Even less funnier! You answered me back at 33 ! You must be a deceiver like the FM brothers! Loool 🤣😂😅
See im a positive fellow, ty for sharing your not finding it funny. But i still do. And now your timely comment is a part of the funny act too 😁😉😜
What is not funny to one is funny to another. Its all good. Your eleutheria gives you all the right to see life as you wish. 🙈🙊🙉
from a jester like me ,i can share this one and only tip: life is neither sad nor happy, neither good nor bad. It is always a reflection of how you see it.
So smile life is so great, you ll be happier finding silly stuff funny instead of being grumpy and stiffy ✌️😇👍
But please, its just an advice dont
Take it personally. Its just part of my personality 🎵🎶🎵
No need to tell me how this one wont be funny either. Hehehehe that irony is also funny to me 🃏🃏🃏
I listen to many if not most of Peter Duke’s ‘Explainers’ and find them very useful, especially while walking doing chores etc. I think he provides a valuable service. Even though I’ve read many of the books PD puts thru his ‘cliff notes auto tool’ the refreshers brings them back to the fore….
I follow both your works and find both your approaches helpful…Happy Thxsgiving
But Matthew is not saying that Peter Duke's content is not useful. He is only pointing to the fact that one cannot be superficial when looking for the truth. We must pay attention to details and nuances, otherwise we cannot get the right picture.
I have been observing Russians closely (I've refreshed my Russian) and they are definitely not taking part the globalist plot. On the contrary, they are fighting globalists. And so is China. They are being strategic. We should be grateful to countries which stood up against globalist death cult. Russia and China are our allies - for us, without them it would be impossible to defeat globalists! Now we have a chance! So do show some respect for them and please activate your brain.
Well, you can also choose not to and hope to live your comfortable life. But we know where this leads - there will be no comfortable life for you. Either people of the West rise, or we are doomed. Globalists are only in power in the West, and they don't seem to have changed their depopulation plan. Their psychopathic rule will be limited to the West, and they'll keep doing attrocities among Western population. The rest of the world will be free, because they deserve it - they have learned their historical lessons.
Thanks Paol. I’m reminded of a lecture by Clay Shirkey titled “Ontology is Overrated,” where Shirkey remarked that ontological purists insist on consensus ontologies (which can break). He uses the example of the categories of Film, Cinema, and Movies. The ontological purist says we must choose one, but a “folksonomic” approach assumes that people who use each of the different words have a very different appreciation for the subject, and they are not the same at all. The example of how strict ontologies can break is amusing. Ontological purists put 48% of the volumes in the Library of Congress in a section that is today named “Former Soviet Union,” because they did not consider that one day the Soviet Union may not exist.
I appreciate your work - and, as it is obvious from the article, so does Matthew. I apologize for saying this loud, but your argument about ontology is formalistic. No need to operate with philosophical terms - it sufice to watch closely, and one can see that your picture of Russia, China, BRICS, etc., is indeed distorted - i.e. it does not fit the reality. It made me concerned when I saw these claims in your articles, so I've decided to make a closer look and do some extra research.
Your hypothesis about countries advocating for multipolar world being controlled opposition does not correspond to facts. Matthew is right. And Matthew did not say your work is useless, he only pointed out that oversimplifying is a trap.
Litmus paper: Take a close look what Russia and China are doing in Africa (sharing technology, agriculture, financing big projects, giving advantageous
loans, helping fighting terrorism, letting African countries develop their economy and society), and compare it to what West is doing there (looting natural resources, igniting wars, etc.). And take a close look at how Russia and China are working on improving their citizens' lives - they know that strong middle class is strong purchase power. In the West, everything is focused on the Great Reset, which is, in fact, transfer of all private property from citizens into hands of a few elites. West is destroying its own economy, in order to pauperize us and strip us of all freedom. For western elites we are only biomass, see how they use Ukrainians (not only cannon fodder, but child trafficking, organ trafficking, women trafficking, wombs for rent, etc.), Ukraine is a testing ground for everything that is planned for us... Without Russia and China we wouldn't stand a chance. They are powerful allies, and what benefits them, also benefits us, citizens of Western countries.
Tatjana, thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed comment. I approach your message with the same structural analysis I applied to Matthew’s article.
You begin by saying you appreciate my work and that it is “obvious” Matthew does as well. That phrasing presupposes agreement between you and the reader about Matthew’s intentions. The structure invites the reader to accept an unstated baseline before evaluating your points. You follow with the assertion that my argument about ontology is “formalistic.” That term functions as an abstract container and does not identify the specific feature it refers to. It operates as an amorphous label rather than an explanation.
You describe my “picture of Russia, China, BRICS, etc.” as “distorted” and then anchor it with the hypnotic suggestion “one can see.” That construction uses an unspecified observer and treats a single perspective as an objective vantage point. My work examines linguistic patterns, semiotics, neurolinguistics, persuasion, as well as systems of governance, financial incentives, digital enforcement mechanisms, and the technocratic architecture shared across blocs. You frame that analysis as distortion; I frame it as pattern recognition grounded in repeated structures across policy, finance, and implementation.
You write that my “hypothesis about countries advocating for multipolar world being controlled opposition does not correspond to facts.” The video interview with Hrvoje contains no such hypothesis from me. That assignment is a presupposition. “Facts” appear as an authority placeholder without identification or grounding. You then state that Matthew is right, which fuses your unexamined “facts” with his conclusions. These elements do not reflect the substance of what I actually said.
Your “litmus paper” (curious wording, as the colloquial American use would be 'litmus test') section lists a series of actions — technology sharing, agricultural partnerships, loans, development assistance — and presents these actions as proof of benevolence. These lines rely on verbs such as “doing,” “helping,” and “letting,” which lack defined structure. You shift from observed actions to asserted motives by stating that Russia and China “know that strong middle class is strong purchase power.” That line attributes internal states to entire nations, treating them as unified personas. You then present “the West” as a single actor with one intention. This compression merges diverse populations, governments, institutions, oligarchies, and competing factions into monolithic characters. My analysis resists that fusion. I examine people, agents, organizations, mechanisms, incentives, and structural patterns rather than totalized national identities.
Your closing claim — “Without Russia and China we wouldn’t stand a chance” — relies on the modal “wouldn’t,” which functions as a marker of inevitability, not argument. The line “what benefits them also benefits us” performs a complex equivalence by merging state advantage with personal advantage without identifying a path between the two. (This line also raises the question of who qualifies as the subject within the pronoun “we,” and reminds me of an old joke about Tonto and the Lone Ranger, but I digress).
Several structural features of your comment stand out to me. The line break after “advantageous” appears to be a formatting artifact consistent with mobile cut-and-paste entry, which gives the comment the appearance of something prepared elsewhere rather than typed directly into the Substack comment field. The phrasing throughout the comment shows patterns typical of a writer working from a linguistic framework outside English. Lines such as “strong middle class is strong purchase power” follow a cadence common in Slavic and Baltic structures, where articles and idiomatic markers operate differently. The comment also treats countries as singular agents with unified intentions. This framing assigns motives and goals to geopolitical entities as if they possess a single consciousness, which compresses populations, institutions, and internal factions into a single persona. I read these elements as signals of organizational alignment rather than signals of personal identity.
I make no claims about nations as moral characters. I examine the means, motives, and opportunities of individuals working in and around technocratic enforcement systems, incentive architectures, financial mechanisms, and symbolic frameworks. My primary interest is the linguistic and psychological mind-control methods that governs populations, not the mythology attached to flags or leaders. I welcome disagreement. I only ask that the disagreement address what I actually say.
Thank you so much for writing this article. My experience also shows that deep diving (thorough studying, not superficial knowledge) and paying attention to details are crucial for understanding. Without paying attention to details it is impossible to get to the truth, i.e. see the world as it is.
Narratives have gaps - inconsistencies, details which do not belong there, etc. Truth is always consistent, no matter how strange it may seem. In order to see the difference between the truth and a narative, one must take a close look.
thank you so much for addressing Duke's NLP/Ai-driven over-simplifications of world history. Duke started posting these articles shortly after he lost his house (and his archive!) in the vicious California Pallisades fire(s). true enough, as in the case of Hawaï, many inconstencies in the official narrative and little to no transparency/accountability there. so now he seems to be part of those authors I'd call 'the Doom and Gloom Brigade', trying to lead the readers into a superficially hopeless place of powerlessness. and the Phrygian cap? great model - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQe4Xc4WsAcYRA9.jpg
Peter Duke over hamana hamana hamana yada yada yada any day of the week, but having said that, I will give credit where credit is due, somehow all that background radiation jibjabber got Cinthia Chung to marry you
I did a painting a while back about da Vinci's 'Last Supper'. In my oversimplified approach, I rejected the details of the piece, questioning the work with the presence of the table/chairs and setting of silverware. In layman's deduction; At center, a wanted man, on the run with his 12 disciples sleeping on the ground, had no such liberties, so I painted them sitting on the ground breaking bread. Nuance and Leviticus aside, I don't know if da Vinci was from the school of EpiWar. I made a logical observation and will now accept my 'black pill'.
What is the design of the Phrygian cap (and even its color) meant to represent or purpose?
Have you ever studied the Bible (just the plain ol' 66 book one) and if so, can you apply it?
If God created everything, then He designed it to work a certain way and set in place all the rules governing it. How does He let people in on how to work with His system, so as to accomplish His purpose in creating it in the first place?
'The Matthew Henry Commentary' had an interesting observation regarding the significance of Plato (but not Aristotle) in one of the books discussing Paul's exploits. To paraphrase: that Plato was a man whose mind sought after God and approached Him the closest (among all others) without corruption, but that he was still far from ever knowing God...without God's help.
I sure would love to hear your take on a book I am currently reading. It certainly connects a lot of dots for me. "Beware the World to Come" by Christopher Jon Bjerknes. Not for the weak of mind or stomach, for sure.
Symbol-minded lol, thats not a term for the simple-minded 🤣😂😅
Your saying not everything is a psy op? Whaaaoooo! That means your a psy op!
Just kidding as the usual rainbow colored
Pill that i am. Hehehe
I don't find this funny...
Even less funnier! You answered me back at 33 ! You must be a deceiver like the FM brothers! Loool 🤣😂😅
See im a positive fellow, ty for sharing your not finding it funny. But i still do. And now your timely comment is a part of the funny act too 😁😉😜
What is not funny to one is funny to another. Its all good. Your eleutheria gives you all the right to see life as you wish. 🙈🙊🙉
from a jester like me ,i can share this one and only tip: life is neither sad nor happy, neither good nor bad. It is always a reflection of how you see it.
So smile life is so great, you ll be happier finding silly stuff funny instead of being grumpy and stiffy ✌️😇👍
But please, its just an advice dont
Take it personally. Its just part of my personality 🎵🎶🎵
No need to tell me how this one wont be funny either. Hehehehe that irony is also funny to me 🃏🃏🃏
I listen to many if not most of Peter Duke’s ‘Explainers’ and find them very useful, especially while walking doing chores etc. I think he provides a valuable service. Even though I’ve read many of the books PD puts thru his ‘cliff notes auto tool’ the refreshers brings them back to the fore….
I follow both your works and find both your approaches helpful…Happy Thxsgiving
But Matthew is not saying that Peter Duke's content is not useful. He is only pointing to the fact that one cannot be superficial when looking for the truth. We must pay attention to details and nuances, otherwise we cannot get the right picture.
I have been observing Russians closely (I've refreshed my Russian) and they are definitely not taking part the globalist plot. On the contrary, they are fighting globalists. And so is China. They are being strategic. We should be grateful to countries which stood up against globalist death cult. Russia and China are our allies - for us, without them it would be impossible to defeat globalists! Now we have a chance! So do show some respect for them and please activate your brain.
Well, you can also choose not to and hope to live your comfortable life. But we know where this leads - there will be no comfortable life for you. Either people of the West rise, or we are doomed. Globalists are only in power in the West, and they don't seem to have changed their depopulation plan. Their psychopathic rule will be limited to the West, and they'll keep doing attrocities among Western population. The rest of the world will be free, because they deserve it - they have learned their historical lessons.
Thanks Paol. I’m reminded of a lecture by Clay Shirkey titled “Ontology is Overrated,” where Shirkey remarked that ontological purists insist on consensus ontologies (which can break). He uses the example of the categories of Film, Cinema, and Movies. The ontological purist says we must choose one, but a “folksonomic” approach assumes that people who use each of the different words have a very different appreciation for the subject, and they are not the same at all. The example of how strict ontologies can break is amusing. Ontological purists put 48% of the volumes in the Library of Congress in a section that is today named “Former Soviet Union,” because they did not consider that one day the Soviet Union may not exist.
I appreciate your work - and, as it is obvious from the article, so does Matthew. I apologize for saying this loud, but your argument about ontology is formalistic. No need to operate with philosophical terms - it sufice to watch closely, and one can see that your picture of Russia, China, BRICS, etc., is indeed distorted - i.e. it does not fit the reality. It made me concerned when I saw these claims in your articles, so I've decided to make a closer look and do some extra research.
Your hypothesis about countries advocating for multipolar world being controlled opposition does not correspond to facts. Matthew is right. And Matthew did not say your work is useless, he only pointed out that oversimplifying is a trap.
Litmus paper: Take a close look what Russia and China are doing in Africa (sharing technology, agriculture, financing big projects, giving advantageous
loans, helping fighting terrorism, letting African countries develop their economy and society), and compare it to what West is doing there (looting natural resources, igniting wars, etc.). And take a close look at how Russia and China are working on improving their citizens' lives - they know that strong middle class is strong purchase power. In the West, everything is focused on the Great Reset, which is, in fact, transfer of all private property from citizens into hands of a few elites. West is destroying its own economy, in order to pauperize us and strip us of all freedom. For western elites we are only biomass, see how they use Ukrainians (not only cannon fodder, but child trafficking, organ trafficking, women trafficking, wombs for rent, etc.), Ukraine is a testing ground for everything that is planned for us... Without Russia and China we wouldn't stand a chance. They are powerful allies, and what benefits them, also benefits us, citizens of Western countries.
Tatjana, thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed comment. I approach your message with the same structural analysis I applied to Matthew’s article.
You begin by saying you appreciate my work and that it is “obvious” Matthew does as well. That phrasing presupposes agreement between you and the reader about Matthew’s intentions. The structure invites the reader to accept an unstated baseline before evaluating your points. You follow with the assertion that my argument about ontology is “formalistic.” That term functions as an abstract container and does not identify the specific feature it refers to. It operates as an amorphous label rather than an explanation.
You describe my “picture of Russia, China, BRICS, etc.” as “distorted” and then anchor it with the hypnotic suggestion “one can see.” That construction uses an unspecified observer and treats a single perspective as an objective vantage point. My work examines linguistic patterns, semiotics, neurolinguistics, persuasion, as well as systems of governance, financial incentives, digital enforcement mechanisms, and the technocratic architecture shared across blocs. You frame that analysis as distortion; I frame it as pattern recognition grounded in repeated structures across policy, finance, and implementation.
You write that my “hypothesis about countries advocating for multipolar world being controlled opposition does not correspond to facts.” The video interview with Hrvoje contains no such hypothesis from me. That assignment is a presupposition. “Facts” appear as an authority placeholder without identification or grounding. You then state that Matthew is right, which fuses your unexamined “facts” with his conclusions. These elements do not reflect the substance of what I actually said.
Your “litmus paper” (curious wording, as the colloquial American use would be 'litmus test') section lists a series of actions — technology sharing, agricultural partnerships, loans, development assistance — and presents these actions as proof of benevolence. These lines rely on verbs such as “doing,” “helping,” and “letting,” which lack defined structure. You shift from observed actions to asserted motives by stating that Russia and China “know that strong middle class is strong purchase power.” That line attributes internal states to entire nations, treating them as unified personas. You then present “the West” as a single actor with one intention. This compression merges diverse populations, governments, institutions, oligarchies, and competing factions into monolithic characters. My analysis resists that fusion. I examine people, agents, organizations, mechanisms, incentives, and structural patterns rather than totalized national identities.
Your closing claim — “Without Russia and China we wouldn’t stand a chance” — relies on the modal “wouldn’t,” which functions as a marker of inevitability, not argument. The line “what benefits them also benefits us” performs a complex equivalence by merging state advantage with personal advantage without identifying a path between the two. (This line also raises the question of who qualifies as the subject within the pronoun “we,” and reminds me of an old joke about Tonto and the Lone Ranger, but I digress).
Several structural features of your comment stand out to me. The line break after “advantageous” appears to be a formatting artifact consistent with mobile cut-and-paste entry, which gives the comment the appearance of something prepared elsewhere rather than typed directly into the Substack comment field. The phrasing throughout the comment shows patterns typical of a writer working from a linguistic framework outside English. Lines such as “strong middle class is strong purchase power” follow a cadence common in Slavic and Baltic structures, where articles and idiomatic markers operate differently. The comment also treats countries as singular agents with unified intentions. This framing assigns motives and goals to geopolitical entities as if they possess a single consciousness, which compresses populations, institutions, and internal factions into a single persona. I read these elements as signals of organizational alignment rather than signals of personal identity.
I make no claims about nations as moral characters. I examine the means, motives, and opportunities of individuals working in and around technocratic enforcement systems, incentive architectures, financial mechanisms, and symbolic frameworks. My primary interest is the linguistic and psychological mind-control methods that governs populations, not the mythology attached to flags or leaders. I welcome disagreement. I only ask that the disagreement address what I actually say.
Okay Cynthia….
Oh my, Duke's rebuttal kicked your ass... your paymasters won't be happy 😁
To keep this short, you lost the argument. You came from an emotional space and not one built on integrity nor truthful evaluation.
Thank you so much for writing this article. My experience also shows that deep diving (thorough studying, not superficial knowledge) and paying attention to details are crucial for understanding. Without paying attention to details it is impossible to get to the truth, i.e. see the world as it is.
Narratives have gaps - inconsistencies, details which do not belong there, etc. Truth is always consistent, no matter how strange it may seem. In order to see the difference between the truth and a narative, one must take a close look.
thank you so much for addressing Duke's NLP/Ai-driven over-simplifications of world history. Duke started posting these articles shortly after he lost his house (and his archive!) in the vicious California Pallisades fire(s). true enough, as in the case of Hawaï, many inconstencies in the official narrative and little to no transparency/accountability there. so now he seems to be part of those authors I'd call 'the Doom and Gloom Brigade', trying to lead the readers into a superficially hopeless place of powerlessness. and the Phrygian cap? great model - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQe4Xc4WsAcYRA9.jpg
Do you mean "Why not everything is a psyop"?
Peter Duke over hamana hamana hamana yada yada yada any day of the week, but having said that, I will give credit where credit is due, somehow all that background radiation jibjabber got Cinthia Chung to marry you
I did a painting a while back about da Vinci's 'Last Supper'. In my oversimplified approach, I rejected the details of the piece, questioning the work with the presence of the table/chairs and setting of silverware. In layman's deduction; At center, a wanted man, on the run with his 12 disciples sleeping on the ground, had no such liberties, so I painted them sitting on the ground breaking bread. Nuance and Leviticus aside, I don't know if da Vinci was from the school of EpiWar. I made a logical observation and will now accept my 'black pill'.
Several thoughts came to mind while reading this
What is the design of the Phrygian cap (and even its color) meant to represent or purpose?
Have you ever studied the Bible (just the plain ol' 66 book one) and if so, can you apply it?
If God created everything, then He designed it to work a certain way and set in place all the rules governing it. How does He let people in on how to work with His system, so as to accomplish His purpose in creating it in the first place?
'The Matthew Henry Commentary' had an interesting observation regarding the significance of Plato (but not Aristotle) in one of the books discussing Paul's exploits. To paraphrase: that Plato was a man whose mind sought after God and approached Him the closest (among all others) without corruption, but that he was still far from ever knowing God...without God's help.
The over-active pattern recognition problem reminded me of this recent post: https://warforthewest.substack.com/p/why-people-vanish-into-conspiracies
I sure would love to hear your take on a book I am currently reading. It certainly connects a lot of dots for me. "Beware the World to Come" by Christopher Jon Bjerknes. Not for the weak of mind or stomach, for sure.
Thank you. An inside job, always has been and always will be. Amen
♥️ 🙏 ✌️