other option is that they made him the proverbial offer you can't refuse.
You'll have to bear with me on all this though - I'm still in the learning (about the differences) stage. Which explains my welcome to dexos article. I'm still going through the adjustment process.
Did you mention you thought Dave McGowan's death was faked? That's definitely the truth. Same with Bowie - I was really surprised to find he was 'dead'. People don't really need to fake their own deaths anymore in my world. I think that's what they call cognitive dissonance...
so E or K ?
how did your world manage to transcend the 55 mile limit that has hindered this Earths explorations into the plasmafold of space?
how did they propel the craft, mitigate the searing temperatures and radioactive belts, evade cosmic particles ,and adapt to the psychological trauma of any genuine space -travel conveniently evaded by this world pseudo-science priests , yet very well explored by the best speculative fiction writers during the 1950's into the early 1980's, especially in the brilliant and groundbreaking 'psychologically considerate' sci-fi of Barry Malzberg and JG Ballard.
[K] What's a plasmafold? I've not heard that term before. Can you describe it, either linguistically or mathematically/scientifically? Can you point me towards any observational studies/data of it? I'd be interested to read some academic papers on the subject.
Also, how does this plasmafold thing interact mathematically with the laws of physics of the adjacent reference frame? Is there a ring-pass-not involved? What does this barrier look like and how does that interact with the two reference frames either side of it? Surely we could design some experiments to study it and collect data and describe it mathematically and so on. Perhaps we could even use it as a source of energy. What do you think?
I'm also interested to know what the consequences of your view of the world are with regards to philosophy, ontological questions, teleology, whether some demiurge/creator exists and if so what the character of that entity is and why he/she/it designed the universe in this specific way out of all the infinite options available. What does it all mean for the species known as 'human'? Are humans the pinnacle? God's chosen species? What does that mean for morality?
These are the really interesting questions, I think, which arise from these 'alternative theories of reality' (as opposed to somewhat infantile and derogatory appellations like 'flat earth' - the term 'FE' doesn't help anyone and only serves to insult).
Although if there is a simple scientific question it could be something like 'how come the physical laws of celestial mechanics appear to be true for exo-objects, but not here on this planet (the orbiting moons of Jupiter, for example)? It's the relationship between the different sets of laws in the reference frames that intrigues me, you see.
Anyway, let me know!
[K] Just firing off a quick note, as I thought of two more things whilst I was on the bike (they get me to do that a lot, so I just dissociate). 1/ I remembered at these silly American college swim meets they have a weird-length race of 1650 yards (I suppose that's near enough 1500m, which is a standard distance) - but they do it in their 50 yard pool. So how many times 50 is there in 1650? Yeah - that's right - 33! No further explanation required.
2/ I think names are important and given they do often have a sense of humour (it brightens up their day) they will often choose names which do in fact have an oblique reference or meaning (dates are similar of course). What I mean is you can often analyse the names in a kind of lateral thinking way and decode/decipher it.
Ah - a 3/ I've had a chance to peruse some of your writings - we really do have a different timeline. Astounding! And if all this 'revelation of the method' stuff is true then this world has a very, very different psychology to it and it means I really am in the Underworld, as I suggested in a previous journal entry.
I predict that a lot more is going to pop into my head soon enough.
I'll choose this comment to reply on for the rest of what I need to say. I don't think either of us will mind Petra reading it.
Given some of the aforementioned errors of judgement so far I am going to guess that, if you think I am some kind of deep cover agent (beyond your clearance level) then perhaps by repeated insults you are enhancing my cover or something? Well, if that's the case then trust me, it's not necessary.
On the other paw, I'd imagine you already knew that, and I was half-right when I said you are simply having some professional fun with, I don't know, some stuffy old limey roiling in cold war nostalgia or whatever.
On the other paw, one immediately thinks of the trigger, followed by the action (protocol - you've probably got a flow chart or something). Again, we can use a bit of psychology here. It's the vehemence and vitriolic nature of your insults which smacks of desperation - in other words, it's not aggressive, its defensive. If it's defensive, what are you scared of? What don't you want me to say and where don't you want me to go? Are you trying to tell me simply to 'back off'? If so, just say so. But then again, you don't know enough about me or my intentions - again, try asking. You'll get a lot more out of me if you treat me with respect.
In view of all this, I am more than 50% certain that you are on the Operation Mathis desk (whether that really is at Langley or you work remotely is another question - it's not important). Or Mantis, rather. If this is the case then you have been even more foolish because it never even occurred to you that we might, just, share the same objective!
That really didn't occur to you, did it? Admit it.
My instinct/intuition is telling me the three of you (or however many you are) are just a bunch of never-grown-up frat boys with zero inkling of the bigger picture. Early to mid-twenties I'd say. Here's another of your errors - you said at the end of your comment that you thought 'his other work is excellent tho' - that's revealing. You see what makes you so aggressively defensive is that you really, really don't want his science to become public knowledge. Believe me, I perhaps understand the reason for that far better than you do. That's the bigger picture.
I'm going to take another break for a while but I think I have more things I need to say, so I'll be back. But what I will say is that if you are on the Mantis desk, as I suspect, then I'd like to professionally congratulate you on a job well done. Sincerely.
As you are doubtless aware (including some of the reasons) the truth is I utterly despise the man. He has no redeeming qualities.
So you lot just carry on there.
[2] You asked me some science questions, specifically about the atmosphere and the electron. Obviously, these two questions are related and you didn't choose these two randomly. They are in fact vitally important. So now we come to the bigger picture I mentioned.
From a certain point of view I am at a disadvantage here because I don't know how much you know, let alone understand. So I'll have to tread carefully - but from a certain point of view, maybe you have a need to know.
As you are doubtless aware (I'm going to assume this is the case) Mathis' scientific work has practical consequences. Serious, practical consequences. I can well understand why it would need to be kept from the public. If you are worried that I am intending to reveal all of this stuff to the public (in the form of my stories) then don't be. I do not write 'hard' sci-fi. I can't stand hard SF because it detracts from the narrative. Human beings see the world through stories, not facts (as I'm sure you know), meaning they engage with characters. The online persona you've chosen, of course, makes the people with whom you interact react in a very predictable way. I'm sure you find it useful in that regard, even if it is one-dimensional and repetitive (I can well understand it must be boring/frustrating for you - I'd advise having multiples on the go, lol). That's why I suggest you have a refresher course about narrative theory and psychology and all the rest of it.
So, no, I do not intend to start revealing stuff. But there is a certain need for a drip-feed. I would only do it in a soft (i.e. character-based) way. Given what I said about humans seeing the world through stories, they will assume it's fiction. You will have noticed after all that Mathis doesn't believe in parallel worlds so this is a logical contradiction with Katrina saying she's from a parallel world - she simply won't be believed (I'm not giving you any more spoilers - you'll just have to trust me on that one - I have, however, provided some clues in other comments elsewhere, which you are doubtless reading - including a few very recent ones).
Back to the science, sorry. I'm guessing your point is why doesn't the atmosphere boil off into the vacuum of space. Well, actually it does. But as you know the atmosphere gets thinner the further up you go until you get to the ionosphere and exosphere, plus of course the magnetic field. One mistake is in thinking that space is, actually a vacuum - in the sense of 'totally empty'. Of course it's not totally empty. Liquids and gases may boil off, sure, but solids don't - the chemical bonding is much stronger after all. Mathis would say that space is full of a 'charge field' - it may help if you think of the charge field like, say, a huge tank of water - i.e. it's a medium. That medium offers resistance and force/momentum/impetus - yes, depending on the polarisation. Which is where the electrons come in, I presume.
As far as Mathis is concerned, electrons are just photons with an extra spin (just as protons/neutrons are electrons with extra spins). He has even supplied diagrams for some of the atomic nuclei. I haven't gotten round to matching some of these diagrams with crop circle designs but, well, maybe you'd best make sure he doesn't make that connection (or at least it says they were all faked). Same goes for the wow signal, by the way. As you will be aware by now I deciphered that signal. I'm surprised you haven't told Mathis to 'prove that it's fake' by examining the mathematics in it. It's quite straightforward.
Bigger picture again. Likewise, distract him from making the connection between elasticity (of the material out of which the photon is made) and speed limits, let alone positing the existence of other particles made of different materials with different elasticities and therefore different max velocities (see particle accelerator experiments).
Technological possibilities from this 'new science'. Given Mathis' psych profile there are two options - give him the offer he can't refuse, or make him into a useful idiot. If the former, then it's not him maintaining his website, and he's off at one of your secret research facilities building interstellar probes. Remember this kind of tech will get you up to a large fraction of lightspeed, making interstellar travel possible. If it is possible, then that means the 'zoo hypothesis' is true which completely changes the nature of the game, doesn't it? If there's a bigger fish, that is? I mean, maybe if the cabal switch from real events to fake events they might just escape retribution - what do you think?
Well, I'm going to leave it there for the moment because I've given you a great deal to think about.
As for Mathis' psych profile - he is arrogant, self-centred (it's all me me me), bitter and resentful (because of his science being rebuffed - so you piggyback on it), misogynist and a whole load of other negative traits. I'm all in favour of your committee at Langley, as I've indicated. If you want any help, let me know, and I'll be glad to give it.
But from now on, let's show each other some professional courtesy, eh?
Very interesting, K, about the race length. And yes names are very, very important and often hilarious. After I suspected that the first person to say we didn't go to the moon, Bill Kaysing, may have been an agent planted to encourage disbelief in order to undermine the disbelievers when they called out the real lies, my first port of call was Spookipedia where 'ol Billy's nephew, Dietrich von Schmausen, was mentioned. I did have a laugh over that, couldn't help myself. Turns out that Dietrich is an alien scientist with videos on YouTube where he speaks in a fake German accent and has an alien brain sitting in formaldehyde on his desk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6irQ2j3xqY
Yes, they do like to amuse themselves. Apparently, court jesters were also intelligence agents in olden times.
[K] I didn't know that about his nephew. That's v amusing!
One thing I would note as an observation with regards to Kaysing is that one shouldn't discount the double-bluff idea (trust me, it works). This is a repeating pattern of course - in my experience it's often the case that the first 'conspiracy theory' to emerge in the wake of an event is the spook-controlled theory - this acts like a honeypot of course, sets the focus and tone of the debate/investigation, misdirects people, and most importantly it sets up a later straw man - in the sense that it will be 'imbued with inherent debunkability' - so when that later does get debunked, the entire set of conspiracy theories get debunked, thus creating a cover story - or rather, convincing the general public there never was a conspiracy.
It's a tried and tested method. So, what I'm saying here I think is that there isn't a logical link between 'the originator of the conspiracy theory is a spook' and 'therefore the official narrative is true' or 'therefore the conspiracy theory isn't true' - there's a sort of internal logic to it, but that's not all there is.
The moon landing stuff, and some aspects of the 9-11 event, is probably going to be an issue where we're going to have to agree to disagree so as not to upset each other! I don't like upsetting people I like and I don't like being upset either.
That's not to say, of course, that I don't have an open mind - and your work is looking more and more convincing - which raises some really intriguing psychological questions which I shall have to go away and meditate on.
I should also say - compared to those other two commenters, you are a breath of fresh air and very welcome! Thank you!
Couldn't agree more with the double bluff, however, I'm the only person as far as I know to suspect these two of being agents in relation to the moon landings. Double-bluffs don't work on those kinds of odds.
Don't know anyone who says Bill is an agent at all while a number of people recognise Dave as an agent over what he says on other things, not the moon landings. Also what is so clear but moon hoaxers cannot see it is that in the case of Bill everything he says is clearly nonsense and would never come out of the mouth of a person with his job title ... obviously the propagandists predicted correctly moon hoaxers wouldn't pick that up because what I notice in them including in my sister is that they don't immerse themselves in the opposing argument to check they're correct, they rely purely on their current knowledge and ability to work things out from that.
What charming people engaging with you on your stack.
Yeah - they're American.
Also, there are three of them, I don't know if you've encountered them before. The other one is called Trollhunter - a projection if ever I heard one - in fact, if you read any of their posts with the words 'psychological projection' in mind (i.e. accusing others of what they do themselves) then you'll get them immediately.
They work as a kind of tag-team - whether they are just three wacky friends or three spooks pretending to be 'flat earthers' is a good question. I'm going for the latter because there is a blatant dissonance, or total lack of internal logic, between the ability to think rationally, write well, display intelligence, whilst at the same time harbour belief in utterly ludicrous ideas - it's a dead giveaway. I may write an article about this kind of psychology actually.
So, I've taken to calling them 'the three stooges'. Fortunately, given that this is my own site, that means I can block their arses at any time - I'm going to give them one more chance - if they persist in simply hurling insults then I'm not going to allow them to vampirically suck out people's time and energy here.
Maybe it's my British politeness coming through here!
I really don't like that kind of nastiness for the sake of it. I haven't been pushed to block anyone yet although I've certainly felt like it - not necessarily because they insult me but just because I don't want their nonsense clogging up my comments. There's one guy, 9/11 Revisionist, who I did consider blocking ... but then he blocked me - not that I blame him because he wants to believe what he wants to believe and I tell him the evidence doesn't support what he insists on believing ... and people who want to believe things don't want a yappy voice around constantly telling them they have no evidence to support that belief.
still cant answer and projecting all your insecurities instead
pathetic , as usual.
[Evie] I finally got fed up and blocked them. I may end up deleting the entire exchange too, instead of having it clogging up the comments.
People like that are very strange. If they're not ridiculously over the top agents pretending to be trolls then they need to see a psychiatrist. Well, even if they are over the top agents they need to see a psychiatrist. If they ever pop up on your own site I wouldn't indulge them.
Ram has just messaged me privately. So far not exactly abusive so I'll engage a little further. I think good move to block them. You could easily delete their comments but then despite the fact that I really don't want dumb comments clogging my comments I'm also really opposed to censorship. Proton Magic who I follow (who - oh dear - doesn't believe in dinosaurs) warns people that he's going to block them so a good way to avoid clogging and abuse I guess is to simply warn people from the getgo and that way you're clearly not censoring but moderating. All in all on this occasion I say you're perfectly within the "not censoring" limits to delete. Ad hominem attacks a priori are really a good enough reason to delete I think.