I think about the men steering this apocalyptic race toward a future no one asked for, and I want to understand why. Why do Zuckerberg, Altman, Gates, and the others desire a future where humanity is diminished, made redundant? These wealthy, successful men have it all. But having it all isn't enough. This indicates a profound spiritual emptiness, a lack of empathy, and the inability to self-examine and question themselves; instead, they turn outward in a misapplied search for fulfillment rather than inward, which is the only place true self-enlightenment and peace can ever be found. And so it goes, spilling onto the rest of us, either too complacent or too enamored with shiny things to see the inherent danger of surrendering our power of choice, our ability to individuate through creating, learning, or loving by taking the long way around, by using process, trial and error, learning through mistakes, instead of jumping right to the end, using an AI hack and thinking you are winning when, in fact, you are losing everything that gives life meaning. What we fail to understand is that meaning emerges from struggle, from the messy process of being human. When AI shortcuts replace human creativity, learning, and connection, we don't win – we surrender the very experiences that make life worth living. And as an addendum, I absolutely hate the fake, surreal AI images and photos that do not and will not ever exist in reality and are now showing up in my dreams. I wake up afraid.
Also Catt, the women are in the background. The wives and partners are VERY powerful but are out of the limelight. We must factor this in. As usual they men are out front taking the credit and the blame, while the women are behind the scenes, helping call the shots and having no public responsibility or pressure. The men all seem mildly autistic and the women seem to be fully functioning cognitively. Musk may be the exception, as he seems to prefer birthing pods, but we don't know the real story.
My intent is not to call out men or sanitize women's roles. I agree that because they are on the front lines, they become the target. But if the front line were women, I would feel the same. I am searching for the why.
I was told a long time ago that this class of men work for the robot. And they know it. There is a force larger than they are that is driving them. And is driving all of us to some degree, more or less willingly. Only through seeing that can we find the inner direction we need. That's really what this is about.
In a century of women holding political power, what in the world has gotten better? You would think we might see a trend by now; can you show me something?
And I you did not answer my question. We were promised that war would end when women got the vote. Second, how do you know women don't behave just like men? You seem to think there is a bigger difference than you have accounted for. What is the cause of that difference? Do a clit and ovaries make someone a better and more humane person?
But let's stick to the issue. Feminism begins in 1848. Women all have the vote (in the US) by 1920. What has improved? I challenge you to name one thing. Yeah sure, technology. I mean in the human condition.
You asked the wrong question. Clearly you do not understand the issue: that women are innately less inclined to slaughter as a solution to everything than men, and tend to consider the interests of children and grandchildren more fully than men who build weapons, chemicals and other engines of destruction.
What is the difference you ask? Probably testosterone. Men have more of it, and it inclines them more to violence. It also inclines them to patriarchy, which is a toxic and selfish state of mind, ignoring as it does, the interests of two thirds of the human species.
Women have rarely, if ever, been in a majority in any government on Earth, so it is unreasonable to judge them by a system that is still dominated by male group-think.
This has nothing to do with feminism. It's simple biology.
Now Julian. I understand what you're asserting. I'm here in my capacity as editor doing some fact verification. Also, during some of Great Britain's most assertive decades Victoria was at the helm for nearly 64 years whilst Britainnia ruled the waves; and Elizabeth reigned for more than 70 years through England's participation in many needless slaughters. You cannot say that men have absolute power when the British Empire was ruled for nearly a century and a half by women.
I am asking you to show me that ANYthing is better now that women are also in many positions of corporate and republican power. I am asking you to prove your point, even a little.
Been a reader of your work since 2003. This - hands down - is your most sweeping, thought provoking essay to date.
Shifting from the external of waking others to the internal of staying awake and reporting from that context interestingly makes your message more powerful.
Thank you, brother.
I started in the ‘personal’ computer industry in 1978. By 1989, I knew we were headed for trouble on a scale so all-encompassing, it was invisible. 36 years later, I now realise it was the ultimate Trojan horse for hapless humans.
Some days, I get glimpses of the genesis and it doesn’t appear to be human. Then the Overton window explodes and I go feed my chooks to stay grounded.
Sir George Cayley designed and built the first successful manned glider in 1853, which flew in Brompton Dale near Scarborough. This glider, constructed of wood and canvas, carried his coachman as the first passenger. It's a significant milestone in aviation history, often leading to Cayley being nicknamed the "father of aviation". He also built a successful glider model in 1804, demonstrating the principles of lift, propulsion, and control.
Outstanding article. I read it like it reads, a fast moving current taking us into the deep swell of this impending explosion of change. It syncs up with what Tristan Harris can be found saying in the latest After Skool video (https://youtu.be/86k8N4YsA7c?feature=shared) about "Why we're creating a future nobody wants" Thank you Eric. I'm with you. I'm following you.
On Jun 19, 2025, at 4:00 PM, Jeff Strahl <jstrahl@~~
Hey Eric,
Don’t mean to be a noodnick, just trying to gain an understanding. How does touch translate to the digital environment. Do you actually feel something (via touch) when on the Internet?
Jeff
Jeff,
I have thought this through quite a bit.
Many digital devices starting with trackpads, trackballs, mice, joysticks and others, use controllers that require three-dimensional awareness, hand-eye coordination, and accommodate many forms of hand gestures, pinches, clicks, taps, etc. This all requires a degree of sensitivity, often to various forms of applied pressure, feedback, etc.
I log into my laptop using a biometric fingerprint that I had to put there I the first place. Touchscreen technology is ubiquitous. Many forms of digital technology read brainwaves and various EMFs. All of these things are aspects of touch.
Then you have crazy things like this, a form of specific controlled touch, even reaching into the inside of someone’s body:
In a century of women holding political power, what in the world has gotten better? You would think we might see a trend by now; can you show me something?
JULIAN CRIBB
In 150 years of men holding absolute power, 200 million humans have died in war and another 60 million in deliberate man-made famines.
ME
wait, which 150 years? And I you did not answer my question. We were promised that war would end when women got the vote. Second, how do you know women don't behave just like men? You seem to think there is a bigger difference than you have accounted for. What is the cause of that distance? Do a clit and ovaries make someone a better and more humane person? But let's stick to the issue. Feminism begins in 1848. Women all have the vote (in the US) by 1920. What has improved? I challenge you to name one thing. Yeah sure, technology. I mean in the human condition. What has improved?
CRIBB
You asked the wrong question. Clearly you do not understand the issue: that women are innately less inclined to slaughter as a solution to everything than men, and tend to consider the interests of children and grandchildren more fully than men who build weapons, chemicals and other engines of destruction. What is the difference you ask? Probably testosterone. Men have more of it, and it inclines them more to violence. It also inclines them to patriarchy, which is a toxic and selfish state of mind, ignoring as it does, the interests of two thirds of the human species. Women have rarely, if ever, been in a majority in any government on Earth, so it is unreasonable to judge them by a system that is still dominated by male group-think. This has nothing to do with feminism. It's simple biology.
ME
Now Julian. I understand what you're asserting. I'm here in my capacity as editor doing some fact verification. Also, during some of Great Britain's most assertive decades Victoria was at the helm for nearly 64 years whilst Britainnia ruled the waves; and Elizabeth reigned for more than 70 years through England's participation in many needless slaughters. You cannot say that men have absolute power when the British Empire was ruled for nearly a century and a half by women. I am asking you to show me that ANYthing is better now that women are also in many positions of corporate and republican power. I am asking you to prove your point, even a little.
Are you suggesting that I should base my perceptions on the delusions of others because they claim authority over an issue they don't understand? I used NONE of their statements or data in my evaluation of the virus or the PCR; I did the work myself with a team of 16 investigators starting in March 2020. I did not take anyone's word for anything. And the same holds true with the shape of the planet. Which by the way is not a matter of opinion. The shape of the planet affects every last thing we do, because the planet is now so totally integrated to our technology.
Neither of these men will talk to be about Flat Earth, most likely because they know I am trained in geophysics and astronomy and can ask the questions that nearly nobody else can, and the rest who can do so don't suffer fools easily. In his last email to me about this, Kaufman admitted he was in a spiritual and existential crisis and felt meaningless when confronted with the idea that he was living on a ball spinning through space in multiple frames of reference. I don't see the connection.
I have explained the Flat Earth delusion many times, intermingled with interviews with FE adherents wherein they cannot explain something so basic as how predictions of the time and location of an eclipse can be accurate using the globe model when there is no globe; how GPS can work if there are no predictably orbiting satellites.
I've spent a lot of time with both Andy and Tom. Their IQs are irrelevant and mine is not tested so we don't know that I don't blow them away. I will tell you that when I used the word "epistemology" in a sentence Tom did not know what the word meant -- as if had never heard it before -- and it's one of the most important concepts in both science and philosophy.
And no matter how IQish someone is, that does not prevent bias, and IQ is abstract rather than practical. As for Falconer, he at least has a sense of humor and admitted that FEs could not explain how the time, location, speed, size and duration of the April 8 total solar eclipse were predicted using the globe model. If you are FE, why don't you give it a whirl?
Was it just an accurate guess? How does the Sunrise Equation work if the Earth is "stationary" but the Equation is based on coordinates on a rotating sphere? If you don't give me thoughtful answers, this is our last exchange.
I think about the men steering this apocalyptic race toward a future no one asked for, and I want to understand why. Why do Zuckerberg, Altman, Gates, and the others desire a future where humanity is diminished, made redundant? These wealthy, successful men have it all. But having it all isn't enough. This indicates a profound spiritual emptiness, a lack of empathy, and the inability to self-examine and question themselves; instead, they turn outward in a misapplied search for fulfillment rather than inward, which is the only place true self-enlightenment and peace can ever be found. And so it goes, spilling onto the rest of us, either too complacent or too enamored with shiny things to see the inherent danger of surrendering our power of choice, our ability to individuate through creating, learning, or loving by taking the long way around, by using process, trial and error, learning through mistakes, instead of jumping right to the end, using an AI hack and thinking you are winning when, in fact, you are losing everything that gives life meaning. What we fail to understand is that meaning emerges from struggle, from the messy process of being human. When AI shortcuts replace human creativity, learning, and connection, we don't win – we surrender the very experiences that make life worth living. And as an addendum, I absolutely hate the fake, surreal AI images and photos that do not and will not ever exist in reality and are now showing up in my dreams. I wake up afraid.
Also Catt, the women are in the background. The wives and partners are VERY powerful but are out of the limelight. We must factor this in. As usual they men are out front taking the credit and the blame, while the women are behind the scenes, helping call the shots and having no public responsibility or pressure. The men all seem mildly autistic and the women seem to be fully functioning cognitively. Musk may be the exception, as he seems to prefer birthing pods, but we don't know the real story.
My intent is not to call out men or sanitize women's roles. I agree that because they are on the front lines, they become the target. But if the front line were women, I would feel the same. I am searching for the why.
I was told a long time ago that this class of men work for the robot. And they know it. There is a force larger than they are that is driving them. And is driving all of us to some degree, more or less willingly. Only through seeing that can we find the inner direction we need. That's really what this is about.
Can you explain this to me? Who is the force and who is the robot?
https://cribb.substack.com/p/women-must-lead-if-humanity-is-to
In a century of women holding political power, what in the world has gotten better? You would think we might see a trend by now; can you show me something?
In 150 years of men holding absolute power, 200 million humans have died in war and another 60 million in deliberate man-made famines.
wait, which 150 years?
And I you did not answer my question. We were promised that war would end when women got the vote. Second, how do you know women don't behave just like men? You seem to think there is a bigger difference than you have accounted for. What is the cause of that difference? Do a clit and ovaries make someone a better and more humane person?
But let's stick to the issue. Feminism begins in 1848. Women all have the vote (in the US) by 1920. What has improved? I challenge you to name one thing. Yeah sure, technology. I mean in the human condition.
What has improved?
You asked the wrong question. Clearly you do not understand the issue: that women are innately less inclined to slaughter as a solution to everything than men, and tend to consider the interests of children and grandchildren more fully than men who build weapons, chemicals and other engines of destruction.
What is the difference you ask? Probably testosterone. Men have more of it, and it inclines them more to violence. It also inclines them to patriarchy, which is a toxic and selfish state of mind, ignoring as it does, the interests of two thirds of the human species.
Women have rarely, if ever, been in a majority in any government on Earth, so it is unreasonable to judge them by a system that is still dominated by male group-think.
This has nothing to do with feminism. It's simple biology.
Now Julian. I understand what you're asserting. I'm here in my capacity as editor doing some fact verification. Also, during some of Great Britain's most assertive decades Victoria was at the helm for nearly 64 years whilst Britainnia ruled the waves; and Elizabeth reigned for more than 70 years through England's participation in many needless slaughters. You cannot say that men have absolute power when the British Empire was ruled for nearly a century and a half by women.
I am asking you to show me that ANYthing is better now that women are also in many positions of corporate and republican power. I am asking you to prove your point, even a little.
deep, but good Bro 🙏🏻
Been a reader of your work since 2003. This - hands down - is your most sweeping, thought provoking essay to date.
Shifting from the external of waking others to the internal of staying awake and reporting from that context interestingly makes your message more powerful.
Thank you, brother.
I started in the ‘personal’ computer industry in 1978. By 1989, I knew we were headed for trouble on a scale so all-encompassing, it was invisible. 36 years later, I now realise it was the ultimate Trojan horse for hapless humans.
Some days, I get glimpses of the genesis and it doesn’t appear to be human. Then the Overton window explodes and I go feed my chooks to stay grounded.
There is a theory that the internet is an sentient entity that has moved in on the electrical environment like mold takes over a leaky trailer.
Once upon a decade you spoke of a ‘sci-fi’ novel you wanted to write about this topic called Aquarion.
the original concept comes from Rick Levine, more than 25 years ago...
Sir George Cayley designed and built the first successful manned glider in 1853, which flew in Brompton Dale near Scarborough. This glider, constructed of wood and canvas, carried his coachman as the first passenger. It's a significant milestone in aviation history, often leading to Cayley being nicknamed the "father of aviation". He also built a successful glider model in 1804, demonstrating the principles of lift, propulsion, and control.
Thanks Sue. What books is this covered in, and were the Wrights aware of Cayley's work? This is the first I am hearing of him.
Outstanding article. I read it like it reads, a fast moving current taking us into the deep swell of this impending explosion of change. It syncs up with what Tristan Harris can be found saying in the latest After Skool video (https://youtu.be/86k8N4YsA7c?feature=shared) about "Why we're creating a future nobody wants" Thank you Eric. I'm with you. I'm following you.
good to know you Lisa...please stay in touch!
On Jun 19, 2025, at 4:00 PM, Jeff Strahl <jstrahl@~~
Hey Eric,
Don’t mean to be a noodnick, just trying to gain an understanding. How does touch translate to the digital environment. Do you actually feel something (via touch) when on the Internet?
Jeff
Jeff,
I have thought this through quite a bit.
Many digital devices starting with trackpads, trackballs, mice, joysticks and others, use controllers that require three-dimensional awareness, hand-eye coordination, and accommodate many forms of hand gestures, pinches, clicks, taps, etc. This all requires a degree of sensitivity, often to various forms of applied pressure, feedback, etc.
I log into my laptop using a biometric fingerprint that I had to put there I the first place. Touchscreen technology is ubiquitous. Many forms of digital technology read brainwaves and various EMFs. All of these things are aspects of touch.
Then you have crazy things like this, a form of specific controlled touch, even reaching into the inside of someone’s body:
https://www.lovense.com/sem/?utm_term=lovense&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21405903315&gclid=CjwKCAjw6s7CBhACEiwAuHQckkXwdaA8ifdqfoNfRe2E4dByszFHt2u1xTRRc_wrM4RQOUmXpKOQZhoCTbUQAvD_BwE
ME
In a century of women holding political power, what in the world has gotten better? You would think we might see a trend by now; can you show me something?
JULIAN CRIBB
In 150 years of men holding absolute power, 200 million humans have died in war and another 60 million in deliberate man-made famines.
ME
wait, which 150 years? And I you did not answer my question. We were promised that war would end when women got the vote. Second, how do you know women don't behave just like men? You seem to think there is a bigger difference than you have accounted for. What is the cause of that distance? Do a clit and ovaries make someone a better and more humane person? But let's stick to the issue. Feminism begins in 1848. Women all have the vote (in the US) by 1920. What has improved? I challenge you to name one thing. Yeah sure, technology. I mean in the human condition. What has improved?
CRIBB
You asked the wrong question. Clearly you do not understand the issue: that women are innately less inclined to slaughter as a solution to everything than men, and tend to consider the interests of children and grandchildren more fully than men who build weapons, chemicals and other engines of destruction. What is the difference you ask? Probably testosterone. Men have more of it, and it inclines them more to violence. It also inclines them to patriarchy, which is a toxic and selfish state of mind, ignoring as it does, the interests of two thirds of the human species. Women have rarely, if ever, been in a majority in any government on Earth, so it is unreasonable to judge them by a system that is still dominated by male group-think. This has nothing to do with feminism. It's simple biology.
ME
Now Julian. I understand what you're asserting. I'm here in my capacity as editor doing some fact verification. Also, during some of Great Britain's most assertive decades Victoria was at the helm for nearly 64 years whilst Britainnia ruled the waves; and Elizabeth reigned for more than 70 years through England's participation in many needless slaughters. You cannot say that men have absolute power when the British Empire was ruled for nearly a century and a half by women. I am asking you to show me that ANYthing is better now that women are also in many positions of corporate and republican power. I am asking you to prove your point, even a little.
THEN THE THREAD DISAPPEARED.
Hi Eric. With Andy Kaufman and Tom Cowan both flaterth proponents now, have you decided to join Team True Earth yet? Namasté
Are you suggesting that I should base my perceptions on the delusions of others because they claim authority over an issue they don't understand? I used NONE of their statements or data in my evaluation of the virus or the PCR; I did the work myself with a team of 16 investigators starting in March 2020. I did not take anyone's word for anything. And the same holds true with the shape of the planet. Which by the way is not a matter of opinion. The shape of the planet affects every last thing we do, because the planet is now so totally integrated to our technology.
Neither of these men will talk to be about Flat Earth, most likely because they know I am trained in geophysics and astronomy and can ask the questions that nearly nobody else can, and the rest who can do so don't suffer fools easily. In his last email to me about this, Kaufman admitted he was in a spiritual and existential crisis and felt meaningless when confronted with the idea that he was living on a ball spinning through space in multiple frames of reference. I don't see the connection.
I have explained the Flat Earth delusion many times, intermingled with interviews with FE adherents wherein they cannot explain something so basic as how predictions of the time and location of an eclipse can be accurate using the globe model when there is no globe; how GPS can work if there are no predictably orbiting satellites.
And so on.
OK but Tom Cowan is even smarter than Andy. His IQ is probably around 180 to make an educated guess. And Spacebusters Falconer is likely around 190.
As we like to say on our measurably motionless plane: 'If the curve don't exist, we must RESIST!'
Cheers Big Ears!
I've spent a lot of time with both Andy and Tom. Their IQs are irrelevant and mine is not tested so we don't know that I don't blow them away. I will tell you that when I used the word "epistemology" in a sentence Tom did not know what the word meant -- as if had never heard it before -- and it's one of the most important concepts in both science and philosophy.
And no matter how IQish someone is, that does not prevent bias, and IQ is abstract rather than practical. As for Falconer, he at least has a sense of humor and admitted that FEs could not explain how the time, location, speed, size and duration of the April 8 total solar eclipse were predicted using the globe model. If you are FE, why don't you give it a whirl?
Was it just an accurate guess? How does the Sunrise Equation work if the Earth is "stationary" but the Equation is based on coordinates on a rotating sphere? If you don't give me thoughtful answers, this is our last exchange.
I rant better than this.