Now for something a bit different from me in this Substack. A bit of a dive into the bird cage of what struck me as an ostensibly “good” intentioned, likely unconscious pysOperator in the shape of a snarky I-told-you-so.
This was a bit tricky for me to write: how to hear with open ears kernels that might be beneath the cynical condescension. And it is a bit glib of me to say because Polly’s cracker jack research reveals a string of strong connection between Soros, Gates, and others to Legatum, the organisation with the largest presence on the board of ARC.
It was also tricky because I found Polly to be ingratiating and irritating. I know that the extent that I was annoyed by Polly’s persona is a reflection of my own shadow. And so, this has been a great opportunity for me to do some shadow searching. On top of that I feel sorry for her.
Behind that bit of psyche mumbo-jumbo, and more to the point, the bones of her research do raise strong overARChing questions about the integrity of the ARC’s foundation. Is it seaworthy? (See-worthy?) In the coming weeks I will pursue in some way the questions she has raised. I’m not sure how, yet.
Here are my observations and comments to Polly’s full frontal on Jordan’s ARC.
In one of the comments in the Jordan Peterson ARC Q&A post, “The ARC is Looking for Crew Members”, I was cautioned/queried about The ARC’s authenticity. I was directed to Amazing Polly’s “Surprise! Jordan Peterson's "ARC" Was Built For (And By) Billionaires”. (I removed the shouting caps title).
Amazing Polly claims that Peterson’s ARC is ‘just’ an arm of the cabal. What is her evidence? I wanted to see what this Polly person has to say because I am also concerned by some of the members, including the number of senior Australian politicians and why so many people from Legatum are there. I didn’t know who Polly was.
As soon as I began to listen I felt strong polarising ambivalence. From the get-go she conveyed a harsh pre-judgment that I found discrediting her arguments and some of the valid questions and concerns she expressed. Polly pointed out her previous video about Peterson’s intentions, and begins this one with, paraphrased, ‘I’m so amazing and smart because I just knew that Peterson is a scammer!’
Normally I turn away from this kind of shallow rhetoric. However the subject is interesting enough to me that I wanted to see if she had something substantive to back up her ego. So instead of just stopping I continued to see if her arrogance was more than hot air.
She begins badly, with a few snarky ad hominem attacks. In particular was her comment – not comment, exactly, more like a condescending sneer about training people on how to take personal responsibility. “How commie is that?” she mocks. “Awesome! Thanks meddlers.” Silly.
From my own experience of growing up and away from being a broken traumatised victim of life into something closer to a responsible and adult human, I know that that took a lot of difficult training from a variety of disparate sources and teachers. ‘How are people who are behaving as if they do not have the ability to take upon themselves personal responsibility, which is most of us, going to learn personal responsibility?’ I asked myself. Her dismissal of it so casually suggests she hasn’t undertaken that exercise herself. She is right to be concerned, though, because so much of our ‘training’, inside classrooms and everywhere else in popular culture has been to create victim thinking and beliefs. We have been enculturated, to a very large extent by the cabal, to be victims since birth in order to be malleable work-slaves.
How is that societal indoctrination to be undone? For addicts, for example, there exists all kinds of training or retraining programs in various ways to assist them to recover from what is, fundamentally, irresponsible behaviours. Of course there is the propagandised woke idea that we are addicts by genetic anomie only and so irresponsible behaviours can’t be unlearned. Which is an elegant get-out-of-responsibility-jail for free belief.
And yet people who successfully learn responsibility from AA or talk therapy or group therapy or whatever training are, at their core, being trained to think, speak and act differently. It is, primarily, to learn how to stop being stuck in the frequency of victimhood and to take personal responsibility for themselves and for their near and extended communities. How are people going to find the way to clear out the victimhood brainwashing and replace it with knowing that they inherently have personal agency without some kind of deprogramming/training? It takes effort and dedication and, for the vast majority, some kind of untraining training for we humans to successfully take full responsibility for our thoughts, words and actions.
And this opened a space in me to expand my thinking about all the subtle ways victimhood and helplessness have been used to create weak and irresponsible people. Polly’s complete dismissal of ‘training’ as commie is a spurious and distracting argument, even though universities have been guided to teach, and do teach, exactly that. Lol! Too funny. We have been trained by Rockefeller’s school system from K to U, which has the specific goal of stopping all critical thinking in worthless meat eaters in order to have a good supply of worker-slaves, to be, in effect victims free from responsibility. And at the same time, for many or most of us, what is required is training to remove from ourselves and our Selves that victimhood training. Oy vey. The quality and purpose of training is important.
I almost stopped the video there. I kept going because Polly, like me, is concerned about the number of senior Australian politicians and members of Legatum in ARC. So, despite her demeanour and her victim language, I followed her into her ‘deep’ dive.
That didn’t begin well. She showed a Legatum graph from their prosperity study. It shows a positive association between wealth and prosperity with the rate of immunisation. Polly derided that and cited it as a kind of proof of the illegitimacy of Legatum.
That is a false, even specious argument because improved wealth and prosperity will likely be associated with better water, food, shelter and so ‘naturally’ an improvement of health and well being. Concomitantly the rate of immunisation will be related to prosperity and wealth, even though it could actually be having a negative effect on health that is masked by the health benefits of better nutrition and access to medicine and health facilities.
I was curious what Polly was showing and went to the document she cited. I discovered that she didn’t dig too deeply or had wilfully misrepresented the graph that she had extracted from the Legatum 2023 Prosperity Report (p80) in order to discredit them. It shows that there is a relationship between improved health with improved prosperity. Legatum has included vaccination rates as a measure of improved health. This has the problem I described above: the misattribution between cause and effect.
While at a very detailed level we conspiracy wackos may question the reporting of vaccine effectiveness, Legatum has used WHO data which has been generally viewed as reliable, whether true or not. The covid craziness has, of course, brought into the light for those with eyes to see and ears to hear that the WHO is a genocidal organisation that lies about just about everything. Polly has condemned Legatum as promoting vaccines as if they know that, as it turns out, all vaccines are basically dangerous poisons that have been hurting people and reducing life spans.
This strikes me as a good place to reach out to ARC and see what level of understanding they have about vaccines. Most everyone believes they are a wonder prophylactic, even many covid anti-vaxxers. I will suggest that they might consider consulting with RFK Jr’ Children’s Health Defence organisation. It is unfortunate that RFK will be too busy to be a consultant at this time. This will be an opportunity to test ARC’s inclusivity statements.
Polly’s research has included people who are climate change advocates and someone who has a company called ‘Roboglobal’ that she scorns without evidence and then mocks someone building a ‘digital city’ also without supporting evidence to it being a WEF smart city or not. So, not deep, although, as she mentions, what she deeply dove into, a bit, is very interesting and big enough to fill the hour. And yet, after making that claim why did she include gossipy speculation? That time could have been better used by expanding the real meat she introduces a bit later.
And Polly continues with another ad hominem attack, which is later confirmed as her go to modus operandi. This time it is directed towards Baroness Philippa Stroud: ‘Where she’s, like very [in a mocking wispy voice and body language], how could you not trust her, look at her, she’s a baroness, she wears pearls, she’s so soft spoken, with a British accent, and she sits in the House of Lords, she’s basically a high class Beatrix Potter [giggles]. You know, she’s soooo trustable.’ Really? Why?
Polly comments that governments shouldn’t be meddling in family relationships, and castigates Peterson for advocating that. That I don’t believe is what Peterson has said. I haven’t watched everything Peterson has put out there, and what I’ve heard him say doesn’t support Polly’s slur. In this video Polly doesn’t source that, casting it into the video as an obvious truth-aside to extend the smear campaign – er, I mean research. Perhaps because she made a previous video about that, I’m guessing.
She claims that Baroness Philippa Stroud is also advocating for government intrusion into the family. Did she? Polly doesn’t cite the evidence.
Polly looked into Stroud’s background, and couldn’t find anything, she said. With that Polly then goes on to claim that her background is being protected. She says that without providing evidence in a way to smear Stroud, it looks like. It may be a reasonable guess, because in our age of public exposure on the internet, the absence of information for a woman as accomplished as Stroud looks suspicious.
As it turns out, Polly’s claim is false. In less than five minutes I found a pretty complete biography, including damming accusations, subsequently denied by Stroud, about her casting out the demon of homosexuality by prayer. It turns out Stroud is a strong fundamental Christian with an enacted Christian belief that upsets other Christians. She has also co-wrote and got published in a Christian publishing house God's Heart for the Poor. Her book was published in 1999 and has a solid 3.5 star rating, with only two ratings.
So, Polly has by innuendo impugned Stroud’s reputation and mischaracterised her with sneers and mockery. Polly, ever ready for sarcasm with a look of glee while leading into it, says ‘She gets to have her privacy. But we don’t.’ Polly cites a source that cannot confirm Philippa’s last name, and her parents are blanks. And her ‘interesting’ is a kind of sneer. And yes, it is interesting and suspicious. The biography I found also made no mention of her parents. Why? It could be that her family is in some kind of hiding for their own protection. It could be that Stroud is an orphan and doesn’t want her adoptive parents exposed. Maybe her mother is the other Philippa Stroud I found in my search, née 1923 at Buzz Learn. The details are sketchy there. Maybe she is being hidden by the cabal. Did Polly reach out to Stroud for a comment about that? She doesn’t say.
As I write that I’m kind of laughing, because if Polly had really searched, Stroud’s biography is full of salacious information that includes being a near fanatical Christian who believes that prayer has the power to remove demons and who believes that the wife is to play second fiddle to the husband in proper Biblical concurrence. And this does have me wondering at Stroud’s presence on the ARC. See Power Base. On the other hand, the biography is filled with someone actively living a life as a devout Christian on a mission and making mistakes. So, not a ghost. Another human struggling with life. Is she a double agent? I don’t think so. Is she purely good? Nope. And that is a great thing. [Note: When I went back to the site five days after visiting it it refused to let me connect. Perhaps Power Base servers are down or… I can smear them by alluding that they blocking me because they know I’ve written something about Stroud!]
‘Look it, look at their website,’ Polly sneers softly, lifting her chin in order to look down at it, she speaks in the voice she mocked Stroud for ostensibly having. (Actually Stroud didn’t speak as Polly ascribed.) Polly drips sarcasm as she reads ‘Our ambition is to improve people’s lives by increasing prosperity around [sic] the world. Yeah, of course. Of course it is,’ Polly closes by dismissing them as self-serving scammers. And Polly’s lazy cynicism is made clear when she says ‘Really sounds like they are into making the world a better place. What they’re doing is using their money to make the world work for their investments. That’s what it really always comes down to.’ My emphasis. ‘Always’ is often used by the lazy so they can avoid responsibly using discernment.
Her contempt is ever-present and irritating. With her dismissal of Legatum’s mission I finally figured out why: she has a mind closed by cynicism. How has cynicism been described?
Here is a kind of random short selection I found while looking for one I remember from my youth, and couldn’t find:
From the essay ‘Cynical People Aren’t Realistic—They’re Just Lazy’
As an adult, you’ve got no excuse. Cynicism is lazy. It’s the easy way out. If you only expect the worst from society, you never have to worry about being wrong or disappointed. And if you stay cynical for long enough, it leads to what Steven Pinker calls corrosive pessimism. If everything is awful then politicians are always liars, business leaders are always greedy, and we’re all on a collision course with a climate-change time bomb. And what’s the point in trying to do anything about that?
This kind of [cynical] attitude is bad enough when it happens on an individual level, but at the societal level, it’s toxic. In a time where action is paramount, cynicism creates a paralyzing effect. It causes predatory delay, which is effectively the same as losing. It concedes the fight to those whose power and wealth is tied to planetary destruction and the misery of others. Perhaps more importantly, it ignores the incredible stories of progress that are taking place.’ ––Angus Hervey, January 23, 2018.
The cynic is one who never sees a good quality in a man and never fails to see a bad one. He is the human owl, vigilant in darkness and blind to light, mousing for vermin, and never seeing noble game. The cynic puts all human actions into two classes — openly bad and secretly bad. ––From Lectures to ‘Young Men: On Various Important Subjects’ (1860) Lecture IV : Portrait Gallery.
Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. ––From ‘The Great Dictator’ (1940).
Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don’t learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us. ––From Knox College Commencement Address (3 June 2006)
And why is Polly impugning Paul Marshall with a kind of sneer every time she says his name? Because she keeps turning over rocks and sees his name? Perhaps. Later that is made clear because, it turns out, he is the big ‘boom’ at the end. Just wait for it.
That was 17 minutes in to her 48 minute show. Hmmm. I was ready to stop. She could be right and yet her closed minded cynicism was directing me to dismiss her even with her logical and sound concerns. I did continue and after that she did show some troubling connections, including that one of the Chandler brothers have relationships with the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, etc.
And her cynical sneer may be correct. However, pre-plandemic, an organisation like Legatum would naturally draw the attention of these philanthropic (philanthopathic) organisations and would welcome their largesse. And likely not to be fully aware of the depth of the genocidal nature of these organisations, which came out fully with the commencement of their full frontal assault. I and most on the planet are ‘guilty’ of not knowing how genocidal these organisation were until they revealed themselves with the plandemic. Are the members of Legatum aware now?
This will be an interesting conversation with them, that I will pursue. However, no conversation from Polly because, well, (sneer) all these people are evil. Nor did she indicate that she reached out to ask them for comment about this clear conflict of interest between ARC and the cabal. I’ll pursue that with ARC in the coming weeks because it is a big concern: how much is Legatum beholden to them and is Legatum (ARC) willing to break those relationship publicly? That would be amazing if they did! Or will my efforts to talk with them be ignored? This will be a very interesting test of ARC’s quality of construction.
The other odd conundrum Legatum would face is a much more subtle and difficult one to address. I wouldn’t be writing this except for an odd synchronicity with a friend who has been an active and successful fund raiser for multi-million dollar vegan and ‘green’ projects. Today, out of the blue, he shared his experience of being pilloried by the members of his organisation for having had the courage (stupidity) to go and talk with the enemy to see if they could move forward in a particular direction to help save park forests from being logged. To his surprise the enemy from two distinct army camps were actually very interested to help. And as it happened were more helpful than the people on his team who castigated him with their close-minded cynical and egoistical arrogance that insisted that they were the good guys and the other universally evil. With the enemies’ help, a gung-ho logging addendum to a federal US Bill was removed before being signed.
Polly’s efforts to keep strong the ‘us and them’ camp is antithetical to how we are going to get through this war. I’ve written about that as it applies to the individual psyop created fear-filled zombies. And this morning, in another synchronicity, Tess Lawrie wrote an identical observation in “Have We Been Using The Wrong Tactics?: Why the Key to Winning an Information War Is to Throw One’s Weapons Down”.
Well that may be stretching what qualifies as a synchronicity because is cynicism really a weapon? Maybe, some have described it as a defensive weapon. I see it as a weapon of unconscious, zombie-like suicide because it removes all responsibility for our mess and closes out imagination and shuns opportunities. I was too busy to pay attention to how woke governments were undermining the society of which I am a part. I was behaving irresponsibly, even if at the time it may have been the best I could do with my circumstances. Good/evil and hero/victim camps are a part of the psyop, and Polly’s cynicism energises the us/them split without providing solutions.
And to parrot Polly, she criticises them for being big, then criticises their entrepreneurs venture capital arm for being with MIT and high tech, then the entrepreneurs for not being high tech. And for being funded by the deplatforming company Mastercard. Okay, the last one is a fair concern and interesting. And something to ask ARC about. Again, that relationship would have been set up before the gloves came off and deplatforming became a fad of the powerful. The question is, and she doesn’t say she asked it, how will Legatum and/or the ARC be addressing that relationship.
Then how does Polly continue? Rhetorical question because she has only one way to continue, and that is with an unsurprising criticism that she sets up by ‘gently’ sneering at the woman whose enterprise is to turn an invasive plant into baskets and mats. Out come the daggers: ‘Okay, like there is nothing wrong with that, except that this is by MIT and a huge venture fund? This is who sponsors this? It seems just that there is no room in there for them to do anything. And how is this high tech? It is totally totally low tech.’ She has, perhaps reasonably, associated MIT with being singularly high tech. Why sneer at it as if it was evil? And what exactly does she mean by ‘… there is no room for them to do anything’?
Ah! Then it is revealed. Perspicacious Polly speculates that likely the people making the mats are being paid slave wages. And why would they need training to weave baskets? And then she compares basket weaving to being a slave on a southern plantation, as if the entrepreneur was a kind of slave owner and basketweaving was not actually a difficult skill.
I agree with Polly that it is curious. To me it is perhaps an indication that MIT is willing to fund simple as well as techie things. Polly has failed her due diligence here, by not pursuing this in some detail with MIT itself, to find out what that relationship is about. Instead, like a true cynic, she closes the doors and hides behind her mocking know-it-all grimace-like smile as if what she said is obviously the whole story.
I stopped after Polly mocked, with a silly caricature of the female voice that she castigated Stroud for ostensibly having, the entrepreneurial athletes who were fund-raising for a program to deworm children. Really?
I wanted to see if she had any solutions. I was dubious, given her cynical nature. Cynics are often great at tossing stones into the community, without any idea of how to fix smashed windows nor even the thought of offering to pick up the glass let alone helping to fix them. So I skipped to near the end. Nope.
This did allow me to see the Marshal ‘boom’.
Polly disclosed the reason for the earlier snark-shots at Marshall: he is in bed with George Soros, who funded him and his brother when they started their hedge fund. And Marshall has given millions to the London School of Economics, a Fabian construct. Yes, these are significant and very troubling associations. Polly observes, correctly, that the Fabian society has had a long term plan, coming closer to completion, of creating a communist uni-globe tyrannical eugenics based state.
She cynically closes with an ostensibly fair statement: ‘Given what I’ve shown you today, do you think so? Do you think their [the ARC’s] intentions are pure? I really don’t know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. But what I do know is the venture funds themselves, the investment funds themselves, they are purely bad.’ And she may be right.
In my conclusion Polly is amazingly like a controlled op. Why? She has just enough truth and just enough dubious hyperbole to create confusion without a solution. And with that she is growing the feeling of powerlessness and stoking anger. Is there some evidence of that? Yes, in the comments which are flush with angry vitriol and little if any feeling of a dialogue looking for solutions. And that is, perhaps, the most effective psyop being used by the cabal in this war: you are weak, you are ineffective, and you do not have any solutions, because we are your masters, bucko! Mmmmwwaaaaahhhhaaaahhhha.
If not an op, then at best my experience of Polly was of an amazingly strident and boring one-note complainer, comprised wholly of sneer and condescension without solutions. Okay, okay, that may not be fair, given that this will be the one of only two partially watched Polly videos I’ll slog through. She may have proposed meaningful solutions elsewhere. I started to watch her earlier video “Listen Bucko, Peterson Is Controlled Op - Answer Comments & Going In To More Detail”. I was turned off and stopped it after less than ten minutes because it confirmed that she appears to be by body language and words, tone and condescension, a clever cynical egoist who narcissistically complains for the joy of it while projecting her shadow. Whatever ‘deep’ truths she reveals are largely lost or hidden by her own darkness.
For some unknown reason, Polly reminded me of a Laurie Anderson lyric:
I met this guy And he looked like he might have been A hat check clerk at an ice rink Which, in fact, he turned out to be And I said Oh boy Right again
Very good review. I would not know who the Amazing Polly is if not for the link provided in your substack comments. I watched the whole thing and came away pretty much like you did. I have been a cynic at times, but less so as I have aged. There is one thing I have learned, if you permit me to paraphrase Scripture, "No one is without spin."
I have heard of amazing Polly but have not watched any of her videos. There are a number of people who through their delivery style or attitude strike me as either controlled op or just unhelpful.
Stew Peters, Del Bigtree, Maria Zee, Steve Bannon, and many others, all trigger alarm bells for me in various ways. Maybe they are good and genuine people, (or not )or maybe I am too cynical.
You make some really important points that we should all ask ourselves when viewing or reading an opinion about current events.
Some good questions to ask would be:
Does the person offer solutions? Do they make you feel or imply that you are powerless ? Do they make it sound like some impeding doom is a forgone conclusion? Do they stoke fear and hatred or use divide and conquer narratives? Do they offer a solution but it only goes through them or involves buying stuff from them?
If you answer yes to any if those questions then it is possible that what you are listening to is either controlled op/ chaos agent or just totally unhelpful blathering and not worth your time.
There are so many jokers out there its so important to use discernment. 🪷