Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/16/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Moonlighting or Kool-Aid? That is the question. Michael
  2. 2 points
    They're being softened up for committing ritual suicide. Ellen
  3. 2 points
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  4. 1 point
    No one knows at the moment how the impeachment process will end up, though OL members will generally have in memory the Nixon and Clinton impeachment efforts for use in comparing and contrasting. At the present moment, nose-counting wonks have counted noses, providing spreadsheets of current House members who have indicated they support an impeachment inquiry. There is enough to agree articles of impeachment at last count -- if the process gets that far (see also the Politico breakdown of impeachment-supporters). I'll add in links to extant discussion in varied front-page threads and beef up a rough timeline [over the next couple of days]. The so-called whistleblower's "whistleblow" has been allowed to emerge in slightly redacted form -- Dated August 12, 2019: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6430376-Whistleblower-Complaint.html -- this is what is being examined in the House right now. Previously ... I'll ask that folks who may join in commentary here keep the personal insults to a minimum, if possible. Refer to the OL Posting Guidelines, please. Keys to understanding what may come down the pike is ... what has come down the pike already. In other words, a list of names of interest from roughly 2014 until now. Ukraine is at the nexus of the foreign-policy muddle between the United States and Russia. Names and entities to keep track and/or place on a timeline range from (presidents) Yanukovych, Poroschenko, Zelenskyy to prosecutors-general Yarema, Shokin, Sevruk, Lutsenko. For a reminder of what Ukrainian corruption looks like, the palatial estate of former president Yanukovych, who fled the country during the showdown known as "Euromaidan." At the risk of alienating a few readers, I'll be referring to a few 'mistrusted' writers and outlets who have cobbled together various timelines and constellations of events. interpretations and spin. Any timeline will be necessarily limited, but the simpler ones can be double-checked for factual, 'on the record' events. There are a lot of factors to be accounted for, suggestions entertained and claims tested. The most expansive timelines will come after the first spate of tell-all books whose "pitches" will be landing on editors' desks this week. An objectivist hierarchy of conceptual knowledge is more like a database than a list or timeline, maybe. This is kind of a first wrong stab at how various states could be tied to a index/timeline. Open question: how do you best organize 'what you know' or 'what is claimed' about the last five years of Ukrainian-USA-Russia-EU events? Foreign policy and corruption Russian interests, actions, explanations Associated timeline of events Date Ukraine President Ukraine Prosecutor Person of interest Cases adjudicated, abandoned, avoided (in US and Ukraine Trump -- campaign actors / Ukraine policy Trump administration Ukraine policy Cases of international significance. Meetings, contact, employment, associated suspicions 2012-2017 Manafort-Ukraine Manafort FARA
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
    Who is Alexandra Chalupa? So, how do we fit together Manafort, Giuliani, Parnas and Fruman, 2014, 'dirt,' 'black ledgers,' prison, guilty pleas and the churn of reporting? Shukin, Yanukovych, Zarrab, Flynn, Gates ... Sometimes it just feels right to take a breath, retreat to an information island, where any harpies in the air are "our (side's) harpies." The fundamental attribution error covers all situations.
  7. 1 point
    William, PP is as good as any. Look at my paraphrase of a few of his (or her) comments. That while there are parents who willingly sell their children to the scientism and socialist indoctrination of modern education. It's more likely the teachers, nurses, and others who care for your children are there to turn them into willing thralls for the globalist manmade global warming power mongers. . . . Imagine living in this kind of fear. That a great evil hung over you like a cloud that will soon be destroyed along with the planet. That at any moment evil forces would be there to brainwash and control your family and destroy the entire earth in 10 years. That Christians (and now Trump) are out to get you. . . . Everyone is the outgroup. Everyone is to be distrusted. The enemy surrounds us. Only via isolation and safe spaces can we achieve salvation. Scientism plus statism is a poison that make people hateful and scared. To think anyone would want to be this way makes me sad. That works to a tee for SJW's. Michael
  8. 1 point
    That is indeed the Dem, Progressive, elite fear. Which is why they expend so many resources on pumping class, gender, race, income, Party, age, etc. divisions. They keep us at each other’s throats so we don’t notice we are being bled by slavemasters we could easily dispatch before breakfast.
  9. 1 point
    Wow... They got Giuliani this time. He's got got. I mean got real good. He's toast. He's going down and he's going to take Trump with him. This time they got them all, goddammit. That's what you might believe if you read the press right now and believe all the yelling. When the dust settles, all this will all boil down to... Wait for it... Are you ready?... Marijuana farms. Seriously. And some kind of Dinesh D'Souza-like railroading on campaign violations in the past. It's a Soros organization making all the stink. None of this has anything to do with the Ukraine stuff the news reports are all yelling about. At issue is the fact that the two guys are connected in the Ukraine and introduced Rudy to some big shots over there to help in his investigations. Yawn... It's not even worth debating this crap. Michael
  10. 1 point
    I think that Minneapolis manchild mayor Frey played a part in generating the large turnout. I hope that he and the rest of the left continue to not learn anything, and keep on trying the same stupid tactics. J
  11. 1 point
    Ya gotta love the fact that they still think that their Narratives™ are working. J
  12. 1 point
    Their describing Trump as a threat to "our" way of life is macabrely ironic. He's a threat to their way of killing. However, what's new about the Tweet announcement you posted? Hasn't it been known for a long time that the Bush administration didn't have evidence of Iraq's possessing weapons of mass destruction? The tweet leads to an unsigned story at True Pundit, which has at its bottom a "Read More" link that leads to ... a 2015 Jason Leopold story in VICE: The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified the Iraq Invasion Leopold is now a 'senior investigative reporter' at BuzzFeedNews.
  13. 1 point
    New Jersey requires automobiles to have license plates mounted on the front and rear, I recently bought a car and was issued a paper 'temp' tag for the rear, leaving the front open. I made a 'fun' front plate by fashioning a "Q" out of orange electrical tape on a white backround. I've noticed a few smiles and other approving gestures on the road. The only q quotes or drops I've ever seen have come from reading OL and my favorite ,and to me, the most important q- related story is the one about the deputy sherriff in Florida wearing a patch while welcoming VP Pence. To me the meme is more important and powerful than The Q, prove or disprove the personage , I'll always have Q. Who doesn't want a Q, yeh? Seriously who doesn't want to have the belief that there is a 'righteous' power to speaking ( and 'doing') truth to power?
  14. 1 point
    From David Gilbert at VICE: "Who has seen the wind?"
  15. 1 point
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    "Did you delete Mike's analysis?" No. It is where it was -- embedded in the comment on the previous page. When we quote a post containing an embedded tweet, we need to include in our selection the 'white space' that follows the tweet. Eg, Voici ...
  18. 1 point
    Visual pastiche on the "Greenbaum Speech," a touchstone of theory undergirding iatrogenic harms in therapy, during the Satanic Ritual Abuse memory wars. Key words: Corydon Hammond, Bennett Braun, Judith Peterson.
  19. 1 point
    This old piece popped up for me today. Truth: "There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious." ----- Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. iStockphoto 7.3K1.1K By JAY RICHARDS Published on April 19, 2017 • 168 Comments Jay Richards This week’s March for Science is odd. Marches are usually held to defend something that’s in peril. Does anyone really think big science is in danger? The mere fact that the March was scheduled for Earth Day betrays what the event is really about: politics. The organizers admitted as muchearly on, though they’re now busy trying to cover the event in sciencey camouflage. If past is prologue, expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on catastrophic climate change this week. The purpose of this claim is to shut up skeptical non-scientists. How should non-scientists respond when told about this consensus? We can’t all study climate science. But since politics often masquerades as science, we need a way to tell one from the other. “Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink? Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are prone to herd instincts. Many false ideas once enjoyed consensus. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternativesto their view. Question the paradigm, and some respond with anger. We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone who thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best ignored. So how do we distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? And how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Do we have to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it? Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. I don’t know of any complete list of signs of suspicion. But here’s a checklist to decide when you can, even should, doubt a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be leery. (1) When different claims get bundled together Usually, in scientific disputes, there’s more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there’s the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There’s also the claim that we are the main cause of it, that it’s going to be catastrophic, and that we must transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different claims based on different evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn’t evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet and Newfoundland become a popular place to tan: That wouldn’t tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause. There’s a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There’s even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four claims are often bundled together. So, if you doubt one, you’re labeled a climate change “skeptic” or “denier.” That’s dishonest. When well-established claims are tied with other, more controversial claims, and the entire bundle is labeled “consensus,” you have reason for doubt. (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate Personal attacks are common in any dispute. It’s easier to insult than to the follow the thread of an argument. And just because someone makes an ad hominem argument, it doesn’t mean that their conclusion is wrong. But when the personal attacks are the first out of the gate, don your skeptic’s cap and look more closely at the data. When it comes to climate change, ad hominems are everywhere. They’re even smuggled into the way the debate is described. The common label “denier” is one example. This label is supposed to call to mind the charge of columnist Ellen Goodman: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious. (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line The famous Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union is example of politics trumping good science. But it’s not the only way politics can override science. There’s also a conspiracy of agreement, in which assumptions and interests combine to give the appearance of objectivity where none exists. This is even more forceful than a literal conspiracy enforced by a dictator. Why? Because it looks like the agreement reflects a fair and independent weighing of the evidence. Tenure, job promotions, government grants, media accolades, social respectability, Wikipedia entries, and vanity can do what gulags do, only more subtly. Alexis de Tocqueville warned of this almost two centuries ago. The power of the majority in American society, he wrote, could erect “formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.” He could have been writing about climate science. Indeed, the quickest way for scientists to put their careers at risk is to raise even modest questions about climate doom (see here, here and here). Scientists are under pressure to toe the party line on climate change and receive many benefits for doing so. That’s another reason for suspicion. (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish Though it has its limits, the peer-review process is meant to provide checks and balances. At its best, it helps weed out bad and misleading work, and make scientific research more objective. But when the same few people review and approve each other’s work, you get conflicts of interest. This weakens the case for the supposed consensus. It becomes, instead, another reason for doubt. Those who follow the climate debate have known for years about the cliquish nature of publishing and peer review in climate science (see here for example). (5) When dissenters are excluded from the peer-reviewed journals not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but to marginalize them. Besides mere cliquishness, the “peer review” process in climate science has, in some cases, been subverted to prevent dissenters from being published. Again, those who follow the debate have known about these problems for years. But the Climategate debacle in 2009 revealed some of the gory details for the broader public. And again, this gives the lay public a reason to doubt the consensus. (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented We’ve been told for years that the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous in its support for human-induced climate change. In Science, Naomi Oreskes even produced a “study” of the literature supposedly showing “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” In fact, there are plenty of dissenting papers in the literature. This is despite mounting evidence that the peer-review deck was stacked against them. The 2009 Climategate scandal underscored this: The climate scientists at the center of the controversy complained in their emails about dissenting papers that survived the peer-review booby traps they put in place. They even fantasized about torpedoing a climate science journal that dared to publish a dissenting article. (7) When consensus is declared before it even exists A well-rooted scientific consensus, like a mature oak, needs time to grow. Scientists have to do research, publish articles, read about other research, and repeat experiments (where possible). They need to reveal their data and methods, have open debates, evaluate arguments, look at the trends, and so forth, before they can come to agreement. When scientists rush to declare a consensus — when they claim a consensus that has yet to form — this should give everyone pause. In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.” In the real 1992, however, Gallup “reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.” Seventeen years later, in 2009, Gore revised his own fake history. He claimed that the debate over human-induced climate change had raged until as late as 1999, but now there was true consensus. Of course, 2009 is when Climategate broke, reminding us that what had smelled funny was indeed rotten. (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus It makes sense that chemists over time may come to agree about the results of some chemical reaction, since they can repeat the results over and over in their own labs. They’re easy to test. But much of climate science is not like that. The evidence is scattered and hard to track. It’s often indirect, imbedded in history and laden with theory. You can’t rerun past climate to test it. And the headline-grabbing claims of climate scientists are based on complex computer models that don’t match reality. These models get their input, not from the data, but from the scientists who interpret the data. This isn’t the sort of evidence that can provide the basis for a well-founded consensus. In fact, if there really were a consensus on the many claims around climate science, that would be suspicious. Thus, the claim of consensus is a bit suspect as well. (9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution In Newsweek’s April 28, 1975, issue, science editor Peter Gwynne claimed that “scientists are almost unanimous” that global cooling was underway. Now we are told, “Scientists say global warming will lead to the extinction of plant and animal species, the flooding of coastal areas from rising seas, more extreme weather, more drought and diseases spreading more widely.” “Scientists say” is ambiguous. You should wonder: “Which ones?” Other times this vague company of scientists becomes “SCIENCE.” As when we’re told “what science says is required to avoid catastrophic climate change.” “Science says” is a weasely claim. “Science,” after all, is an abstract noun. It can’t speak. Whenever you see these phrases used to imply a consensus, it should trigger your baloney detector. (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies Imagine hundreds of world leaders and NGOS, science groups, and UN functionaries gathered for a meeting. It’s heralded as the most important conference since World War II, in which “the future of the world is being decided.” These officials seem to agree that institutions of “global governance” need to be set up to reorder the world economy and restrict energy use. Large numbers of them applaud wildly when socialist dictators denounce capitalism. Strange activism surrounds the gathering. And we are told by our president that all of this is based, not on fiction, but on science — that is, a scientific consensus that our greenhouse gas emissions are leading to climate catastrophe. We don’t have to imagine that scenario, of course. It happened at the UN climate meeting in Copenhagen, in December 2009. It happened again in Paris, in December 2015. Expect something at least as zany at the March for Science. Now, none of this disproves climate doom. But it does describe a setting in which truth need not appear. And at the least, when policy effects are so profound, the evidence should be rock solid. “Extraordinary claims,” the late Carl Sagan often said, “require extraordinary evidence.” When the megaphones of consensus insist that there’s no time, that we have to move, MOVE, MOVE!, you have a right to be wary. (11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as fairly as possible Do I really need to elaborate on this point? (12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus A consensus should be based on solid evidence. But a consensus is not itself the evidence. And with well-established scientific theories, you never hear about consensus. No one talks about the consensus that the planets orbit the sun, that the hydrogen molecule is lighter than the oxygen molecule, that salt is sodium chloride, that bacteria sometimes cause illness, or that blood carries oxygen to our organs. The very fact that we hear so much about a consensus on climate change may be enough to justify suspicion. To adapt that old legal rule, when you’ve got solid scientific evidence on your side, you argue the evidence. When you’ve got great arguments, you make the arguments. When you don’t have solid evidence or great arguments, you claim consensus.
  20. 1 point
    This recording has been one of my earliest inspirations as a composer and songwriter. It is a love song to the city of Vienna, written by Rudolf Sieczyński, sung by Elisabeth Schwarzkopf.
  21. 1 point
    If that's the way Rush sees things, then the issue wouldn't be his being a plant ("Operation Mockingbird") but instead his being partly a dupe. Reality is pretty much Democans/Republicrats - both run by behind-the-scenes higher-up global dominionists. Sounds like Rush is at the place where Jon says he was four/five years ago - seeing things as presented on the surface. Ellen
  22. 1 point
    Jon, Your Bill Gates analogy is a good concrete way to show how ridiculous Barney is being. I shall steal it. The rumor you heard about the bulletproof vest may have been based on what Yaron Brook was doing at the time. Search Who’s Who on ARI Watch for “bulletproof” and you’ll find a firsthand account, not a rumor, by the late Steve Reed (OL’s Greybeard). MSK, Yes, Barney “dove into the tar pit” noticing his critics in public. As you say, in his circle I am a nobody. The explanation, I believe, is the extraordinary self-righteous self-deception of these Obleftivists. (Perigo isn’t my cup of tea but he hit a home run with that neologism.) Barney really believes he is innocent. To quote ARI Watch: Iago, rubbing his hands with glee at his own iniquity, is strictly a work of Shakespeare’s imagination. In real life evil is always self-righteous. You cannot tell the heroes from the villains by the emotional noises they make. Barney’s letter contains lots of legalese – perpetrated, malicious, defamation, harmed, damage, reputation – and it’s easily construed as the precursor to a lawsuit, designed to shut up critics even if he doesn’t go through with it. I wrote the New York Times headline parody to make fun of the idea. David and Goliath describes the situation pretty well. Of course if he did sue I would (1) make sure the New York Times knows about it, (2) counter-sue for calling me a liar and a merchant of hate good grief, (3) create a website detailing every step of the battle. But all this is a daydream. He’s no fool, anyway not fool enough to raise on a busted flush. Does anyone believe Craig Biddle’s story that Barney wrote him this letter and he convinced Barney to let him publish it? Mark
  23. 1 point
    Here is Rush Limbaugh's take on AOC's Eat The Babies townhall meeting. He talks about Larouche and everything. Who Knew the Green New Deal Was a Cookbook? The one thing I didn't know is that AOC has "moved on" from impeachment and said so in the townhall. It took too long for her millennial brain attention span and she got bored. That actually sounds about right. Michael
  24. 1 point
    Just to be clear on one thing, I am not in denial about this impeachment thing. It is going nowhere and, no matter what happens, even if by some miracle, the House passes Articles of Impeachment, it will die in the Senate and serve to reinforce President Trump for the 2020 campaign. But I don't think it will pass the House. If you are a Trump supporter, don't listen to the media until this dies down a little. The media is in on the scam. All the noise is a propaganda bluff. Better yet, get your news from some social media personality or personalities you resonate with. Even if the person has a wacky side, it won't be more wacky than what we have seen in the legacy media the last three years. At least going the alt path, you will not have an expectation of being at the right place and expectation of seriousness that a traditional institution instills by default in your subconscious. President Trump ain't going anywhere. But the Deep State is... And so is the legacy media... Michael
  25. 1 point
    Filthy talk nonsense from traitor bag of shit Maxine.
  26. 1 point
  27. 1 point
    Jon, Before Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016, the left (and the establishment) laughed at the idea of Russian meddling and at Russian anything else that seemed sinister. For example, Obama openly derided Romney during election debates for saying Russia was a major threat. After the 2016 election, the left has gone into a McCarthyism mode that would have embarrassed old Joe McCarthy himself, and now the left red-baits galore and acts like there is a Putinesque Russian under every bed. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. The conservative/libertarian leaning anti-Trumpers (especially the establishment sort) were a bit different. They always were against Russia. The left merely took their concerns and raised them to DEFCON 5. Some of the Republican establishment anti-Trumpers have even gone along with the left's anti-Russian hysteria. All those attitudes were reflected by the left-leaning here on OL, too. Precisely to the timeline. Michael
  28. 1 point
    German League Of Girls https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWgirls.htm In 1930 the Bund Deutscher Mädel (German League of Girls) was formed as the female branch of the Hitler Youthmovement. It was set up under the direction of Hitler Youth leader, Baldur von Schirach. There were two general age groups: the Jungmädel, from ten to fourteen years of age, and older girls from fifteen to twenty-one years of age. All girls in the BDM were constantly reminded that the great task of their schooling was to prepare them to be "carriers of the... Nazi world view". (1) ... Members of the BDM later recalled that they welcomed the extra power they had over their parents: "As a young person, you were taken seriously. You did things which were important... Your dependence on your parents was reduced, because all the time it was your work for the Hitler Youth that came first, and your parents came second... All the time you were kept busy and interested, and you really believed you had to change the world." (22)
  29. 1 point
    Dustin Nemos and Jordan Sather are each proposing a probable set of events, touching on similar topics. The biggest news from Jordan is the 'return of Q' ... via the 8chan owner Watkins. "Biden for Treason2020, Q Justice Phases, Mass Arrests, Trends ... " Young Jordan ... "8chan Coming Back? - Calls for Impeachment - Biden & Ukraine - Flynn Case News ..."
  30. 1 point
    Skeptic editor Michael Shermer in conversation with Peter Boghossian:
  31. 1 point
  32. 1 point
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
  35. 1 point
    I want to see the movie now, too. We talked about the anger of the left. I didn’t know anything about Sorbo until today, I gather he is Christian, he said, “when I talk with Hollywood people, the ones you can talk with, I ask why are you all so angry? About something you don’t even believe in anyway.”
  36. 1 point
    This is exactly what mapping out a new story feels like. For the writer, it comes with an emotion of weariness, too. Michael
  37. 1 point
    The ICIG 'whistleblower' Ukraine Giuliani Zerelsky who said what to whom and who cares issue gets some attention from the president. So ... is there a story or is there a story-story?** The usual suspects are ramping up. **
  38. 1 point
    I don’t know. I suspect you two know more and for longer, than I. Four years ago I didn’t know anything. Had you asked me what is the Illuminati, Luciferianism, Freemasonry, Babylonian Mystery Religions, what were the Sumerians into? I’d have had nothing. I would have answered “Occult stuff. But I don’t know what that word means.” I do think we can be sure that they are good at hiding everything and none of our guesses stand much chance of steering around the misinfo, fake whistleblowers, etc. that cloud everything. History tells us that the “original” Illuminati was eliminated, period. No doubt in twenty years after some fierce battles we will again be assured it has been eliminated, period. I won’t believe it the second time, either. I think it is just as likely that when they were exposed in 17XX they decided upon that narrative. History also tells us that the Julii, Caesar’s family “died out.” And maybe they did all die, by the hands of some competing family who murdered them all, took their property and then convinced the plebs they too all died out. How convenient. If I win the lottery tomorrow, skip the taxes and “die out” you’ll know in fact I am probably really on a beach somewhere, right? And that’s just if I win the lottery. What if I rule the world? Doesn’t that make everyone want to kill me? Wouldn’t it be better for me, for us, the ruling team, if we were known to have “died out” so we can then create circles within circles as Michael described and go on ruling, unknown to all? So some teams I do believe go way, way back, and they know it, they are hyper-aware of their lineage. I think other teams, such as mafias, are more recent. As to is it being one or many interlocking, I see two possibilities. 1) Many teams have joined up in the last 100 years, for mutual survival. They got deep into evil and a more connected world could take one of them down, then another, then all. Their criminality and evil grew and I think each group came to understand they had to unite, each backing the other. The bloodline aristocratic satanists, the criminal mafias, the Nazis (“no, no, Jon, they died out.” Ha!) the Catholic Church, Hollywood, etc. All of them together as one interlocking system I call The Gang. I mean people who have their hands on levers, not their slaves. Jeffrey Epstein was just a slave. I don’t believe any of us have ever yet seen the faces or heard the real names of the people with their hands on the levers. 2) One very old, very successful team created or infiltrated all of the people’s and orgs mentioned in 1. I chose “The Gang” because it sounds vague and because I really don’t know exactly who. I think that Trump’s election precipitated yet more alliances of people into evil. They didn’t see that coming, believed their bosses had it all covered and it wasn’t going to be possible. They’re vulnerable now, they know they’re all on that terrible bastard’s target list and they have joined forces to stay alive.
  39. 1 point
    Communism might better be viewed as a tool of the Powers That Be – perhaps a more palatable term than the Illuminati. Antony Sutton wrote about this. Rand’s The Objectivist favorably reviewed one of his books, about Western technological aid being responsible for the viability of the Soviet Union. Rand also recommended the book after one of her Ford Hall Forum lectures, in the Q&A. He went on to write more wide ranging books. This interview transcript is a good introduction to his later work. Here’s a list of video interviews and books.
  40. 1 point
    Michael, Terminology problems again. I think that you're using "The Gang" as more or less synonymous with elitists. That isn't how I'm using the term, and hasn't been my impression of how Jon is using it. Instead, what I mean - and I think Jon means (he can correct me if I'm misunderstanding him) - is certain long-lined families and connected persons and organizations, loosely "The Illuminati" plus some others. Ellen
  41. 1 point
    But he is innocent! In fact, she is the guilty party. Once his cock had been commandeered by the offender (the one and only offender in this scenario up to this moment) she had a fiduciary responsibility to remove her hand from reach so that the victim, Brett, could not be further victimized as a tool for the cowardly Cock Assault by Proxy. She is a pervert and an accessory to this heinous crime against Brett.
  42. 1 point
    Murderous weirdo and huge Democratic fund raiser pal of Senator Liddle Adam Schitt has finally been arrested. This third victim didn’t even die, but something has changed in California. “LOS ANGELES – Ed Buck, a prominent Democratic Party donor, was arrested Tuesday and charged with operating a drug house after a third man reportedly suffered an overdose inside his West Hollywood home last week and survived. “These fetishes include supplying and personally administering dangerously large doses of narcotics to his victims,” the prosecutors wrote, according to the Times.” I think he may be playing charades. The answer phrase is See You in 2020. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/major-democratic-donor-ed-buck-arrested-charged-with-running-drug-den.amp
  43. 1 point
    23 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: Sorry, I took you for meaning the dumb ones’ failures are ignored, but you surely meant the fails, period, are ignored. Do have experience with cats? Allowed outdoors? You’ve watched them while they are outdoors? In my experience the intelligence depicted in the video just scratches the surface of cats’ abilities. Almost my whole life I've lived with cats. Only when the last one died, 18 years old, we've decided not to take another cat, as that one would probably survive us, and that is an unbearable idea to us, as we've no idea what would become of it then. And yes, they can be clever. When it suits them.
  44. 1 point
    Exclusive: Russia Carried Out A 'Stunning' Breach Of FBI Communications System, Escalating The Spy Game On U.S. Soil
  45. 1 point
    Heh. I hadn’t visited Billy’s Twitter page in a while. The stuff he’s interested in and reposting is instructive. It seems that there are quite a lot of false things that he savors and needs to believe. J
  46. 1 point
  47. 1 point
    I see you have provided the middle with the Kroft interview. Clearly, Soros was never a Nazi, never turned in his fellow citizens for cash. That you would casually make such an allegation on a serious thread is shocking to me, frankly.
  48. 1 point
    The second "take" on history, which you edited in after I asked my question, is so incompatible with the first that I can't perceive any reality in the middle. Either the Nazis chose a 14-year-old Jewish boy as their henchman, or they didn't. He betrayed his "fellow citizens" and profited from their murders, or he didn't. You quote the "stories" and indicate that you believe them based on the evidence you have. Is this so?
  49. 0 points
    Mickey Mouse Disney has their "Club 33" that costs $40,000 to join and $15,000 annual dues. 33 is the number of the freemasons, who worship Lucifer, who also happens to demand human sacrifice.
  50. 0 points
    Mike Rothschild has some analysis ...