As my friend Cliff says, when a person’s lashes out against another person the reverberation of the blow will resonate back into your own arm. Jeffrey Strahl, a UC Berkeley mathematics instructor who started out working for Bechtel on nuclear power plant construction, has cultivated an extensive email list over the past two years. After Jason removed him from our Discourse board, Jeffrey appears to have taken it upon himself to misrepresent our work to his network. Jason told me this had happened previously, and he opted to remain a member of the group to monitor what Jeff was saying about us. It was really the only reason for him to stay, because the vast majority of the content Jeff shared was centered on the health freedom arena and clearly the problem is so much bigger than that.
I made my video to set the record straight after Jeffrey lied about me and to educate people about computational agents and game theory in digital artificial societies. I am sharing two emails Jason sent to Jeff’s list and another Jeff actively posts on. The truth ALWAYS shows itself. I imagine anyone who values the work Jason and I have been doing will see this for the petty, sour grapes that it is. The only person Jeff is hurting at this point is himself. If you care for his well being, it would be a kindness to tell him to put down his hammer.
“I must correct some things that Jeffrey has stated below about Alison and the Wrench in the Gears Working Group Discourse Forum.
First of all, the forum is my project, not Alison’s. Although it is based largely on her work and I do consult with her, it was my idea, I set it up, I wrote the guidelines and I administer and moderate it.
Alison did not call Jeff a PsyOp. Here is a post and video by Alison explain what happened and includes screen shots of the thread. https://wrenchinthegears.com/
I removed Jeff from the forum because it was clear to me (from the beginning actually) that he was not interested in participating in research the forum was specifically created for. Which actually include a wide range of subjects but with a common them and particular focus. https://discourse.
By the way, I invited Jeff at the suggestion of Alison. She (and we) genuinely want more people to seriously engage with and add to the research we are doing. I reluctantly added Jeff even though I know he has misrepresented Alison’s work in the past. I now see that was a mistake based on his comments below.
On the Poornima Wagh situation, to me the whole thing appeared to be big boondoggle but I agree with Alison’s point that all this focus on credentials is way off and actually promotes “the experts” as well as “verified credentials”, which will be part of the digital ID system on blockchain. This not about whether or not you agree with or trust Wagh or not. That is missing the point.
Regarding Jeff’s comment, “Last i looked, there was an item listed there about the “Truther Community,” which had been deleted, but the headline was left behind.”
What is the point of Jeff pointing this out? What is he suggesting here? By the way, the full title was,”TRUST in the Truther Community? Vetting the Vetters, Authoritarian Fact Checkers, Blockchain Cults, Biostatistics, Voronoi in Radiobiology and Cancer, Voronoi in the Liver”. I don’t know what this article would have said as the person deleted it. The title has me curious though. I would likely agree with it based on the title. If Jeff’s suggestion is that we are against the “Truther Community” he would be wrong. I have been involved with 9/11 truth since 2002. I personally don’t like the term “Truther Community” and I certainly would have challenged the author on using that term but there is a very serious problem within these spaces around trust vetters, fact checkers and more. And I’m not talking about the official fact checkers either. I’m hoping this person posts what they are working on (preferably without the “Truther” tag, or at least with a qualifier about that label).
Jeff also writes:
“Back in January and February, Alison included in her long videos segments regarding members of the “freedom” community such as RFK Jr, Steve Kirsch, and Doctors Malone, McCullough and Kory, who continue to push the idea that the virus exists, that there is a real pandemic, and that “alternative treatments” are needed. I sent those in Lockdown Times editions. By Spring, i sensed she was now saying (via for example Twitter) that she was through dealing with the virus matter at all, since anyone who still believed in it was not worth communicating to anyway.”
Here again Jeff appears to be misleading or implying something. Alison included those public figures in the conversation to talk explicitly about the cybernetic governance system, behavioral economics and weaponized narrative. Not the virus matter! Her position is the same now as it was then even though her understanding has expanded.
Here’s a clip of her talking about RFK, Jr. it’s about his roll in pushing early treatment, which directly connects to impact finance and cybernetic governance. https://youtu.be/UdBDebgIjjU She questions the framing “mismanaging a pandemic” within the understanding of what this narrative is serving.
Here’s a segment where Alison and I talk about Kirsch and Malone. Again, it is about narrative and impact finance, not the virus question. https://youtu.be/J_2sBImR9-A?
Jeff further writes:
“By Spring, i sensed she was now saying (via for example Twitter) that she was through dealing with the virus matter at all, since anyone who still believed in it was not worth communicating to anyway. And now she seems to think anyone who discusses the matter is part o a PsyOp”
This another gross misrepresentation. Other than a few off comments early on, she’s never really dealt with “the virus matter”. Her discussions have always been in the context of digital governance, impact investing and hive mind/global brain/web3/etc..
“Basically, she respects only those who focus on exactly what she focuses on.”
This isn’t about respecting people or not. She’s just focused on very specific threats we are facing from a specific lens and is looking for others to join in on this investigation. If someone like Jeff doesn’t agree that the issues she and the rest of us on the forum are focused on they do not have to engage with us or us with them. This is clearly the case with Jeff, which is why I removed Jeff from the forum. He has different concerns and commitments, which mostly deal with the virus and Russia apparently.
In the future if Jeff does promote items from Alison or others from our forum on his Lockdown Times, I hope he doesn’t lie or misrepresent them as he has done here.”
“Alright, one last time then I’m done. Here are my responses to Jeff’s Reader’s Digest of Alison, Lynn and I’s presentation below.
JEFFREY: “1:15:00 – Discussion back in 1946 (among those putting forth early visions of the global brain, etc) of “social unrest.” Alison thought it was weird to be discussing that topic in 1946. Say what? In fact, there was a very high level of social unrest that year“
Alison wasn’t saying that there wasn’t social unrest back then. What she was talking about was viewing social unrest within the context of creating a “world brain”. The quote she read from Reiser’s The World Sensorium book is, “Social unrest is inevitable so long as this process of differentiation continues for there can be no stability until embryonic maturity is reached.” This is early cybernetic thinking. I can’t imagine Jeff didn’t know what she was talking about. He’s obviously watching all her talks. His “reaction” is to a complete misrepresentation. He completely removed the context of the conversation. Why is that?
JEFFREY: “1:58:00 – People prominent in the Metaverse milieu, like Scott Stornetta just happened to be there at the time to participate in this project. Really? As if this entire “project” happening because … it is happening, just something which has been happening for a long time, which has a mind of its own. As if this process isn’t anchored in the needs and imperatives of the social/economic/political ruling system.“