Food for thought:

-In January 2023, a Chinese satellite conducts a LIDAR survey of Maui topography. https://greatawakening.win/p/17r9Dn7IWv/lidar-event-over-maui/c/

-In May 2023, our Director of the CIA makes a clandestine trip to visit President Xi.

-In June 2023, our Secretary of State travels to China to visit President Xi.

-In July 2023, our Secretary of the Treasury travels to China to visit President Xi.

-In August 2023, the Maui fire occurs.

-Jan Halper Hayes tells us that "Space Force has it all."

-Juan interprets the fire as a directed energy weapon aimed at Maui, because of Space Force's presence there.

-Steve Favis' work shows us that Chinese satellites with "unknown" large payloads were directly over Maui at the time of the attack. https://www.misterrobots.com/lasers

---

Is China attacking Space Force to destroy the evidence of the 2020 stolen election, in return for our Deep State promising to use Hammer/Scorecard to flip the upcoming Taiwanese election in favor of a pro-unification candidate?

Recall: Blinken (Secretary of State), upon returning home from China, said to the press, in relation to the topic of Taiwan that he communicated: (1) our position is that, right now, China and Taiwan are separate countries; (2) but we are not committed to that condition persisting into the future; and (3) we only insist that the situation not be altered by unilateral action.

This weasel worded statement leaves open our acceptance of unification, if the "democratic processes" of Taiwan desire such unification. Keep in mind, this is a weasel who said "We do not support Taiwan independence. We remain opposed to any unilateral changes to the status quo by either side."

Also call to mind that that DNI Ratcliffe confirmed Chinese interference in the 2020 election. https://www.audacy.com/971talk/news/national/herridge-dni-ratcliffe-confirms-china-election-interference

Our Deep State undoubtedly assigned China the "dirty work" of holding the bloody murder weapon used in the 2020 rig.

Is China doing our Deep State's "dirty work" while our Deep State is doing China's "dirty work?"

I'm sure many of you have heard Nino Rodriguez and Juan O Savin speculate that the Maui fire was the result of an attack conducted by a directed energy weapon. Specifically, the speculation is that multiple satellites cooperate to "focus" a microwave beam at Maui and thereby incinerate the desired region. Moreover, Juan speculates that the attack was supported by the LIDAR event that occurred earlier this year, wherein a Chinese satellite measured the topography of Maui using a laser. I'm sure you've all seen the images of that.

Here's the image, in case you didn't see it. https://greatawakening.win/p/17r9Dn7IWv/

The underlying technological strategy by which multiple satellites could cooperate to focus their transmissions is referred to as a "phased array antenna" approach -- wherein each satellite constitutes one antenna in the array. Through controlling (1) phase of transmission from satellite to satellite (2) power of transmissions from satellite to satellite, and (3) signal "shape" from satellite to satellite, a "beam" is formed and aimed. Such as a microwave beam. This is not conspiracy. This is a real technology.

Now here's the thing. You can't create a PERFECT beam with that approach. There will be side lobes. The side lobes may only contain a fraction of the energy contained in the main "beam," but they'll be there. This means that, if it were the case that Maui was the result of a DEW attack, then other regions of earth were also hit -- at the same time that the Maui event occurred. Perhaps with only 10% of the power that struck Maui, but other regions would have been hit. Look for evidence of that and you have evidence of a DEW attack.

EDIT: HOLY SHIT! I THINK u/DrMcCoy FOUND THE EVIDENCE OF THE SIDE LOBE.

Check out this video: https://rumble.com/v3ejzrx-lahaina-maui-hawaii-d.e.w.-evidence-of-direct-energy-weapon-judge-for-yours.html <--that's a side lobe. u/DrMcCoy found a video of someone documenting a side lobe, without knowing what such a thing is.

EDIT #2: Here's an example of an engineer asking for advice in minimizing side lobes: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How-can-I-reduce-the-side-lobes-as-posible-as-in-the-linear-phased-array-antenna

Just google "phased antenna array & side lobes" and click images to get a visual sense of what I'm talking about.

(Reminder: I was educated as an electrical engineer, and based on that was aware that side lobes were a "thing" and that they cannot be entirely eliminated.)

I just posted this:

"@JimJordan

DENNIS MONTGOMERY must be subpoenaed to testify in front of your Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

How can you study weaponization without testimony from the man who built the weapons? Dennis is essential.

Mary Fanning @TheAmericanReport can arrange an off-the-record introduction, and can provide background facts, to the extent any of that is needed.

Thank you, Jim.

#HAMMER #SCORECARD #FIXIT"

---

Feel free to copy/paste on TruthSocial.

Thank you, friends.

http://www.domesticsurveillance.org/

---

This is why Dennis Montgomery must be subpoenaed to testify in front of Jim Jordan's Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

Please support the cause. Explained here: https://greatawakening.win/p/16c2W8ye1t/call-to-action-montgomery-must-b/

---

Thank you.

---

EDIT: #HAMMER #SCORECARD #FIXIT <-- use these so we can track progress.

Friends, I bring to you a CALL TO ACTION.

Last Saturday night, General McInerney – during his weekly radio segment – called for Dennis Montgomery (of Hammer and Scorecard fame) to be subpoenaed to testify in front of Jim Jordan’s House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. He called for it three times.

You can listen to it here: https://rumble.com/v3c3qco-the-intelligence-briefing-circling-the-abyss-john-b-wells-live.html

General McInerney’s segment starts at the 1:35:46 timestamp.

The backdrop of this is that I was perusing TruthSocial and saw a comment by TheBeginningOfTime (user on TS) suggesting that Montgomery should testify in front of congress. I thought it was a great idea, and direct messaged Mary Fanning, and told her to appeal to her audience to post on TruthSocial en masse, (1) tagging Jordan, (2) requesting that Montgomery be subpoenaed to testify in front of Jordan’s subcommittee, and (3) explaining that an off-the-record meeting with Montgomery can be brokered by Fanning. Mary replied and said the gears were in motion (paraphrasing). (Mary is very close with General McInerney, and usually appears with him on that weekly segment, for those who may not be aware.) Saturday night’s segment was the result.

Well, friends, we didn’t quite get there. I don’t believe General McInerney understood what was being asked for in terms of the desired posting campaign on TruthSocial. So he just omitted that part of the message.

NOW I AM ASKING ALL OF YOU:

(1) Log into TruthSocial once each day.

(2) Create a post that tags Jim Jordan (@jimjordan).

(3) Request the subpoena of Montgomery to testify in front of the subcommittee Jordan chairs.

(4) Explain that Mary Fanning can broker the introduction (@TheAmericanReport).

We need to bombard Jim with 1000+ messages PER DAY on this topic.

Montgomery’s testimony will be fire. And if it is conducted in open session and filmed, we can break up the video and isolate the scorching portions and flood social media with it.

Friends, help me. Make this happen!

---

EDIT: MY ORIGINAL TRUTH HAS BEEN RE-TRUTHED 14 TIMES. AND, NOT COUNTING ANY POSTS MADE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF HOURS, ABOUT 20 ORIGINALLY WORDED POSTS WERE AIMED AT JIM JORDAN. SO HE'LL HAVE AT LEAST 34 ALERTS JUST FROM TODAY. PROBABLY MORE. GOOD JOB AND THANK YOU. NEVER GIVE UP!

I usually post analytical, long-running thoughts. This is not that. This is fun!

If we acknowledge the obvious fact that Trump will be added to Mount Rushmore, then we should consider further: there will be an additional mount. Mount #2. For the few media figures that have stood up and became our vocal, brave media "fathers."

So... Rush, Tucker, Bannon, and.... who? Lara?

Let me know who you think should be on Mount #2.

Plus, could one of you AI savvy folks, have a rendering of Mount #2 created?

:-)

Did you notice? In May, our Director of the CIA made a secret trip to China to meet with Xi. Then in June our Secretary of State traveled to China. Then in July, our Secretary of the Treasury visited. Now, I’m no genius, but this is hard not to notice, and plainly something is up.

May I proffer an explanation?

In carrying out the theft of the 2020 election, the Democratic Machine and Deep State were marching according to orders. And the orders weren’t to merely to cheat. They were to win by any means. And that has created the prospect of turbulence and peril for all of us. Let me explain.

To guarantee victory, you simply must include closed-loop interference methods in your arsenal. Because open-loop methods can’t guarantee victory. You stuffed 100,000 ballots into drop boxes in Georgia? Great, does that mean Biden will win? No idea. Because methods that involve stuffing the ballot box without any view into the electoral count can’t guarantee victory. That’s why you need to use closed-loop methods as well.

Now here’s the problem: closed-loop methods leave definitive digital evidence. And it is about to come out.

It is unthinkable that the digital portion of the theft was conducted from within the United States. That would be clinically insane. Here’s what we did: we erected another instance of Hammer and Scorecard that was executing on machines outside of the United States. And we recruited Chinese operatives to operate this secondary instance. This was the final “get out of jail free card.” Should it ever come to pass that the digital evidence comes to light, the evidence will point to China. And the Democratic Machine and Deep State will cry: “Oh my God, our election systems were hacked! China did it! We had no idea!”

Well, the testimony and the digital evidence concerning the theft is about to be presented in Lindell’s case in Colorado. (Dennis Montgomery has been ordered to comply with a subpoena for his testimony in that case. Production of an order for his testimony from a federal court was an outcome agreed upon by Lindell and Montgomery to provide maximum security for Montgomery.) And when the evidence comes to light, our relationship with China will become “bumpy.”

So the Biden Administration got ahead of the situation. Burns (Director of CIA) updated Xi on the status of matters and advised him that the digital evidence appears likely to surface. They may have discussed options. Perhaps Montgomery has an untimely death. Or perhaps $1B of dark money finds its way to him, to secure testimony from him to the effect that Hammer and Scorecard was a big hoax all along. And so on. But, at the end of the day, Xi needed to know the waters were going to get bumpy.

But there was more. In exchange for holding the bloody murder weapon for the Deep State, the Deep State was prepared to permit China to use the Hammer and Scorecard system one more time.

Next comes Blinken’s role in all of this. Blinken rolls into China and tells Xi that we are willing to surrender Taiwan to China, but it has to look right. No military invasion. China can’t take it by force. But, if, say, in the 2024 Taiwanese presidential election the people of Taiwan were to “vote in” a national leader who was pro-unification, who would we be to stand in the way of democratic processes? And then Blinken returns to the United States and gives his carefully worded press briefing about his trip. Wherein he told the press: (1) I informed President Xi that it is the position of the United States that, as it stands right now, Taiwan and China are separate countries; (2) but the United States is not insistent that these countries remain separate; and (3) the United States only insists that this state of affairs not be changed by forceful unilateral action.

Finally, it’s Yellen’s turn. She travels to China to ensure that our supply chain of semiconductors wouldn't get interrupted in the immediate wake of unification. Our domestic fabrication facilities aren’t online yet and won’t be for a while. So we’ll need semiconductors from Taiwan.

All eyes on the Taiwanese presidential election, folks. Hammer and Scorecard are getting a workout one more time.

Is any of this certain? No. It’s just my speculation.

My friends, I’d like to point out some facts that are hiding in plain sight, and deserve some attention.

I’m sure you’ve all paid attention to Mr. Grusch provide his Congressional testimony concerning the U.S. government’s decades-long UFO recovery program, and reverse-engineering program. Mr. Grusch has informed us that we are in possession of dozens of crafts and even non-human biotics. This is all very interesting, and I’m sure many of you are in anticipation of as many details as will be forthcoming in the upcoming hearings.

I am not going to comment on the substance of Mr. Grusch’s testimony in this piece. Instead, I’d like to turn your attention to an antecedent matter. How is it that Mr. Grusch can say any of these things without violating U.S. law concerning disclosure of classified information?

Let’s start at the beginning, shall we? Can the U.S. government classify any information it chooses? Or are there requirements? There are requirements, friends. And they are contained in Executive Order 13526. Among the requirements for classification is that the information be “owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government.”

Now let’s think together. When our government creates dark pools of money to spend off the books, say, to fund work “that isn’t happening” at Lockheed Martin, there is no contract under which the work is done. Because our government can’t officially spend money not allocated to it by Congress (see Article 1 of the United States Constitution). So our government simply wires money from an off-the-books account to Lockheed. And that’s that. Congress will never know about the payment or the project. Perfect, right?

Except there is one itsy-bitsy problem. There is no document trail to establish that any of the subject matter generated by dark-money projects at private contractors is owned by, produced for or by, or is under the control of the United States Government. So none of it is eligible to be classified. So it’s not.

Now here’s the thing. I didn’t say it wasn’t secret. I said it wasn’t classified.

Now ask yourself: how does one impose secrecy when the subject matter to be guarded does not enjoy the protection of the United States classification system? Yeah. You got it. It’s not illegal to talk about these sorts of things. It’s just dangerous. That’s why Grusch said that people have been killed to protect these secrets. And that’s why Grusch can testify to so much in open Congressional sessions. Now you see what’s going on. Our government is spending dark money. That’s the simple fact that is hiding in plain sight.

Stay with me. This goes somewhere.

Now, given that our Deep State engaged in the largest singular act of treason by altering the outcome of the 2020 election, do you suppose it found itself in need of massive amounts of dark money to aid it in “fixing” the fallout from all of this? Might they need vast sums of dark money to buy off witnesses, judges, foreign intelligence agencies that are “in the know” and so on? I think it’s safe to say we know the answer.

Now, where would such money come from?

Let’s do a little more thinking, shall we? I’m 51. May I ask you: what is the largest dark money scandal to have publicly erupted in my lifetime? Anyone? The Iran-Contra Affair. Remember that? We were financing the Contras in Nicaragua for years – not with money allocated by Congress via a spending bill. Hell no. With dark money. And where did that dark money come from? We illegally sold arms to Iran. That’s how we got the moola. A secret flight is made to Iran carrying some missiles that they’ll pay millions for, the millions are wired to an off-the-books account, and the dark pool of money is created. And only a small handful of trusted people ever have to know.

So when we’ve needed sizeable sums of dark money in the past, we sold arms. That’s the upshot.

Now, let’s reflect. Was it not the case that within months of assuming their posts, the Biden administration lost $85B of military equipment in Kabul? Recall how inexplicable the event was? How could our NSA not notice the man power being staged in the region, the weapons being staged in the region, the communications required to organize it all, and so on? And how could we have found it necessary to evacuate on such an immediate basis that we could not even simply destroy the equipment we left behind? It doesn’t take long to blow it all up. And didn’t those videos of people clinging to or falling from U.S. aircraft seem a little too convenient? Like it may have been staged?

My friends, the events at Kabul in August of 2021, were the delivery of weapons that our Deep State sold to the Taliban in order to create a dark money pool of $85B to aid them in fixing the problems created by rigging the 2020 election. That’s the $85B secret hiding in plain sight.

The Simon Lectures. Series II, Part 3.

Originally published on greatawakening.win, 2023 March 19.

Series II, Part 1 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/16a9lhEbrc/the-simon-lectures--series-ii-pa/.

Series II, Part 2 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/16aA97Pst1/the-simon-lectures--series-ii-pa/.

Series II, Part 3.

This Series has been a test of faith. You must have faith that this goes somewhere and is not an exercise in self-indulgence. I promise it goes somewhere. After this Part 3, we will have developed a sufficient foundation to launch Series III, and, with that, much will be made clear. Plus I suspect many of you will find it intriguing. When I “tease” some of these ideas in my day-to-day life, they are received with surprising levels of interest. And that’s among “normal” folks. We’re something like birds-of-a-feather here, so I suspect most of you will be at least as interested. So, hang in there. And thank you for your faith.

I usually recap previous Parts as a courtesy: I don’t expect people to remember what I’ve written previously. I know we all read much, and I write these Parts in irregular intervals, so that makes instant recall of my past material an unreasonable expectation. I’ve tried recapping Parts 1 and 2, and I just don’t think they can be summarized in a way that is both succinct and complete. So I’ll skip the recap this time. The bottom line is this: we’ve advanced along a journey that began with asking whether 0.999… = 1, and has resulted in asking whether a peculiar quantity I have called µ exists.

µ is a speculative idea. µ refers to a quantity so small it evades proper expression as a number. If we tried to express it as such, it would be something along the lines of 0.000…1. In other words: a zero, followed by a decimal point, followed by an infinitude of zeros, followed by a one. When we speak of µ, we are referring to a speculative miniscule quantity that is distinct from zero – truly different than zero – but, by virtue of its vanishing minuteness, behaves no different than zero within the confines of arithmetic.

3 + µ = 3.

5 - µ = 5.

It behaves just like zero. But is, nevertheless, a non-zero quantity. That’s the idea.

In Part 2, we tested the idea of µ against itself, which is to say that we examined the idea to see whether it contradicted itself. If an idea contradicts itself, then the idea is incoherent. Suppose I were to say to you: “I ask you to call to mind a triangle with internal angles of 45°, 90° and 50°.” Could your mind’s eye behold such a figure? Of course not. For the internal angles of a triangle sum to 180°, and you cannot even imagine a triangle structured differently. The idea I asked you to hold in your mind is, itself, broken. And, as a consequence, it cannot be held in your mind or anyone else’s mind – not out of a defect arising in your imaginative capacity, but out of a defect located in the idea, itself. The idea is incoherent. And, without belaboring the point, it is the case that an incoherent idea cannot be true. Every incoherent idea is false, but not every coherent idea is true. So if the idea of µ were to be incoherent, we’d know it was untrue. But, unfortunately, in Part 2, we discovered that the idea of µ was coherent. So we didn’t get off the hook that easily. So where do we go from here?

Suppose I were to say: “This µ you suggest, you tell me it has an essence that is non-zero. But nowhere does it make that essence known. At all times and in all circumstances, it behaves as zero. An essence is known by its behavior. Nothing else. Only its behavior. If you disagree, then tell me: in what other capacity could an essence make itself known? If something behaves as zero – at all times and in all circumstances – then it is, in essence, zero.”

And suppose you were to retort: “At all times, and in all circumstances? Wherever did you get that idea? Consider, my dear Simon, if we regard µ as 0.000…1, i.e., a ‘1’ separated from a decimal point by an infinitude of zeros, then what would be the result of multiplying µ by 10? Would that not “remove” a singular zero from the infinite body of zeros interposed between ‘1’ and the decimal point situated far to its left? And would not multiplying µ by 102 remove two such zeros? And would not multiplying µ by 103 remove three of them? And, finally, would not multiplying µ by 10∞ remove an infinitude of them? Which is to say all of them. And, therefore, would you not be left with the quantity ‘1’? I am saying that µ * 10∞ = 1. But what about zero? I’ll tell you what: 0 * 10∞ = 0. There’s your behavioral difference, Simon. There’s the behavior that reveals µ’s essence. µ can harness the baffling qualities of infinity to escape its low-altitude orbit of zero. But zero can do no such thing, for zero does not merely orbit Planet Nothingness; it is nothingness, itself.”

In view of your retort, I might respond: “You have imagined a realm, and then supplied a behavioral difference found exclusively therein. Infinitudes don’t exist. They are ideas. Notions. Concepts. Abstractions. And they may be manipulated via thoughts to arrive at other abstractions. If I were to chop off a unicorn’s horn, how many horns would it have left? As a concept? Zero. For I would have removed its only horn. As a reality? Still zero. But not as a result of horn mutilation. But because unicorns don’t exist. Not in reality. They are only an idea. Our world is finite. You can locate nothing infinite within it. There is nothing incoherent about an infinitude of unicorns – they are both perfectly well formed ideas. But neither are real. You say µ and zero behave differently in the realm of infinity. But I say infinity does not exist as a reality. Which means your professed behavioral distinction does not exist.”

To which you might respond: “Simon, I’m shocked. Of course reality includes infinitudes. Because reality includes ideas. There are material realities. And there are immaterial realities. Some ideas find correspondence in material reality. And some do not. But those correspondences – when found – do not inject their counterpart ideas into the fabric of reality. Circularity is real, even if not a single truly precisely perfect circle is to be found in material reality. Infinitudes are but examples of immaterial realities. And it goes without saying: realities – material or immaterial – are real.”

What’s going on here, in this exchange? We could not settle our differences when testing the idea of µ against itself. For the idea of µ is well formed – it is coherent. So we have shifted gears. We are testing the idea against the particular philosophical frameworks each of us has adopted. And were it the case that we shared philosophical outlooks, we could settle the matter this way. But we do not. For in my example, I am a materialist (believing only in material constituents of reality) and you are not.

What now?

Well, suppose I said to you: “You know, I’ve been thinking about the matter for some time now. I took an entire week. Meditated. Concentrated. Visualized. The whole shootin’ match. And you know what? A quantity subjected to infinite decimation – µ – must be zero. It simply must be. Not because reason compels it. Not because the alternative is incoherent. Not because no sensible philosophical framework could incorporate a non-zero infinitesimal. But because I have visualized the matter clearly in my mind’s eye. With stark, perfect clarity. And do you know what I saw? I saw nothingness. Zero. I know µ is zero because I saw it directly and with perfect clarity.”

And suppose you should respond: “This is spooky, Simon. I’ve been doing the same thing – all week long, same as you. But you know what? In my mind’s eye, infinite decimation resolved to a point. Not to nothingness, as it did in your mind’s eye, but to a point. I saw it clearly. With perfect resolution and nothing left to doubt. It’s not nothingness. It’s not zero. Not because reason compels it. Not because the alternative is incoherent. Not because no sensible philosophical framework could exist without non-zero infinitesimals. But because I saw it. I saw µ clearly. As a point. With existence as opposed to non-existence. And it’s non-zero because that’s what I saw.”

This is a critical juncture in our journey. Each of us has formed the idea of µ in our minds. We have done so with excruciating care, constructing it with cognitive precision and with detail. And, having constructed our respective notional figments, each of us beheld the product of our own intellection. And we saw what we saw. Our “vision” was not preceded by reason or expectation or philosophy or any other matter. It was preceded by nothing at all. Each of us saw what we saw. And the reason each of us saw what we saw was because that was what we saw. Which is another way of saying our respective visions cannot be explained on any other terms. Each of us saw what we saw. Period. This is a descent into the realm of the subjective. When the same matter – having been clearly and precisely apprehended in our respective minds – appears one way to you but another way to me, we are having a subjective difference of opinion.

Subjective impressions are brute facts. My mind’s eye saw what it saw, and there is no way to explain it, nor anything to be done about it. And the same can be said of your mind’s eye. So it might appear that nothing remains to be said or done. This is oftentimes the occasion for an appeal to authority. You might say to me that Newton and Leibniz both believed in non-zero infinitesimals, and made use of them in developing calculus. And if infinitesimals made sense to Newton and Leibniz, perhaps, Simon, there may be something defective with your mind’s eye? But I could reply: Cauchy (and many others) explicitly reformulated the entire basis of calculus for the purpose of excluding infinitesimals. And Bertrand Russel referred to infinitesimals as pseudoconcepts because such figments, while coherent, lacked empirical counterparts – they simply lack correspondence in reality and are therefore meaningless. So perhaps it is your mind’s eye that needs glasses!

Appealing to authority may be useful to test the reasonableness of a particular individual’s claims about the vision beheld by his mind’s eye. But, some matters simply possess the capacity to present two mental visages – one to you and a different one to me. These matters divide humanity. You are the variety of person that sees a matter one way, and I am a different variety of person that see the same matter in a different way. So, if we are to get along, it may seem that one segment of humanity will have to bow to the other. But which segment bows and which segment stands? I hasten to point out that this may suggest that either there is no truth pertaining to such matters or that there may be plural truths – perhaps one for you and one for me. But this is not the case. It means only that a limitation has been encountered (recall: this Series pertains to the limitations and foundations of knowledge). It means that, today, we see as through a glass, dimly. There is much to be said about the nature of the limitation we have encountered, but I will omit this discussion for now. I suspect most of you just want to get on with things and reach Series III.

We might be tempted to appeal to the majority. The prevailing viewpoint among mathematicians is that non-zero infinitesimals do not exist. The calculus text you used in high school undoubtedly deliberately omitted the topic, skirting it with careful use of epsilon-delta proofs. Yet you may say: “It is true that the prevailing majority view is that non-zero infinitesimals do not exist – this is why the real number system excludes them as a matter of axiomatic choice. But there are those who see them in their mind’s eye and know them to be real. We are a minority but not a fringe minority. And we have developed our own number system that makes use of them: the hyperreal number system. And we have formed an alternative foundation for calculus that assumes their existence. This alternative foundation is called non-standard calculus, and while it is not the traditional entry point into the subject of calculus – it will not be taught at your local high school – it is universally regarded as logically sound. So I am not alone, and those of us who believe in the nonequivalence of 0.999… and 1 are not alone. And I am not crazy and my community is not crazy!” And you’d be right. An appeal to the majority is not fruitful when there exists a non-trivial minority that fruitfully employs an opposing viewpoint. And who knows? Tomorrow, the majority view may change – for the wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth.

What now?

At this point I ask you to suspend disbelief. What follows is a hypothetical experiment by which we could in principle ask the universe to answer the question for us. I ask you to consider a scenario in which we had access to a perfect balance. On one arm of the balance we place a perfect one-pound weight. On the other arm we place a weight that is perfectly nine-tenths of a pound. Then, to this other arm we add another weight, this one weighing perfectly nine-one-hundredths of a pound. Then we add another weight, this one weighing perfectly nine-one-thousandths of a pound. And so on. We carry on this exercise of adding additional successively tenfold smaller weights infinitely. Recall: you are to suspend disbelief – it is, of course, impossible to perform an infinitude of steps. But if somehow we did complete the infinitude of steps, what would the actions of the universe tell us? Would the arms of the scale come to equipoise? Or would they remain imbalanced in favor of 1?

Here's the point. Whatever the action of the arms, we must defer to it. If the balance comes to equipoise, then 0.999… = 1. Period. And if it remains imbalanced in favor of 1, then we have our answer, too. We must defer. Our reason must defer. Our presuppositions on which our reason turns must defer. Our judgments of coherence must defer. Our philosophical frameworks must defer. Our subjective impressions must defer. Our authorities must defer. And the majority must defer. Objective experience – experience grounded in observables that you and I can both encounter – forms the foundation of all knowledge. It is not the only source. We will discuss other sources later. But it is the foundation on which the entire edifice of knowledge is built.

I will conclude here, as I am out of space!

Ever yours, simon_says

In the recent past, reached out to Mary Fanning (of The American Report) to discuss some topics related to Hammer and Scorecard. Today, I followed up with another communication. And then it occured to me, that it may be of interest to you folks here:

--

Mary,

I recently sent you a brief outline “connecting the dots” interspersed between Hammer and Scorecard and Italy-Did-It. I write to you here on a different aspect of the Hammer and Scorecard topic.

First off – thank you for bringing the Whistleblower Tapes to the American public. I have listened to each of them multiple times. And I noticed some unconnected dots that I thought I’d connect for you.

You may recall from The Tapes that at one point Arpaio and Blixseth refer to Obama’s birth certificate. And they say – without justification – that the birth certificate issue and The Hammer issue are “sort of the same thing.” But they don’t say how they are connected and what makes them the same. Given how they characterized The Hammer, I don’t think they actually understood how they are connected.

The Hammer locates a “target” server’s private asymmetric encryption key – in part, through brute computational force. It uses computational power to exhaust the solution space until it finds the sought-after key. I could explain – slowly and understandably – what that means, should it interest you, but the bottom line is this: possession of a “target server’s” private asymmetric key permits the possessor to eavesdrop on all thought-to-be-secure communications with that target server.

If you have Bank of America’s private asymmetric key, you can decrypt all communication to and from Bank of America. If you have the private asymmetric key used by the email server at NYU, you can decrypt all communication to and from that server. And so on.

Consider this: the NSA stores all of the IP packets ever communicated via our domestic Internet infrastructure. So, if it is interested in a particular communication session, it can retrieve the packets constituting that communication session, send them – in proper sequence and on a one-by-one basis – to The Hammer, which will decrypt the contents of each packet, and then the whole communication session can be eavesdropped upon.

So, Mary, want to know what this has to do with Obama’s birth certificate? Here’s what. You use the Hammer to find the private asymmetric encryption key for the servers operating the Department of Health for Hawaii. Then you use the NSA’s capabilities to “replay” the communication session by which one of its system administrators logged into the server. The outcome? You literally see the system administrator’s login credentials – i.e., his or her username and password. So you just use that to login, and then issue Obama a birth certificate.

You’re not really “hacking” anything in the traditional sense. You’re just watching the administrators login, and then using their credentials. That’s how they exfiltrated all of that Bank of America data that is referred to in The Tapes. That’s how they compromised the Florida voting database that they mentioned in The Tapes. They can repeat that exploit on any target system, as long as it is in the USA.

The word needs to get out. And to do that, it requires someone who can explain in – simple terms – what the Hammer really is, and what the consequences of it falling into the wrong hands really is. I’m here to help, should that be of interest.

My sincere admiration, gratitude and regards,

-“Simon”

The Simon Lectures. Series II, Part 2.

Originally published on greatawakening.win, 2023 February 10.

Series II, Part 1 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/16a9lhEbrc/the-simon-lectures--series-ii-pa/

Series II, Part 2.

Permit me to highlight the salient points of Part 1. I don’t care for repetition but this is a mental journey we’re on together and context is important. The major points of Part 1 are crucial for this Part 2.

1. We began by posing a question: Is 0.999… = 1?

2. We determined that the original question could be reframed: Does 0.000…1 = 0?

3. If 0.000…1 = 0, then 0.999… = 1; otherwise, if 0.000…1 is non-zero, then 0.999… does not.

4. We traversed a first line of reasoning that showed that 0.000…1 must not be zero. Which means it is non-zero.

5. We traversed a second line of reasoning that showed that 0.000…1 must not be non-zero. Which means it is zero.

6. We concluded that the operation of reason had led us to a contradiction.

7. Then I said something somewhat cryptic: “The outcome of any line of reasoning depends on assumptions. Assume the same things, and you will get the same outcome. But if you have a choice of independent assumptions – assumptions that are more than just different ways of expressing the same thing – then there is no guarantee that reason carries you to the same conclusion. This means that in order to use reason as a tool, you must first decide what to assume. And to decide what to assume, you must answer a question: what do I believe is true?”

That cryptic conclusion? That was my attempt at a philosophical cliff-hanger. I know. I shouldn’t quit my day job to pen Hollywood scripts. Don’t worry. I can’t imagine Hollywood will come knocking.

If my cliff-hanger worked at all, it should have caused you to wonder: “What assumptions? I don’t see any assumptions here. Just reason. And reason failed me.”

Fair enough. Let’s dig those assumptions out.

When we think of a quantity such as one or two or one-half or one-tenth or so on, we should consider that it is constituted of two parts: (1) a numeric representation or “number” – i.e., “1” or “2” or “1/2” or “0.5” or “1/10” or “0.1”; and (2) a related meaning or “amount.”

“1” is a numeric representation relating to the idea of unity or oneness and the amount that such idea represents. “2” is a numeric representation relating to the idea of duality or twoness and the amount that such idea represents. And so on.

Number <--> Amount

The first thing to notice is that every number corresponds to an amount. If you can conceive of a number and express it as a number, then it has a corresponding amount. Three? You can have three apples. One-tenth? You can have one-tenth of an apple. And so on. Every number refers to an amount.

But is it the case that every amount corresponds to a number? Can you have an amount that is inexpressible as a number, for one reason or another? This is the critical question.

Could it be the case that an amount can be so small that it slips right out of the realm of the numerical and descends into the realm of the ineffable – and is therefore inexpressible as a number? Could it be the case that an amount could be so small that it could be simultaneously different than zero – truly distinct from zero – while operating within the arithmetic realm in a manner no different at all than zero? A non-zero amount that functions arithmetically identically to zero. That’s what we’re considering here.

Let’s call this fantastically small quantity “µ.”

5 + µ = ___? We are saying that 5 + µ = 5.

3 - µ = ___? We are saying that 3 - µ = 3.

And so on.

µ is not 0. It refers to a non-zero amount. But when treated as a number inside of a system of reason designed to operate upon numbers – arithmetic – it behaves no differently. That’s the idea.

Let’s consider the ramifications of assuming that µ exists.

Turn your attention our first line of reasoning that demonstrated that 0.000…1 must not be zero. Would that not leave open the possibility that 0.000…1 = µ? After all, µ is not zero.

Now turn your attention to our second line of reasoning that demonstrated that 0.000…1 must not be non-zero. Armed with the understanding that µ exists, we now see that the second line of reasoning actually demonstrated that 0.000…1 must not be a non-zero quantity expressible as a number. And does this not leave open the possibility that 0.000…1 is equal to µ? For µ is not expressible as a number.

If we were to assume µ existed, we would eliminate logical contradiction. Both lines of reason would lead us to conclude that 0.999… does not equal 1.

Without belaboring matters, if we were to start with the opposite assumption – i.e., that µ did not exist – we also could resolve the contradiction. Albeit in the opposite direction. We would end up concluding that 0.999… = 1.

(I note that to resolve the contradiction, we would have to make a further clarifying assumption about the nature of infinity. (1) assume that µ does not exist, and (2) make a further clarifying assumption about infinity, and – voila! –both lines of reason takes you to the conclusion that 0.999… = 1. For the sake of brevity, I will not get into the further clarifying assumption, in this Part 2. I could be talked into it, though, in a separate post, if anyone is interested.)

So, in order to pursue the first and second lines of reasoning to a consistent outcome, we must either: (1) assume that µ exists; or (2) assume it does not exist, and augment such assumption with an additional clarifying assumption. In Part 1, we did neither of these things. So our lines of reasoning resulted in contradiction.

The outcomes of our lines of reasoning actually turn on what we assume. Moreover, it matters not whether our assumptions are explicit. In Part 1, we “assumed” that µ did not exist by virtue of neglect: we simply hadn’t considered the matter, meaning that – in practical effect – we assumed it didn’t exist. And we failed to augment that “assumption” with the aforementioned additional clarifying assumption – again, out of neglect – meaning that we were doomed to follow our lines of reasoning to contradiction.

Ok. So outcomes of reason are determined by assumptions. And in the case of 0.999… and 1, we must decide whether we believe µ exists (set aside the “other” assumption for now).

But how do we decide whether µ exists?

Suppose I were to scoff at the notion of µ. Suppose I were to say: “Let me get this straight. Whereas every other quantity can be expressed as a number, you propose that perhaps there exists one oddball quantity – this “µ” as you call it – that eludes such expression? It’s not zero, you say. It just functions identically to zero. In every way. Is it not the case that the reason you cannot express µ as a number is because you are too stubborn to call it by its proper name: zero? And is it not the case that µ functions identically to zero within the realm of arithmetic because µ’s true identity is zero? You have taken zero and renamed it µ! There’s no other way to see it!”

And suppose you were to reply: “Tell me, when you contemplate the present – that span of time interposed between the past and the future - how much time is that? When you refer to ‘now,’ how much time are you referring to? One second? One half of a second? One-millionth? No. Even in the span of one microsecond, some portion of that will either reside in the past or in the future. But how much time resides in the ‘now?’ I challenge you: present me with a number to express such quantity of time. It cannot be done. And does this therefore mean that ‘now’ refers to nothing at all? Is that even remotely sensible? Of course not! You live in the now! In fact, it is the only time in which you live. So you know it exists. With absolute certainty, you know it exists. And I’ll tell you how much time ‘now’ is constituted of: µ! A non-zero quantity of time smaller than any expressible number. µ is what permits ‘now’ to exist. It’s what your life is constituted of! An infinite succession of µ-after-µ-after-µ-after-µ.”

Well, shit. It doesn’t look like you and I will get to the bottom of it yet. But that’s not the important part. The important part is to see the nature of what where our conversation has gone.

We began with reason. And we came to contradiction.

Then we realized that contradiction was the consequence of assumptions we had failed to explicitly make. To eliminate contradiction, we either need to decide that µ exists or that it does not exist.

And then – in our hypothetical conversation – we tested the idea of µ against itself. We examined the idea that is the subject of the assumption under consideration. We examined it against itself. Which is to say that we examined it to see whether it was self-consistent in its nature. To see whether any contradiction lurked inside of the very essence of the idea. When we test an idea against itself, we are examining the coherence of an idea. We are asking: is this idea coherent? And, in some circumstances, examining the coherence of an idea is sufficient to bring about agreement concerning whether we ought to make one particular assumption or another. Regrettably, this is not such a circumstance. We’re still stuck.

Reason --> Contradiction --> Unearth Assumptions --> Test Coherence of Assumptions.

That’s the meta-structure of our journey so far. And it typifies many journeys. So it’s important to recognize its structure.

We’re not done with this journey yet. Part 3 is coming, and all of this continues. I know that in writing this Series II, I am asking much of you, my readers. Hang in there. One more Part. Then I’ll have laid sufficient groundwork to move on to Series III, and you’re going to love that. But we need to get through Part 3 of this Series II, first.

Stick around for Part 3.

Or don’t. It’s your decision.

Ever yours, simon_says

The Simon Lectures. Series II, Part 1.

Originally published on greatawakening.win, 2023 January 27.

Introduction.

Series II pertains to the foundations of knowledge and its inherent limitations. I am certain that, to many, this sounds a lot like saying that it pertains to nothing of practical value, and has little to do with what this site is all about. I promise this is all connected. But you won’t see it at first.

I confess an idiosyncratic affection for this topic. But that’s not why I’m writing about it. This topic is necessary, friends. We are in the midst of a war for minds. Everything turns on this topic, as you will soon learn.

I suspect some or many of you may anticipate that a topic such as this will dry and tedious. Rest assured, I am constitutionally opposed to arid tedium. So I’ll make this interesting or die trying. Moreover, I will write no more of this Series than is necessary to support Series III. These Parts 1-3 of Series II are absolutely necessary for Part 1 of Series III. Trust me, you’ll see.

As always, take this or leave it as you please.

-simon_says

Series II, Part 1.

I said that the purpose of this Series is to explore the foundations and limitations of knowledge. Which suggests that – in my view – knowledge may encounter barriers. Or else it wouldn’t have limitations. It also suggests that – in my view – knowledge rests on something. Or else it wouldn’t have foundations.

So let’s get started. Let’s look at a topic that forces us to encounter a barrier.

Let’s consider 0.999…. . Which you may articulate as “point nine repeating.” I am referring a number described by zero, followed by a decimal point, followed by an infinite succession of nines. I’ll present that herein as 0.999… . As far as I know, this site does not permit me to include “bar notation” – which is the term for that line you were taught to write over a decimal to indicate repetition. So 0.999… will have to do.

Now let’s ask ourselves a question: is it the case that 0.999… = 1?

I know that during your school years many of you may have heard that these two quantities do, in fact, equal one another. And it is the prevailing viewpoint. But set all that aside for now. Let’s address the question for ourselves.

Let’s begin by simplifying the question, shall we? Let’s begin with a simpler one. Is it the case that 0.9 = 1?

We all know the answer to that one. No. They’re not the same. And we all arrived at that answer in largely the same way. We subtracted 0.9 from 1, and arrived at a difference of 0.1.

1 – 0.9 = 0.1

And it stands to reason that if there is a difference between 1 and 0.9, then they are not equal to one another. We found a “difference” between these quantities. Which is to say they are literally different. As in not the same. So they don’t equal one another. And the matter is settled.

Now let’s redirect that method to the original problem.

1 – 0.999… = __?

That’s a tough one. We can’t exactly write it out, but the “answer” seems to be something akin to a zero, followed by a decimal point, followed by an infinite succession of zeros, followed by a one: 0.000…1. What is this oddity? Is that a non-zero number? Because if it is, then we have identified a difference between the two quantities. And if there’s a difference, they’re not equal. But if it’s really just “0” written in another format, then there’s no difference between the two. And if there’s no difference, that means they’re the same. As in equal.

Let’s reframe the question and see if we can’t reason our way through this, shall we?

At this stage, we can see that the original question is, in reality, an inquiry into whether 0.000…1 is equal to 0. Let’s direct our powers of reason to this question. How hard could that be? Right?

Let us assume we had access to a “decimating machine” that we could operate in cycles. It would receive an input, decimate it (i.e., divide it by ten), and yield an output. So if we initially input a 1, then on the first cycle, the output would be 0.1 (1/10 = 0.1). And if we fed the output of the decimating machine back into its input, to operate the machine for another cycle, then upon the conclusion of the second cycle, the output would be 0.01 (0.1/10 = 0.01). And if we operated the machine for a third cycle, the output would be 0.001 (0.01/10 = 0.001). And so on. So, as you can see, the question becomes an inquiry into the nature of the output of the machine after an infinite quantity of cycles.

The first thing to notice about this question is that upon the first cycle, the input to the machine is a non-zero number (i.e., 1). And the output at the conclusion of the first cycle is a non-zero number (i.e., 0.1). So the next cycle begins anew with a non-zero number (0.1) and concludes with another a non-zero number (0.01). Moreover, decimation, when performed upon a non-zero number, always yields a non-zero number. So the third cycle will begin with a non-zero number derived from the output of the second cycle, and conclude with another non-zero number. So will the fourth cycle. And the fifth. And the sixth. And so on. Non-zeros all the way through.

The process appears air-tight. You will start with a non-zero number and conclude with a non-zero number – every time. No matter how many cycles you operate the machine. A non-zero number goes in, and a non-zero number comes out. Forever. So there’s no room for the output of this machine to be anything other than a non-zero number. This means that 0.000…1 is a non-zero number. Which means that 1 and 0.999… have a non-zero difference. Which means that they’re not equal. Whew. Problem solved. Thank God for reason.

Not so fast.

Let’s look at this another way. Let us refer to the output of the machine as Q. And let us refer to the quantity of cycles for which the machine has operated as C. Then, after a quantity of C cycles, the output of the machine is: 1/10^C. You can intuitively see that is true. If operated for a single cycle (i.e., C = 1), the output us 1/10^1 = 1/10 = 0.1. If operated over a period of two cycles (i.e., C = 2), the output is 1/10^2 = 1/(10*10) = 1/100 = .01. And so on.

Q = 1/10^C.

Of course, instead of expressing the output (Q) as a function of the quantity of cycles (C), we could reverse that. We could express the quantity of cycles (C) as a function of the output (Q). Thank you, eighth-grade Algebra II.

C = log(1/Q).

Again, you can intuitively see that this is true. Consider the output (Q) of the machine after one cycle, i.e., Q = 0.1. C = log(1/0.1) = log(10) = 1. Try it with the known output after two cycles, i.e., Q = 0.01. C = log(1/0.01) = log(100) = 2. And so on.

Now what is the implication of this? Here’s what. For so long as the output of the decimator (Q) does not equal 0, then it is the case that 1/Q has a defined finite value. And for so long as 1/Q has a defined finite value, so does log(1/Q). Which means so does C, because C = log(1/Q).

If Q is non-zero, then C is finite. C is 100,000. Or 1,000,000. Or 1,000,000,000. Or some other very large but finite number. And C is the quantity of cycles for which the machine has been operated. And if C is finite, then quantity of cycles for which the machine has been operated is finite, meaning that the machine was not run infinitely. It was, instead, run for a finite quantity of cycles. Any non-zero value of Q (the output of the machine) means that the machine has not been running infinitely.

So, upon having been operated for an infinite quantity of cycles, Q must be 0 – because a non-zero value of Q indicates a finite quantity of cycles. And if Q is 0, that means that 1 and 0.999… have no difference. Which means they are equal. Which means that reason has brought us to a contradiction.

We have a line of reasoning that supports the notion that 0.999… = 1. And we have a line of reasoning that supports the very opposite notion. So now what? Now it’s time to make an observation.

The outcome of any line of reasoning depends on assumptions. Assume the same things, and you will get the same outcome. But if you have a choice of independent assumptions – assumptions that are more than just different ways of expressing the same thing – then there is no guarantee that reason carries you to the same conclusion. This means that in order to use reason as a tool, you must first decide what to assume. And to decide what to assume, you must answer a question: what do I believe is true?

Reason cannot guide an unanchored quest for truth. It can take you from one truth to another. But if you cannot locate even a single truth, reason can do nothing to help you. I’ll close here. Stay tuned for Part 2. Or don’t. It’s your decision.

Ever yours, simon_says

p.s. Series I is not concluded with Part 8. Part 9 is coming. If you have not read Parts 1-8 of Series I, you may find Part 8b here: https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqiECU58/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Part 8b contains a link to Part 8a, which, in turn, contains links to Parts 1-7.

I know this Series II is taxing. The first three Parts of this Series II set up Series III, which you will find in line with the topicality of this board, and, I hope, find intriguing and enjoyable.

[Continued from Part 8a. Here: https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqiECU53/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/]

So what would be the result of a situation in which we, as a people, progressively adopted CBDC? A situation in which we elect to be paid in CBDC, purchase goods in CBDC, pay taxes in CBDC, and so on. What happens? What is the result? One currency – USD – expands with printed money. The Federal Reserve will print USD and inject it into the banking system, as people exit USD for CBDC. And the other currency – CBDC – expands organically with the underlying expansion of the economy it represents. Let me ask you: if you consider a final state in which we all get paid in CBDC, purchase in CBDC, and so on, does USD continue to represent any underlying economic activity at all? Wouldn’t CBDC become the currency that bore the sole relationship to activities contributing to GDP? And wouldn’t USD become a vortex of bits swirling around in digital space – unrelated to any underlying value whatsoever? How long could that last and what would be the outcome? And, more importantly, does this sound familiar?

Friends, in your minds, do you see any resemblance between Bitcoin (and its ilk) and a USD divorced from underlying economic activity? Let me ask you some questions. Bitcoin was invented anonymously in 2008, during Obama’s first year in office. During the tenure of the president that single-handedly amassed 42% of the debt we have today. So while we were embarking on a course that would destabilize the country and lead it into almost certain economic ruin, an anonymous paper proposing Bitcoin just “popped up” out of nowhere, along with open source software to execute the concept, just in case anyone wanted to give it a go. And it led to a project by which we could understand the public’s willingness to accept a currency representative of nothing, how long such a currency could remain stable, how such a currency could be manipulated and so on.

Let me point out something else. In the last 13 months or so, Bitcoin has lost 75% of its value relative to the USD. In a state where predominantly all GDP production was conducted in CBDC – so that CBDC becomes what USD is today, and USD becomes what Bitcoin is today – what would happen if the USD lost 75% of its value relative to CBDC? Wouldn’t the nation’s debt effectively “shrink” by 75%? Would it not be the case that 1 CBDC could pay off $4 worth of USD-denominated debt? And all that would have to happen is to set up a system of economic forces that encouraged adoption of CBDC.

So here we stand today. Ready to introduce a parallel currency that we won’t admit is a parallel currency. Armed with the information necessary to understand how to support a second currency as it becomes detached from any underlying economic reality. Armed with the knowledge to understand how to manipulate its value. Armed with the understanding that vast amounts of our debt could be wiped out with domestic forex transactions (CBDC-for-USD). But it’s all a coincidence. Bullshit.

Friends, this path is being considered at the highest levels and with the gravest interest. It’s not the only path being contemplated, but it’s probably the leading candidate right now.

As always, there is much more to say. But I will conclude Part 8 here.

The takeaways from Part 8 is: (1) CBDC will be a distinct, parallel currency – not another expression or form of USD; (2) with two currencies in place, we can push economic activity into the one our debt is not denominated in, i.e., into CBDC; (3) as economic activity migrates to CBDC, the USD will become like Bitcoin – a currency representing nothing; (4) Bitcoin was a project that taught our intelligence services how to keep such a meaningless currency stable, while stability is required, and then how to manipulate its value, once that is required; and (5) we will manipulate the value of the USD relative to CBDC to effectuate a great discount on the debt.

Stay tuned for Part 9.

Or don’t. It’s your decision.

Ever yours, simon_says

postscript: Series I is not concluded. That said, I am going to begin publishing Parts of Series II and Series III. I believe that Series I is far enough along that it would be profitable for all, if I joined its ideas with ideas on other fronts. As always, thank you for reading.

The Simon Lectures. Series I, Part 8.

Originally published on greatawakening.win, 2023 January 10.

This is Part 8 of Series I of The Simon Lectures.

Part 7 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZE4bONBX/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

“A Departure and a Preface” can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6cDeVUY/the-simon-lectures--a-departure-/

Part 6 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6SpCAse/the-simon-lectures--series-i--pa/

Part 5 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6JWPoXQ/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Part 4 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JnPPYPZx/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Part 3 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JAllbd2t/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Part 2 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JAEy4lN4/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Part 1 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15IrUHyPbl/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

To recap: (1) in Part 1, we determined that the United States federal government is insolvent, and that all of our assets bear illusory valuations, in that they’re all overvalued; (2) in Part 2 we observed (i) that the United States Dollar is backed by nothing other than the “full faith and credit” of an insolvent federal government, and (ii) that we have compelled use of the dollar by imposition of the petrodollar arrangement, thereby creating synthetic demand for the dollar in order to keep it artificially strong; (3) in Part 3 we concluded that the artificially strong dollar has decimated the U.S. manufacturing sector, but has fueled the stratospheric growth of Wall Street; (4) in Part 4 we determined (i) that Obama initiated a regimen of economic sabotage of this country; (ii) that expansion of our money supply is part of that regime; (iii) that the expanded money supply is being used by Wall Street to acquire business concerns on a global basis; and (iv) that the remainder of the world cannot “opt out” of all of this because they need our dollars to purchase OPEC oil; (5) in Part 5 we concluded that our national debt is destructively large, that there are no available spending “levers” to pull to solve the problem, and that our leaders are, instead, reconstituting the citizenry of the country in response to the situation, and that this is societally observed as the Southern Border Crisis; (6) in Part 6, we learned that (i) our country is financing debt with debt; (ii) the debt cycle, itself, is being seeded with printed money; (iii) we are in constructive default on our debt; and (iv) Wall Street knows this; and (7) in Part 7, we determined that Wall Street is executing a worldwide project of repossession that amounts to a reverse-sequenced Chapter 7 proceeding, and when this has run its course, the first “leg” of the Great Reset will have been completed.

Ladies and gentlemen, let’s dive in to Part 8, shall we? I promise it won’t disappoint. But first I need to remind you of what I wrote in Part 7:

*I want you to consider the following potential scenario. Consider that, in the not-too-distant future, our government introduces a central bank digital currency (CBDC), with the pretext being that a CBDC offers citizens a direct “draw” on the Federal Reserve, as opposed to your current situation in which your debit card offers you a digital claim on “bank money.” Your debit card puts you at risk: your bank is subject to a bank run, and you can lose everything in excess of your FDIC insured limit. So, theoretically, a CBDC is your savior – you’d be subject to no counterparty risk: there can be no “run” on the Federal Reserve. So that’s step one of this potential scenario, introduction of a CBDC.

Next would come step two. It would go like this: for cryptographic mumbo-jumbo reasons, it will be “impossible” to comingle our existing United States Dollar (USD) with our CBDC. They will not be alternate expressions of the same thing. They will be distinct currencies, but simultaneously honored within the United States. When you go to the store to buy a case of beer, it will be priced both in USD and CBDC – and you’ll be able to pay with either currency. Right now, you should be thinking of a situation similar to the introduction of the Euro – goods were priced, for a time, both in Francs and Euros, Deutschmarks and Euros, Lira and Euros, and so on. Now consider that if and when you see that here, the fix is on: we will orchestrate a controlled demolition of our USD, paying off all of our debt that is denominated in USD (not CBDC), with worthless dollars. And we will move forward with CBDC as our new currency. You can think of this as our “Great Currency and Debt Reset.” *

I suspect that greater time and attention is required on the topic of CBDC. So let’s go through it slowly, shall we? Right now, there are only two kinds of money available to you and me: (1) physical cash; and (2) digital commercial bank money. I’ll begin with physical cash, i.e., a twenty-dollar bill or a fifty-dollar bill, or if you’re not feeling wealthy today, a one-dollar bill, and so on. Greenbacks. Those green things in your wallet. Technically, they are “Federal Reserve Notes.” And what is a “note?” In legal terms (recall: I am a lawyer), a “note” is an instrument indicating a debt obligation on the part of the issuer of the note. In other words, the party that issued the note “owes” something to the holder of the note. In the case of that Andrew Jackson in your wallet, the issuer is our Federal Reserve, and by virtue of your possession of the note, the Federal Reserve “owes” you twenty dollars. In other words, your physical cash is a direct liability on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve.

Now what happens if you were to visit your local commercial bank (example: US Bancorp or Fifth Third Bank or Bank of America) and deposit your physical cash? Well, your account would be credited with twenty dollars. So far, so good. And the Bank’s reserves would increase by twenty dollars, reflecting your deposit. Let’s take those one-by-one, shall we?

What does the credit in your account mean? It means that the commercial bank owes you twenty dollars. By virtue of having deposited your cash at the bank, you have converted your money from Federal Reserve money (i.e., cash that is a direct liability on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve) to commercial bank money. And what is commercial bank money? It is a liability on the balance sheet of the particular commercial bank holding your money – not a liability of the Federal Reserve. So that’s what you’ve done when you’ve deposited money at a bank. You’ve become a creditor of a commercial bank. That commercial bank now owes you money. That’s what happens when you deposit money with a commercial bank.

Well, one more thing happens too: the bank’s reserves are expanded in proportion with your deposit. And what does that mean? Recall: the Federal Reserve requires commercial banks to maintain a minimum level of reserves against their liabilities. Your account with the aforementioned bank is a liability on its balance sheet. And right now the reserve requirement is 10%. So if you deposited twenty dollars, the bank has to keep two dollars on hand. It can lend out the other eighteen. This means that if you were to demand access to your twenty dollars, such as by attempting to withdraw it or spend it via a cash card, there exists a possibility that the bank might not have twenty dollars to give you. With commercial bank money, you are exposed to counterparty risk: maybe the commercial bank won’t be able to repay you. And you could conceivably lose all amounts in your account that are in excess of the FDIC insurance limit (which is $250,000). This is what happens in the context of a bank run.

Now consider: all digital money available to you or me is the reflection of a balance held at a commercial bank. When you use your cash card, you are accessing a balance held in your commercial bank account. When you use a gift card, you are accessing a balance held in an aggregated bank account devoted to funding gift cards. And so on. Today, all digital money available to you or me is commercial bank money – not Federal Reserve money. The only Federal Reserve money available to you or me is physical cash. This means that when you or I use digital money, we are exposed to counterparty risk. There is no way for us to escape that prospect today.

Now here is where things get interesting and infused with breathtaking mendacity. We’ve got to go at this slowly. Stay with me.

The ostensible purpose of CBDC is to give you and me the option to use digital money that is free of counterparty risk. In other words, CBDC is being positioned as a digital version of physical cash: it will represent a direct liability on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. Your physical cash represents a liability on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. But it’s not digital. That’s what CBDC is supposed to be: digital physical cash. Digital. And representing a direct liability of the Federal Reserve. That’s exactly what you want today, but can’t have. Sounds good, huh?

Our Federal Reserve is proposing introduction of CBDC alongside physical cash and commercial bank money. That is the proposal as it stands today. You could use physical cash. You could use commercial bank money (example: your cash card). Or you could use CBDC. Your choice. They’re just different expressions of the same thing. Different expressions of the United States Dollar. And you’ll get to choose which one you want to use. That’s the story.

Someone has to do it, so I’ll do it for all of us: I’m calling bullshit. Because that’s exactly what it is. Keep staying with me. You’ll be glad you did.

First, let’s examine the idea that the proposed CBDC will be – in substance – just another expression or form of the United States Dollar. I am now going to quote from a paper published by the Federal Reserve in January 2022. The passage refers to a hypothetical situation in which CBDC holdings were to bear interest:

*In this case, the level and volatility of the public’s demand for CBDC could be quite substantial. …To maintain an ample supply of reserves, the Federal Reserve might need to substantially expand its holdings of securities. * What is being said here? Let’s look at the first sentence. It speculates that, if CBDC holdings yielded interest, then all of us might pull out of commercial bank money and move into CBDC. In other words, we’d use our commercial bank money to buy CBDC. Why wouldn’t we? If it yielded interest and carried no counterparty risk, wouldn’t it be superior in every way to commercial bank money? That’s what the first sentence says.

Now the second sentence. What happens if all of us choose to buy CBDC? Well, our bank account balances would dwindle. Because we would be turning commercial bank money into CBDC. And as our bank account balances dwindle, so does our bank’s reserves. So the Federal Reserve might have to put more money in our banks by purchasing securities (i.e., Treasurys) off of the bank, thereby restoring it with USD, which counts toward its reserves. That’s what the second sentence says.

Hold on. Take that in. CBDC will not be counted as a part of a bank’s reserves. When you opt to use CBDC, you will reduce your bank’s reserves. Let me ask you a question. If you chose to be paid in cash, and took the cash to your bank to deposit it, that would count toward the bank’s reserves. And if you, instead, chose to be paid electronically via a direct deposit using commercial bank money, that would count toward your bank’s reserves. But if you choose to be paid in CBDC, the CBDC will be electronically deposited in your digital wallet, but will not count towards your bank’s reserves. If CBDC is merely another expression or form of the USD, why does it not count toward your bank’s reserves? What is going on?

Let me turn your attention to another matter: it is not clear that CBDC will trade with the USD at a 1:1 ratio. The Clearing House – a banking association owned by the largest banks in the United States and which operates the ACH payment system, the wire transfer payments system, and so on – has stated in its public comments pertaining to the prospect of CBDC that as certain conditions increase (we’ll get to what those conditions are, later) “the less likely [CBDC] is to be fungible with other forms of the dollar and trade at a 1:1 ratio.”

So let’s get this straight. CBDC is just another form of the USD. But it might not always trade at 1:1 with the USD. I’ll ask again: what is going on?

Permit me to turn your attention to another matter. CBDC will not be holdable in your bank account. Your bank will provide you with an electronic wallet, and your CBDC will be held in that wallet. But you cannot commingle your CBDC with your USD.

So here’s where we’re at. You are supposed to believe that CBDC will be just another form of the USD. A form that: (1) does not count toward the USD considered to be on hand by a bank to cover its liabilities; (2) may not trade at 1:1 with the USD; and (3) cannot be commingled with the USD in your bank account or any other account, for that matter.

Bullshit.

No matter how it is spun, no matter how hard they try to tell you otherwise, CBDC will be a separate, parallel currency. Period. Look, if you brought Euros to your bank, could you directly commingle them with your USD in your bank account? No, you could not. Are Euros guaranteed to trade at 1:1 with the USD? No, they are not. If you deposited Euros in a safe deposit box at your bank, would the bank’s reserve levels be credited for such a deposit? No, they would not. Folks, this is the exact treatment that CBDC will get. There’s no other way of looking at it.

CBDC will be a separate currency.

Now let’s reflect on that passage from the Federal Reserve’s 2022 paper that I quoted earlier. As people leave the USD to hold CBDC, what will the Federal Reserve do? What did they literally tell you they would do? Inject USD into banks to “maintain adequate reserves” by way of purchasing Treasurys off the balance sheets of banks. When a country’s central bank buys its government’s securities from its commercial banks, what is this called and where does the money come from? If you’ve been reading my Series, you know the answers by now. This is called quantitative easing. And the money is simply printed into existence by the central bank (in our case, the Federal Reserve).

[I have reached the character limit. Please See Part 8b.]

The Simon Lectures. Series I, Part 7.

Originally published on greatawakening.win, 2022 November 16.

This is Part 7 of Series I of The Simon Lectures.

Part 6 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6SpCAse/the-simon-lectures--series-i--pa/

Part 5 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6JWPoXQ/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Part 4 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JnPPYPZx/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Part 3 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JAllbd2t/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Part 2 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JAEy4lN4/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Part 1 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15IrUHyPbl/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

To recap: (1) in Part 1, we determined that the United States federal government is insolvent, and that all of our assets bear illusory valuations, in that they’re all overvalued; (2) in Part 2 we observed (i) that the United States Dollar is backed by nothing other than the “full faith and credit” of an insolvent federal government, and (ii) that we have compelled use of the dollar by imposition of the petrodollar arrangement, thereby creating synthetic demand for the dollar in order to keep it artificially strong; (3) in Part 3 we concluded that the artificially strong dollar has decimated the U.S. manufacturing sector, but has fueled the stratospheric growth of Wall Street; (4) in Part 4 we determined (i) that Obama initiated a regimen of economic sabotage of this country; (ii) that expansion of our money supply is part of that regime; (iii) that the expanded money supply is being used by Wall Street to acquire business concerns on a global basis; and (iv) that the remainder of the world cannot “opt out” of all of this because they need our dollars to purchase OPEC oil; (5) in Part 5 we concluded that our national debt is destructively large, that there are no available spending “levers” to pull to solve the problem, and that our leaders are, instead, reconstituting the citizenry of the country in response to the situation, and that this is societally observed as the Southern Border Crisis; and (6) in Part 6, we learned that (i) our country is financing debt with debt; (ii) the debt cycle, itself, is being seeded with printed money; (iii) we are in constructive default on our debt; and (iv) Wall Street knows this.

I recently published “The Simon Lectures. A Departure and a Preface.” Its publication was interposed between the respective publications of Part 6 and this Part 7, but on the surface has little to do with either. It prefaces what is to come in future Series, but does not necessarily suggest the interconnections among and between the Series. I promise they’re all related. The goal of The Lectures is to locate the truth about matters leading to our state of affairs, whether or not these matters reside in economic spheres. The Lectures will venture far outside of economic realms. If you haven’t already, please read it. “A Departure and a Preface” can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6cDeVUY/the-simon-lectures--a-departure-/

I am not in the habit of retreading old ground. But our launching pad for this Part is found in Part 6. So let’s venture back. The critical revelations of Part 6 are these: that we are financing 100% of our debt service payments with the issuance of debt (Treasurys); and, since the installation of the Biden regime, the ultimate buyer of about one-half of our Treasurys is the Federal Reserve – using money it simply printed into existence. One-half of our debt service payments is not only borrowed, it is printed: we literally print money and lend it to ourselves (laundered through Wall Street banks that serve as an intermediate “landing spot” for the Treasurys before the Federal Reserve buys them, in order to provide the very thinnest veneer of legitimacy).

We are in constructive default on our debt. I have said that previously in Part 6, but it deserves further explanation. We are, in fact, making debt service payments. So we are not in open default. But we are making our debt service payments in a way that destabilizes the financial condition of the country and guarantees that at some point we will openly default. We can neither borrow legitimate money indefinitely, nor can we create money at the Federal Reserve indefinitely – so at some point this reaches an end, and we transition into open default. If open default is the inevitable future consequence of our present-tense course, then we are in constructive default today. We are not making meaningful payments. And Wall Street knows this. The elite knows this: our payments are neither meaningful nor legitimate. We are not really paying our bills.

What would happen if you stopped paying your bills? At first you’d just get more bills. Then bills with late fees added on. Then calls from collection agencies. But what if you ignored them all? What would happen? Your creditors would force you into involuntary bankruptcy – that’s what would happen. And if your finances were hopeless, you’d end up in Chapter 7, whereupon the court would order liquidation of your assets, and your debt would be wiped clean. I’m skipping several steps here and oversimplifying, but that’s the big picture. For our purposes, none of the steps and details I’ve omitted matter. But one particular skipped step does: repossession. If you are in default on any secured debt, the property securing that debt would be repossessed by the secured party. If you are in default on your mortgage, the bank takes your house. If you are in default on your car payment, the financing company takes your car. And so on. In short, the party that provided you with the moola to purchase your house or car or boat or other long-term durable good repossesses that good. Which, as the thinking goes, is only fair because that party essentially paid for the good to begin with.

May I pose a question? Given what you know of the collective psyche of Wall Street, do you suppose it might be the case that Wall Street, seeing itself as the provider of the moola that has financed our country and much of the West, considers itself entitled to be a secured party? Let’s put legal niceties aside – security interest filings and so on. We know those aren’t literally in place. But do you think Wall Street considers itself entitled to a security interest in our country and the West more broadly? Let’s set this topic aside, in order to return to in momentarily.

If I have been nothing else, I have been direct. So permit me to continue in that vein. I have said – several times now – that we are in constructive default on our debt, and that this will lead to inevitable open default. I’ve also said – again, several times now – that this means some sort of collapse will occur: collapse of our currency, collapse of our debt or collapse of our government.

(As a side note, as far as I can see, there are actually two other potential options: collapse of our social structure and collapse of our world order – i.e., World War III. I’ll touch on these topics later. The points to be made here are these: (1) our government can select which of the collapses comes to pass, at least it hopes it can; (2) looking around our world, you can observe our “dress rehearsals” for most of these collapse options – Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is the product of our government’s contemplation of the collapse of our currency; certain Republicans are “floating” demolition of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, i.e., which, together with our Southern Border Crisis, is really a contemplation of the collapse our social structure; we are hell-bent on the realistic prospect of a nuclear confrontation as a dress rehearsal for a contemplated collapse of our world order; and so on; and (3) a particular path forward has not yet been selected, but our government is contemplating all of them, and they are all seismic.)

I want you to consider the following potential scenario. Consider that, in the not too distant future, our government introduces a CBDC, with the pretext being that a CBDC offers citizens a direct “draw” on the Federal Reserve, as opposed to your current situation in which your debit card offers you a digital claim on “bank money.” Your debit card puts you at risk: your bank is subject to a bank run, and you can lose everything up to your FDIC insured limit. So, theoretically, a CBDC is your savior – you’d be subject to no counterparty risk: there can be no “run” on the Federal Reserve. So that’s step one of this potential scenario, introduction of a CBDC.

Next would come step two. It would go like this: for cryptographic mumbo-jumbo reasons, it will be “impossible” to comingle our existing United States Dollar (USD) with our CBDC. They will not be alternate expressions of the same thing. They will be distinct currencies, but simultaneously honored within the United States. When you go to the store to buy a case of beer, it will be priced both in USD and CBDC – and you’ll be able to pay with either currency. Right now, you should be thinking of a situation similar to the introduction of the Euro – goods were priced, for a time, both in Francs and Euros, Deutschmarks and Euros, Lira and Euros, and so on. Now consider that if and when you see that here, the fix is on: we will orchestrate a controlled demolition of our USD, paying off all of our debt that is denominated in USD (not CBDC), with worthless dollars. And we will move forward with CBDC as our new currency. You can think of this as our “Great Currency and Debt Reset.”

Or you can think of this as our functional equivalent of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Most of our collapse options are really the functional equivalent of Chapter 7. And what did I say happens in Chapter 7? The slate is wiped clean, and… what? What else happens? Repossession. Secured parties repossess the various properties covered by their security interests.

Folks, may I ask you to call to mind Part 4? It’s linked above, if you’ve forgotten its details. In Part 4, we learned that if we examine the period that begins in 2008 and extends to present-day, we see that Wall Street players such as BlackRock and Vanguard have accumulated 90% of their assets under management. In other words, as soon as we began paying our debt service payments with funny money – even in the slightest proportion – Wall Street began accumulating assets under management at a steep pace. They began buying every business venture around the world.

Why do you suppose that’s the case? It’s because Wall Street knows Chapter 7 is coming. Any collapse option is the functional equivalent of Chapter 7. And Wall Street is repossessing while it can. We are witnessing history’s largest project of repossession. Wall Street is repossessing the entire Western World before we enter into Chapter 7. You are watching Chapter 7 proceedings being executed in reverse order on a worldwide basis. It’s as simple as that. And our government is printing the money and supplying it to Wall Street so they can execute upon their repossession scheme.

The part of the Great Reset where all business will be owned by global elites? That’s unfolding now. And most of the participants don’t intend to cooperate in this as co-conspirators. They are participating as soon-to-be-jilted creditors that are repossessing the only assets that will have value in the wake of our global Chapter 7 filing: enterprises that operate on an oligarchic scale. Because financial instruments will have no value in the wake of our Chapter 7.

There is much more to say. But I will conclude Part 7 here.

The takeaway from Part 7 is: Wall Street is executing a worldwide project of repossession that amounts to a reverse-sequenced Chapter 7 proceeding, and when this has run its course, the first “leg” of the Great Reset will be complete.

Stay tuned for Part 8.

Or don’t. It’s your decision.

Ever yours, simon_says

On Brotherhood.

Brothers,

My message today is controversial. I know some of you will dispute it, and some will likely “tune me out” after this. Respectfully, I ask for patient consideration.

I want to turn your attention to a matter familiar to us all, but, I suspect, gravely underrecognized. You need only passing familiarity with the Holy Scripture to know that Jesus said of Himself: “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.” This is not news to you. And it is not news to me. But, may I ask you, have you considered what this means?

If you do not realize it already, it is important to understand that the Truth is not the Way; the Way is not the Life; and the Life is not the Truth. These things are distinct from one another. The Truth is something different than the Way. And the Way is something different than the Life. And the Life is something different than the Truth. A man can possess these things individually: I can have the Truth, but neither the Way nor the Life. And a man can possess these things partially, or not at all.

Jesus united two trinities for us. Not one. Two. He came to us to unite in human form the Trinity of the Godhead – God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. And He also came to us to unite in human form the trinity of the Way, the Truth and the Life. In ourselves, none of us can unite the Trinity of the Godhead. That is reserved for the Creator alone. But, in ourselves, we can unite the Way, the Truth and the Life. And we are called to do this.

I want you to consider the Jewish people. Among mankind, our Jewish brothers were the very first people to possess the Way, the Truth and the Life. The very first. Now, I am Christian. So it is my view that, while it is true that they were the very first, it is also true that they possessed only part of the Truth, and therefore practiced an impaired Way, and received only a portion of the Life planned for us. But their Truth was, in fact, true. And their Way was, in fact, sacred and valid. And their Life was, in fact, blessed. This made them a Nation. Not land. The Way, the Truth and the Life. For 2500 years, the Nation of Israel had no land. From the time Babylon conquered the Jewish people in 597 B.C. until 1948, the Nation of Israel had no land. Yet it has been a nation the whole time.

Let me say that again. A nation is made by uniting around the Way, the Truth and the Life. A brotherhood is created from that same unity. As a matter of fact, no other form of union is licit. We are forbidden to unite as brothers around, say, a common purpose. Freemasonry is illicit. Construction of the Tower of Babel was illicit. And so on. More than illicit, any other form of brotherly union is counterfeit. If we unite around, say, a common political goal, we are not brothers – we are people with the same viewpoint. The sole licit and authentic basis for uniting as brothers is uniting around the Way, the Truth and the Life.

My brothers, we live in a satanic age. In future writings, I will delve into the topic of satan. For now, please understand that – first and foremost – he apes God. Satan apes God. When you see something that is a manifest ape of God, you are seeing satan, himself, or at the very least, one of satan’s institutions.

May I ask you to look around the world and see if it is the case that you might locate an ape of the Nation of Israel? Is there anywhere to be found a “nation” – a nation without land – yet united around a way, a “truth” and a life? Do you recognize such a nation? Do our American and European landscapes possess such a nation? Oh, that’s right. The Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam is a satanic ape. It is an ape of the very nation that God, Himself, assembled. Its ways are neither valid nor sacred. And its “truth” is not merely partial – it is infected with falsehoods. And its life is cruel, perverse and repulsive. It is of satan.

Have the footsoldiers of The Nation of Islam mobilized? Have they invaded? Are they here? Are they here in record numbers? Then satan is afoot.

This piece is not principally concerned with The Nation of Islam. And satan’s footsoldiers are to be found in associations and “brotherhoods” outside of the Nation. The Nation is but one division in satan’s army. My broader point here is that we are under attack by satan. A comprehensive examination of his forces is reserved for future pieces I will devote to the matter.

I want you to consider America. Is this a nation united around a way, a truth and a life? Are we validly constituted? My American brothers, we have an American Truth (“we hold these truths to be self-evident…”). And we have an American Way (a democratic republic with certain divisions of power and authority, with certain public institutions, and so on). And we have an American Life (we vote, we serve on jury duty, and so on). Our American Truth is true. It is not comprehensive, and does not reach every realm – it takes no position on metaphysical matters, for example – but it is nonetheless true. And our American Way is valid – they are authentic means for organizing around, and acting in accordance with, our American Truth. And our American Life is the blessed fruit of our Truth and Way.

Who is my American brother? Anyone who unites within himself the trinity of the American Way, the American Truth and the American Life. He who does that is my American brother. There is no racial or genetic test – Americans are not a clan or a tribe. We are a nation and a brotherhood in the only meaningful sense. By choice. By choice to unite within ourselves the American Way, the American Truth and the American Life. This means that not everyone who lives in America is an American. If you do not hold our self-evident truths to be true, then you merely live on American soil. You may be an American citizen, but you are not American, and you are not my American brother.

Brothers, there are people – American citizens – who are the agents of satan and are aligned against us. What, really, are they attacking? The American Way, the American Truth, and the American Life. Consider: the American trinity descends from, and is derivative of, the one revealed by God. Satan’s aim is to destroy every gift from God – even its derivatives. This is why our presidency, congress and courts have been compromised. It is an attack on the American Way. And this is why a sweeping agenda of Critical Theory has been loosed upon us. It is an attack on the American Truth. And this is why our vote was corrupted. It is an attack on the American Life. No gift of God will evade attack. We are under siege, now, brothers. Brace yourselves and stay close to God.

Ever yours, simon_says

Loose Ends, Speculation and an Apology

This post differs from the typical character of my other posts, in that it does not explore any particular topic in depth. It addresses several topics – mainly briefly – either to offer speculation, provide a brief update. Hopefully this is of interest to you.

Also, this is an apology to u/v8power. I probably overreacted to something he wrote and called into question his motivations. My apologies, v8.

.

--Lindell/Montgomery--

Lindell has filed his reply to the United States' opposition brief. The next step would typically be a hearing and then a decision.

This is an incredibly important matter. If you have no idea what is at stake, start here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JnYrQlIR/dennis-montgomery-mike-lindell-a/

Then look here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6JSzFb9/dennis-montgomery-and-mike-linde/

And then finally here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6XUk7Pw/dennis-montgomerymike-lindell--a/

Lindell’s reply essentially states that he and the United States appear to agree that: (i) the protective order does not apply to Lindell; (ii) only applies to the 2006 litigation and not any other litigation; (iii) has nothing to do with the 2020 election; and (iv) does not prevent Lindell from using any information obtained from Montgomery. As such, he asks the court to enter a simple order clarifying the protective order to make those matters clear.

I have more to say on the topic, but the parties may be intentionally “talking past” one another, and that there is no actual agreement. Or it may be the case that the United States would be genuinely agreeable clarifying the protective order, but not lifting it. I doubt that – but you never know.

I am considering the practical difference between lifting the protective order entirely and clarifying it as Lindell requests. Is it reasonable the United States would be okay with the sought-after clarification, but not lifting the order entirely? Because that is Lindell’s position: based on what the United States said in their opposition brief, the United States is agreeable to clarifying the protective order. If I were the judge, I’d hold a hearing to sound out whether the parties actually agree on entry of an order clarifying the protective order – and if they did, then I’d simply enter that order.

The other thing to say is that if the parties genuinely agreed on the entry of an order clarifying the protective order, then Lindell should file a proposed stipulation for the entry of the order – that’s the formal way for parties to agree on a matter and ask the court to act upon their agreement. As it stands, the “paperwork” is in a posture showing that they disagree, while the content of the paperwork (specifically, the reply), states that they agree on the critical issues.

.

--Gregg Phillips--

Anyone get the sense he’s holding something back? I don’t follow his every podcast appearance, so maybe I’m not up to speed with the latest.

In a previous appearance on Patel Patriot’s podcast, Phillips said: “We have a few issues coming up that are more explosive than the (2000) Mules, that are more likely to divide this country even further. Catherine and I spend a lot of time every single day really not just praying through it, but thinking through, how do we actually do this? Because once these come out, there’s one in particular. It’s a multinational deal. It involves billions of dollars.”

Have we heard any revelation involving billions of dollars and relating to some sort of multinational? I haven’t. I don’t think Konnech fits the bill… where’s the billions of dollars?

If I’ve not simply missed a revelation due to inattentiveness, I’d assume that this matter is forthcoming. Perhaps someone could pose the question to him?

.

--Further Speculation--

I’ve only an occasional listener of Patel Patriot – that’s not a commentary on my views regarding him or his work. It’s a reflection of the reality that I’ve only got so much time on my hands.

I know he’s done a significant amount of work on a “devolution” thesis. And I think what I’m about to say is similar or identical to his concepts.

In the wake of January 6 – but prior to Biden being sworn in – Pelosi wrote a letter asking to remove control of the nuclear codes from Trump. This is odd. Pelosi would have known that, legally, the president has the sole authority to order the use of our nuclear weapons. What would make Pelosi think she could even ask for such a thing? Maybe it was just a political stunt?

And about two months ago on September 3, at a rally in Pennsylvania, President Trump said: “Last week, weirdo – he’s a weirdo – Mark Zuckerberg came to the White House, kissed my ass.” Last week? Zuckerberg met him at the White House? Maybe Trump misspoke?

I understand that a couple of weeks ago, at another rally, President Trump jokingly referred to still being in possession of the nuclear codes. I don’t have the quote.

These are all oddities. These things, along with others, do lead me to wonder: are we operating in some form of degraded government? Have certain not-so-visible lines of authority and access been re-routed? I am not of a decided opinion on this matter. Just thinking out loud.

The Simon Lectures. A Departure and a Preface.

Originally published on greatawakening.win, 2022 October 23.

This is a Departure from Series I, and a Preface for Series II and Series III. If you are unfamiliar with this Series or have missed some Parts along the way, you may find its previous Parts at the links below.

Part 6 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6SpCAse/the-simon-lectures--series-i--pa/

Part 5 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6JWPoXQ/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Part 4 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JnPPYPZx/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Part 3 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JAllbd2t/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Part 2 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JAEy4lN4/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Part 1 can be found here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15IrUHyPbl/the-simon-lectures--series-i-par/

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am writing this in response to a gut feeling. No one’s said anything to lead me to write this, but I suspect some of you may need this right now. So let’s dive in.

We are under attack. In such circumstances and times, it’s normal to speculate about the future and extrapolate present-tense facts into future-state possibilities. Where will the enemy go next? That’s what we all want to know.

May I propose that we suspend our natural inclination to look ahead long enough to reflect and look backwards? Let’s look at the start of this, shall we?

In 2009, the Obama Administration brought a software system known as The Hammer in-house at a naval “research center” in Fort Washington, Maryland. The Hammer is a software tool that can be aimed at secure communication sessions in order to eavesdrop upon them. It requires staggering computing power to work and is running on machines in a massive purpose-built supercomputer center dedicated to that singular end. (I said that The Hammer was brought "in-house" in 2009. That requires a brief explanation. The Hammer existed in a less potent form beginning in 2004. From 2004 to 2009, the government needed to engage an outside party to use its capabilities - which provided some degree of checks-and-balances over its use. They knew someone outside of themselves would be aware of its use.)

Without belaboring details here, all of our encryption is based upon relationships between extremely large prime numbers. And with the aid of breathtaking computational power, The Hammer locates one prime number that has the sought-after relationship to another prime number. That’s it. And with that, a set of actions can be set in motion to eavesdrop on any “private” communication session. Emails can be listened in on. Is HTTPS/SSL protecting you as you enter your username and password to your bank? Then those can be listened in on. Is a systems administrator using HTTPS/SSL to protect his credentials as he logs into a router or some other piece of network equipment? Then his credentials can be captured and those pieces of network equipment logged into – that means, for example, that your web browsing habits could be learned. And so on.

The Hammer permitted officials in the Obama Administration to eavesdrop on essentially everything. And they pointed it everywhere. Judges, politicians, CEO’s, Hollywood executives and personalities, and so on. And what did they find? Secrets. Secrets that can be used as the basis of a sinister blackmail campaign. Now our judges are controlled when they need to be. And Hollywood delivers the messages they are directed to. And CEO’s march in a lockstep to a composite Neo-Marxist-Fascist agenda.

All of our institutions are compromised. How extensively? Consider any given public official. Ask yourself: is he or she imperfect? And does he or she therefore have a secret to hide? It’s everyone, folks. We are all imperfect; we all have something to hide; and if we stand in the way we will face ruin.

Consider now the social “plank” of this attack. Boys can be girls (but they can’t). Adoption of a practice originating in some other culture is not the sincerest form of appreciation, it’s misappropriation (but it’s not). We’re all racists (but we’re not). And so on. What, ultimately, is under assault? Truth. Truth is under assault. And without a full examination of the topic now – this examination is conducted in Series II – I will let you in on something: it is impossible to locate any conceivable truth that does not rest on faith. Faith supports all knowledge. All of it. Eradicate faith from a people, and you ultimately disorient those people from truth. This is inescapable. Pope John Paul II famously wrote about this in his estimable encyclical, Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason).

The first tools of our enemy? Relationships between prime numbers. Universal human imperfection. The relationship between faith and knowledge. In other words, the very fabric of reality.

Let me say that again. The very fabric of reality is being wielded as a weapon against us. What steps could we take to alter the internal relationships of prime numbers? Is that even a sensible question? Let’s reframe the question in terms of human nature. What steps could we take to resolve universal human imperfection? Just as senseless. And it is no better when we reframe the question in terms of knowledge and faith: what steps could we take to dissociate knowledge from faith? None.

Who is your enemy when the fabric of reality, itself, is his weapon? Do you need to see your enemy to know him? Is your enemy to be found here, in this realm? Is Obama your enemy? Is Podesta your enemy? Is Clapper your enemy? Or are they merely your enemy’s agents?

If you’ve followed me, now you know why Series II concerns epistemology and Series III tackles metaphysics. It’s not because I’m an odd dude (I am). It’s because these are the things you need to know.

I will conclude here.

Stay tuned for our regularly scheduled Part 7. It’s coming.

Or don’t. It’s your decision.

Ever yours, simon_says