WITH CATHERINE AND JOHN TITUS

Theme: They’re Coming For Your Kids

Interview: EMF Solutions with Jared Scholten

Listen to Ask Catherine

Please login to see stories, charts, and subscriber-only content.
Not a subscriber yet? You are invited to join here!

85 Comments

  1. BREAKING:

    Paraphrasing apocryphal scene in Oliver Stone’s JFK, “You’ve got your 75 basis point rise in interest rates, General…”

  2. absolutely frightening article about china potentially using coffee machines to spy on american citizens:

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/china-spying-coffee-maker-expert

    crucial information such as whether a citizen uses milk or drinks coffee black, relative roast preferences, and even bedtimes, can be directly accessed by the CCP.

    “Coffee machine data may seem rather mundane, but as with many aspects of data, risks exist in how the data is used,” the report reads, adding that the machines will collect payment data in commercial settings as well as time and location data even in domestic settings.

  3. It seems to me that hidden purpose of cryptocurrencies is not so much direct control of individuals through technical means. Being a programmer with some experience with complex it-systems I have difficulty to see how large-scale surveillance and control systems could work effectively on populations.

    What I see happening through crypto currencies is theft of individual financial wealth. Of course, impoverished people are more likely victims of centralized power. Technocratic centralized power is the general direction of crypto currencies in the currents of history, but they are not the medium through which this power strives to direct people. Blockchains are technically just not fit for purpose as payment / transaction systems; in this regard they are inherently broken by design. They are talked up and act as bait for the unsuspecting, or greedy, or desperate and are acting as smoke screen for robbing people of their savings.

    As outlined for example here by Jorge Stolfi:
    https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2022-06-14-grayscale-gbtc-to-etf-spam.html

    1. I agree Roman. It has always been about stealing individual wealth through the control of digital money which will never be safe. No cybersecurity will help. Use cash is possible before the gov removes all currency from circulation in favor of digital wallets. We have given too much power to technology companies in exchange of propaganda. It is time to stop it.

      1. One of the key points to understand regarding crypto wallets based on blockchains is that they are not and never will be an alternative or a replacement for traditional means of fund transfers (cash and/or digital). The crypto systems based on blockchains can only handle a tiny fraction (mathematically speaking approaching zero) of transfers happening at any given moment in the real economy.

    2. From the paper of Jorge Stolfi mentioned above:

      “Cryptos and all their derivatives are rotten investments

      As a payment system for legal commerce, bitcoin is a utter failure, for many incurable technical and economic reasons that have no fix in sight. These include its inherently limited capacity (insufficient to support 5 million users doing one payment per week), extremely volatile value (that can rise or drop by more than 10% in minutes), its sluggishness (minimum 10 minutes for first tentative confirmation, sometimes hours or days), its high operating cost (currently about 25 million USD/day, more than $50 for each transaction, paid by investors rather than users), its insecurity (there is no way to reverse or remedy mistakes, by thefts, or payments to fraudulent merchants), and many more. The Lightning Network, which has been touted for years as a solution for some of these problems, has in fact even bigger problems that will prevent it from serving even the couple millions that Bitcoin itself can handle.”

      Source:
      https://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2022-06-14-grayscale-gbtc-to-etf-spam.html

      1. Meanwhile, big corporations are falling 10-40% in one- two seconds. Some have no profit some have P/E under 15 .. it does not matter. it is random.

    3. You reference blockchains as inherently broken by design, but I see nothing in your writeup that supports this position. You may be correct but I’d like to read up on your thinking.
      To clarify where I’m going with this, try to imagine paying for a cup of coffee with a gold coin.

      1. Gold coin would be inconvenient, but a silver round ounce would work….I’ve paid for coffee with a 20 dollar bill plenty of times….

      2. If we agree on “alternative to currency” or “widely used tender” as design goal for blockchain systems then they are broken because they are unreliably slow in terms of transaction fulfillment, transaction costs are hard to calculate but high (the computation power goes into transactions – mining, the generation of positive balances, is a side product of transaction calculation).

        If we take “anonymity” as design goal it is broken because it is neither anonymous nor decentralized. Every transaction is recorded in the blockchain that everyone (with the technical skills) can download an analyze. An account in the blockchain is just a string of characters with no personal information. As soon someone wants to trade crypto for fiat money his blockchain wallet address (account on the blockchain) will be traceable to him because the other party has to transfer the fiat money to him and keep records (receiving money from entities that do not keep records has the possibility of leading to a legal audit including full exposure of crypto holdings).
        Registering with crypto online services will most likely make crypto transfers also traceable as at least minimal personal info has to be entered for communication purposes.

        As for the claim of “decentralization”:
        Financial institutions centralize trust backed by laws. To do any transaction you need a counter party you trust to fulfill its obligations. To do anything with cryptocurrencies you need a counter party that will accept them. So there are crypto exchanges that guarantee trust between parties. They hold the goods (money mostly) and guarantee that they can be exchanged for crypto balances. These exchanges (and other services) are acting very much like financial institutions but, until now, without the law defining the perimeter of their actions. Trading with crypto assets is centralized by those exchanges. In theory – with the technical skills and equipement – the exchange of crypto balances can happen without an intermediary – but “in theory” I could also go and dig for that gold you mentioned myself, then buy a coffee farm and a porcelain factory and finally sip my very own cup of coffee.

        1. Thanks for that reply,
          I think we can agree to disagree on the “broken” nature of blockchain. I’m coming at this looking for an alternative method of payment to break a monopoly.
          We can agree that “anonymity” and “bitcoin” don’t fit together well.
          The “decentralisation” area is interesting. Once you place a transaction, essentially a third party is required as a guarantor, and the State is leveraging its muscle to be that third party. I agree participating in an exchange gives too much power to the State, as the ultimate guarantor.

          1. I am not sure about your stance re bitcoin technology.

            What needs to be emphasized from a professional standpoint in information technology is that transactions on a public blockchain ledger are not and never will be an alternative to the payments methods (cash, digital or otherwise) used today.

            The crypto exchanges are mostly unregulated; theft and robbery are happening there often, as well as complete loss of assets due to financial or technical ineptness of involved parties.

          2. If you are an American reading this, I’ll point out that this is not intended to be offensive. It’s my view on transactions that include the US$.
            Essentially, the USA claims jurisdiction over any transaction made with their currency. If, for whatever reason, you are not happy with that third party, cryptocurrencies are one of your options.
            Theft and robbery are close cousins of unjust taxation.

          3. No, crypto currencies are not an option / alternative to traditional means of payment / finance. It is physically impossible to achieve such a thing with bitcoin technology.

            The talk that they could replace / complement any part of the existing finance sytems is misguided at best – or a marketing claim that is misleading and has the potential to ruin the lives of those believing in it.

  5. The audio was too long to send via email to ask Catherine unless I put it on my bitchute account so I thought I’d just post it here …

    It’s concerning asking the governor of Florida about what I /we can do to work together to combat the smart grid / digital concentration camp / mind control / geoengineering transhumanism phenomena that is kind of the elephant in the room that f we don’t address it properly, things will be much tougher to turn around…

    I’m in Tallahassee, I am quite knowledgeable on the subject , and know what happens to peopl,e who have it in there life…

    Safe paces for people like myself to exist , with people around to assist this quite covert but damaging phenomena ..

    How ro protect / shield , extract things like morgellons or nano tech , detoxifying the body ,etc.

    This is me discussing it via audio fo see what Catherine thinks about the idea.

    https://share.icloud.com/photos/07c135v4NudBZts05b4w_EZTg

  7. The NY times published an article highlighting a metastudy which disparages Ivermectin.

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.788972/full

    Metastudies are one step removed, so it takes a lot more work to sift through the methods by which the conclusions were garnered. Usually. Nowadays, you can generally find it right on the synposis under “conflict of interest”.

    Under that heading in the paper referenced by the Times, the authors declare
    “The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.”

    Well that’s really interesting, because looking up just one of the contributing authors by a quick search offers a news announcement with this title:
    “Ohio State College of Medicine sets new NIH research funding record”

    https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/mediaroom/pressreleaselisting/ohio-state-college-of-medicine-sets-new-nih-research-funding-record

    Not much point in sifting through the data of dangerous liars.

    Maybe the most helpful part of looking into this was thereply I stumbled across on Quora to the question of, why is the NY Times called the “Grey Lady”? Response:

    “The New York Times is called the “Gray Lady” because it is a filthy, dirty rag of a newspaper, not fit to line the bottom of a birdcage.”

    1. When you sell out your readers on a consistent basis, you end up in a bad place. That said, when are the readers going to pull the plug on them? This is a two-way street.

        1. P.S. I’m in more than full agreement with you. Even before the lockdown fraud began, and right around the time (seems to me) that google changed it’s search parameters to cancel out most things but big pharma which also say small “alternative medicine sites decimated by loss of traffic, the Times essentially became a rag of crafted narratives wrapped around the central core of pharma-backed medical pieces. In other words, even a greater propaganda mouthpiece than before. Unfortunately, their squawking on this hit piece on Ivermectin grew loud enough to ripple out past their readership.

        2. ask bozo. all those amazon bucks aren’t really his. it’s a proprietary, as Catherine says.

    2. Gray Lady is also the endearing Naval name for a submarine…always said with respect.

Comments are closed.