Wack-a-Mole? Wackadoodlers Wacking at the Motes in the Eyes of the Others’ Across Moats

Plato’s Cave and a Meta-Analysis of a Sibling’s Argument, Truth and Discovered Sibling Love

Spy vs Spy. The Neither Looking Good nor a Good Look Boomerang: Not an Owens AI created by the Trump anti-Owens PR team. Owens selfie while recovering from toxic mould poisoning. ‘Vile Person of the Year.’ Music: Nightwish — Noise.

Link to Video:

Wack-a-Mole? Wackadoodlers Wacking at the Motes in the Eyes of the Others’ Across Moats

Link to Soundcloud:

Introduction

Hello. I’m the brother of Mrs. Horsley, aka Michelle. She is a decades long deep autism investigator and para-political researcher and more. Her spouse is the fascinating social truth wack-a-moler, writer, author and podcaster, Christ seeker outside of Christianity, Jasun Horsley.

I’m writing this response in coordination with Jasun’s recently published response to a schism, or confluence of schisms, housed in one of the age old human triangle melodramas: family, truth, and social gossip. Where lies the lie? Where does the truth track, when both absolute lie and unimpeachable truth are so easily, so casually even dismissively challenged by the distortions inherent to perception of mind and projection of the psyche’s shadows. Both mind and psyche frequently usurp truth because they easily become the false purveyors of absolute truth with narratives of perceptions of truth often disguised within, or as being just, socio-political gossip or as something akin to a real life heroic ace trump card.

The three of us have agreed to interweave our stories, perceptions, narratives of what could be true and how the perception of truth is made manifest by agents of deception. And the strange attractor that brought this about is, of all things, the multitude of possible perceptions and mis-perceptions of podcaster Candace Owens.

Specifically, for me, I have engaged in this as a quest into how we can know that we are seeing as true that which is true, as false that which is false, and as neutral that which is neither true nor false. For Jasun and my sister, at least as it seems to me if I’ve understood correctly their argument or stand, that it is to use my delusion as a perfect, or near perfect, example of the successful dissemination of 5th Generation Warfare practices. To scapegoat the dopey dupe as an important classroom lesson.

Too funny that I would agree to be made the fool that they can use to argue their ‘truth’. Although a case could be made that my having consciously taken that choice, even if the ultimate consequences of that choice may not be perceivable, makes me the ‘true’ scapegoat in René Girard’s language of mimetic rivalry and its demand for the creation of a scapegoat. And if so, then beyond that perhaps I am more Christ-like than most scapegoats who are usually unwillingly scapegoated?

(Note: Jasun and Michelle’s advocacy for the deep and profound validity of Girard prompted me to look into the human explanatory power of his theory of mimetic rivalry and the place in history, mythology and religion of the scapegoat. I wrote about that twice, once more superficially because it was clear to me without digging too deeply that, while having elements of value, it was inadequate as a pan-descriptor. Subsequently Michelle re-asserted with some vehemence that I hadn’t done enough research to understand the profundity of his truth, and so in that dismissal I had, like other rubes, missed his theory’s value. So I did a second dive. Yes, I found that my initial quick dismissal had been shallow. And yet basically correct. The deeper dive gave me more understanding of why Girard is superficially correct, why he is popular, and yet why his mimetic theory is inadequate to fully encompass human individual and social behaviours. For the curious, the first essay is here. The second is here.)

Although, at the same time, my participation may give them the opportunity to see that my having made the choice to be scapegoated by them is a kind of foolishness on my part that provides them the proof they need of my state of delusion. Because, seriously, no intelligent person could be so stupid as to set themselves up in that way. Well, except the liberal-humanists who get slaughtered in their debates by the likes of blood sport debater Andrew Wilson. Certainly it is those liberal-humanists, not me, who are blind to inevitable evisceration?! SMH. Too funny. Seppuku for desert, anyone?

Anyway Jasun and Michelle introduced the seed of our discordant triangle in Jasun’s articulate post that states that I am the deluded ‘wackadoodle’ victim of 5th Generation Warfare. And that they are the clear eyed para-political visionaries adamant to use, with my permission, my foolishness as an exemplar of delusion and their clarity of vision. Both are committed to show people the real truth. And maybe, just maybe, save me from my delusion on the way. SMH. Let the games begin! (Where’s the saki and tempura to go with the seppuku?)

The Unreality-Based Community

Cognitive Warfare and the Candace Owens Soap Op, Pt 1.

🙏 If this essay gives you some pleasure, and/or an ‘aha’ or two and especially some laughs, buy me a coffee and/or become a paid subscriber.

Click on the coffee if you would like to buy me a coffee:

OODA Is a Nothing Noodle? Really?

Michelle presents a model of behaviour modification/ manipulation/ learning with the acronym OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act). It was developed by the American fighter pilot and military strategist Col. John Boyd in the context of the evolution of air warfare. After pondering it for a week, I see that while it may be significant in a particular coding, or type of coding, to ‘force’ behaviours, it isn’t core or unique to what Michelle is addressing. IMO.

My problem with its significance isn’t that it isn’t true — likely it is true and perhaps even ‘very’ true, if that is possible. It is that beyond a style of coding in a manufactured scientific™ guise, it simply reflects the natural process of learning. Think, do, act, consequence, adjust. Intuition and/ or unconscious elements almost always pre-initiate the thinking part. And ‘learning’ may be of psychological and/or spiritual elements of life more significantly than learning that touching a hot stove gives pretty consistent unwanted consequences.

Frederick Taylor’s studies of motion in the early 1900s are basically the same thing — from his work of measuring intention with action and result he concluded what is the perfect size for a spade in order to maximise the end-of-day payload without debilitating the shoveler. And he transformed the auto industry with his practices being used by Ford.

Also, Gregory Bateson modelled feedback loops in a New Agey kind of way by moving beyond the mechanical forms elucidated by Taylor and Boyd. Bateson took that orientating/ learning model into the biosphere/ ecosystems as the mechanism by which life/ ecosystems promote or degrade the stability of the eco-system.

And there are elements of that in the way Master of Business programmes model human behaviour in the science™ of business. In recent years OODA has been increasingly included in MBA modelling.

Another interesting form of this kind of learning system is Six Sigma and its approach to improving behaviours in business. While a telecom engineer I was tasked with taking the course. Not knowing what it was I anticipated it to be just more of the MBA delusion I had been seeing destroy the company for which I worked. I was surprised, perhaps even stunned, at its approach and efficacy. Six Sigma is actually grounded in real world measures, not just some kind of ideological business model like the ones I saw being forced into the job. So how different is its outline of purpose than OODA’s?

Six Sigma views all work as processes that can be defined, measured, analyzed, improved, and controlled. Processes are a series of steps that take various inputs and produce outputs such as a product or a service. Understanding the relationship between the inputs and outputs is a key concept in Six Sigma. By controlling the inputs, you can control the outputs.

And even in the study of economics™ there are elements of this kind of thing, albeit with an important twist. Economic modelling is predicated on determining and modelling their determination of what is human behaviour. However, they discovered that individual human behaviour is too chaotic to model well, and so they simplified that human chaos by applying a common human characteristic: greed. Thus economists use greed in order to rationalise its mathematical schema. And in so doing create the actual socially constructed mechanisms by which greed becomes ‘a good thing’ and gets infused into most of our social structures. (Francis Fukuyama explores how this economic ideology created (false) reality and changed human behaviour in Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity.)

And MK-Ultra experimentation, in all its permutations and elaborations, is exactly the same thing.

So… how to improve the efficiency of getting minds to think in a certain way has been under ‘scientific™’ investigation for some time. (Although not exactly scientific™ in our terms, this ‘need’ to control the minds of the slaves has certainly been extant since before the development of the Roman Empire and its transformation into the Catholic Church.) Of course it can be argued that Edward Bernays under guidance from his uncle, Sigmund Freud, perfected it with honing the mechanism of disseminating propaganda. I think that at its core the purpose of modifying human behaviour is how to get people to believe a lie. And that comes down to making the lie big, call loud attention to it, and keep the noise constant enough that it is difficult to reflect on whether or not the lie aligns with reality. Oh! And very helpful, although not absolutely necessary, is to create shock, awe and trauma to put that lie on steroids. Recently the convid exemplifies that.

To be disagreeably cheeky to Michelle, given her recent interest in blood sport debates with Andrew Wilson, I might suggest softly, that her inclusion of OODA is an example of the informal logical fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi: true enough, just not relevant to the actual argument she is ostensibly looking to make.

(And the topic of body as the touchstone for the great apocalypse, to see through the lie to truth, or as something close to truth, is for another place. That interest has been core in my yoga practice for at least the last five years. I’ve written about that in different ways in my Substack. Perhaps most pointedly with my look at the Apollo moon landing as a kind of epitome of making the lie big — without the trauma part.)

Reflecting on Jasun and Michelle’s Perception of My Perception of My Perception of Candace Owens: A Pair of Undrinking Horses

Very specifically this whole thing got fired up because of their perception of my perception of my perception of Candace Owens. They, at the particular initiative of my sister, have been pressuring me (attacking me as stupid in some cases) to see their truth as the truth. I’ve long noted and written about the clear and present danger of truth singularities and their populists because truth seers often become social justice warrior activists. Angry and without humour. (I’m not sure if Michelle has discarded her humour entirely — yet. Jasun, on the other hand? Not sure.) Have I become a locus of just that kind of energy? That their adamancy of being truth seers has brought them to bear down on me as SJWs to cure me of my adamant Owens delusion and/or infatuation? That I must see their truth because it is the obvious truth! Fascinating stuff. “Curious and interesting”. (BTW, that is an inside ‘joke’ for Jasun.)

They have completely bought into their idea that I have been stupefied by 5th Generation Warfare. Hence their joint post. And, not too surprisingly for anyone who self-proclaims their expertise and authority in a subject matter, they are totally convinced that they have not been so stupefied. Who me? Not possible, say experts. Such as the ballyhooed and respected tyranny expert Jordan Peterson who, likely, thought himself immune to tyranny when he came to advocate medical tyranny in order to bring ‘life back to normal’. Expertise as a prophylactic against delusion is delusion, as in Peterson’s failure to see he was supporting a tyranny that was being enacted. Actual historical evidence suggests how often expertise is a precursor to self delusion. (For the purpose of this essay I typically won’t cite actual evidence in detail. Rather I will make occasional references to it. I am comfortable in that because it was how Jasun and Michelle began this formal excursion into truth.) For evidence of my argument against experts, beyond Peterson, there are the glaring examples of the cholera experts in London who were as wrong about their expertise as were the medical experts who put into a mad house Dr. Semmelweis who dared to suggest that washing hands after working on corpses before assisting in birth would reduce perniciously infecting babies and mothers with puerperal fever. Convid experts anyone?

What they site as evidence is not actually evidence, IMO. It is their opinion backed by and based on, biased by, the antecedents of their own experience and their reliance on that as authority enough to castigate and even denigrate my obstinacy as delusion. They may be right, that I could be a cult follower of the Candace Owens ‘soap opera’. And yet, to date, they have not yet provided sufficient evidence of that. Both have almost exclusively relied on their appeal to their own authority. Yet another logical fallacy which has been to Michelle, water off a duck’s back. I am open to the error of my perception! Neither have provided me with evidence of that. Of course, Michelle has, in her jab at me, refused to provide me evidence because, in her opinion, what she has provided is sufficient evidence. And so the tautology goes.

And thus we have a pair of horses who are each unwilling to drink the other’s ‘slop’ — er, I mean water of truth. They have not been willing to see, or even consider, that I have considered their evidence and found it wanting. That my failure to rely on their expertise is just my being blind to their authority. A pattern I am surprised that I recognise and that they have not seemed to recognise in this discussion.

The Evidence of Evidence Avoidance: Carlson and The Wackadoodle Dupe Versus the Ick-Detecting Enlightened Sister

Concomitantly, to the best of my perception, both have avoided my evidence, even my call to look at the evidence, as being, obviously, simply well executed 5th Gen manipulation. To paraphrase Jasun, it is obvious that Owens is a shill supported by … [not sure who] … because she is too popular. The powers-that-be have to be supporting her otherwise she could not be popular. If she really wasn’t a shill, he infers and maybe has said somewhere, she would be without voice or dead. Okay. A logical argument, for sure. And is not that argument itself an example of 5th Gen Warfare? Because she isn’t dead I don’t need to look at her closely because she isn’t dead.

Michelle simply rejects Owens because Owens has some undefinable ‘ick’ factor. ‘[Guy] may fancy Candace Owens, but I sure don’t (ewww).’ SMH. (Point of order: I don’t fancy Owens in the way that the structure of Michelle’s point inferred. She and Jasun have both stated in other writings or orally that I may be psychologically entangled in her in some way — anima and/or mother/Medusa figure.) And how Michelle framed that is, IMO, an example of the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Would that not be a data point of evidence that Michelle is a victim of 5th Gen Warfare? To dismiss someone because of an ‘eww’ that is … what? That Owens is anti-semitic, pro-globalist, anti-Trump, demonic, anti-truther, popular, self-hating anti-black, married to a wealthy catholic brit …. Many, perhaps most, of these epithets have been bountied paid narratives that have flooded the internet and the Calvary church system. (If curious, you can look up the internet bounty system to see how often Owens has been bountied. And evidence of operation mockingbird like copy-cat narratives with the church system and in the verbal attack campaigns — like the uniformity of anti-vaxx ‘news’ broadcast in the time of the convid.)

A small clue of the success of that 5th Gen on Jasun and Michelle is their assumption that I support/ follow/ fancy Tucker Carlson. For months the bounty against Owens was specific in its payment that the attack include in their demonisation — and the bounty specified using ‘evil’ and ‘demon’ in the attack — that both Owens and Carlson are to be specifically named together. I don’t think I have mentioned Carlson once. I checked my Substack and that is not quite true! In an epistle I wrote to my dead father I cited Carlson’s respect for Trump and that Trump is the funniest person Carlson has ever met. [Link here.] And in a critical examination of Sam Harris as a narcissist, I cited Carlson in conversation with Piers Morgan for having stated that the deliberate killing of children by Israel is wrong. [Link here.] I don’t attend Carlson with any regularity nor find myself wanting to. Nor do I consider him having some kind of equivalency of significance, at this time for me, with Owens. It is possible that Carlson has come up in our extended email chains, and yet he hasn’t been singularly or even jointly part of the fired up mission Michelle has taken upon herself to save me from Owens.

Is this particular misperception of my perception of Carlson evidence, a tiny clue, pointing to successful 5th Gen Warfare? That Jasun has conflated my ‘infatuation’ with Owens as a similar infatuation with Carlson? My curious mind wants to know because I find it interesting!

A ‘Proper’ Argument? Where Are the Farts to Penetrate the Constructed Identity’s Mask?

Thus it is we have arrived at this form of dialogue, perhaps even something akin to a ‘proper’ argument — at least in a limited way — within which well poisoning pejoratives and other logical fallacies will occur — Michelle opened that door with having introduced me as a ‘wackadoodling dupe’, to paraphrase. And it is likely that my version of sarcasm will be construed as the obstinacy only a stupido unaware of being a cult victim could embody.

And my sister has shown her compassion towards me when she expressed deep concern that my constructed identity will crack and fall into pieces because her correctness and self-referential expertise is without bounds. Two things about that: the majority of adamant convid pro-vax proselytisers have not suffered that break down, even as surrounding family members suddenly die for no obvious reason and mostly without obvious pre-death symptoms. And no amount of actual health and statistical evidence of the deadliness of the convid injection were able to penetrate the convid narrative of the pro-vaxxers. So: if I am completely besotted by the Owens narrative in the way Michelle believes, Michelle is unlikely to change me. And if she and Jasun are completely entranced by their expertise, their constructed identities are likewise unlikely to crack. OMG, Life/ Universe/ God really really has a wicked sense of humour!

To Be Upstanding on the Other Side of the Owens Divide: Resistance is Futile!

And so I enter this engagement aware that we stand on either side of a similar divide. And is that not the goal of 5th Gen Warfare? And I am also aware that that which we resist will persist because the energy of an argument solely to convince the other of their wrongness simply energises the schism. When the argument does not entail the need by the morally correct SJW to convince the other of the error of the deluded one’s perception, then curiosity and humour enter and the schism is reduced. To share humour with the tenuous or nebulous reality of truth at any given time is to either build the bridge across, or fill the gap, with curiosity. And yet… delusion knows no bounds and is always the other person’s problem!

And so I with open eyes, filled with curiosity and humour at why I am doing this familial ‘debate’, enter where only fools ‘dare’ to tread: from the cave of Plato I enjoin a familial battle with the demon of delusion. Round and round we will undoubtedly go, and where we land nobody can know. Likely into some kind of lunacy, although not the actual moon.

And speaking of lunacy, it is funny to me, that I’ve recently become intrigued by my own reaction to reactors reacting to the music of Nightwish. Reacting to reactors reacting?! WTF indeed?! And yet, here I am, one of them! Twofold: music and family. OMG! Life has a wicked sense of humour. And with that nudge of God’s(?) humour, I have begun a Self-investigation of my fascination with what is, ostensibly, a weird thing.

And maybe music reaction investigation is even weirder than me having become besotted by imbibing in too much of the siren like elixir of the luciferian-demon-goddess-Medusa Candace Owens, with her mellifluous siren-like soap operatic arias who fronts, or manufactures, a cabal of openly secret globalists as the agents of western Christian civilisation’s destruction, the management of the downslope of peak oil and the dissemination of Sharia law. That and why I am now responding to my sister’s reaction to my being curious about what Candace Owens is doing and how she is doing it. After all, one of the funniest things in life is that it is always the other person’s shit that stinks the worst.

Owens as the Siren Strong Enough to Lure Jasun into the Vacuity of Para-Politics: On Girardian Mimetic Ideology Creating a False Reality

In his post Jasun succinctly describes how he has in recent months become increasingly frustrated with the para-political machinations that Michelle has found increasingly, obsessively even, engaging. Enough so that my sister insists on sharing her infatuation with the para-political and 5th Gen ‘stuff’ with him despite his near total disinterest in it. ‘If you can’t beat them join them.’ He is concerned that she is becoming too close to it, that she is spending way too much time scouring internet scuttlebutt. And, even worse, that her Owens-besotted brother has, for only God knows why, encouraged her obsession by actively engaging her ‘silliness’ with inanity.

Jasun openly chose to ’side’ with her — I have not once asked or even hinted that he side with anyone. He trusts her authority, and his expertise, to avoid evidence-based ‘argument’. And after my interest in Owens was rejected by him and the men’s group more than a year ago, I haven’t mentioned her to him or the other men. Recently, because of Michelle’s version of para-political nagging that includes how Owens has deluded me as an example of 5th Gen Warfare, his frustration with her frustration at my stupidity has resulted in him publicly ‘jabbing’ me with my Owens’ asininity. Hmmm. It struck me, as I was writing this, that that is a kind of tribal behaviour that Girard describes. Jasun’s public jabs, and how sometimes he presents them, are an appeal to the group to approve finding and picking the right scapegoat. The One whose sacrifice will clear the tribe of its collective pernicious shadow.

And then I wondered: is the level of Jasun’s admiration for the utter completeness of the Girardian perspective of world history expressing itself in this confrontation? As noted above, I do not fully subscribe to the completeness of the absolute truth of mimetic theory as the perfect descriptor of human social behaviours and interactions across time and space. And TBH, in some ways I equate that level of completeness to how economics uses greed as the complete all-that-is-needed descriptor of human behaviour.

Anyway, my thought is that, since Jasun has fully subscribed to the pan-explanatory power of mimetic theory, to what extent is his buy-in to mimetic theory that which is actually helping to manufacture it in or as the reality that he is perceiving as true? In our many emails Michelle is more engaged in ‘saving’ me from delusion than she is in being saved by Jasun’s more sagacious view that we are already alive post apocalypse. In other words, has Michelle’s obsession with para-politics and with having become fully committed to convincing me of my lack of understanding provided Jasun the opportunity to overlay on it mimetic theory? And the most proximate object to confront as the mimetic rival is not the intangible world of para-politics: it is, of course, me.

And even beyond that possibility, from Jasun’s perspective, does he see Michelle and I as Nero and his wife fiddling, or as the stewards on the Titanic’s sister ship who adjusted the deck chairs before being engulfed in the cold water of that apocalyptic reality? And so, perhaps even rightly so, his crying out in despair ’Shut up about it, already!’ — to paraphrase him, is appropriate. In his opinion this kind of argument is moot because it is arguing about truths or so-called truths that have missed the greater or even greatest truth. That being in the age or state of being post-apocalyptic is where we are to focus our intention: learning to live off the land and become increasingly self-sustaining. And his perception of what is, whether or not it is physically correct or not may, at least in part, explain the how and why of his demand that I ‘Back off!’ from my Michelle-initiated argumentation about delusion as exemplified by my post-koolaided state. My delusion and her frustration with my failure to drink the cleaning fluid that my sister is proffering in our private communications has, resulted in Michelle sharing that frustration with Jasun, at least to whatever extent that she has, Jasun describe that engagement with Michelle as ‘pernicious to his marriage’.

“But I Do Listen to Andrew Wilson” and Because I Trust Him I Trust that the Federal Narrative of Charlie Kirk’s Execution Is Indubitably a True, Accurate and Complete Record of the Event

We argue about it but it makes no difference. At this point the Candace Owens Universe has infiltrated his cognitive and perceptual faculties. He believes. Presumably those beliefs now function as a filter for any new information he is exposed to. Challenges are rejected. Essentially, just mine, I guess? Probably he never speaks to anyone about Erika Kirk in his regular life.

[Insert mirror replace ‘his’ with ‘my’, and ‘he’ with ‘I’, ‘mine’ with ‘yours’.]

And of course it is the same for me. I don’t listen to Candace Owens and you couldn’t pay me to. But I do listen to Andrew Wilson.

Wha’ tha’? I do find it funny that I introduced Michelle to Wilson in one of the Substack essays I wrote last year. When I checked that ‘fact’ I was surprised to see that I’ve occasionally referenced Wilson in my essays since 2024. In recent months he has significantly discredited himself, especially around his provable lies and delusional arguments about the details around the public execution of Charlie Kirk. He has openly avowed perpetual hatred for Owens because she was ‘unfairly’ critical of his friend Steven Crowder during Crowder’s contentious divorce that was made public — I’m not sure who did that or who did what and when — and I’ve not enough interest in that melodrama to confirm the ‘true’ narrative. LMAO, SMH! (The YouTube video of him saying that to Pearl Davis has been removed. I have the link, which has further incentivised me to capture the ‘controversial’ videos onto my PC. Ah well. (It is (was):

And this is a baffling phrase: Probably he never speaks to anyone about Erika Kirk in his regular life. You included it so it was important in some way. Yet, it has absolutely no meaning. Before posting this I asked Michelle to clarify what she meant by that. She responded:

Literally what I meant. When you go to town to shop or meet with friends at the cafe, I bet you don’t ever discuss Erika Kirk with anyone — but CO does all the time.

I don’t talk with anyone about Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, Andrew Wilson, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Kolvet or… anyone in that circle. (I rarely talk about Trump, and usually in relation to his effects in México and in Gaza and Iran.)

Although Michelle has provided a shibboleth as evidence of 5th Generation Warfare working. Owens does not talk about Erika Kirk all the time. How do I know? Because I have actually listened to what Owens has said, not what anti-Owens influences say Owens says — and who with frequency get community noted. I won’t use AI to scrape the transcripts because I don’t use AI — yet, anyway. Is Erika Kirk a significant part of Owens’ investigation into the death of Charlie Kirk? Of course: the widow who becomes significantly enriched by his death, and undeservedly elevated into position of power with significantly more access to the very powerful as a direct result of her husband’s death is worth investigating. That the 5th Gen War machine has made it a sacrilege against God and widows to suggest that EK has motive is a lie. A lie that has been repeated so often and that has been flooding the internet that that has the look of 5th Gen Warfare, to me. And that is likely an example of a 5th Gen lie, it looks to me, that Michelle has bought.

And so Michelle castigates me for sopping up a soap opera while repeating the highly soaped and steroid enriched sanctity of a widow who, by the death of her husband is a saint who cannot be questioned without such questioners being labelled demonic. Since when is it against God to question the veracity of the people who are the closest to a murdered person and who gained the most from it? Not once has Owens stated or even strongly inferred that EK murdered her husband. She has dismissed it. EK’s strange behaviour, instantaneous promotions into power and increased wealth, alibi failures are big enough to demand investigation in a ‘normal’ instance of the death of a spouse. That not doing so, in this particular case, is abnormal and so is suspicious.

And the shutting down of such a ‘proper’ investigation of the the widow with Bible versus is also problematic. And yet aligns with the very loud and persistent demonisation attacks as evil and anti-Christian anyone who questions the narrative — and that include many more than just Owens.

In the meantime Michelle listens to her trusted podcaster Wilson, who himself has unknowingly become some kind of weird soap opera victim ‘queen’: about Owens Wilson has, despite his intelligence and debate skills, and his aggressive, abrasive, foul-mouthed beer swilling, smoking so-called persona, been a total fourteen year old mean-girl towards Owens because Owens misrepresented, maybe, Crowder and hurt his feelings?! Farcical and even hilarious in its ludicrousness. (I did the research on that, FWIW. And in my search, not exhaustive but focused for 30 minutes or so, I did find a clip of Wilson on Owens, here. And the reddit back and forth on the Wilson-Owens ‘spat’ is kind of funny.)

What really, really surprised, shocked and saddened me was when Michelle claimed sufficient trust in ‘podcaster’ Wilson being truthful when he said that sometimes .30-06 bullets will stop in a human neck instead of decapitating the target. She, who criticises me for trusting podcasters, has relied on a podcaster’s completely asinine statement as her source of truth. Did Wilson, the Orthodox Christian, accept that Kirk’s titanium steel neck is a modern day miracle of Christ, which the TPUSA spokesman Andrew Kolvet publicly stated? Did Michelle trust her podcaster rather than researching his veracity about that? Nope, because it goes against her narrative of ‘truth’.

And the preliminary hearing, about which again my sister turned to a podcaster to summarise it for her, lied about the quality of the evidence. Of many failures, clear and objective failures, perhaps one of the most damning against the federal narrative and defended by Erika Kirk and Charlie Kirk’s ‘friends’ at TPUSA, is that the forensic ‘expert™’ stated on the stand that the bullet that was recovered from Kirk was not a .30-06. It was of a smaller caliber than that. Oopsie.

And, FWIW, I don’t actually trust, in that way, anyone. I don’t begin with active distrust, though. And that actual not trusting extends to my sister and her husband and all their years of experience and developed expertise. Why have they both assumed that I trust Owens? And why have they, although in particular Michelle, demanded that I trust their expertise? At the very very least, the convid put that old saw of trusting the science™ and all experts™ completely to death.

I’m Obsessed — With Not Talking About Owens: Except with Michelle and W**, Both of Whom Want Me to Bend My Knee to Their Truth Of Owens as Sourced to Anti-Owens Podcaster’s

It is to be noted, I think, that I became curious about Owens in 2024, maybe. I think after she left The Daily Wire. And despite the obsession Michelle claims I have, I have not ever proselytised Owens with Hare Krishna like chants to anyone. In the week since she made the claim of my obsession I went into the world to check to see if my memory of my lack of obsession was faulty.

To that end I have talked with my circle of friends to see if they have heard me advocate in any way to them my delusion about Owens. Of the nine people I talk to regularly, not including Michelle and the Job Men’s Group and the Christ Outside of Christianity Group, six didn’t even know who she was. I’ve not mentioned her once to them. The osteopath cited my having described a childhood dream which may be oddly linked to her. Nothing about her controversial place in the sm world. Another said that her son once mentioned her, but she had never heard her name from me. Her son once commented about Owens, that he used to listen to her until he learned from a podcaster that she had lied about something. (I asked my friend to ask him for the proof of that. Nothing yet from either him or her. And I haven’t pursued it to set him straight! I simply don’t care to do that.) What was interesting, to me, was that after my question, my curious friend looked her up. When next we talked she said ‘Oh! I didn’t know she was black. That took me by surprise.’ Another friend, who didn’t know who she was at all, also got curious. So, after my question she Googled Owens and said ‘She is pro-MAGA! I’ll never listen to her!’ I laughed because Google described Owens as pro-MAGA when she is being vilified by the pro-Trump MAGA community for creating a schism within the MAGA cadre because she is against Trump’s administration actively supporting the Israeli genocide in Gaza! Serious LMAO.

A friend here, who is like Michelle, thinks I’m deluded too. I have not once brought her up in our conversations. He, instead, like Michelle, supplies me with anti-Owens chatter that is easily debunked as out-and-out provable lies. When I push back and say that this or that is a provable lie, I ask if he would like me to send the evidence of the lie. Or if he would provide me with the proof for what he is regurgitating. And he, like Michelle, is a duck and jiver. He doesn’t want to research the eww and ick of Owens. And, like Michelle, he has not once provided proof of his claim. Like Michelle, he cites podcast sources. Do ducks just waddle, or can they dance? SMH. Although I am impressed with the effort and detail Michelle extends to find such things as Owens’ mother’s father’s brother once permitting land to Epstein. Research on things like OODA. But not what is in the immediate purview of what Owens is doing or saying now.

Even after Michelle’s strenuous efforts to disillusion me about her perception of my deluded infatuation with Owens, and that I am in an obsession of some kind with her, the only person — and there is only one — that I talk with about Owens on a regular basis — besides Michelle — is someone who also finds Owens ‘interesting’. Is that evidence of my lack of obsession or the opposite? I think the former. And even so, because it is evidence of my stand, not proof, it will be water off of a duck’s back. Michelle can’t stop talking about her to Jasun, and I have no compulsion to talk about her to anyone. And, oddly enough, Michelle’s obsession is strong enough for our conversation to be described by her husband as pernicious to their relationship. Hmmmm. Who is it that is Owens-obsessed? Just a thought. (Most of that evidence is in text messages — not all — and so I have at least some of the receipts — if Michelle or Jasun still have enough curiosity to supplant their truth-knowing to view it.)

I Return to Girard and Discover An Unexpected Additional Flaw in Mimetic Theory! Thank You Jasun and Michelle!

This scenario where two people argue over a third person is the exact situation that French intellectual heavyweight René Girard has claimed leads inevitably to mimetic violence—with one qualification: In Girard’s model, the driver of the disagreement is mutual desire for the third. A covetous rivalry. That doesn’t quite fit with me and my brother. He may fancy Candace Owens, but I sure don’t (ewww).

This twists Girardian mimetic theory beyond its capability to remain valid. By definition, that is what Michelle states because she doesn’t fancy Owens and thinks that I do. IMO.

I don’t fancy Owens. And I am unsure why Michelle felt the need to make that odd reference to facts not in evidence. In the past she has wondered to what extent I have transferred onto Owens an embodiment of our mother. I explored that and no, I haven’t. And then, similar to how ‘liberals’ argue, I suspect that my failure to properly understand that transferences are invisible means that my denying it proves that I am a hidden or unconscious Owens-aphile as mother imago. SMH. My own sister putting me on trial like I am a witch! Too funny, and an impossible Catch-22 argument. Foolish, am I indeed to be so engaged — with Michelle, not Owens. Yikes, more proof I’ve been bewitched.

And even Jasun in his high regard for mimetic theory’s explanatory power admits that it doesn’t hold up with our sibling rivalry — well it wouldn’t because it isn’t one. In a creative twist, Jasun turns to Adlerian lust for power as the rationale that would make or force the truth of mimetic rivalry correct in context of Michelle’s ‘ewww’ of Owens and to my emotionally indifferent ‘interest’ in Owens. Michelle and I are fighting for truth supremacy in order to dominate the other. Okay. Maybe. Sort of reasonable. It does have a kind of logical stickiness, like molasses, that might contain if not absolute truth, then perhaps a modicum of truthiness.

And, perhaps because that is such a weak argument, Jasun has, elsewhere, suggested that Owens might be my Medusa. (I’m not sure if this thought came to him independently of Michelle’s perception of my being psychologically entangled with Owens.) This is in reference to his demand that until I talk to my ex I won’t be a proper masculine man because I’ve not faced the Medusa as the death-gaze of my mother as embodied in my ex. Another Catch-22 witch trial argument. Even so, when he said it to me, there could be some element of Jungian psychological truth in that. So, since he said it and because I didn’t automatically reject its witch trial structure, I considered it. Seriously. My body and the I Ching and synchronicity have rejected it. And I suspect that he will, in turn, reject that. Another coin toss might be in the offing.

I wrestled with the failure of mimetic rivalry to explain what was going on with Michelle and me. And I wrestled equally with sibling rivalry. Nope, I had no experience in my body, either directly or with that nice truth-resonance ‘aha’. Into my mind came an odd question: is it possible that Michelle and I are enacting sibling love for one another?

She wants me free of delusion. Thank you for your concern, Michelle and I love you for it. I am evidence driven, and is there evidence that her frustration with me is not simply Adlerian power psychology? Yes. She recently shared with Jasun her deep concern that I am not eating healthily because of a dearth of money. [Self-promotion time! I have a beautiful, wonderful, delightful and very funny 48 hour life upgrade course. See my Substack for more details if you are interested in a wonderful mutual and fun life-upgrade ‘extravaganza’.]

Could it be that I am equal to her with my loving concern for her being misguided, perhaps even delusional, and obsessive with her (mis)perceived perception of my perception of Owens? And that that is why neither of us want to stop hoping that we could be, might be, the first persons on the planet to successfully get the nag at the river to drink the water of ‘truth’ when it simply won’t for whatever reason? And is that why neither of us have ghosted the other over such a fundamental rift, as has happened between the pro- and anti-vaxxers and the pro- and anti-Trumpers?

It looks like we share the delusion of our being able to help the other see a truth that the other is unwilling to see when it is so obvious. And for that person to be my own sister! And for that person to be her own brother! Owens as our own version of the convid as agent of familial and community schismogenesis. Is that not 5th Gen Warfare, which both of us are to some extent combatting by not ghosting the other? SMH. OMG, Life has a wicked sense of humour and delusion is unlimited and always the other person’s problem!

How are we not both in Plato’s cave?! I am open to that possibility because of how often in my past false-truths, truth-traps as I call them, had me stuck in a dark place. The question I have of Michelle, the meta-question, is whether or not Michelle may be captured by her story of this particular peak-oil temporary truth? And that she is not too unalike from the pro-vaxxers railing against me in the fear that my life is in jeopardy of killing them because of the state of my delusion?

Yet, Foolish Me, Here I Am Arguing With Her. Why?

Because I have in the last twelve years been using a refinement of ‘gut feeling’ to direct my actions. And that method of using my version of ‘gut’ has been asking me to argue with her about this. She has adopted(?), accepted(?) — imbibed in an overarching narrative of globalist-vs-anti-globalist — Spy vs. Spy? From that moral stance she assigns by her perfect perception of what is true all para-political and political events as either agents supporting globalism or not supporting it. She has become fixated on that narrative and refuses to consider that she has been, possibly, 5th Genned into that particular form of dichotomous thinking as absolute truth and, like the pro-convid vaxxers, no amount of evidence will penetrate that ‘moral’ conviction. The ‘fact’ that Owens is an anti-globalist has not had any ability to dissuade Michelle from rationalising the media rhetoric and attacks on Owens as supporting the globalist’s agenda. She has no idea how funny that is to me, accusing Owens of being a globalist or one of its agents. (And of course, she will dismiss me because Owens is plain and simply ‘ick’.)

Because I respect Michelle’s and Jasun’s history and acumen, I don’t trust just my gut, my body. I also consult the I Ching and attend synchronicities. At this time, all three direct me to help restore her ability to see what is right in front of her face. So, a synchronicity of the day. Jasun will likely bark out against both my ‘gut’ and ‘synchronicity’ with something like, ‘Give me a fuckin’ break, Andrés! You can’t use your muscle testing (my active ‘gut’ process) for para-political crap! Candace Owens?! Give me a fuckin’ break!’ Yes, he likes to swear although has committed himself to its minimisation if not complete swear-celibacy at some point in time.

I Ching and a Synchronicity! Yes, Jasun, a Fucking Synchronicity. (He Still Struggles, I Think, to Not Swear)

When I began this ‘thing’ last week, a friend from England sent me a FB reel. He had no idea that I was writing this. It is a short one, and far more to the point than this excrescence of words could ever even hope to be:

In Lucky Us, I Guess, a man is speculating on the powerful and their use of assassination to get more wealth and power and/or to keep what they have.

Isn’t it weird how the wealthy and powerful never assassinate anyone anymore. You know what I mean? Every time there is a high profile death that either serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful, or is used in a way that serves their interests, it is always turns out to be a lone gunman. Or a suicide. You know what I mean? Like Jeffrey Epstein was a suicide, or the Boeing whistle blower was a suicide. Or Virgina Giuffre was a suicide. All those people mysteriously connected to the Clintons, they all committed suicide. Or like how John Lennon was a lone gunman; or Gandhi, was a lone gunman. Or MLK was a lone gunman. Or Bobby Kennedy, he was a lone gunman. Or John F. Kennedy was a lone gunman. Even the guy who killed the guy who killed JFK, was just some lone gunman acting of their own accord. You’d think, every now and then, after the police conducted their ‘thorough’ investigation, it would turn out that the people who benefitted the most from the death, would be responsible for it. They’d be the one that caused it. But it turns out that they’re always innocent. Which is particularly weird because, if you look at the history books, right, the wealthy and powerful of yesteryear, they would assassinate people all the time. It was like one of their favourite things. Very often it was how they became or stayed wealthy and powerful people. But one day, they just, like, stopped. They just became nice, I guess. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1816007108999456

As to the I Ching, I’ve done two castings about our schism. Sorry sis, both landed on my side of the divide. Yes, yes, of course it would!? How could it not?! In the first consultation it was, inappropriately on her behalf. Kind of like a tarot card or astrological consultation. And, rightly or wrongly, I was intuitively directed to send the result to Michelle because I ‘knew’ that my words were worthless to her. And, although she hasn’t explicitly condemned my gut muscle testing process, I suspect that she thinks it ‘suss’, as does Jasun. The thought I had was that a voice that was definitely not mine might have more success breaking through what I see as her truth trap. It appears that it hasn’t.

The Wackadoodle Stuff Predominantly Comes From Influencers Attacking Owens, not From Owens Herself

What is also interesting to me, and puzzling, is Michelle’s failure to see that the people who are actually promoting the ‘wackadoodle’ stuff are mostly not the people who, like Candace Owens and many others, are seriously investigating the crime of who killed Charlie Kirk, how and why. When not looked at from the closed vision of para-political machinations at the 10k metre level, when looked at at ground level, in the nuts and bolts of obscured clues, timelines, motivation, destroyed evidence, perfectly timed camera malfunctions, opportunity, lies, strange coincidences and odd behaviours, it is the people wanting to shut down the investigation who are the ones using 5th Generation Warfare to convince the world of Owens as the demonically evil anti-semite of the year who needs to be shut up. That is 5th Generation Warfare. To convince people that a flu is deadly, that buildings fall down by themselves, that necks stop .30-06 bullets and that the people who question it are the lunatics and/or demonic threats to society and who need to be silenced. And it works!

Addendum: The Ugly Boomerang Trump Likely Rues

Owens, in her own words, describes the inspiration she got from being covered as Trump’s version of Time Magazine’s Vile Person of the Year. The image he used that most, perhaps everyone, thought was AI generated, was an actual photo, a selfie, that Owens herself had posted in 2016. She had become perniciously ill with toxic mould poisoning. Oops. A Trump PR boomerang. She describes how the mould had stolen her ability to think coherently. She admits to having prayed to God for being able to think again. Appearance and the opinion of others fell from her consideration as unimportant. She also describes how the final stages of the cure were to go on a very strict anti-candida diet, very much like the one I did in 2016 that completely changed my life. I’ve set the video to begin at ~2:00, where she begins to the tell story of that time.

Thank you for reading.

Songs of the essay.

(No playlist this time.)

Nightwish — Noise.

Nightwish — Noise.

Talking Heads — Life During Wartime.

Talking Heads — Life During Wartime.

All the best with what is changing. Everything changes! With peace, respect, love and exuberant enthusiasm, in the time of the Bhagavad-Gita married to the Great Apocalypse. Wow! What a time to be alive.

🙏❤️🧘‍♂️☯️🧘‍♂️❤️🙏