Throughout the past week, I received dozens of requests to share my thoughts on Bret Weinstein’s recent appearance on Tucker Carlson where the intrepid biologist sounds the alarm like a latter day Paul Revere on the dangerous Chinese Communist conspiracy to destroy America by directing mass immigrants to flood the Texas border, unleash new bioweapons and BRI the west to death... The full interview can be viewed here:
I understand your point, but I also know that Michael Yon has been on the border, and in particular the Darien gap in Panama for months reporting on the invasion into our country, and he has been reporting all along about military age men from China and special camps where they are coming to. This is definitely a problem. They are also coming from Iran through Venezuela and from Africa as well.
In God's Holy Name, WHY would ANY Chinese ANYBODY want to "invade" this country? Come on, now! What have we got that they want? Billionaires? Yeah, they can have all of them...get them the hell OUT of the U.S. Vaccines? Sure...let them wrap up the entire medical profession and cart them off to Chinese prisons. Soyburgers? Yup! They can have all they want. There is NOTHING the Chinese could want that hasn't already been stolen by the oligarchs and their criminal associates. Sometimes I despair over the thinking capabilities of Americans...then...I remember...oh yeah, the educational system. God have mercy on our souls.
I think the idea is that the People's Liberation Army might have personnel sneak in under the cover of the illegal migration to be in place and execute sabotage in the event of escalating hostility between China and the US... it's not an irrational concern. I'm not for the US empire in general and am rooting for the multipolar world order, hopefully arrived at with minimal hostility. Whatever the powers that captured the US have planned, I don't want anything tk do with it. I'm not convinced that China is benign either, nor that the kind of system they wish implement and promote for the world is any better. I'm open to Matthew's POV that they might just want to return to the state of affairs between nations understood diplomatically in the 19th century (if I'm not mistaken)... I can't recall the term for it, not sure if it was realpolitik.
similar patterns as the recent wave of migration into Europe: so many healthy single men - who are they, how can they afford the journey? it stinks, but somewhere someone's getting very rich off of it.
Soaring crime rates will call for protection from the government and justify digital ID and surveillance cameras everywhere. Those will be handy when the population rebels against the criminal enterprise that calls itself "government".
it's not so much the 'hordes' (there are many considerations to allow/support legal immigration), it's the fact their legal status / antecedents are not checked, and foreigners are admitted to enter without even having a valid passport. as a comparison: foreign students and labourers (not the same as immigrants, mind you) are vetted and checked (must show papers and a return ticket so as not to illegally disappear) and are required to have a native sponsor.
rules for 'us' but not for 'them' (aka clown world). and indeed, cui bono....
I would suggest you look more closely at Michael Yon's reporting. He interviewed last week with Del Bigtree on " The Highwire" His evidence is as suspect as Weinstein's. In fact, his evidence is what Weinstein used. Innuendo is not evidence, gossip is not evidence. Michael Yon is not an authority. He is essentially a propagandist.
Nope. I’ve been following him for years. He’s former Green Beret. He’s been on the front line of every major upheaval reporting and the military personnel trust him. He’s a Patriot playing an important role in protecting and defending America. He played a key role in rescuing Americans from Afghanistan after the tragically orchestrated pull out. I recommend you getting more informed about him.
I would like to believe [that China and its industrial projects are badly needed infrastructure and BRI is a win win]… But are these Faustian bargains? I need to see how they get paid for and what happens when the receiving country misses a payment. And what’s the collateral?
I suppose Soros could be funding these young men? Sure, some may want to come here to the land of the free, even though our freedoms are shrinking we still are one, if not the best. Although, at times I think of going somewhere else, but where?
Can't remember where I saw this recently, but someone- i think it was Michael Yon - was sounding the alarm that the Chinese are building a 7-story library in San Salvador. It takes a special kind of guilty conscience mixed with some serious projection wrapped in American exceptionalism to assume some sinister ulterior motive behind the Chinese library project, after the US spent the better part of a decade training and funding psychopaths to terrorize families and rape nuns, etc in that part of the world. It's like the thought process is, "A library. My God. Imagine what Hell will be unleashed when the other shoe drops."
Hey Matthew, I really appreciate yours and Cynthia's work; you've done a lot to credibly unmask the cabal, their history, aims and methods and it's actually helped me process and resolve much of the frustration I had been carrying years prior when I couldn't understand why our own governments, institutions and culture had been seemingly hellbent on destroying Western societies and why they seemed to get what looked like mainstream popular support. You've also helped me to restore Spirit to the world with things like your cultural works on great persons who've been repressed and slandered, like Edgar Allan Poe, CS Lewis, etc.
I wanted to say all that first so as not to sound like someone unfamiliar with your work who only showed-up to criticize... So to the next part; I'm a bit perplexed by this article... not that there aren't any supportable reasons to criticize Bret here, but the way you've framed it, some things you left out and some uncharitable excesses and polemicizing has thrown me:
1) you should have mentioned that Bret traveled to both sides of the Darien Gap and then reported his observations... you write as though he has no basis for the things he's said, as though he's just repeating Neocon hearsay.
2) I'm rewatching the interview: where does Bret criticize China for refusing the mRNA jabs? I'm not quite done my rewatch yet, but I don't think it's in there. It doesn't even make sense, Bret has always advocated that no nation should approve the jabs for use.
3) you make it sound like Bret is saying for a fact that China is causing the general mass migration, when he's only saying that there seems to be 2 migrations and China may be using the larger diverse migration to cover their smaller one. The larger conventional migration is mostly comprised of economic migrants from many parts if the world who traverse the Darien gap, stay in the main rest-village on the Northern side of it where it's completely open for him to film and ask questions and the associated migrants speak openly with him. There's a second all Chinese migration of almost all young men that had a uniform fenced-in camp where he was not allowed to film or ask questions and where even the people associated with the camp found outside of it refused to speak to him at all and were almost hostile. Now I think you're right to question how he knows that it's a migration camp as opposed to say a work camp. Also, the way in which you could argue that he was indicating that the Chinese were responsible for the mass migration is the part where he speculates that the United States' enemies would have noticed the "pay for play" nature of US lawmakers and that it would be more efficient for a State actor like China to corrupt such legislators and officials to get them to enact harmful policies that are terribly damaging, like having insane border/immigration policies, and seek to insidiously weaken and eventually destroy the US rather than looking to fight an open war against them. In this interview he put China in the role of that enemy more definitely than I've ever seen him, but usually his position is to advise people to stay agnostic and not prematurely settle on conclusions prior to discovering sufficient evidence and reasoning to confidently expound a position. His term for the corrupting cabal is "Goliath" and he only goes so far as to infer that it is a real active force, but not be overly definite as to who all is or isn't involved, the full scope of their aims, etc. when not in possession of evidence that supports a model that satisfactorily explains all of these parts. He feels confident enough to conclude that the owners/boards of corporations for example, are part of such a scheme, though he doesn't know whether they're just collaborators participating for their own gain but without full knowledge of the scheme, or among the inner circle of schemers driving ma larger agenda. He sees that there is some systemic use of collaborators to move various aspects of US culture, institutions, law, education, etc. towards what appears to be a turn-key totalitarianism.
4) you write that so many times Bret says "I have no idea how the world works/I have no way of proving that but... isn't this suspicious?". I don't think that's a fair characterization... like he said, he's trying to be careful to report what he observed there factually, but when expressing his thoughts that were more speculative in nature he made sure to say that he didn't know them to be certain, and I think he did a good job throughout making sure to be clear when he was explaining a hypothesis that could inform where we should look further, what vulnerabilities we have, how that might be exploited, etc. You make it sound like he packed the interview full of innuendo, almost winking at the camera, but admiting that he's clueless, when that wasn't the reason he was trying not to state things so definitively. He was in hypothesis mode.
5) I didn't hear him say that "they could be trying to sneak in and release bioweapons". I'll edit this post if I find it when I finish rewatching.
6) I don't think it's irrational to be concerned about something like this encampment... we should be concerned about potential saboteurs entering the country. I agree we should be much more concerned with avoiding war and the ways in which US leadership is pushing us there as the chief aggressors. Bret is here focused on China as a potential threat, though in general he is more focused on the terrible leadership in various institutions, offices and industries of the US and looking to shore it up to prevent it in future.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts given at length. I think Bret's a good-faith actor and it would be better to engage with him more respectfully and convince him of your perspective on China, Russia, Iran, etc. He has the ear of a relatively influential audience.
Everything I wanted to say, Jared. I'll add that to me gossip means something like reporting 3rd person rumors or scuttlebutt but here we have first person observations.
The best thing would be to invite Bret to respond and see if that clarifies.
Yeah I agree and I think Bret would be open to that discussion. I've seen him have one-on-ones with the apparent aim of resolving disagreements, in a generous spirit and often starting it off by offering an olive branch hoping to get things started on a constructive footing.
He's open to self correction when convinced of his error. He's not incapable of recognizing his errors though Matthew's perspective in how far the history goes back is a massive vision to be presented with.
I am prone to like Bret's cautious intuition rather than Matt's hostile accusatory stances apparently. But obviously many Chinese are here to escape the 1984 society - yet it will be more and more difficult for them, since our oligarchs (IMHO) are in cahoots over there.
It too want to explore this in good faith for resolution, I think we have two incredibly resourceful, open and effective thinkers who are acting in good faith. We happen to benefit enormously from their work.
I also see two distinct formulations for truth seeking at play which work well together for discernment for the reader and population. I think resolving this will be incredibly helpful.
Well said. This is important. It strikes me as reconciliable differences. We have two great minds that have much more alignment than may be evident at the moment. We could all benefit immensely from this discussion.
Thanks for this. I had not yet watched Bret Weinstein on this video, although I am convinced Bret Weinstein is CIA. His brother, Eric Weinstein worked for Peter Thiele at Palantir and was also a friend of Epstein. I am now researching both.
The Bret Weinstein/Carlson interview earlier that dealt with the Covid-19 psyop indicated to me that Bret Weinstein is CIA. There is documentation that the Poison-19 psyop is a culling operation and that governments of the world are engaged in legalized mass murder. Robert Malone on the Darkhorse Podcast know this and so should both Weinstein's. Yet, Bret was promoting the alternative narrative that greedy Big Pharma skipped steps in research and production that lead to adverse events.
Some of my work on Eric Weinstein is based on earlier research by Whitney Webb who had a Twitter exchange with Eric Weinstein in 2021 in which Eric blocked Whitney. Webb has also written articles on Palantir and Peter Thiele.
Do you happen to recall where it's documented that Eric Weinstein is friends with Epstein? I'd like t look at that. Eric came out im several places to discuss a time he had been invited by Epstein to his Manhattan homes to discuss Weinstein's scientific interests, and Eric outlined a bizarre, offensive meeting in which he said he was disgusted by Epstein's behavior and concluded that Epstein was an intelligence asset of Mossad and in no way the financial wizard that was the given cover story. So is Eric lying? It's possible, but I believe him.
Eric and Bret are open critics of US leadership, the pandemic managers, etc. Bret refers to whatever colluding entities are behind coordinated world events like the pandemic as "Goliath" (like from David and Goliath) who have a purpose in directing and shaping world events and the trajectories of socieities so that they consolidate ever increasing power and resources for themselves. He speaks of how a "turn-key totalitarian system" has been gradually set-up over decades and subsequent administrations setting up the legals and physical infrastructure to one day flip the switch and have a system of centralized control operating without civic protections of individual liberty getting in their way from then on forward.
Bret has discussed the many-billion dollar motivation for big pharma to pursue launching these mRNA technologies, but he never limited the analysis to that alone and has regularily discussed other motivations, dynamics, etc. He's overall pretty careful, intelligent, principled in my opinion from watching him since at least 2017.
I do not have sufficient knowledge today to comment on the totality of the relationship of Bret Weinstein to Jeffrey Epstein and is not something I commented on.
The point I was trying to communicate is that Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt have developed an analysis of what is occurring with the Covid-19 psyop. It is a premeditated mass murder that is made possible through changes in federal and state law since the 1980's. This plan to cull the population should be known by Robert Malone on the Darkhorse Podcast.
Eric Schmidt is the successor to Kissinger. In that world, Peter Thiele is the chief rival to Schmidt and Eric Weinstein worked for Peter Thiele. Consequently, I am positing that both of the Weinstein's are aware of this depopulation plan. They have been exposed to the analysis but have offered no counter argument nor have attempted to challenge it. The analysis by Latypova is correct and no reasonable person can reject this analysis. https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/summary-of-everything-and-quick-links?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
That's assuming that Eric and Bret were let in on that agenda and provided sufficient detail, and also that they weren't given any number of possoble red herrings, counter-indications, etc. in an attempt to misdirect them and cause them, on balance, to be far from certain that it's a planned depopulation agenda. I'm sure it's at least occurred to them, but you can't be certain that they they've seen the full analysis and all the documentation that Sasha Latypova has.
Also, I follow some of what Sasha Latypova has put out, but I've also heard said that she's indicated to be a chaos agent herself peddling in psyops. One thing you can be certain of, the cabal and their network of co-interested parties and some silo-ed parts of some intelligence agencies would be running campaigns to cause mutual suspicion of all the major dissidents/influential persons and movements, trying to feed them disinfo in addition to actually running their own manufactured chaos agents.
So I don't know who's chaos/disinfo agents, but I very much doubt that Bret is. I've been part of his Patreon seminars and watched his stuff for a while. I go beyond what he's spoken about publicly regarding what I think's going on, and I too concluded it's in part about depopulation.
Similar to Bret, I also believe it's about manipulating society into a trap we won't easily be able to backpeddle out of (vaccine passports, debt traps, social credit, cashless society, etc.). These are featured in Bret's discussion about the "turnkey totalitarianism" that's been plotted over decades. Anyway, I wouldn't be so certain working from your assumptions about the Weinsteins... if Bret is talking about such things as I just outlined, is he really such an enemy? You gotta allow that people might come to different conclusions, sometimes for stubborn reasons, without it necessarily be that they're colluding with the enemy.
I am interested in what you say about Peter Thiel being a rival to Schmidt. I'd love to know more about the apex rivalries.
Jared, I will leave you with the following. Whitney Webb has written a lot of very good material on Peter Thiele and Palantir. It is from Webb's writing that I get most of my quality data on Palantir. In this link, 3 of 4 articles are on this subject. In a very recent article, Webb has written; "The AI revolution: the Final Coup d' Etat" which is an excellent review of the recent book by Henry Kissinger and Eric Schmidt, the "Age of AI." The problem with this last is that it was written on the Solari Report by Catherine Austin Fitts. Therefore, in order to read this one article, one must be a subscriber to Unlimited Hangout. You will get your information if you read her writings.
One more word on Bret Weinstein is that as late as August 2022, it is documented that Bret was advocating for lockdowns and masks. That is all I need to know.
I like Whitney Webb and Catherine Austin Fitts; they have to be among the best people to have dug deep behind the mask of government and the global oligarchical machinery and expose it.
As for Bret being in favor of lockdowns and masks in August 2022, that's just not an accurate depiction of his position. Like what do you even mean, are you saying he was for mandatory masking the way Fauci had it, or for arbitrary lockdowns that went on for as long as the central committee decided? Not sure where you're getting info about him from, but he was always against prolonged lockdowns. He has said that a strategic, short-duration lockdown could be useful at the beginning of an outbreak for some pathogens if it could be used to prevent first infections from dispersing, but he's never been for lockdowns the way it's been used and has talked about that regularly on his podcast and interviews in 2020, only getting more definitive as the pandemic went on. He was the earliest I've seen for getting the word out that it was an aerosolized pathogen and not primarily a fomite or droplet spread one, and so was saying that indoor ventilation was more important that trying to put up barriers like masks or plexiglass.
As for masks, as I said he was for using it early on in 2020, but I don't recall him ever being for mandating mask use and he's always been vocally against masking children (and against closing schools), against masking outdoors and vehemently against preventing people from going outside where he's always maintained there is no evidence for outdoor spread and many harms for keeping people inside while many forgone health, psychological and social benefits that could be had outdoors... he was appearing on different show like Rogan and I think Bill Maher talking about many of these things along with lab leak and Ivermectin (not sure about on Bill Maher talking IVM) and advising people against the jabs and for repurposed drugs based on the precautionary principle at first and then on additional evidence as time went on.
I can't specifically recall when he said that masks definitively had no benefit at the population level, other than he for sure did after the big Cochrane meta-analysis came out about masking. Masks can still plausibly have situational benefit with narrow use, like say putting on a fresh, well fitting N95 for a short duration face to face exchange indoors with someone who is sick and then removing it when out of proximity. Like that might still plausibly reduce some exposure. Anyway by sometime in 2021 at least he was talking about mandatory masking being a psychological manipulation by Goliath to cause tension in the population between force-maskers and anti-maskers, polarizing everyone forcing sides between the "deplorables" to be demonized and the "virtue signalers" who were to be applauded. It was also forcing people to wear a signal that projected compliance, constantly reminded people of the pandemic and "people are contagious!!" even if they hated the Faucis et al.
Anyway, I know Bret's postions very well having followed his work throughout the pandemic and from before, and he's gotten a lot of people to resist the pressure to be vaccinated and to make the case for repurposed drugs, getting outdoors, exposing the lab leak and the role of the NIH and Fauci. Even just those things far outweigh the negatives on him if he was for masks or lockdowns anything like you say he was, but he simply wasn't.
Bret Weinstein in August 4, 2022 advocated for stricter lockdowns than what occurred. Jessica Hockett
@Wood_House76
Bret Weinstein, August 4, 2022: “Lockdowns I think I got right. Which was, there was a place for lockdowns, but they needed to be more intense than they were. They needed to be short duration and they needed to be paired with excellent-quality testing, which frankly we still don’t have. Which, I don’t know, I can’t imagine why we still don’t have it. I think it’s a problem money would solve, and the fact that we haven’t dedicated enough money to have tests that are worth anything is conspicuous to me.
But I would have had, let’s say – yes, painful–six week, very intense lockdown. And the reason for that is that gives it enough time –most of the transmission was at home. So, six weeks gives it enough time to burn through, you know, places where we were corralled together, such that at the point you lift that six-week mandate, you have a small number of places where active COVID still exists.
And you had good testing, you could figure out where they were and you apply some very local solutions that we – the rest of us could have gone back to life. Given that we never had good tests, I would not favor that plan. But, were I in charge, I would’ve invested very heavily–
I'm mystified why you are attacking Weinstein personally rather than his ideas. He noted several times that he is putting forward hypotheses that should not be taken as theory. At no point did he say China is "bad." Maybe you should travel to the Darien Gap and have your own look at what's going on. I have no idea whether Weinstein is correct or not; nor does he and he claimed as much several times. He DID ask a lot of questions, however. Given the state of our world at the moment, he is right to ask them and do some dot connecting. When Weinstein has been wrong, he always says so. I, for one, was gratified that he was willing to connect some out of the box dots. "Out to lunch"? Not really. Four years ago I never would have dreamed that a virus escaped from a lab would result in the violation of our God-given rights. Canada had gone full-blown fascist which was a shock. Yes, you should travel to the Darien Gap too.
I'm hoping that as Tucker is in Russia he may get enlightened regarding China and the Chinese, poco a poco - but hopefully not too slow! We need look no further than the HUGE challenge the Chinese Presence (and I'm not saying it's "perfect") poses as an embodied collective human reality potential to the medieval minded hegemon's overarching bullshit paradigm that we, as westerners, have been indoctrinated and enculturated with since our birth. Talk about scarcity consciousness! The Malthusians can't deal... As for Brett, I'd heard he was disseminating subtle bs... though I'd appreciated a few podcasts... Anyways thanks for speaking up about this Matt, always appreciated (and sharing!!) Hugs from Machupicchu :)
Thank you, Matt and Cynthia, for these insightful deep dives into the human collective mind. Which leads to the why's and/or reasons for the state of human consciousness globally. You've both raised my level of wisdom/knowledge.
He wore masks in the very and advocated for them as possibly helpful while having a small risk/potential benefit ration, and BEFORE they were mandated... he dropped it later on when he learned that they showed no effectiveness on a population level.
Also just because a single virion is much smaller than the pores of even N95 masks, that only applies if aerosolized virus is really lone virions floating around. It's actually clusters of virions and other materials in small suspended aerosols... are those bigger than pores of a mask, or likely to come im contact with the madk and absorb into it rather than pass through into the airway? Does it need to provide a perfect barrier in order to lower the average viral load of an exposure? I think reasonable people can disagree about what ways of masking-up are worthwhile. Bret's position evolved to be anti-mask (especially wearing for long periods and especially for children) and more focused on providing ventilation to spaces where people gather.
Also, is it really a good policy to dimiss people for smaller points of contention when you agree in other areas and mostly pushing im rhe same direction? Especially for someone like Bret who was operating near, say, the 1 in 500,000 level of effectiveness in fighting the Covid tyranny. His stance on vaccines, mandates, lockdowns, repurposed drugs, bad hospital protocols, harmful medicines (like Remdesivir), other public health measures, excess deaths, vaccine injury, big pharma-government collusion, etc. was all pretty much "right on the money". Why dismiss him outright?
I'd suggest watching his interview with Tucker... I found a number of things to disagree with Matthew about. To be clear, they're both important people I follow to better understand the world.
There was zero reason for a face nappy unless you are working with e.g. saw dust, cement, a surgeon requiring a splash guard. Face nappies are a torture technique and visual sign of compliance. Forcing them on children was pure evil.
There was no pandemic. There was a fear campaign, but Bret's a tad slow.
He pushes the antisemolina card. I and many others are sick of it.
I deem him a twerp, but if you choose to be his fan, be as you wish.
I prefer JJ Couey, Mike Yeadon, Denis Rancourt et al. Each to their own. I have no desire to watch tedious Bret & Tucker. By contrast, Tucker in Moscow will be a must watch.
That's funny, that's exactly what Bret had to say about face masks... that they were used as a visual sign of compliance. He was only in favor of masking in the very beginning when the Dems/Fauci were still saying not to wear masks. He did advocate for it for very long from what I remember and were never for mask mandates. They always openly said that masking children would have devastating consequences. He's said very little about antisemitism and has never done anything close to a Bari Weiss or Ben Shapiro amd he isn't for Israel's genocide of Palestinians.. there has been a rise in antisemitism online and attacks on Synagogues; I wouldn't hold that against him for talking about. Those Right wingers acting just like the woke cancel culture crowd even just for people criticizing Israel is one of the most annoying moves I've seen from the Right, making complete hypocrites out of those ones.
JJ Couey isn't, for example, a no-virus guy... him and Mathew Crawford have hypothesized that the DOD very well could be releasing highly replication competent infectious clones and that that could be a driver of many waves in different regions giving the appearance of something rising to the level of a global pandemic. Bret's never been fooled that the PCR test is a good measure of the number of cases, he's covered the aweful epidemiological reasoning behind that as well as the way the CDC changed the number of replication cycles shortly after Biden taking office, the changes to how death certificates assigned "cause of death" such that "died with a positive PCR test" = a Covid death. He covered how harmful/backwards prolonged lockdowns were as well as keeping people indoors (he only said a short lockdown of at most a few weeks could make sense if timed well) and how it was in violation of past and even recently reaffirmed public health policy that was released by the WHO in 2019 saying lockdowns for a respiratory pathogen did more harm than good. He covered how the pathogen was predominantly aerosolized spread when the official line was respiratory droplets that fall to the ground.
I've typed-out a number of other positions he took below that likely isn't too far off what you believe if you or anyone else cares to read on, but I'll get to the point up front: I think it's extremely unwise to take someone like Bret who is pushing in the same direction as you for the most part and dismiss them as a fool and not deem him somebody you could broadly work with. Demanding purity and infighting is one way that movements are slowed and their energy dissipated. Reasonable people can disagree on whether there is such a thing as COVID-19 and at what rate a pathogen was actually spreading. I don't think he'd disagree with you that in many ways this pandemic was faked and trumped-up to push for completing the technocratic capture of our systems. He just might disagree with you in that he believes there is a real pathogen of lab origin that is harmful to most people's health due to its broad, multi-organ/tissue targeting... he doesn't say everyone is vulnerable to it or likely to die from it, bit rather that it can do cellular damage and shorten lifespan and quality of life. I don't think that's worth marginalizing him over. He's been covering the pandemic treaty, the proliferation of mRNA vaccine production facilities and most things you'd hope someone with a public platform would cover, took slings and arrows for it and even went further than others to talk about how this does not appear to be mass incompetence nor simply petty corruption of government/regulators, but rather a coordinated operation across many countries by some group he termed "Goliath" fpr not wanting to be too specific.
Other positions Bret has taken:
He covered the terrible hospital protocols that financially and with threat of litigation incentivized sending them home until their blood oxygen plummeted, rationing monoclonal antibodies, attempting to ban repurposed drugs, incentivized putting people in ICUs, putting them on mechanical ventilation, putting on DNRs, dosing them with Remdesivir. He covered the fact that places (like Aftica) that had lower vaccination rates had less Covid, Covid mortality and less excess deaths and that places that delayed in the vaccination but did launch it eventually saw excess deaths and a lagging Covid wave follow it.
Before you condemn Brett, please revisit the video you provided and commence from the 6 minute mark to approximately 8 minutes. It is clear that Brett advised clearly that this presentation should be considered in a fashion based on his so his words that, “ it is strictly a hypothesis”, and nothing more than that ! His comments are based on being there on the ground and viewing in real time. History repeats itself so beware of the Trojan Horse. When I read your summary of this interview with Brett and Tucker I honestly thought that you had been hacked . Not out of the impossible these days.
Applying a generalization and labeling China as villain is WRONG and plainly STUPID!
I am certain, that there are definitely bad actors such as 5th columnists or even Taiwanese mercs that are used for some sort of nefarious agenda, and demonize China in the process - very convenient!
Bret W. on the other hand, seems to be more confused in his guesses and reasoning, and that is a sign, at least for me, that he, "normie" scientist, swalled a "conspiracy" Red Pill, and officially entered the "twilight zone".
China fear-mongering is like a lollipop for the "normies" - DO NOT BE a NORMIE! - Know your real enemy
Yeah, having watched Bret's interview I didn't find that Matthew was very fair in how he characterized it... like did you hear Bret complain that China rejected the mRNA vaccines? That doesn't make sense to me, Bret doesn't think anyone should have approved them. I don't think it was accurate to say Bret accused China of creating the migrant crisis in general, only that they may be using as cover to sneak their own people in as potential operatives or saboteurs.
The way Matthew characterized Bret accurately with "I don't know anything about the world, but isn't this suspicious what China is doing?". Bret was trying to be clear on what he could report as fact and what was hypothesis about the things he saw. Matthew didnt even mention that Bret had completed a trip to both sides of the Darien Gap where he interviewed migrants, Panamanian officials, guards, etc. so it sounds like Bret was just making baseless claims.
I'm perplexed by Matthew. I actually really appreciate his and Cynthia's work, but get the sense that he's too defensive/charitable towards the CCP. He's helped me to become less prejudiced towards the CCP, but he sounds off sometimes and I want to know why he's like this... like it's not good to be rabidly anti-CCP like many are in the West, but he doesn't always strike me as neutral either. Like I'd want to read some criticisms he has of the CCP and their system so I can build some trust that he's actually neutral. He might have given plenty and I've only missed it so far.
Brett is a part of the planned "alt-media" meant to replace or usurp the real alt media when the time is ripe, which was about two years ago.
He is a frustratingly ignorant person who over uses his mind thesaurus to cover for his complete and total lack of street smarts and actual comprehension of the world.
There may be *some* benefit to him being in the discussion in that other bland NPR listening normies may be able to peck out of their covid shell, but he needs to stay in his lane, he is swerving into issues he absolutely ignorant on.
He's a biologist, right? Stick to that (even though he has something like 65% of that narrative wrong). This guy knows jack dirt about geo politics.
To be specific he's a Darwinian evolutionary biologist and thus statistical materialist. This would tend to create major blind spots and bad thinking patterns
I am not quite sure how being a former Green Beret has anything to do with credibility. He has certainly been on the front line and is definitely a worthy soldier. However, most of his reporting was as an embedded reporter within the armed forces. This is not journalism. This is propaganda. He is definitely a Patriot. I respect everything you have said about him. However, that does not make his conjectures and innuendoes correct. Perhaps from an American point of view. It is more important to stop wars, which strange as it may seem, will stop the immigration.
“I’m not quite sure how being a Green Beret has anything to do with credibility.”
Sorry. Feels gratuitous. Does a Master’s Degree in statistics make a doctor‘s medical opinions better? I would say yes. Precision? Attention to detail? Dedication? Spotting statements unsupported by the numbers?
That’s right. What country would allow such a thing? A convoluted pyramid of bureaucrats and sub-departments all breaking the law and all happily shrugging off responsibility.
I understand your point, but I also know that Michael Yon has been on the border, and in particular the Darien gap in Panama for months reporting on the invasion into our country, and he has been reporting all along about military age men from China and special camps where they are coming to. This is definitely a problem. They are also coming from Iran through Venezuela and from Africa as well.
In God's Holy Name, WHY would ANY Chinese ANYBODY want to "invade" this country? Come on, now! What have we got that they want? Billionaires? Yeah, they can have all of them...get them the hell OUT of the U.S. Vaccines? Sure...let them wrap up the entire medical profession and cart them off to Chinese prisons. Soyburgers? Yup! They can have all they want. There is NOTHING the Chinese could want that hasn't already been stolen by the oligarchs and their criminal associates. Sometimes I despair over the thinking capabilities of Americans...then...I remember...oh yeah, the educational system. God have mercy on our souls.
I think the idea is that the People's Liberation Army might have personnel sneak in under the cover of the illegal migration to be in place and execute sabotage in the event of escalating hostility between China and the US... it's not an irrational concern. I'm not for the US empire in general and am rooting for the multipolar world order, hopefully arrived at with minimal hostility. Whatever the powers that captured the US have planned, I don't want anything tk do with it. I'm not convinced that China is benign either, nor that the kind of system they wish implement and promote for the world is any better. I'm open to Matthew's POV that they might just want to return to the state of affairs between nations understood diplomatically in the 19th century (if I'm not mistaken)... I can't recall the term for it, not sure if it was realpolitik.
Food!
similar patterns as the recent wave of migration into Europe: so many healthy single men - who are they, how can they afford the journey? it stinks, but somewhere someone's getting very rich off of it.
I struggle to understand why any country would let in hordes [sorry “hordes” is pejorative] of strangers. Cui bono?
Soaring crime rates will call for protection from the government and justify digital ID and surveillance cameras everywhere. Those will be handy when the population rebels against the criminal enterprise that calls itself "government".
it's not so much the 'hordes' (there are many considerations to allow/support legal immigration), it's the fact their legal status / antecedents are not checked, and foreigners are admitted to enter without even having a valid passport. as a comparison: foreign students and labourers (not the same as immigrants, mind you) are vetted and checked (must show papers and a return ticket so as not to illegally disappear) and are required to have a native sponsor.
rules for 'us' but not for 'them' (aka clown world). and indeed, cui bono....
I would suggest you look more closely at Michael Yon's reporting. He interviewed last week with Del Bigtree on " The Highwire" His evidence is as suspect as Weinstein's. In fact, his evidence is what Weinstein used. Innuendo is not evidence, gossip is not evidence. Michael Yon is not an authority. He is essentially a propagandist.
Nope. I’ve been following him for years. He’s former Green Beret. He’s been on the front line of every major upheaval reporting and the military personnel trust him. He’s a Patriot playing an important role in protecting and defending America. He played a key role in rescuing Americans from Afghanistan after the tragically orchestrated pull out. I recommend you getting more informed about him.
I would like to believe [that China and its industrial projects are badly needed infrastructure and BRI is a win win]… But are these Faustian bargains? I need to see how they get paid for and what happens when the receiving country misses a payment. And what’s the collateral?
None of the things Matt cites as Brett’s claims are actually his claims, they are Matt’s conjectures about his conjectures.
I am being extremely soft on Bret, and everything I said is entirely true about his gossipy innuendo.
it's why we folllow your work rather than Carlson's, or Weinstein.
and BTW the US railroads were built by.... Chinese migrant labourers (and while they were at it, did they take over America? didn't think so).
that's a pretty fun irony. I will be using that
please do :-))
I suppose Soros could be funding these young men? Sure, some may want to come here to the land of the free, even though our freedoms are shrinking we still are one, if not the best. Although, at times I think of going somewhere else, but where?
Mary, perhaps they waited until now to get even, time has memory….lol
Can't remember where I saw this recently, but someone- i think it was Michael Yon - was sounding the alarm that the Chinese are building a 7-story library in San Salvador. It takes a special kind of guilty conscience mixed with some serious projection wrapped in American exceptionalism to assume some sinister ulterior motive behind the Chinese library project, after the US spent the better part of a decade training and funding psychopaths to terrorize families and rape nuns, etc in that part of the world. It's like the thought process is, "A library. My God. Imagine what Hell will be unleashed when the other shoe drops."
Better get the facts straight
Yeah, but you didn't know that that library has 100,000 books and every single one of em is Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. Shocking I know...
Hey Matthew, I really appreciate yours and Cynthia's work; you've done a lot to credibly unmask the cabal, their history, aims and methods and it's actually helped me process and resolve much of the frustration I had been carrying years prior when I couldn't understand why our own governments, institutions and culture had been seemingly hellbent on destroying Western societies and why they seemed to get what looked like mainstream popular support. You've also helped me to restore Spirit to the world with things like your cultural works on great persons who've been repressed and slandered, like Edgar Allan Poe, CS Lewis, etc.
I wanted to say all that first so as not to sound like someone unfamiliar with your work who only showed-up to criticize... So to the next part; I'm a bit perplexed by this article... not that there aren't any supportable reasons to criticize Bret here, but the way you've framed it, some things you left out and some uncharitable excesses and polemicizing has thrown me:
1) you should have mentioned that Bret traveled to both sides of the Darien Gap and then reported his observations... you write as though he has no basis for the things he's said, as though he's just repeating Neocon hearsay.
2) I'm rewatching the interview: where does Bret criticize China for refusing the mRNA jabs? I'm not quite done my rewatch yet, but I don't think it's in there. It doesn't even make sense, Bret has always advocated that no nation should approve the jabs for use.
3) you make it sound like Bret is saying for a fact that China is causing the general mass migration, when he's only saying that there seems to be 2 migrations and China may be using the larger diverse migration to cover their smaller one. The larger conventional migration is mostly comprised of economic migrants from many parts if the world who traverse the Darien gap, stay in the main rest-village on the Northern side of it where it's completely open for him to film and ask questions and the associated migrants speak openly with him. There's a second all Chinese migration of almost all young men that had a uniform fenced-in camp where he was not allowed to film or ask questions and where even the people associated with the camp found outside of it refused to speak to him at all and were almost hostile. Now I think you're right to question how he knows that it's a migration camp as opposed to say a work camp. Also, the way in which you could argue that he was indicating that the Chinese were responsible for the mass migration is the part where he speculates that the United States' enemies would have noticed the "pay for play" nature of US lawmakers and that it would be more efficient for a State actor like China to corrupt such legislators and officials to get them to enact harmful policies that are terribly damaging, like having insane border/immigration policies, and seek to insidiously weaken and eventually destroy the US rather than looking to fight an open war against them. In this interview he put China in the role of that enemy more definitely than I've ever seen him, but usually his position is to advise people to stay agnostic and not prematurely settle on conclusions prior to discovering sufficient evidence and reasoning to confidently expound a position. His term for the corrupting cabal is "Goliath" and he only goes so far as to infer that it is a real active force, but not be overly definite as to who all is or isn't involved, the full scope of their aims, etc. when not in possession of evidence that supports a model that satisfactorily explains all of these parts. He feels confident enough to conclude that the owners/boards of corporations for example, are part of such a scheme, though he doesn't know whether they're just collaborators participating for their own gain but without full knowledge of the scheme, or among the inner circle of schemers driving ma larger agenda. He sees that there is some systemic use of collaborators to move various aspects of US culture, institutions, law, education, etc. towards what appears to be a turn-key totalitarianism.
4) you write that so many times Bret says "I have no idea how the world works/I have no way of proving that but... isn't this suspicious?". I don't think that's a fair characterization... like he said, he's trying to be careful to report what he observed there factually, but when expressing his thoughts that were more speculative in nature he made sure to say that he didn't know them to be certain, and I think he did a good job throughout making sure to be clear when he was explaining a hypothesis that could inform where we should look further, what vulnerabilities we have, how that might be exploited, etc. You make it sound like he packed the interview full of innuendo, almost winking at the camera, but admiting that he's clueless, when that wasn't the reason he was trying not to state things so definitively. He was in hypothesis mode.
5) I didn't hear him say that "they could be trying to sneak in and release bioweapons". I'll edit this post if I find it when I finish rewatching.
6) I don't think it's irrational to be concerned about something like this encampment... we should be concerned about potential saboteurs entering the country. I agree we should be much more concerned with avoiding war and the ways in which US leadership is pushing us there as the chief aggressors. Bret is here focused on China as a potential threat, though in general he is more focused on the terrible leadership in various institutions, offices and industries of the US and looking to shore it up to prevent it in future.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts given at length. I think Bret's a good-faith actor and it would be better to engage with him more respectfully and convince him of your perspective on China, Russia, Iran, etc. He has the ear of a relatively influential audience.
Thanks,
J.
Everything I wanted to say, Jared. I'll add that to me gossip means something like reporting 3rd person rumors or scuttlebutt but here we have first person observations.
The best thing would be to invite Bret to respond and see if that clarifies.
Yeah I agree and I think Bret would be open to that discussion. I've seen him have one-on-ones with the apparent aim of resolving disagreements, in a generous spirit and often starting it off by offering an olive branch hoping to get things started on a constructive footing.
He's open to self correction when convinced of his error. He's not incapable of recognizing his errors though Matthew's perspective in how far the history goes back is a massive vision to be presented with.
I am prone to like Bret's cautious intuition rather than Matt's hostile accusatory stances apparently. But obviously many Chinese are here to escape the 1984 society - yet it will be more and more difficult for them, since our oligarchs (IMHO) are in cahoots over there.
Very well reasoned thank you.
It too want to explore this in good faith for resolution, I think we have two incredibly resourceful, open and effective thinkers who are acting in good faith. We happen to benefit enormously from their work.
I also see two distinct formulations for truth seeking at play which work well together for discernment for the reader and population. I think resolving this will be incredibly helpful.
Well said. This is important. It strikes me as reconciliable differences. We have two great minds that have much more alignment than may be evident at the moment. We could all benefit immensely from this discussion.
Thanks for this. I had not yet watched Bret Weinstein on this video, although I am convinced Bret Weinstein is CIA. His brother, Eric Weinstein worked for Peter Thiele at Palantir and was also a friend of Epstein. I am now researching both.
The Bret Weinstein/Carlson interview earlier that dealt with the Covid-19 psyop indicated to me that Bret Weinstein is CIA. There is documentation that the Poison-19 psyop is a culling operation and that governments of the world are engaged in legalized mass murder. Robert Malone on the Darkhorse Podcast know this and so should both Weinstein's. Yet, Bret was promoting the alternative narrative that greedy Big Pharma skipped steps in research and production that lead to adverse events.
that's useful. I didn't know that. Thanks for the leads
Some of my work on Eric Weinstein is based on earlier research by Whitney Webb who had a Twitter exchange with Eric Weinstein in 2021 in which Eric blocked Whitney. Webb has also written articles on Palantir and Peter Thiele.
This is the link for the documentation of the culling. https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/summary-of-everything-and-quick-links?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Do you happen to recall where it's documented that Eric Weinstein is friends with Epstein? I'd like t look at that. Eric came out im several places to discuss a time he had been invited by Epstein to his Manhattan homes to discuss Weinstein's scientific interests, and Eric outlined a bizarre, offensive meeting in which he said he was disgusted by Epstein's behavior and concluded that Epstein was an intelligence asset of Mossad and in no way the financial wizard that was the given cover story. So is Eric lying? It's possible, but I believe him.
Eric and Bret are open critics of US leadership, the pandemic managers, etc. Bret refers to whatever colluding entities are behind coordinated world events like the pandemic as "Goliath" (like from David and Goliath) who have a purpose in directing and shaping world events and the trajectories of socieities so that they consolidate ever increasing power and resources for themselves. He speaks of how a "turn-key totalitarian system" has been gradually set-up over decades and subsequent administrations setting up the legals and physical infrastructure to one day flip the switch and have a system of centralized control operating without civic protections of individual liberty getting in their way from then on forward.
Bret has discussed the many-billion dollar motivation for big pharma to pursue launching these mRNA technologies, but he never limited the analysis to that alone and has regularily discussed other motivations, dynamics, etc. He's overall pretty careful, intelligent, principled in my opinion from watching him since at least 2017.
I do not have sufficient knowledge today to comment on the totality of the relationship of Bret Weinstein to Jeffrey Epstein and is not something I commented on.
The point I was trying to communicate is that Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt have developed an analysis of what is occurring with the Covid-19 psyop. It is a premeditated mass murder that is made possible through changes in federal and state law since the 1980's. This plan to cull the population should be known by Robert Malone on the Darkhorse Podcast.
Eric Schmidt is the successor to Kissinger. In that world, Peter Thiele is the chief rival to Schmidt and Eric Weinstein worked for Peter Thiele. Consequently, I am positing that both of the Weinstein's are aware of this depopulation plan. They have been exposed to the analysis but have offered no counter argument nor have attempted to challenge it. The analysis by Latypova is correct and no reasonable person can reject this analysis. https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/summary-of-everything-and-quick-links?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
That's assuming that Eric and Bret were let in on that agenda and provided sufficient detail, and also that they weren't given any number of possoble red herrings, counter-indications, etc. in an attempt to misdirect them and cause them, on balance, to be far from certain that it's a planned depopulation agenda. I'm sure it's at least occurred to them, but you can't be certain that they they've seen the full analysis and all the documentation that Sasha Latypova has.
Also, I follow some of what Sasha Latypova has put out, but I've also heard said that she's indicated to be a chaos agent herself peddling in psyops. One thing you can be certain of, the cabal and their network of co-interested parties and some silo-ed parts of some intelligence agencies would be running campaigns to cause mutual suspicion of all the major dissidents/influential persons and movements, trying to feed them disinfo in addition to actually running their own manufactured chaos agents.
So I don't know who's chaos/disinfo agents, but I very much doubt that Bret is. I've been part of his Patreon seminars and watched his stuff for a while. I go beyond what he's spoken about publicly regarding what I think's going on, and I too concluded it's in part about depopulation.
Similar to Bret, I also believe it's about manipulating society into a trap we won't easily be able to backpeddle out of (vaccine passports, debt traps, social credit, cashless society, etc.). These are featured in Bret's discussion about the "turnkey totalitarianism" that's been plotted over decades. Anyway, I wouldn't be so certain working from your assumptions about the Weinsteins... if Bret is talking about such things as I just outlined, is he really such an enemy? You gotta allow that people might come to different conclusions, sometimes for stubborn reasons, without it necessarily be that they're colluding with the enemy.
I am interested in what you say about Peter Thiel being a rival to Schmidt. I'd love to know more about the apex rivalries.
Jared, I will leave you with the following. Whitney Webb has written a lot of very good material on Peter Thiele and Palantir. It is from Webb's writing that I get most of my quality data on Palantir. In this link, 3 of 4 articles are on this subject. In a very recent article, Webb has written; "The AI revolution: the Final Coup d' Etat" which is an excellent review of the recent book by Henry Kissinger and Eric Schmidt, the "Age of AI." The problem with this last is that it was written on the Solari Report by Catherine Austin Fitts. Therefore, in order to read this one article, one must be a subscriber to Unlimited Hangout. You will get your information if you read her writings.
One more word on Bret Weinstein is that as late as August 2022, it is documented that Bret was advocating for lockdowns and masks. That is all I need to know.
I like Whitney Webb and Catherine Austin Fitts; they have to be among the best people to have dug deep behind the mask of government and the global oligarchical machinery and expose it.
As for Bret being in favor of lockdowns and masks in August 2022, that's just not an accurate depiction of his position. Like what do you even mean, are you saying he was for mandatory masking the way Fauci had it, or for arbitrary lockdowns that went on for as long as the central committee decided? Not sure where you're getting info about him from, but he was always against prolonged lockdowns. He has said that a strategic, short-duration lockdown could be useful at the beginning of an outbreak for some pathogens if it could be used to prevent first infections from dispersing, but he's never been for lockdowns the way it's been used and has talked about that regularly on his podcast and interviews in 2020, only getting more definitive as the pandemic went on. He was the earliest I've seen for getting the word out that it was an aerosolized pathogen and not primarily a fomite or droplet spread one, and so was saying that indoor ventilation was more important that trying to put up barriers like masks or plexiglass.
As for masks, as I said he was for using it early on in 2020, but I don't recall him ever being for mandating mask use and he's always been vocally against masking children (and against closing schools), against masking outdoors and vehemently against preventing people from going outside where he's always maintained there is no evidence for outdoor spread and many harms for keeping people inside while many forgone health, psychological and social benefits that could be had outdoors... he was appearing on different show like Rogan and I think Bill Maher talking about many of these things along with lab leak and Ivermectin (not sure about on Bill Maher talking IVM) and advising people against the jabs and for repurposed drugs based on the precautionary principle at first and then on additional evidence as time went on.
I can't specifically recall when he said that masks definitively had no benefit at the population level, other than he for sure did after the big Cochrane meta-analysis came out about masking. Masks can still plausibly have situational benefit with narrow use, like say putting on a fresh, well fitting N95 for a short duration face to face exchange indoors with someone who is sick and then removing it when out of proximity. Like that might still plausibly reduce some exposure. Anyway by sometime in 2021 at least he was talking about mandatory masking being a psychological manipulation by Goliath to cause tension in the population between force-maskers and anti-maskers, polarizing everyone forcing sides between the "deplorables" to be demonized and the "virtue signalers" who were to be applauded. It was also forcing people to wear a signal that projected compliance, constantly reminded people of the pandemic and "people are contagious!!" even if they hated the Faucis et al.
Anyway, I know Bret's postions very well having followed his work throughout the pandemic and from before, and he's gotten a lot of people to resist the pressure to be vaccinated and to make the case for repurposed drugs, getting outdoors, exposing the lab leak and the role of the NIH and Fauci. Even just those things far outweigh the negatives on him if he was for masks or lockdowns anything like you say he was, but he simply wasn't.
Bret Weinstein in August 4, 2022 advocated for stricter lockdowns than what occurred. Jessica Hockett
@Wood_House76
Bret Weinstein, August 4, 2022: “Lockdowns I think I got right. Which was, there was a place for lockdowns, but they needed to be more intense than they were. They needed to be short duration and they needed to be paired with excellent-quality testing, which frankly we still don’t have. Which, I don’t know, I can’t imagine why we still don’t have it. I think it’s a problem money would solve, and the fact that we haven’t dedicated enough money to have tests that are worth anything is conspicuous to me.
But I would have had, let’s say – yes, painful–six week, very intense lockdown. And the reason for that is that gives it enough time –most of the transmission was at home. So, six weeks gives it enough time to burn through, you know, places where we were corralled together, such that at the point you lift that six-week mandate, you have a small number of places where active COVID still exists.
And you had good testing, you could figure out where they were and you apply some very local solutions that we – the rest of us could have gone back to life. Given that we never had good tests, I would not favor that plan. But, were I in charge, I would’ve invested very heavily–
My response; Lockdowns create stress, especially for older people.Lockdowns are for prisons, not a human society of free people. https://palexander.substack.com/p/sage-hana-again-for-the-win-excellent?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
I'm mystified why you are attacking Weinstein personally rather than his ideas. He noted several times that he is putting forward hypotheses that should not be taken as theory. At no point did he say China is "bad." Maybe you should travel to the Darien Gap and have your own look at what's going on. I have no idea whether Weinstein is correct or not; nor does he and he claimed as much several times. He DID ask a lot of questions, however. Given the state of our world at the moment, he is right to ask them and do some dot connecting. When Weinstein has been wrong, he always says so. I, for one, was gratified that he was willing to connect some out of the box dots. "Out to lunch"? Not really. Four years ago I never would have dreamed that a virus escaped from a lab would result in the violation of our God-given rights. Canada had gone full-blown fascist which was a shock. Yes, you should travel to the Darien Gap too.
Thank you!
I'm hoping that as Tucker is in Russia he may get enlightened regarding China and the Chinese, poco a poco - but hopefully not too slow! We need look no further than the HUGE challenge the Chinese Presence (and I'm not saying it's "perfect") poses as an embodied collective human reality potential to the medieval minded hegemon's overarching bullshit paradigm that we, as westerners, have been indoctrinated and enculturated with since our birth. Talk about scarcity consciousness! The Malthusians can't deal... As for Brett, I'd heard he was disseminating subtle bs... though I'd appreciated a few podcasts... Anyways thanks for speaking up about this Matt, always appreciated (and sharing!!) Hugs from Machupicchu :)
Thank you, Matt and Cynthia, for these insightful deep dives into the human collective mind. Which leads to the why's and/or reasons for the state of human consciousness globally. You've both raised my level of wisdom/knowledge.
I will definitely support you both.
Ma'at - Hotep
We do not need Bret 'antisemitism's rising!!!' Weinstein. The silly arse wore a face nappy. He's not as bright as he pretends.
He wore masks in the very and advocated for them as possibly helpful while having a small risk/potential benefit ration, and BEFORE they were mandated... he dropped it later on when he learned that they showed no effectiveness on a population level.
Also just because a single virion is much smaller than the pores of even N95 masks, that only applies if aerosolized virus is really lone virions floating around. It's actually clusters of virions and other materials in small suspended aerosols... are those bigger than pores of a mask, or likely to come im contact with the madk and absorb into it rather than pass through into the airway? Does it need to provide a perfect barrier in order to lower the average viral load of an exposure? I think reasonable people can disagree about what ways of masking-up are worthwhile. Bret's position evolved to be anti-mask (especially wearing for long periods and especially for children) and more focused on providing ventilation to spaces where people gather.
Also, is it really a good policy to dimiss people for smaller points of contention when you agree in other areas and mostly pushing im rhe same direction? Especially for someone like Bret who was operating near, say, the 1 in 500,000 level of effectiveness in fighting the Covid tyranny. His stance on vaccines, mandates, lockdowns, repurposed drugs, bad hospital protocols, harmful medicines (like Remdesivir), other public health measures, excess deaths, vaccine injury, big pharma-government collusion, etc. was all pretty much "right on the money". Why dismiss him outright?
I'd suggest watching his interview with Tucker... I found a number of things to disagree with Matthew about. To be clear, they're both important people I follow to better understand the world.
There was zero reason for a face nappy unless you are working with e.g. saw dust, cement, a surgeon requiring a splash guard. Face nappies are a torture technique and visual sign of compliance. Forcing them on children was pure evil.
There was no pandemic. There was a fear campaign, but Bret's a tad slow.
He pushes the antisemolina card. I and many others are sick of it.
I deem him a twerp, but if you choose to be his fan, be as you wish.
I prefer JJ Couey, Mike Yeadon, Denis Rancourt et al. Each to their own. I have no desire to watch tedious Bret & Tucker. By contrast, Tucker in Moscow will be a must watch.
That's funny, that's exactly what Bret had to say about face masks... that they were used as a visual sign of compliance. He was only in favor of masking in the very beginning when the Dems/Fauci were still saying not to wear masks. He did advocate for it for very long from what I remember and were never for mask mandates. They always openly said that masking children would have devastating consequences. He's said very little about antisemitism and has never done anything close to a Bari Weiss or Ben Shapiro amd he isn't for Israel's genocide of Palestinians.. there has been a rise in antisemitism online and attacks on Synagogues; I wouldn't hold that against him for talking about. Those Right wingers acting just like the woke cancel culture crowd even just for people criticizing Israel is one of the most annoying moves I've seen from the Right, making complete hypocrites out of those ones.
JJ Couey isn't, for example, a no-virus guy... him and Mathew Crawford have hypothesized that the DOD very well could be releasing highly replication competent infectious clones and that that could be a driver of many waves in different regions giving the appearance of something rising to the level of a global pandemic. Bret's never been fooled that the PCR test is a good measure of the number of cases, he's covered the aweful epidemiological reasoning behind that as well as the way the CDC changed the number of replication cycles shortly after Biden taking office, the changes to how death certificates assigned "cause of death" such that "died with a positive PCR test" = a Covid death. He covered how harmful/backwards prolonged lockdowns were as well as keeping people indoors (he only said a short lockdown of at most a few weeks could make sense if timed well) and how it was in violation of past and even recently reaffirmed public health policy that was released by the WHO in 2019 saying lockdowns for a respiratory pathogen did more harm than good. He covered how the pathogen was predominantly aerosolized spread when the official line was respiratory droplets that fall to the ground.
I've typed-out a number of other positions he took below that likely isn't too far off what you believe if you or anyone else cares to read on, but I'll get to the point up front: I think it's extremely unwise to take someone like Bret who is pushing in the same direction as you for the most part and dismiss them as a fool and not deem him somebody you could broadly work with. Demanding purity and infighting is one way that movements are slowed and their energy dissipated. Reasonable people can disagree on whether there is such a thing as COVID-19 and at what rate a pathogen was actually spreading. I don't think he'd disagree with you that in many ways this pandemic was faked and trumped-up to push for completing the technocratic capture of our systems. He just might disagree with you in that he believes there is a real pathogen of lab origin that is harmful to most people's health due to its broad, multi-organ/tissue targeting... he doesn't say everyone is vulnerable to it or likely to die from it, bit rather that it can do cellular damage and shorten lifespan and quality of life. I don't think that's worth marginalizing him over. He's been covering the pandemic treaty, the proliferation of mRNA vaccine production facilities and most things you'd hope someone with a public platform would cover, took slings and arrows for it and even went further than others to talk about how this does not appear to be mass incompetence nor simply petty corruption of government/regulators, but rather a coordinated operation across many countries by some group he termed "Goliath" fpr not wanting to be too specific.
Other positions Bret has taken:
He covered the terrible hospital protocols that financially and with threat of litigation incentivized sending them home until their blood oxygen plummeted, rationing monoclonal antibodies, attempting to ban repurposed drugs, incentivized putting people in ICUs, putting them on mechanical ventilation, putting on DNRs, dosing them with Remdesivir. He covered the fact that places (like Aftica) that had lower vaccination rates had less Covid, Covid mortality and less excess deaths and that places that delayed in the vaccination but did launch it eventually saw excess deaths and a lagging Covid wave follow it.
Bleedin' Nora. A novel from the Bret fan club.
Never worn a face nappy myself.
Who said JJ Couey's no-virus guy?
Antisemolinaism is made up nonsense just as 'far-right' is made up.
Benocide Shapiro!
https://nedpamphilon.substack.com/p/great-idiots-in-history-benocide
Yeah, I said I don't like Shapiro. I didn't say "Far Right" if you're implying I did.
Good for you bout not wearing the "face nappy"
Before you condemn Brett, please revisit the video you provided and commence from the 6 minute mark to approximately 8 minutes. It is clear that Brett advised clearly that this presentation should be considered in a fashion based on his so his words that, “ it is strictly a hypothesis”, and nothing more than that ! His comments are based on being there on the ground and viewing in real time. History repeats itself so beware of the Trojan Horse. When I read your summary of this interview with Brett and Tucker I honestly thought that you had been hacked . Not out of the impossible these days.
I only saw the first minutes and didn't like his stand on China. So thanks for breaking it down!
One more voice in the line of people spreading false info about China - like Steve Bannon & Alex Jones with millions of followers.
It is so frustrating after reading your books and articles about China to see how many spread the psyops of China All Bad.
Divide and Conquer works ...
Applying a generalization and labeling China as villain is WRONG and plainly STUPID!
I am certain, that there are definitely bad actors such as 5th columnists or even Taiwanese mercs that are used for some sort of nefarious agenda, and demonize China in the process - very convenient!
Bret W. on the other hand, seems to be more confused in his guesses and reasoning, and that is a sign, at least for me, that he, "normie" scientist, swalled a "conspiracy" Red Pill, and officially entered the "twilight zone".
China fear-mongering is like a lollipop for the "normies" - DO NOT BE a NORMIE! - Know your real enemy
Thanks Matt!
I happen to agree with Bret.
G
Yeah, having watched Bret's interview I didn't find that Matthew was very fair in how he characterized it... like did you hear Bret complain that China rejected the mRNA vaccines? That doesn't make sense to me, Bret doesn't think anyone should have approved them. I don't think it was accurate to say Bret accused China of creating the migrant crisis in general, only that they may be using as cover to sneak their own people in as potential operatives or saboteurs.
The way Matthew characterized Bret accurately with "I don't know anything about the world, but isn't this suspicious what China is doing?". Bret was trying to be clear on what he could report as fact and what was hypothesis about the things he saw. Matthew didnt even mention that Bret had completed a trip to both sides of the Darien Gap where he interviewed migrants, Panamanian officials, guards, etc. so it sounds like Bret was just making baseless claims.
I'm perplexed by Matthew. I actually really appreciate his and Cynthia's work, but get the sense that he's too defensive/charitable towards the CCP. He's helped me to become less prejudiced towards the CCP, but he sounds off sometimes and I want to know why he's like this... like it's not good to be rabidly anti-CCP like many are in the West, but he doesn't always strike me as neutral either. Like I'd want to read some criticisms he has of the CCP and their system so I can build some trust that he's actually neutral. He might have given plenty and I've only missed it so far.
Brett is a part of the planned "alt-media" meant to replace or usurp the real alt media when the time is ripe, which was about two years ago.
He is a frustratingly ignorant person who over uses his mind thesaurus to cover for his complete and total lack of street smarts and actual comprehension of the world.
There may be *some* benefit to him being in the discussion in that other bland NPR listening normies may be able to peck out of their covid shell, but he needs to stay in his lane, he is swerving into issues he absolutely ignorant on.
He's a biologist, right? Stick to that (even though he has something like 65% of that narrative wrong). This guy knows jack dirt about geo politics.
Its insulting to even watch him try.
To be specific he's a Darwinian evolutionary biologist and thus statistical materialist. This would tend to create major blind spots and bad thinking patterns
It would appear so!
I am not quite sure how being a former Green Beret has anything to do with credibility. He has certainly been on the front line and is definitely a worthy soldier. However, most of his reporting was as an embedded reporter within the armed forces. This is not journalism. This is propaganda. He is definitely a Patriot. I respect everything you have said about him. However, that does not make his conjectures and innuendoes correct. Perhaps from an American point of view. It is more important to stop wars, which strange as it may seem, will stop the immigration.
“I’m not quite sure how being a Green Beret has anything to do with credibility.”
Sorry. Feels gratuitous. Does a Master’s Degree in statistics make a doctor‘s medical opinions better? I would say yes. Precision? Attention to detail? Dedication? Spotting statements unsupported by the numbers?
But why is the border even open?
That’s right. What country would allow such a thing? A convoluted pyramid of bureaucrats and sub-departments all breaking the law and all happily shrugging off responsibility.