This not-a-movement, with its not-a-leaders seems to developing a real natural immunity to the mal/mis/dis information of the Corporatocracy & a natural, highly specific antipathy to the Elites. Onwards.
Thanks for the clarification. I've been wondering what Sage meant by the 'not-a-movement' since I jumped in in the middle of her 'stack. I wasn't sure if she meant it as a good thing, as in not organized enough to be co-opted, or as not organized enough to have any impact.
That's good because, while I'm enjoying Sage's schtick, I'm never sure enough of what she's saying to agree or disagree... at least publicly. She's a fierce one.
Now that Robert has unsubscribed me, per his three-strikes & yer an asshole rule, it's made for more clarity in not being confused by his words--with which I almost always agree. And I have the space to consider what it would mean if he were revealed, by his actions or otherwise, to be controlled op. Would it discredit everyone who endorsed him or who he endorses with publication in his book? It would certainly be a blow to any loose coalition that includes him. So maybe it's better to be not-a-movement. I dunno.
When I referred to your post in my latest episode, I wondered, are you the plural we, the royal we, or the nonbinary keep-em-guessin' we?
Huh. You managed to write all that and yet not even try to actually define what a Movement is to you? Weak sauce!
Because arguing over concrete definitions is much more interesting than this meta crap, I await a followup with bated breath. Can your "descriptive" definition thread the needle between muddled tautology (a "Movement" is when there are multiple people in the world who all want the same thing at the same time!) and unattainable platonic platitude (a "Movement" is a political organization with consensus around issues, values, methods, goals, and leadership delegation!)?
Sage called me her most literal-minded STEM Brain reader, but I know what she's talking about, and I think she has a very fair point. Are you just reading her uncharitably, or have you misunderstood her, or is there a genuine disagreement here? You'll have to pony up some definitions if you really want that argument.
"The movement is the increasing tendency toward disbelieving the official propaganda narrative. It is a movement composed of those who write, speak, and think in terms which are censored and suppressed by the dominant power structure."
OK, muddled tautology it is. Guess there's not much to argue about... but I think that's got a pretty high overlap with what Sage calls "Not A Movement". She's just using a tighter definition. Higher standards, I guess.
The real movement is happening IRL, not online, though it can be seen through that lens too. People are turning against the jabs. They are starting to understand the WEF. They are listening to what we say, not in great numbers, but in a definite trend. And they are very interested when we start dishing.
It is a movement of the center of critical mass. It's not a matter of flashpoint figures or organizations or rallies or legal triumph. It's a matter of increasing the size and quality of the resistance, from totally duped to marginally less so.
It's a movement, and it's growing. That's what a movement is, growing numbers of people opposed to some aspect of the power structure and organizing around that. That's what's "moving".
A movement is progress. It's happening, just not the way some of us want or expect it to.
With that frame on it, I don't have much to disagree with. And I'll concede that's a legitimate meaning of the highly ambiguous word "movement", it's just on one end of the spectrum. Sort of the hippy-dippy end. Whatever you think of "the Movement" of "the Sixties", you must admit it wasn't very successful.
But that's not what advocates for the "Medical Freedom Movement" are talking about. They're talking about organized political action... which is why they're soliciting donations and rallying subscribers with various calls to action. And they're competing with each other to some extent, because the don't agree on everything, even the basics. Which is fine.
I'm kind of ambivalent about those folks, although I give a fair amount of money to several such groups. Not because I'm riding your nihilist strawman, not at all... just, I've been around the block a couple of times and seen other such "Movements" co-opted and neutralized. (Have you ever happened across Piven and Cloward's classic work on the subject? Highly recommended, for starters.) And I see the same patterns happening again here, in spades. So when I wave the "Not A Movement" banner, you could say I'm just advocating for a highly distributed and mutually distrustful approach to resistance. I'm not sure that's how Sage means it, I think it's mostly just a riff on Not A Virus for her, which gives her an alternative handle for the MFM "whales" as she calls them.
LOL! It's a girl's name. Hell, they're both girl names, even if you were to take "Sage" as some kind of goofy self-given title. I had a neighbor kid named Sage growing up. Lots of people have used female pronouns for her on her stack and I've never seen anybody contradict them. Also, general vibe, for whatever that's worth. (How do you know anybody's "real" gender on the internet?... what a very nineties kind of question. LOL again)
But, I just saw Mathew Crawford refer to Sage as 'him' in a comment over on his own stack, although I've never seen him comment on the Sage stack itself. He gets around quite a bit and has complained before about how reading is hard for him. And there was this bearded rapper, Sage Francis, back in the day... so who knows.
I loved this! I'm curious, though, why you describe the no virus camp as "an organized psyop." I was studying some of the high-profile guys (Dr. Cowan, for one) for several years before C-19, and their arguments and reasoning seemed mostly thoughtful and logical. However, I've learned enough from Dr. Zach Bush's teachings that I'm keenly on the virus side of the fence. I still think though--somewhere back in this bitty brain of mine--that the wisps of smoke that rise now and then from the no virus camp may be a signal we shouldn't dismiss out of hand.
This not-a-movement, with its not-a-leaders seems to developing a real natural immunity to the mal/mis/dis information of the Corporatocracy & a natural, highly specific antipathy to the Elites. Onwards.
The "not-a-virus" meme is a lab-engineered mind-bio-weapon designed to infect the opposition, fracture our cohesiveness and derail the discourse. IMO
Thanks for the clarification. I've been wondering what Sage meant by the 'not-a-movement' since I jumped in in the middle of her 'stack. I wasn't sure if she meant it as a good thing, as in not organized enough to be co-opted, or as not organized enough to have any impact.
It's a great mode for a minute. We really appreciate Sage's style and wit, and it's worth thinking about. Provocative.
Sage says that this is basically the point: it's not an effective movement, it's a mess.
From one point of view, we've come to agree with much of that.
The best thing about Sage's schtick is that it isn't necessary that you agree with it to enjoy it.
That's good because, while I'm enjoying Sage's schtick, I'm never sure enough of what she's saying to agree or disagree... at least publicly. She's a fierce one.
Now that Robert has unsubscribed me, per his three-strikes & yer an asshole rule, it's made for more clarity in not being confused by his words--with which I almost always agree. And I have the space to consider what it would mean if he were revealed, by his actions or otherwise, to be controlled op. Would it discredit everyone who endorsed him or who he endorses with publication in his book? It would certainly be a blow to any loose coalition that includes him. So maybe it's better to be not-a-movement. I dunno.
When I referred to your post in my latest episode, I wondered, are you the plural we, the royal we, or the nonbinary keep-em-guessin' we?
We're a duo.
https://airliftunderground.bandcamp.com/track/britches-n-hoes-ethos-moniker
Huh. You managed to write all that and yet not even try to actually define what a Movement is to you? Weak sauce!
Because arguing over concrete definitions is much more interesting than this meta crap, I await a followup with bated breath. Can your "descriptive" definition thread the needle between muddled tautology (a "Movement" is when there are multiple people in the world who all want the same thing at the same time!) and unattainable platonic platitude (a "Movement" is a political organization with consensus around issues, values, methods, goals, and leadership delegation!)?
Sage called me her most literal-minded STEM Brain reader, but I know what she's talking about, and I think she has a very fair point. Are you just reading her uncharitably, or have you misunderstood her, or is there a genuine disagreement here? You'll have to pony up some definitions if you really want that argument.
"The movement is the increasing tendency toward disbelieving the official propaganda narrative. It is a movement composed of those who write, speak, and think in terms which are censored and suppressed by the dominant power structure."
What part of that is not clear?
That's it? An "increasing tendency".
OK, muddled tautology it is. Guess there's not much to argue about... but I think that's got a pretty high overlap with what Sage calls "Not A Movement". She's just using a tighter definition. Higher standards, I guess.
Cheers!
What do you want it to mean?
The real movement is happening IRL, not online, though it can be seen through that lens too. People are turning against the jabs. They are starting to understand the WEF. They are listening to what we say, not in great numbers, but in a definite trend. And they are very interested when we start dishing.
It is a movement of the center of critical mass. It's not a matter of flashpoint figures or organizations or rallies or legal triumph. It's a matter of increasing the size and quality of the resistance, from totally duped to marginally less so.
It's a movement, and it's growing. That's what a movement is, growing numbers of people opposed to some aspect of the power structure and organizing around that. That's what's "moving".
A movement is progress. It's happening, just not the way some of us want or expect it to.
With that frame on it, I don't have much to disagree with. And I'll concede that's a legitimate meaning of the highly ambiguous word "movement", it's just on one end of the spectrum. Sort of the hippy-dippy end. Whatever you think of "the Movement" of "the Sixties", you must admit it wasn't very successful.
But that's not what advocates for the "Medical Freedom Movement" are talking about. They're talking about organized political action... which is why they're soliciting donations and rallying subscribers with various calls to action. And they're competing with each other to some extent, because the don't agree on everything, even the basics. Which is fine.
I'm kind of ambivalent about those folks, although I give a fair amount of money to several such groups. Not because I'm riding your nihilist strawman, not at all... just, I've been around the block a couple of times and seen other such "Movements" co-opted and neutralized. (Have you ever happened across Piven and Cloward's classic work on the subject? Highly recommended, for starters.) And I see the same patterns happening again here, in spades. So when I wave the "Not A Movement" banner, you could say I'm just advocating for a highly distributed and mutually distrustful approach to resistance. I'm not sure that's how Sage means it, I think it's mostly just a riff on Not A Virus for her, which gives her an alternative handle for the MFM "whales" as she calls them.
How do you know Sage is a she/her?
Interestingly, we are split on this point as well.
LOL! It's a girl's name. Hell, they're both girl names, even if you were to take "Sage" as some kind of goofy self-given title. I had a neighbor kid named Sage growing up. Lots of people have used female pronouns for her on her stack and I've never seen anybody contradict them. Also, general vibe, for whatever that's worth. (How do you know anybody's "real" gender on the internet?... what a very nineties kind of question. LOL again)
But, I just saw Mathew Crawford refer to Sage as 'him' in a comment over on his own stack, although I've never seen him comment on the Sage stack itself. He gets around quite a bit and has complained before about how reading is hard for him. And there was this bearded rapper, Sage Francis, back in the day... so who knows.
Why do you ask?
I loved this! I'm curious, though, why you describe the no virus camp as "an organized psyop." I was studying some of the high-profile guys (Dr. Cowan, for one) for several years before C-19, and their arguments and reasoning seemed mostly thoughtful and logical. However, I've learned enough from Dr. Zach Bush's teachings that I'm keenly on the virus side of the fence. I still think though--somewhere back in this bitty brain of mine--that the wisps of smoke that rise now and then from the no virus camp may be a signal we shouldn't dismiss out of hand.
Extensive experience interacting with them led to this conclusion, followed by this:
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/viruses-do-not-exist-was-a-psyop
👏 👏 👏
And it’s totally dada.
Exactly the sort of well-reasoned argument that drove this conclusion.
Thanks for playing.
Right back at ya.
Pretty sure you are the only one interested in this ungrammatical conversation. Be well. Kindly go defecate on someone else's page.