It’s Groundhog Day – Celia Farber Part 2

How did I get so lucky as to be in Celia Farber’s spotlight two days running? Click here for the first round of play, click here for the second.


Today’s attempt was to frame me as a black-pilled cynic, or rather someone who had overdosed on red-pills, which is kind of the same thing isn’t it? Those who follow this blog know how inaccurate such a characterization of me is. I sprinkled links to my recent John Coltrane dandelion post liberally throughout the comments to remind readers that there are real human beings attached to Ms. Farber’s pesky digital hijinks. Not many referrals back to the blog from her Substack “The Truth Barrier.” No, really that’s the name of it. So it seems the majority of her readers are firmly esconced in their echo chambers. I don’t mean to drag this out, but since I lost the better part of a spring day addressing her feeble attempts to undermine me, I’m going to drop a few screenshots for posterity. Thank goodness I got off social media. I don’t know how you all do it. It’s exhausting.

In her post Farber states that she couldn’t bear to read yesterday’s comments, which she describe as “lord of the flies.” You can take a look (actually, I felt so gross that I deleted my account Sunday evening, not sure if that deletes my past comments, too). I comported myself very well – firm, clear, and fair. Plus, for the few people willing to engage I shared some valuable links to my work on game theory and complex systems analysis and how it relates to simulation models run on these digital platforms. What I would love to see is Ms. Farber’s evidence that presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has changed his position, understands that there was no pandemic, and turns his back on the early treatment drugs that were the subject of my clip yesterday. Keep an eye out folks if you see Mr. Camelot on podcasts warning people about Ivermectin and all the other Frontline Doctor drug regimens. I’d love to know about this pivot if it really happened, though I suspect it would be quite a blow for Mr. Kirsch since innovative finance for repurposed drugs is his baby. Do you think that would put a crimp in the flow of campaign dollars?

Source Link:

Is it common for former journalists to misrepresent a person’s work, dog-whistle for their base, and then flee the scene? Is is common for former journalists to double-down on this behavior and go for a round two? Is is common for Substack readers to follow the leader and whisper down the lane about people they don’t know and content they didn’t watch or read? Things are looking pretty bleak out there spiritually, despite the amplification of content advancing organized religion these days. I’m not sure what to say. I’m glad I do this for mostly for myself and the few who resonate with my frame and not for the hivemind. If Ms. Farber’s behavior is an example of what it takes to be a top-tier influencer, I know I’d be terrible at it.

On the second day Celia appeared in the comments section with this statement.


I share a few thoughts and read a chapter from Jeremy Pitts’s “This Pervasive Day.”

10 thoughts on “It’s Groundhog Day – Celia Farber Part 2

  1. Laughing Waters says:

    Texas Hold ‘Em!! You got me with that one!!
    I played that once only. First time ever, also first time I drank Tequila. Fifty years old.
    Won the game, to everyone’s dismay. I just kept taking another card, knowing quite well from years of hitch hiking, that one never knows what’s coming around the bend.
    And some of us are sooo curious.
    Many heads are stuffed with whatever oats and hay they’ve been fed. Easy to set on fire. Like “fire trees”/eucalyptus, in Australia, when they get too hot, the self combust.
    That “scientist” who “proved” so long ago that spontaneous combustion cannot occur….Wrong Again.
    This is some heady and heavy reading list here. Mahalo for all the work and devotion.

  2. kocotube01 začasni says:

    Seeing the ‘Oliver Cromwell’ moniker immediately raises red flags with me. You can read about who he really was in “The English revolution” paper by Miles Mathis ( I fail to resist quoting from the paper (and beg your pardon for that nuisance):

    “[…] Oliver Cromwell, who, like his ancestors, was a tool of the Stanleys. Cromwell’s mother is scrubbed everywhere, and we are supposed to believe she didn’t know who her parents were. We are supposed to believe she was a Steward. But admits her grandfather was a Stuart from Scotland, not a Steward, so they don’t hide this very well. These are the Stuarts, baronets, related to the Ingoldsbys, Palmers, Worsleys, and Sanders. Through the Worsleys, they are related to the Nevilles. The Nevilles link us to the Windsors, Bacons (yes, those Bacons), and … Stanleys. In the Cromwell line, Oliver comes from the Cromwells who also produced Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII’s Chancellor of the Exchequer and Earl of Essex. Oliver was a cousin of the Earls of Ardglass, and is related to the Seymours, Willoughbys, Flemings, and Russells.
    Cromwell is sold as “middle gentry” and as a Puritan, but both are lies. They admit his grandfather was the richest landowner in Huntingdonshire, but assure us that his father was of “modest means”. The usual sob story. They also admit he was not brought up a Puritan and that he went to Cambridge, but try to tell us his college, Sidney Sussex, was a recently founded college “with a strong Puritan ethos”. No it wasn’t. Its founder the Countess of Sussex was Protestant, but the college was not Puritan at all. Dissenters weren’t even allowed to matriculate at either Oxford or Cambridge, at any of the colleges. Besides, Puritanism wasn’t an “ethos”. It wasn’t even a real movement. Like Marxism later, it was nothing more than an Intelligence project. But that is another paper.
    For now it is enough to say that Cromwell was a Puritan in one sense: all top Puritans were Intel assets, and Cromwell was an Intel asset. Puritanism was both his project and his cover. Puritanism was simply an extension of Calvinism, taken several steps further to cause more dissension and to allow more splintering of Christianity. Mainly it was used as a further tool against Rome, since job one was blocking the southern Phoenicians like the Medicis, Bourbons, etc, from regaining any foothold in Britain.
    To divert you away from discovering any of that, we are told nothing is known of the first 40 years of his life. Right. But they do admit Cromwell went to Lincoln’s Inn, though they say his records are lost. That’s convenient. This connects him again to the Nevilles, since Lincoln’s Inn was originally on their estates. We also know Cromwell married a Bourchier, daughter of Sir James Bourchier, a wealthy London leather merchant with extensive lands in Essex. Wiki and thepeerage scrubs all links out from the Bourchiers, but they were actually Earls of Essex and Earls of Bath.
    Funny that the history books don’t bother to tell you that when talking about Cromwell. The 1st Earl of Essex had married Isabella Plantagenet in 1467. She later married Sir Thomas Grey, whose cousin was the Earl of Kent. Isabella was the daughter of a York, which is a bit confusing, but her husband Thomas was also a Neville. So you are seeing proof of what I told you above. The Plantagenets didn’t die out. The Bourchiers were Plantagenets, through Isabella. Amusingly, the 1st Earl of Essex, Henry Bourchier, had a son Humphrey, who became the 1st Lord Bourchier of Cromwell in 1461. So the Cromwells and Bourchiers were connected long before Oliver married one. That is because this Humphrey married Joan Stanhope, daughter of Maud de Cromwell. Maud’s brother was the Baron Ralph de Cromwell, who was Lord High Treasurer under Henry VI. He is now sold as a Yorkist, but as you see he was more likely a Lancastrian. As a banker, he was probably another mole of the Komnenes.
    Also interesting is that the 1st Baron de Cromwell married Maud de Bernake, the daughter of a Berkeley, Baron Marmion. [The Berkeleys are also related to the Earls of Derby.] This should remind you of banker Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Obama. Some things never change.
    We are supposed to believe that Oliver Cromwell finally discovered Puritanism at age 39. More likely he was finally assigned his first major project (that we know of). Two years later, in 1640, he was an MP in the Long Parliament, standing for Cambridge, though we aren’t told why Cambridge. They do however admit that he was mysteriously linked to a set of aristocrats in the House of Lords, including the Earls of Essex, Warwick, and Bedford, the St. Johns, and the Viscount of Saye and Sele. They forget to tell you why he was connected to the Earl of Essex, but I just did: he was linked to him through his wife, since the Earl of Essex was a Bourchier. Warwick was Robert Rich, which again probably links us to the bankers and the Komnenes. The Riches are scrubbed, but I have previously shown they were likely bankers from Germany, previously Reichs, and my guess is they lead us to Jagiellons, Vasas, or the like. Bedford was a Russell, who links us back to John of Gaunt. The Viscount Saye and Sele was a Fiennes, who links us to the Beauchamps, earlier Earls of Warwick; and through Fiennes’ wife we link to the Spencers. Fiennes was also a descendant of the sister of William of Wykeham (Longe), who came out of nowhere in the time of Edward III to become Bishop of Winchester, Lord Chancellor, founder of New College, Oxford, and one of the richest men in England. So we may assume he links us to the invading Komnenes as well. So, finding Oliver Cromwell linked to these people is informative, to say the least. As “middle gentry of modest means”, Cromwell had no standing to be hanging out with dukes and earls. So this is just another sign of the project, and another indication Cromwell was an agent. There is no chance these Lords were serious Puritans, and we can be sure they promoted it only as a wedge against Rome.
    Suddenly in 1642, Cromwell joined the Parliamentary Army and his bio came alive. But again, it is not clear what his qualifications were. Now 43, he had no military experience prior to that, other than local county militia. He arrived too late for the Battle of Edgehill. But by later 1643 he was somehow already a colonel. I guess he was promoted for missing battles. By the next year he was already a general. On the page for the First English Civil War, Cromwell isn’t mentioned as a participant until 1645, when we are told he defeated Royalist positions at Basing House and Winchester. We then have to go to the Second English Civil War for more reports of him. We have to scan down to 1648, for Cromwell’s victory at Preston. After that we get a mention of him (previously) reducing fortresses in South Wales. In July he won at Pembroke in West Wales in another lightning victory, which of course looks suspicious.
    And that’s it. Not really a convincing report of an important and extended Civil War, even for an encyclopedia entry. Going in, one would expect Cromwell’s heroics to be extended and detailed, but we get almost nothing.”
    Obviously some version of 4D chess is being played, and peerage poker personae are invoked into damage control action while selling VPN-anonymity mantra.

  3. amanda4321 says:

    Oh, Allison, I’m so sorry for all of the drama I created by simply commenting over there and posting a link to the video with your excellent analysis of RFK Jr.s book chapter (I’m Sandra on substack). As I’ve said in other comments, I’m not a regular follower or commenter on Celia’s substack. When she writes on a topic of interest, I post a comment, drop links and leave. There has never been any drama like this (that I’m aware of) and it seemed like a place where people could post a variety of opinions and share info. But things obviously became dramatically different when it came to her posts on RFK Jr.

    Anyway, after wasting all of Saturday dealing with her manipulations, deceptions and drama making, I just didn’t have it in me to engage in round two. So I apologize for not being there to offer more support–I actually am taking care of a very sick family member, so I have to set limits on people who create so much stress.

    Now, as for Celia, yes, lol, how about that–the name of her substack “Truth Barrier” kind of gives it away. Sometimes people have a way of unintentionally revealing themselves.

    And on this:

    “Is it common for former journalists to misrepresent a person’s work, dog-whistle for their base, and then flee the scene? Is is common for former journalists to double-down on this behavior and go for a round two? Is is common for Substack readers to follow the leader and whisper down the lane about people they don’t know and content they didn’t watch or read?”

    No, that’s not normal at all. Truthfully, I’ve never seen anything like it. I’m beyond shocked at how manipulative, deceptive and dishonest she is -she completely misrepresents the opinions/views of others and simply refuses to truly listen to viewpoints that run counter to her own.

    Anyway, I think your comment to her was absolutely perfect–you called her out on all of her manipulations and deceptions. Bravo!!!

  4. Gordon McRae says:

    I’m ready to weigh in… a bird feather floating down from above. Surely there is good in all of us. I see possibilities for a happy landing on this little journey towards the scale.

    • wrenchinthegears says:

      Gordon, can I ask you why this is the comment you decided to make? Is there something in my post that made you think I hold a grudge against the person who initiated this bullying campaign? Because you won’t find it. I am merely documenting what happened, reflecting on the situation, and trying to figure out how a community could be so tightly programmed, literally like the social insects I have been studying for the past six months, that they would allow it to happen and continue over the course of many days. In fact, from what I hear, it’s still going on. If you are a friend of Ms. Farber, you might consider trying to help her. The behaviors she’s exhibiting indicate that she is profoundly unhappy. Perhaps the best thing her “community” could do for her is to stop being her enablers.

  5. Gordon McRae says:

    My comment wasn’t about you or about Celia Farber. My comment is about the struggle to judge or weigh the evidence about all the people and subjects i have been following on the internet. This thread about Celia Farber really highlighted that struggle for me as i have followed RFK jr; Steve Kirsch;Robert Malone; and just recently your blog. Celia Farber i haven’t followed although it’s possible i have read something she wrote over the past couple of years and forgot about it. Today i checked out her substack page and found many interesting articles including a great interview with Rupert Darwall author of ‘Green Tyranny’.
    So for me i am seeing a lot of people who appear to be good people or at the very least to have good in them and then i am seeing this struggle between them…. A struggle to get at the truth or at the motivations or at deeper fundamentals of how the internet and finance and power works…. I feel like people are being too hard on each other sometimes, although i can see the importance of getting to the bottom of things. My comment is about bringing a light touch to all of it. I thought of a bird feather floating down to earth but it could have been a dandelion seed ball (what’s that called?). I thought of humility and how light the weight of the feather would be on the scale of judgement. I think God wants us to be lighter.

    • wrenchinthegears says:

      So first, I am not here to judge good or bad, but rather to document what happened to me at the hand of Ms. Farber and her “community” and attempt to discern what was going on within that platform walled garden that would create such a dysfunctional group dynamic. I think it would be difficult for anyone to frame the series of posts about me, a person she doesn’t know at all, as good journalism. There was a reason for it, and I think it’s important for people to consider where her campaign against me fits into the larger program of cognitive domain management around RFK Jr.’s run for the presidency. You diverting the conversation into the frame of judgement or withholding of judgement derails what I see as a more important conversation. Can you see that? I spent a number of hours yesterday laying out what I think happened and the group psychology techniques behind it. What I learned is that you have to assess if your audience is motivated to hear your message and if they have the capacity to process it. So Gordon, are you motivated to hear my perspective or would you rather go back to reading interesting articles with your unique group of friends?

Comments are closed.