This was a great, cogent, compassionate, and extremely prescient post. I am Jewish (99.8%, according to 23andme), and I have repeatedly compared the covid insanity to the insanity of the holocaust, also not in the specifics, but because of each situation's totalitarian details. And while many other jews in my circle have been offended, I feel that it's doubly important for me to be honest as a jew - it's required to appease my own conscience, and in order for me to discuss current events and their ancestral heritage with my children.
I have zero influence and reach, but you nailed all the ways in which RFK does. I am now specifically waiting to see how he as a politician treats the topic of and the crimes committed and currently being perpetuated by the Israeli state. I have been so excited by a truth-telling politician for all the reasons you state, but will temper my enthusiasm until you receive a response.
btw, I'm curious about how someone can be over 99% Jewish... Are you Sephardim or Ashkenazi?
After finding out from a long-lost cousin that Im 1/64th Ashkenazi Jew, I looked into what they meant a bit and ended up reading The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler (the author of Darkness At Noon, widely considered one of the greatest novels of the 20th century).
It claims that most Ashkenazi Jews are descended from European converts. It's quite an amazing book, actually. Some people think it got him killed.
If you read it, it's hard not to be convinced by the main thrust of its argument, and one feels that there is a lot more to the story than what is being told.
When I've brought this up with Jewish people, they seem reluctant to believe it, but can't refute it with evidence. They seem not to want to believe it, which leads me to believe that a lot of Jews have an unhealthy preoccupation with blood purity.
Some people have made vague reference to "genetic studies" but when I tried to search for that evidence, it seemed very complicated and not worth my time to figure out.
I'll quote from a group chat here: "Re: the Khazaria hypothesis, I haven't looked into the history of the region, so I have no opinion on whether the people there converted to Judaism. From what you're saying, it sounds like they did. Either way, good for them.
I disagree with the claim modern Ashkenazi Jews are predominantly descended from Khazars. When The Thirteenth Tribe was written, Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA testing didn't exist. Now it does. It cateforically refutes the hypothesis.
Like you're saying, it's politically convenient for those in the anti-zionist camp to argue for Khazaria, and I often see it trotted out for that purpose. If you're going to argue in favor of it, you really do need to address the counter-argument of DNA testing- it's what convinced me to put the theory aside, and I've never heard it effectively refuted."
When I asked for links to studies, the person went dark.
So... I'll be honest, I don't know the first thing about genetic testing, and am distrustful of genetics because Big Pharma's determination to blame schizophrenia on genetic factors, which remain elusive.
I'd be curious as to your thoughts on genetics as it relates to race.
Even if Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Sephardic Jews, it doesn't change the fact that the term "anti-semitism" is a semantic abomination, because Arabs are also Semites.
Arabs, of course, are semites, so the term "anti-semitism" has irked me from a young age, because muddy language leads to muddled thinking, and this word is a prime example.
Now, granted, I'm WAAAAAAAAAAAAY more into semantics than most people are, but if Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from Semites, that makes the term "anti-semitism" even misleading than I thought.
The fact that such a semantic abomination is used to stifle dissent should tell us all we need to know about the motives of the people who use it in such a way.
I actually found out not that long ago that I am part Jewish. I met a long-lost cousin last Summer and he informed me that I am 1/64th Ashkenazi Jew.
I then had to look into what they meant, because I didn't know Ashkenazi from Sephardim at that point, and ending up reading The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler and concluding that Ashkenazi Jews are not semites.
So yeah, the term anti-semitism is an abomination, and I'm out of patience for the people who pretend it defends statism.
I really like talking to Jewish conspiracy theorists, because they tend to know a lot more about Jewish history, and to have interesting perspectives.
If people are afraid to bring up conspiracy theories with their Jewish friends, all I gotta say is that is that you really oughta try it. You might be surprised.
For example, try asking a Jew: Do you think that Jewish bankers control the International Monetary and Financial System?
If they're an intellectual, and not a programmed robot, chances are that you'll learn something.
Many of the actors that financed Hitler just happened to be Jewish. Many of the actors behind the insanity of the past three years just happen to be Jewish. They hide behind anti-Semitism whenever someone criticizes them or Israel.
They didn't didn't care about the Jewish people in general from the Reichstag fire to 1945 any more than they did the past three years. The proof can be found by looking at Israel today. One of the most compliant countries with respect to the vaxxine. The number of deaths there since New Years Day 2021 speaks for itself.
I don't know if you're right about Hitler having Jewish backers. I'm not that far down the rabbit hole on that one.
I was shocked when I saw James Corbett claim that Hitler was the illegitimate son of one of the Rothschilds, for instance, and I still don't know whether or not to believe him. He's almost always right about nearly everything, though, so I guess I'll have to go that rabbit hole at some point. I'm not looking forward to it, though.
Could you link to a source about the number of deaths in Israel?
In the article, I posted a video with an Israeli anti-mandate activist who, like me, was in self-imposed exile in Chiapas. It's really worth listening to! I learned a lot, and I am definitely convinced of what Etienne de la Boetie from The Art of Liberty says - the real Jewish people are the victims of Zionism.
Speaking of @James Corbett.... I believe it was him or one of his guests being interviewed that said that about the all causes deaths in Israel the past two + years. Sorry, I don't have a link. I can look for something to link to, though.
I'm sifting through a search on his website now. I could be wrong too. It could have been Meryl Nass', Alex Berenson's, or the Coffee & Covid substack where I saw it. I'll link to it here if and when I find it because it is a very interesting thing.
Etienne de la Boetie2 (who was raised Jewish but does not identify as Jewish) says:
"There is no domination of the media, banking and “government” by the Jews.
There is complete domination of the media, banking and “government” by inter-generational organized crime, some of whom happen to be Jewish.
In the same way that the Italian mafia is dominated by overwhelmingly Catholic Italians who promote their own because of familial and community relations, Jewish organized crime promotes their own for the exact same reasons."
"There is no domination of the media, banking and “government” by the Jews."
Hah! AP was bought up by Reuters. Reuters has been under Rothschild control for decades. No Jewish domination, my ass. They are habitual compulsive liars.
....., but don't take my word for it. Here is a quote that says it all.
"You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism created the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this crime is proof that THE GLOBAL MEDIA IS IN THE HANDS OF THE PERPETRATOR."
Start with two Jewish Bankers Oppenheimer & Schiff, but there is a lot of players in the funding of the National Socialist Movement and Hitler's so called rise to power.
Much can be traced back to Wall Street.
The more information I consume the more I deduce that Hitler like almost all leaders is to some a degree a puppet and this leads me to also conclude that much of what i was taught to know, believe or think in compulsory government schools is closer to being a lie than a truth.
War is a crime win or lose where the victors write the history so as to make the losers crime of war look much worse than the victors crime of war........ when it is quite obviously the victor MUST wage more war to win....right???
War is a scam, it is how the 1% of the 1% remakes, rebuilds, remimagines the world in their eyes while consolidating the power, wealth and control of resources amongst the very few.
"I don't know if you're right about Hitler having Jewish backers. I'm not that far down the rabbit hole on that one."
I have seen articles that say that several of Hitlers closest people like Himler and Yodl and even Hitler himself was Jewish. I haven't bothered looking into it because I don't think it matters.
Now let's crawl down the rabbit hole a bit together then. I'm sure you're aware of the Balfour Declaration. If WW I didn't happen Israel would not exist. The Rothschilds needed a port in the Mediterranean Sea for the distribution of the oil in the Caspian Basin. Pipes are under construction, or are already commissioned. To accomplish this they needed Jews to have control of Palestine.
....., which leads us to the transfer agreement between Adolf Hitler and David Ben-Gurion. Behind Ben-Gurion was Rothschild. If WW II didn't happen Israel would not exist.
The following comment smells like a good lead to me:
"The Rothschilds needed a port in the Mediterranean Sea for the distribution of the oil in the Caspian Basin."
I think that studying shipping routes is a great way of understanding geopolitics. You might be interested in a piece I wrote on the subject called "The U.S. is No Match for Russia when it comes to Arctic Warfare".
When I found out that Rio Tinto was a Rothschild-controlled company, I instantly started having questions about the smelting plant in Kitimat, BC, which is one of two major ports on Canada's Northwest Coast. That town didn't exist
Then I found out that they played a role in building a mega-dam in Labrador, which is part of the same land mass as Quebec, but is part of the province of Newfoundland for some weird reason.
Then I started wondering if the Rothschilds had a role in the creation of Labrador. As of the current moment, it remains an open question in my mind. If anyone can help me debunk or confirm this, I'm all ears!
Then I started wondering whether the Bronfmans and Rothschilds might have had something to do with the creation of the rail line between Churchill, Manitoba (on Hudson's Bay).
If you know anything about Canadian geography, you have to admit that it's pretty fucking impressive that that rail line was ever built. There must have been some serious money to be made, and I'm guessing that it wasn't from the fur trade.
Churchill, Manitoba is the ultimate back door into North America. The rail line links to Winnipeg, which is the city closest to the geographic centre of Turtle Island.
(Hence the city's slogan - "Heart of the Continent".)
Given that the Bronfmans were involved in importing English and Scottish liquor during Prohibition, and that Winnipeg was a major transportation hub for bootleggers, I'm wondering whether the Bronfmans might have been behind it. If so, it was probably with the backing of the Rothschilds.
They don't call the Bronfmans the "Rothschilds of the New World" for nothing. Does any serious researcher really think that the two dynasties had nothing to do with each other until after the Bronfmans made their fortune?
The new families have intermarried since then, by the way.
I've ridden the Polar Express from Cochrane, Ontario to Moosonee, and if the great Canadian author Farley Mowat is to be believed, the rail line to Churchill is way crazier.
"If you know anything about Canadian geography, you have to admit that it's pretty fucking impressive that that rail line was ever built."
At the age of 12 I went the seaway from Chicago via Duluth, Detroit and Cleveland. Then we took the St. Lawrence Seaway via Toronto and Montreal before sailing out to the Atlantic. The locks are an impressive accomplishment as well.
"I think that studying shipping routes is a great way of understanding geopolitics."
You bet! The best example of that is the ship that ran aground in the Suez a few years back. International transport of goods is still suffering from that disruption. European stock rooms are still low on various parts. I can't back up what I'm saying here, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was planed. If you to that the supply chain disruption during the past three years. It's one of those things we probably never will get the answer to.
I think it was was Eustace Mullins who said Hitler was the Jewish Messiah because he signed the Harvaara Agreement that allowed jews to transfer to palestine. When I need a laugh i find that video and re watch Eustace explaining that.
Before Epstein, Dershowitz was renowned for defending weathy men who murdered their wives. As pointed out, Dershowitz loves to debate and he had a rather acrimonious one with Norman Finkelstein. Spiteful Alan used his network of well-connected buddies to ensure Finkelstein could not get tenure. I guess, that was his way of getting revenge as even Dershowitz would be too ashamed to call Finkelstein an antisemitic self-hating Jew.
Btw, I had no idea that
RFK, Jr. considers Dershowitz a good friend. But why should that surprise me as he also considers Creepy Joe a pal. How Ironic, as Bernie also said Joe Biden was a good friend of his. And he certainly proved that when he folded like an old used paper towel in 2020 after Biden became the DNC pick. Bernie bowed donning earmuffs, a mask, and gloves. Looking more like a tortured captive in Gitmo than the brave leader of "Our Revolution."😁
But getting back to RFK, Jr. and his run for the Oval Office--in a way that in itself is an oxymoron, especially since he knows that the National Security State operates like a gangster cartel. One in which NIAID works hand-in-glove with DARPA and pharmaceutical companies like Moderna are funded by the CIA.
In any event, the Kennedy family are not strangers to gangsterism as old man Joe Kennedy was linked to bootlegging. Nontheless, that's not such a big deal as all the big shot robber barons of the 19th Century built the US on the Opium trade addicting most of the indigenous population in China.
"It is a little-known fact that American merchants, especially those from Boston, known as Boston Brahmans, were actively involved in the opium trade with China in the 1800's. Many local institutions were funded with that money."
Interesting, how over the last 200 years nothing has changed, as deleterious pharmaceuticals, as well as deadly fentanyl (ironically manufactured in Wuhan) is a multibillion dollar business laundered into the "regular" economy and often confiscated by the security state for CIA Black Ops.
In any event, it's a small world interconnected by the avariciousness of ruling elites who have an obsessive desire to cling to power.
As stated earlier,
CJ Hopkins is not being harassed by the German judicial system because
of his satirical references to Nazism, but because he's opposing totalitarianism. What's especially sardonic, is that German authorities in 2023 are minimalizing antisemitism to cover for a rebranded form of fascist/Stalinism which is actually a continuation of 1938 Nazism. So, will RFK, Jr. be an appeaser, or will he jump in and defend tormented CJ.🤔
..., or will he end up like his uncle, his father and his cousin before the first Tuesday in November next year? The fact that the deep state finances big pharma is a clue.
That would be the outcome if his candidacy was a serous threat to the powers that "shouldn't" be and he actually had a shot ( excuse the distasteful pun) at the Oval Office.🙊
I use the acronym TPTSB all the time. I've also said countless times that the final step in hijacking the US was when his uncle was killed close to sixty years ago. His father actually did have a realistic chance to win, so they eliminated him paving the way for Humphrey and Wallace to run against Tricky Dick the 1st. Neither of the two had a snowball's chance in hell against him thanks to LBJ.
Too bad CJ hates me now, because I definitely don't hate him. He's a brilliant, brilliant theorist. The stuff about de-coding values? Extremely valuable.
He's having an impact beyond the vanilla political sphere too, by the way. His ideas have been taken up by Daniel Pinchbeck, the psychedelic philosopher.
(I tried to find the link but can't remember the title of the piece. But it was published in the past few months.)
LBJ was probably in cahoots with JFK's assassins. Notice how LBJ couldn't get sworn in fast enough, he had them do it on the plane transporting Jackie back to DC in her pink bloodstained suit.
Not even probably. He was. On my sixth birthday, the evening before, there was a party at the Texas governor's mansion. Every US spook, and everyone who had skin in the game was there. LBJ included. I read about that at a forum by the name of waronyou.com which was taken down during the Dumbo years (almost a decade ago).
On the 22nd it was as if there was an assassin convention in Dallas. I read a list at the same site years ago.
BTW, have you seen the picture of GHWBush41 at Deally Plaza? He is the... strike that...., was the only one on the planet that didn't remember where he was on 11/22/1967. We believe him, right?
Of course, George H W Bush was in on it too.....I saw those photos, maybe that sealed the deal for his ascent to head the CIA under Carter. But, isn't it also interesting that practically everyone in Carter's cabinet was a member of the Trilateral Commission and that includes Brzezinski who was introduced to Carter by Rockefeller who established the organization.
The problem with all politicians is that they say one thing, and then they do the opposite. Take Dumbo for instance. He was going to close Gitmo, end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, have more openness in government etc., etc.
People were ecstatic when they heard him say that after eight years with an asshat occupying the oval orifice.
Once elected what did he do? He never did anything about Gitmo or the wars in Afghanistan. On the contrary. He expanded the war to Pakistan. He bombed Libya back to the stone age. Instead of more openness he ensured more secrecy. He went after whistle blowers like no POTUS before him. That's just the start, and people still to this day admire that Oreo cookie.
Bernie Sanders is another good example. As soon as he got his ass kicked (literally), he sold his base down the river and supported Killary.
Then you have the bimbo form Hawaii. She swore an oath when she joined the armed forces. She repeated that same oath when she became a politician. Then as soon as she gets to the district of criminals she votes FOR the anti-BDS bill which is in direct contradiction to the 1st amendment of the Constitution.
Q: How do you know when politicians are lying?
A: There is sound coming out of their mouths.
On rare occasions politicians tell the truth. The last time I heard an honest statement from a politician was on inauguration day 2021 when the senile hologram said "AMERICA IS BACK!"
I was scared shitles because I knew what was coming since he had Victoria "Fuck the EU! We want Yatsieniuk!" Nuland onboard.
Haha, that's a good one! I heard a version of the same joke, but about lawyers.
Q: How do you know when a lawyer is lying?
A: Their lips are moving.
People need to understand that a lot of politicians are lawyers, and that lawyers are professional liars.
If that hurts anyone's feelings, it's because it's true, broadly speaking.
Are there exceptions? Sure. But lawyers don't become lawyers because they love legalese. They become lawyers because they like 1) money, and 2) winning arguments.
Obviously, I'd be great at being a lawyer, but I consider it a misuse of intelligence, and I don't respect the "profession" one bit.
I hate lawyers because they give rhetoric a bad name.
If God gave you the gift of intelligence, you're meant to use it. And if you rent your intellect out to the highest bidder, you're not a pimp. You're a whore.
There are good ones out there, like Rocco Galati, but at least 95% of lawyers are part of the problem, not the solution.
There are tens of thousands of lawyers out there using their intellect to befuddle, flummox, mystify and generally mislead people of lesser mental agility.
Respect them? Never.
Part of what I hate about Western society is that parents are proud of their kids when they become lawyers and doctors.
I stand in solidarity with CJ Hopkins and all the other dissidents of our time. I believe that, working together, we shall free the slaves, stop the wars, and end tyranny.
Long ago Edmund Burke wrote, "When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." For various reasons he is also believed to have said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Beats me. I'm guessing that he values his relationship with Bobby-boy more than this relationship with Nevermore. He'll learn his lesson.
I'm really hoping that we don't get into a big flame war over this, but that will make it more difficult for him to pivot when he realizes that RFK isn't in his corner.
My religious convictions don't allow for me to gaze into crystal balls. Think of the palantir scene in Lord of the Rings. But we don't need demonically possessed spherical artefacts to know that Bobby Kennedy is a politician. He's not really on anyone's side. People who run for president are seeking power, which, as JRR Tolkien wrote is not a good thing for anyone to have over others.
I have already concluded that RFK will sell out the right to keep and bear arms at the first opportunity. So he's not my guy. Maybe he won't have a reason to sell CJ down the river. But what are the odds?
Bold post. Good points. The following quote stood out to me:
"Perhaps he is just “playing the game” and is just saying the things that you need to say in order to stand a chance of getting elected.
Forgive me for my cynicism, but from what I’ve observed in my 35 years on Planet Earth, once politicians start “playing the game”, they don’t stop. "
I'm fully in agreement with giving the benefit of the doubt, but if Kennedy starts acting more and more like a politician, and we keep excusing it as part of the need for playing some five D political chess game than that looks a whole lot like Q-Anon. It would be awful, but kind of funny too, if we have Q-Anon 2.0.
Hey Crow, 1.) Why no reply? I wrote asking you whatever happened to the lady from New Brunswick who was handling Nevermore? She asked for poems for publication, I sent her some, she was enthusiastic, I think published one poem, then I mailed her two of my books and no response. I emailed her as well, no response
2.) As for RFK Jr possibly being controlled opposition, given the REALLY DANGEROUS situation we health freedom activists and questioners of the System are in, that comes across as just being naughty. RFK Jr is not perfect -- especially I am upset by his recent almost unconditional support for Israel -- but one thing about him that's unique among public figures is his willingness to change his mind. And I know people who have his ear are trying to wake him up to the Israeli apartheid state. So dangling the heavy "controlled opposition"phrase because Bobby failed to jump to the defense of C J Hopkins soon enough for you is leaping to an unwarranted conclusion. Bobby is running for president, he has a gazillion things on his plate. Finding this or that fault when he offers so much integrity and intelligence and heart is like nitpicking while Rome burns. We are up against the wall, partner! No time to be doctrinaire
For the record (1) I have never been "a member of the Nevermore team," (2) I have never compared the New Normal, or New Normal Germany, or anything else, to the Holocaust, and I have expressly advised against doing so, and (3) I am not facing “charges of anti-Semitism.” I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your mischaracterizations are simply the result of narcissism and sloppiness, but, whatever their cause, they do not help, and it is annoying being forced to spend time publicly correcting them.
Why the hell are you lying? Margaret Anna Alice invited you to join, and you were listed as a contributor on the website for many months. Then you took offence at me talking shit about lawyers and requested that your name be removed from the website.
I don't like being gas-lit, and she can set the record straight if need be. She won't like being dragged into this, though.
Good lord, you're crusty. Are you suffering from constipation or something? Sorry for trying to bring attention to your case. What a dick I am.
I get the feeling that you're taking advice from your lawyer. Let me know how that works out for you.
I was trying to lend a hand in your hour of need, but if you think that sticking your tail between your legs is the way to deal with false accusations, that's your call and I wish you the very best.
As for the "narcissism and sloppiness", all I can say that I would have thought that you, of all people, would get what I'm trying to do.
Do you really need a decoder ring? How deeply have you thought this through? Your reaction seems kinda knee-jerky to me.
It's unfortunate I have to explain this, but the best defence is a good offence. If you allow discourse to happen without the parameters set by your enemies, you're setting yourself up for failure. If you accept their logic, they win. If they get to be the referees, they win. If you play by their rules, they win.
If, on the other hand, you can make it your own game, where you make the rules, you're in a much stronger position. Do you know what Calvinball is? That's my jam.
Given that you recently wrote the Anti-Anti-Semitism Follies, I thought you understood how this bullshit works.
And yes, the whole spook of anti-semitism is bullshit, because most Jews are descended from European converts, not Semites. Read The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler if you don't believe me.
I'm part Ashenanzi Jew, by the way, and I have looked into things enough to conclude that Koestler was most likely right. I stand to be corrected though. Ethnography is complicated.
I'm curious if you believe that Ashkenazi Jews are Semites, but I have a feeling that we're not about to have a constructive, healthy, comradely discussion, which is a shame.
It's hilarious to me that you're defending Anti-Anti-Semitism after writing the Anti-Anti-Semitism Follies, but okay.
Are you really afraid of being associated with someone like me because the woke mob thinks I'm an anti-Semite? Lame.
I get that it wouldn't be smart for you to take a "I am whatever you say I am" approach, but I'm playing my hand. By being outrageous, it makes the next person seem more reasonable.
I have developed some effective persuasion strategies over the course of my activism career. If you weren't so emotionally reactive, maybe you'd learn something.
One of them is based on the understanding that it's always better to be the second most radical person in the room, because you automatically seem more reasonable when your position is being compared to one that's one radical.
I was trying to make you seem more reasonable, and using the fact that I am crazy to my advantage. It's a way of turning a weakness into a strength.
Man, I wish I didn't have to explain this.
This is called "setting the frame". I recommend reading Pre-Suasion by Robert Cialdini if you're interested if learning something that could help you become more persuasive.
Tuck that word into the back of your brain, will you? PRE-SUASION. The alternative is the default, which is a null comparative.
Maybe when you're in a better mood (possibly after you have nice satisfying bowel movement), you'll get curious about these ideas. If you're in the business of persuasion, these are pro tips. Thank me later.
Alternatively, you could not look into these ideas, because they're now associated in your mind with me, and you don't like me. Your call. I don't know how curious of a person you are.
Too bad you read my piece at such a shallow level. There are a lot more layers to it if you take the time to think about them.
For instance, the title/subtitle combo is a joke about how electoral democracy works on the same principle as the double bind. Did you get that, or were you too busy being annoyed about being forced to publicly correct me?
On the surface, I'm just being a dick, but if you think about it a bit more, you might come to appreciate what I'm saying at a deeper level.
What I was trying to do was to shift the Overton window by taking a position straddling the line between radical and unthinkable, thereby moving the centre.
Oh yeah, one last thing. I didn't force you to do sweet fuck-all, sweetheart. I don't force anyone to do anything, and it's annoying to see a writer as talented as you use language so sloppily, whilst simultaneously lying and insulting me.
Yeah, I'm starting to get why you're soft on lawyers. Ah, well. You'll learn.
Are you really trying to distance yourself from someone who's trying to defend you? You must have had very different life experiences than I have if you think that it's smart to distance yourselves from people who are on your side in order to shield yourself from the ire of your enemies. Maybe you went to a private school or something. You don't seem to understand politics on an animal level.
Ah well, your loss. If you don't want people showing solidarity with you, fine. I'll shut up about you, and if you can return the favour we can both live happily ever after. Capiche?
No, I didn't join anything. Margaret asked me if she could list me as a "contributor" on the site and re-post some of my essays. I said yes, because I trusted her, which was a mistake. I forgot about it until I encountered you, whereupon I asked her to remove my name. In any event, putting my name on your website doesn't make me a "member of your team." Please do leave me alone now. I find you annoying and creepy. Whatever your trip is, I do not want anything to do with it.
CJ replied: No, I didn't join anything. Margaret asked me if she could list me as a "contributor" on the site and re-post some of my essays. I said yes, because I trusted her, which was a mistake. I forgot about it until I encountered you, whereupon I asked her to remove my name. In any event, putting my name on your website doesn't make me a "member of your team."
He's totally lying. I don't get it. I wouldn't expect someone as smart as him to lie in such a blatant way, but maybe he's not as smart as I thought he was.
Here's my reply to CJ's comment:
Why the hell are you lying? Margaret Anna Alice invited you to join, and you were listed as a contributor on the website for many months. Then you took offence at me talking shit about lawyers and requested that your name be removed from the website.
I don't like being gas-lit, and she can set the record straight if need be. She won't like being dragged into this, though.
Good lord, you're crusty. Are you suffering from constipation or something? Sorry for trying to bring attention to your case. What a dick I am.
I get the feeling that you're taking advice from your lawyer. Let me know how that works out for you.
I was trying to lend a hand in your hour of need, but if you think that sticking your tail between your legs is the way to deal with false accusations, that's your call and I wish you the very best.
As for the "narcissism and sloppiness", all I can say that I would have thought that you, of all people, would get what I'm trying to do.
Do you really need a decoder ring? How deeply have you thought this through? Your reaction seems kinda knee-jerky to me.
It's unfortunate I have to explain this, but the best defence is a good offence. If you allow discourse to happen without the parameters set by your enemies, you're setting yourself up for failure. If you accept their logic, they win. If they get to be the referees, they win. If you play by their rules, they win.
If, on the other hand, you can make it your own game, where you make the rules, you're in a much stronger position. Do you know what Calvinball is? That's my jam.
Given that you recently wrote the Anti-Anti-Semitism Follies, I thought you understood how this bullshit works.
And yes, the whole spook of anti-semitism is bullshit, because most Jews are descended from European converts, not Semites. Read The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler if you don't believe me.
I'm part Ashenanzi Jew, by the way, and I have looked into things enough to conclude that Koestler was most likely right. I stand to be corrected though. Ethnography is complicated.
I'm curious if you believe that Ashkenazi Jews are Semites, but I have a feeling that we're not about to have a constructive, healthy, comradely discussion, which is a shame.
It's hilarious to me that you're defending Anti-Anti-Semitism after writing the Anti-Anti-Semitism Follies, but okay.
Are you really afraid of being associated with someone like me because the woke mob thinks I'm an anti-Semite? Lame.
I get that it wouldn't be smart for you to take a "I am whatever you say I am" approach, but I'm playing my hand. By being outrageous, it makes the next person seem more reasonable.
I have developed some effective persuasion strategies over the course of my activism career. If you weren't so emotionally reactive, maybe you'd learn something.
One of them is based on the understanding that it's always better to be the second most radical person in the room, because you automatically seem more reasonable when your position is being compared to one that's one radical.
I was trying to make you seem more reasonable, and using the fact that I am crazy to my advantage. It's a way of turning a weakness into a strength.
Man, I wish I didn't have to explain this.
This is called "setting the frame". I recommend reading Pre-Suasion by Robert Cialdini if you're interested if learning something that could help you become more persuasive.
Tuck that word into the back of your brain, will you? PRE-SUASION. The alternative is the default, which is a null comparative.
Maybe when you're in a better mood (possibly after you have nice satisfying bowel movement), you'll get curious about these ideas. If you're in the business of persuasion, these are pro tips. Thank me later.
Alternatively, you could not look into these ideas, because they're now associated in your mind with me, and you don't like me. Your call. I don't know how curious of a person you are.
Too bad you read my piece at such a shallow level. There are a lot more layers to it if you take the time to think about them.
For instance, the title/subtitle combo is a joke about how electoral democracy works on the same principle as the double bind. Did you get that, or were you too busy being annoyed about being forced to publicly correct me?
On the surface, I'm just being a dick, but if you think about it a bit more, you might come to appreciate what I'm saying at a deeper level.
What I was trying to do was to shift the Overton window by taking a position straddling the line between radical and unthinkable, thereby moving the centre.
Oh yeah, one last thing. I didn't force you to do sweet fuck-all, sweetheart. I don't force anyone to do anything, and it's annoying to see a writer as talented as you use language so sloppily, whilst simultaneously lying and insulting me.
Yeah, I'm starting to get why you're soft on lawyers. Ah, well. You'll learn.
Are you really trying to distance yourself from someone who's trying to defend you? You must have had very different life experiences than I have if you think that it's smart to distance yourselves from people who are on your side in order to shield yourself from the ire of your enemies. Maybe you went to a private school or something. You don't seem to understand politics on an animal level.
Ah well, your loss. If you don't want people showing solidarity with you, fine. I'll shut up about you, and if you can return the favour we can both live happily ever after. Capiche?
This was a great, cogent, compassionate, and extremely prescient post. I am Jewish (99.8%, according to 23andme), and I have repeatedly compared the covid insanity to the insanity of the holocaust, also not in the specifics, but because of each situation's totalitarian details. And while many other jews in my circle have been offended, I feel that it's doubly important for me to be honest as a jew - it's required to appease my own conscience, and in order for me to discuss current events and their ancestral heritage with my children.
I have zero influence and reach, but you nailed all the ways in which RFK does. I am now specifically waiting to see how he as a politician treats the topic of and the crimes committed and currently being perpetuated by the Israeli state. I have been so excited by a truth-telling politician for all the reasons you state, but will temper my enthusiasm until you receive a response.
So far, RFK's silence is deafening.
btw, I'm curious about how someone can be over 99% Jewish... Are you Sephardim or Ashkenazi?
After finding out from a long-lost cousin that Im 1/64th Ashkenazi Jew, I looked into what they meant a bit and ended up reading The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler (the author of Darkness At Noon, widely considered one of the greatest novels of the 20th century).
It claims that most Ashkenazi Jews are descended from European converts. It's quite an amazing book, actually. Some people think it got him killed.
If you read it, it's hard not to be convinced by the main thrust of its argument, and one feels that there is a lot more to the story than what is being told.
When I've brought this up with Jewish people, they seem reluctant to believe it, but can't refute it with evidence. They seem not to want to believe it, which leads me to believe that a lot of Jews have an unhealthy preoccupation with blood purity.
Some people have made vague reference to "genetic studies" but when I tried to search for that evidence, it seemed very complicated and not worth my time to figure out.
I'll quote from a group chat here: "Re: the Khazaria hypothesis, I haven't looked into the history of the region, so I have no opinion on whether the people there converted to Judaism. From what you're saying, it sounds like they did. Either way, good for them.
I disagree with the claim modern Ashkenazi Jews are predominantly descended from Khazars. When The Thirteenth Tribe was written, Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA testing didn't exist. Now it does. It cateforically refutes the hypothesis.
Like you're saying, it's politically convenient for those in the anti-zionist camp to argue for Khazaria, and I often see it trotted out for that purpose. If you're going to argue in favor of it, you really do need to address the counter-argument of DNA testing- it's what convinced me to put the theory aside, and I've never heard it effectively refuted."
When I asked for links to studies, the person went dark.
So... I'll be honest, I don't know the first thing about genetic testing, and am distrustful of genetics because Big Pharma's determination to blame schizophrenia on genetic factors, which remain elusive.
I'd be curious as to your thoughts on genetics as it relates to race.
Even if Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Sephardic Jews, it doesn't change the fact that the term "anti-semitism" is a semantic abomination, because Arabs are also Semites.
Arabs, of course, are semites, so the term "anti-semitism" has irked me from a young age, because muddy language leads to muddled thinking, and this word is a prime example.
Now, granted, I'm WAAAAAAAAAAAAY more into semantics than most people are, but if Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from Semites, that makes the term "anti-semitism" even misleading than I thought.
The fact that such a semantic abomination is used to stifle dissent should tell us all we need to know about the motives of the people who use it in such a way.
Thank you for posting!
I actually found out not that long ago that I am part Jewish. I met a long-lost cousin last Summer and he informed me that I am 1/64th Ashkenazi Jew.
I then had to look into what they meant, because I didn't know Ashkenazi from Sephardim at that point, and ending up reading The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler and concluding that Ashkenazi Jews are not semites.
So yeah, the term anti-semitism is an abomination, and I'm out of patience for the people who pretend it defends statism.
I really like talking to Jewish conspiracy theorists, because they tend to know a lot more about Jewish history, and to have interesting perspectives.
If people are afraid to bring up conspiracy theories with their Jewish friends, all I gotta say is that is that you really oughta try it. You might be surprised.
For example, try asking a Jew: Do you think that Jewish bankers control the International Monetary and Financial System?
If they're an intellectual, and not a programmed robot, chances are that you'll learn something.
Many of the actors that financed Hitler just happened to be Jewish. Many of the actors behind the insanity of the past three years just happen to be Jewish. They hide behind anti-Semitism whenever someone criticizes them or Israel.
https://rumble.com/v1qgzvb-israeli-minister-somebody-criticizing-israel-then-we-bring-up-the-holocaust.html
They didn't didn't care about the Jewish people in general from the Reichstag fire to 1945 any more than they did the past three years. The proof can be found by looking at Israel today. One of the most compliant countries with respect to the vaxxine. The number of deaths there since New Years Day 2021 speaks for itself.
I don't know if you're right about Hitler having Jewish backers. I'm not that far down the rabbit hole on that one.
I was shocked when I saw James Corbett claim that Hitler was the illegitimate son of one of the Rothschilds, for instance, and I still don't know whether or not to believe him. He's almost always right about nearly everything, though, so I guess I'll have to go that rabbit hole at some point. I'm not looking forward to it, though.
Could you link to a source about the number of deaths in Israel?
In the article, I posted a video with an Israeli anti-mandate activist who, like me, was in self-imposed exile in Chiapas. It's really worth listening to! I learned a lot, and I am definitely convinced of what Etienne de la Boetie from The Art of Liberty says - the real Jewish people are the victims of Zionism.
Speaking of @James Corbett.... I believe it was him or one of his guests being interviewed that said that about the all causes deaths in Israel the past two + years. Sorry, I don't have a link. I can look for something to link to, though.
Do you remember which episode it was? I'm definitely interested!
I'm sifting through a search on his website now. I could be wrong too. It could have been Meryl Nass', Alex Berenson's, or the Coffee & Covid substack where I saw it. I'll link to it here if and when I find it because it is a very interesting thing.
Etienne de la Boetie2 (who was raised Jewish but does not identify as Jewish) says:
"There is no domination of the media, banking and “government” by the Jews.
There is complete domination of the media, banking and “government” by inter-generational organized crime, some of whom happen to be Jewish.
In the same way that the Italian mafia is dominated by overwhelmingly Catholic Italians who promote their own because of familial and community relations, Jewish organized crime promotes their own for the exact same reasons."
If anyone is wondering there that media ownership infographic I used came from, I refer you to Etienne's Art of Liberty project: https://artofliberty.substack.com/p/rfk-jr-and-understanding-zioniststatist?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=810124&post_id=126941350&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
"There is no domination of the media, banking and “government” by the Jews."
Hah! AP was bought up by Reuters. Reuters has been under Rothschild control for decades. No Jewish domination, my ass. They are habitual compulsive liars.
....., but don't take my word for it. Here is a quote that says it all.
"You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism created the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this crime is proof that THE GLOBAL MEDIA IS IN THE HANDS OF THE PERPETRATOR."
- Alexandr Solzhenitsyn -
(Emphasis mine)
On the other hand..... The dinosaur media constantly yap about the Holocaust®.
Start with two Jewish Bankers Oppenheimer & Schiff, but there is a lot of players in the funding of the National Socialist Movement and Hitler's so called rise to power.
Much can be traced back to Wall Street.
The more information I consume the more I deduce that Hitler like almost all leaders is to some a degree a puppet and this leads me to also conclude that much of what i was taught to know, believe or think in compulsory government schools is closer to being a lie than a truth.
War is a crime win or lose where the victors write the history so as to make the losers crime of war look much worse than the victors crime of war........ when it is quite obviously the victor MUST wage more war to win....right???
War is a scam, it is how the 1% of the 1% remakes, rebuilds, remimagines the world in their eyes while consolidating the power, wealth and control of resources amongst the very few.
"I don't know if you're right about Hitler having Jewish backers. I'm not that far down the rabbit hole on that one."
I have seen articles that say that several of Hitlers closest people like Himler and Yodl and even Hitler himself was Jewish. I haven't bothered looking into it because I don't think it matters.
Now let's crawl down the rabbit hole a bit together then. I'm sure you're aware of the Balfour Declaration. If WW I didn't happen Israel would not exist. The Rothschilds needed a port in the Mediterranean Sea for the distribution of the oil in the Caspian Basin. Pipes are under construction, or are already commissioned. To accomplish this they needed Jews to have control of Palestine.
....., which leads us to the transfer agreement between Adolf Hitler and David Ben-Gurion. Behind Ben-Gurion was Rothschild. If WW II didn't happen Israel would not exist.
https://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story35038.html
and
https://www.palestineremembered.com/FactsAboutHaavara.html
The following comment smells like a good lead to me:
"The Rothschilds needed a port in the Mediterranean Sea for the distribution of the oil in the Caspian Basin."
I think that studying shipping routes is a great way of understanding geopolitics. You might be interested in a piece I wrote on the subject called "The U.S. is No Match for Russia when it comes to Arctic Warfare".
When I found out that Rio Tinto was a Rothschild-controlled company, I instantly started having questions about the smelting plant in Kitimat, BC, which is one of two major ports on Canada's Northwest Coast. That town didn't exist
Then I found out that they played a role in building a mega-dam in Labrador, which is part of the same land mass as Quebec, but is part of the province of Newfoundland for some weird reason.
Then I started wondering if the Rothschilds had a role in the creation of Labrador. As of the current moment, it remains an open question in my mind. If anyone can help me debunk or confirm this, I'm all ears!
Then I started wondering whether the Bronfmans and Rothschilds might have had something to do with the creation of the rail line between Churchill, Manitoba (on Hudson's Bay).
If you know anything about Canadian geography, you have to admit that it's pretty fucking impressive that that rail line was ever built. There must have been some serious money to be made, and I'm guessing that it wasn't from the fur trade.
Churchill, Manitoba is the ultimate back door into North America. The rail line links to Winnipeg, which is the city closest to the geographic centre of Turtle Island.
(Hence the city's slogan - "Heart of the Continent".)
Given that the Bronfmans were involved in importing English and Scottish liquor during Prohibition, and that Winnipeg was a major transportation hub for bootleggers, I'm wondering whether the Bronfmans might have been behind it. If so, it was probably with the backing of the Rothschilds.
They don't call the Bronfmans the "Rothschilds of the New World" for nothing. Does any serious researcher really think that the two dynasties had nothing to do with each other until after the Bronfmans made their fortune?
The new families have intermarried since then, by the way.
I've ridden the Polar Express from Cochrane, Ontario to Moosonee, and if the great Canadian author Farley Mowat is to be believed, the rail line to Churchill is way crazier.
I like your theory. Do say more!
"If you know anything about Canadian geography, you have to admit that it's pretty fucking impressive that that rail line was ever built."
At the age of 12 I went the seaway from Chicago via Duluth, Detroit and Cleveland. Then we took the St. Lawrence Seaway via Toronto and Montreal before sailing out to the Atlantic. The locks are an impressive accomplishment as well.
"I think that studying shipping routes is a great way of understanding geopolitics."
You bet! The best example of that is the ship that ran aground in the Suez a few years back. International transport of goods is still suffering from that disruption. European stock rooms are still low on various parts. I can't back up what I'm saying here, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was planed. If you to that the supply chain disruption during the past three years. It's one of those things we probably never will get the answer to.
If you ADD to that the supply chain disruption during the past three years
"The Rothschilds needed a port in the Mediterranean Sea for the distribution of the oil in the Caspian Basin."
That also meant the Ottoman Empire had to be destroyed.
Well, it was just a matter of time before the "Old Man of Europe" croaked, wasn't it?
Am I the only one of thinks of the "Old Man" metaphor for empire when they see Biden stumbling and rambling incoherently?
It's funny (or rather interesting) how the right history book can describe Afghanistan as the graveyard of empires.
- Genghis Khan
- Alexander The Great
- The British Empire
- The USSR
- It's only a matter of time before it is acknowledged, but the United States of America is next.
Correct me if I missed one or more.
I think it was was Eustace Mullins who said Hitler was the Jewish Messiah because he signed the Harvaara Agreement that allowed jews to transfer to palestine. When I need a laugh i find that video and re watch Eustace explaining that.
Before Epstein, Dershowitz was renowned for defending weathy men who murdered their wives. As pointed out, Dershowitz loves to debate and he had a rather acrimonious one with Norman Finkelstein. Spiteful Alan used his network of well-connected buddies to ensure Finkelstein could not get tenure. I guess, that was his way of getting revenge as even Dershowitz would be too ashamed to call Finkelstein an antisemitic self-hating Jew.
Btw, I had no idea that
RFK, Jr. considers Dershowitz a good friend. But why should that surprise me as he also considers Creepy Joe a pal. How Ironic, as Bernie also said Joe Biden was a good friend of his. And he certainly proved that when he folded like an old used paper towel in 2020 after Biden became the DNC pick. Bernie bowed donning earmuffs, a mask, and gloves. Looking more like a tortured captive in Gitmo than the brave leader of "Our Revolution."😁
But getting back to RFK, Jr. and his run for the Oval Office--in a way that in itself is an oxymoron, especially since he knows that the National Security State operates like a gangster cartel. One in which NIAID works hand-in-glove with DARPA and pharmaceutical companies like Moderna are funded by the CIA.
In any event, the Kennedy family are not strangers to gangsterism as old man Joe Kennedy was linked to bootlegging. Nontheless, that's not such a big deal as all the big shot robber barons of the 19th Century built the US on the Opium trade addicting most of the indigenous population in China.
"It is a little-known fact that American merchants, especially those from Boston, known as Boston Brahmans, were actively involved in the opium trade with China in the 1800's. Many local institutions were funded with that money."
Interesting, how over the last 200 years nothing has changed, as deleterious pharmaceuticals, as well as deadly fentanyl (ironically manufactured in Wuhan) is a multibillion dollar business laundered into the "regular" economy and often confiscated by the security state for CIA Black Ops.
In any event, it's a small world interconnected by the avariciousness of ruling elites who have an obsessive desire to cling to power.
As stated earlier,
CJ Hopkins is not being harassed by the German judicial system because
of his satirical references to Nazism, but because he's opposing totalitarianism. What's especially sardonic, is that German authorities in 2023 are minimalizing antisemitism to cover for a rebranded form of fascist/Stalinism which is actually a continuation of 1938 Nazism. So, will RFK, Jr. be an appeaser, or will he jump in and defend tormented CJ.🤔
..., or will he end up like his uncle, his father and his cousin before the first Tuesday in November next year? The fact that the deep state finances big pharma is a clue.
That would be the outcome if his candidacy was a serous threat to the powers that "shouldn't" be and he actually had a shot ( excuse the distasteful pun) at the Oval Office.🙊
I use the acronym TPTSB all the time. I've also said countless times that the final step in hijacking the US was when his uncle was killed close to sixty years ago. His father actually did have a realistic chance to win, so they eliminated him paving the way for Humphrey and Wallace to run against Tricky Dick the 1st. Neither of the two had a snowball's chance in hell against him thanks to LBJ.
I wasn't around back then, but everything you say sounds right.
CJ has a great take on this, by the way. He gives great importance to the assassinations of JFK and RFK Sr.
Partly, I'm basing my position of "if RFK was a real threat to the TPTSB, they'd just kill him" on CJ's ideas.
Last Summer, Nevermore published a conversation between Margaret Anna Alice and CJ which you can find here:
https://nevermore.media/2022/08/09/dissident-dialogues-cj-hopkins/
Too bad CJ hates me now, because I definitely don't hate him. He's a brilliant, brilliant theorist. The stuff about de-coding values? Extremely valuable.
He's having an impact beyond the vanilla political sphere too, by the way. His ideas have been taken up by Daniel Pinchbeck, the psychedelic philosopher.
(I tried to find the link but can't remember the title of the piece. But it was published in the past few months.)
"Partly, I'm basing my position of "if RFK was a real threat to the TPTSB, they'd just kill him" on CJ's ideas."
The alphabet soup hated RFK. They viewed him as incompetent and claimed he put their field agents in harms way as Attorney General.
"Last Summer, Nevermore published a conversation between Margaret Anna Alice and CJ which you can find here"
I saw a back and forth on the NEVER MORE substack from earlier today (I believe) where he asked someone to stop bothering him about that stuff.
"(I tried to find the link but can't remember the title of the piece. But it was published in the past few months.)"
I resemble that remark.
Sorry, I don't understand this comment. Who said that? CJ? Where did he say that?
LBJ was probably in cahoots with JFK's assassins. Notice how LBJ couldn't get sworn in fast enough, he had them do it on the plane transporting Jackie back to DC in her pink bloodstained suit.
Not even probably. He was. On my sixth birthday, the evening before, there was a party at the Texas governor's mansion. Every US spook, and everyone who had skin in the game was there. LBJ included. I read about that at a forum by the name of waronyou.com which was taken down during the Dumbo years (almost a decade ago).
On the 22nd it was as if there was an assassin convention in Dallas. I read a list at the same site years ago.
BTW, have you seen the picture of GHWBush41 at Deally Plaza? He is the... strike that...., was the only one on the planet that didn't remember where he was on 11/22/1967. We believe him, right?
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=george+bush+dealey+plaza+photo&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F32%2Ffb%2F1d%2F32fb1d62aadfaa0428de95fc81e3634f.jpg
Of course, George H W Bush was in on it too.....I saw those photos, maybe that sealed the deal for his ascent to head the CIA under Carter. But, isn't it also interesting that practically everyone in Carter's cabinet was a member of the Trilateral Commission and that includes Brzezinski who was introduced to Carter by Rockefeller who established the organization.
The problem with all politicians is that they say one thing, and then they do the opposite. Take Dumbo for instance. He was going to close Gitmo, end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, have more openness in government etc., etc.
People were ecstatic when they heard him say that after eight years with an asshat occupying the oval orifice.
Once elected what did he do? He never did anything about Gitmo or the wars in Afghanistan. On the contrary. He expanded the war to Pakistan. He bombed Libya back to the stone age. Instead of more openness he ensured more secrecy. He went after whistle blowers like no POTUS before him. That's just the start, and people still to this day admire that Oreo cookie.
Bernie Sanders is another good example. As soon as he got his ass kicked (literally), he sold his base down the river and supported Killary.
Then you have the bimbo form Hawaii. She swore an oath when she joined the armed forces. She repeated that same oath when she became a politician. Then as soon as she gets to the district of criminals she votes FOR the anti-BDS bill which is in direct contradiction to the 1st amendment of the Constitution.
Q: How do you know when politicians are lying?
A: There is sound coming out of their mouths.
On rare occasions politicians tell the truth. The last time I heard an honest statement from a politician was on inauguration day 2021 when the senile hologram said "AMERICA IS BACK!"
I was scared shitles because I knew what was coming since he had Victoria "Fuck the EU! We want Yatsieniuk!" Nuland onboard.
Haha, that's a good one! I heard a version of the same joke, but about lawyers.
Q: How do you know when a lawyer is lying?
A: Their lips are moving.
People need to understand that a lot of politicians are lawyers, and that lawyers are professional liars.
If that hurts anyone's feelings, it's because it's true, broadly speaking.
Are there exceptions? Sure. But lawyers don't become lawyers because they love legalese. They become lawyers because they like 1) money, and 2) winning arguments.
Obviously, I'd be great at being a lawyer, but I consider it a misuse of intelligence, and I don't respect the "profession" one bit.
I hate lawyers because they give rhetoric a bad name.
If God gave you the gift of intelligence, you're meant to use it. And if you rent your intellect out to the highest bidder, you're not a pimp. You're a whore.
There are good ones out there, like Rocco Galati, but at least 95% of lawyers are part of the problem, not the solution.
There are tens of thousands of lawyers out there using their intellect to befuddle, flummox, mystify and generally mislead people of lesser mental agility.
Respect them? Never.
Part of what I hate about Western society is that parents are proud of their kids when they become lawyers and doctors.
To be fair, in this day and age, politicians can lie without emitting sounds by using the virtual keyboards on their phones to text lies. just sayin'
Touche!
I stand in solidarity with CJ Hopkins and all the other dissidents of our time. I believe that, working together, we shall free the slaves, stop the wars, and end tyranny.
Long ago Edmund Burke wrote, "When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." For various reasons he is also believed to have said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Let us do what we can.
Thank you for your words. Very apropos.
CJ has made it clear that he doesn't want my support, but I hope that other people continue to support him.
It's the dog in your avatar picture isn't it? jk lol
Beats me. I'm guessing that he values his relationship with Bobby-boy more than this relationship with Nevermore. He'll learn his lesson.
I'm really hoping that we don't get into a big flame war over this, but that will make it more difficult for him to pivot when he realizes that RFK isn't in his corner.
Probably. I don't have a crystal ball.
My religious convictions don't allow for me to gaze into crystal balls. Think of the palantir scene in Lord of the Rings. But we don't need demonically possessed spherical artefacts to know that Bobby Kennedy is a politician. He's not really on anyone's side. People who run for president are seeking power, which, as JRR Tolkien wrote is not a good thing for anyone to have over others.
I have already concluded that RFK will sell out the right to keep and bear arms at the first opportunity. So he's not my guy. Maybe he won't have a reason to sell CJ down the river. But what are the odds?
Bold post. Good points. The following quote stood out to me:
"Perhaps he is just “playing the game” and is just saying the things that you need to say in order to stand a chance of getting elected.
Forgive me for my cynicism, but from what I’ve observed in my 35 years on Planet Earth, once politicians start “playing the game”, they don’t stop. "
I'm fully in agreement with giving the benefit of the doubt, but if Kennedy starts acting more and more like a politician, and we keep excusing it as part of the need for playing some five D political chess game than that looks a whole lot like Q-Anon. It would be awful, but kind of funny too, if we have Q-Anon 2.0.
Hey Crow, 1.) Why no reply? I wrote asking you whatever happened to the lady from New Brunswick who was handling Nevermore? She asked for poems for publication, I sent her some, she was enthusiastic, I think published one poem, then I mailed her two of my books and no response. I emailed her as well, no response
2.) As for RFK Jr possibly being controlled opposition, given the REALLY DANGEROUS situation we health freedom activists and questioners of the System are in, that comes across as just being naughty. RFK Jr is not perfect -- especially I am upset by his recent almost unconditional support for Israel -- but one thing about him that's unique among public figures is his willingness to change his mind. And I know people who have his ear are trying to wake him up to the Israeli apartheid state. So dangling the heavy "controlled opposition"phrase because Bobby failed to jump to the defense of C J Hopkins soon enough for you is leaping to an unwarranted conclusion. Bobby is running for president, he has a gazillion things on his plate. Finding this or that fault when he offers so much integrity and intelligence and heart is like nitpicking while Rome burns. We are up against the wall, partner! No time to be doctrinaire
For the record (1) I have never been "a member of the Nevermore team," (2) I have never compared the New Normal, or New Normal Germany, or anything else, to the Holocaust, and I have expressly advised against doing so, and (3) I am not facing “charges of anti-Semitism.” I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your mischaracterizations are simply the result of narcissism and sloppiness, but, whatever their cause, they do not help, and it is annoying being forced to spend time publicly correcting them.
Why the hell are you lying? Margaret Anna Alice invited you to join, and you were listed as a contributor on the website for many months. Then you took offence at me talking shit about lawyers and requested that your name be removed from the website.
I don't like being gas-lit, and she can set the record straight if need be. She won't like being dragged into this, though.
Good lord, you're crusty. Are you suffering from constipation or something? Sorry for trying to bring attention to your case. What a dick I am.
I get the feeling that you're taking advice from your lawyer. Let me know how that works out for you.
I was trying to lend a hand in your hour of need, but if you think that sticking your tail between your legs is the way to deal with false accusations, that's your call and I wish you the very best.
As for the "narcissism and sloppiness", all I can say that I would have thought that you, of all people, would get what I'm trying to do.
Do you really need a decoder ring? How deeply have you thought this through? Your reaction seems kinda knee-jerky to me.
It's unfortunate I have to explain this, but the best defence is a good offence. If you allow discourse to happen without the parameters set by your enemies, you're setting yourself up for failure. If you accept their logic, they win. If they get to be the referees, they win. If you play by their rules, they win.
If, on the other hand, you can make it your own game, where you make the rules, you're in a much stronger position. Do you know what Calvinball is? That's my jam.
Given that you recently wrote the Anti-Anti-Semitism Follies, I thought you understood how this bullshit works.
And yes, the whole spook of anti-semitism is bullshit, because most Jews are descended from European converts, not Semites. Read The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler if you don't believe me.
I'm part Ashenanzi Jew, by the way, and I have looked into things enough to conclude that Koestler was most likely right. I stand to be corrected though. Ethnography is complicated.
I'm curious if you believe that Ashkenazi Jews are Semites, but I have a feeling that we're not about to have a constructive, healthy, comradely discussion, which is a shame.
It's hilarious to me that you're defending Anti-Anti-Semitism after writing the Anti-Anti-Semitism Follies, but okay.
Are you really afraid of being associated with someone like me because the woke mob thinks I'm an anti-Semite? Lame.
I get that it wouldn't be smart for you to take a "I am whatever you say I am" approach, but I'm playing my hand. By being outrageous, it makes the next person seem more reasonable.
I have developed some effective persuasion strategies over the course of my activism career. If you weren't so emotionally reactive, maybe you'd learn something.
One of them is based on the understanding that it's always better to be the second most radical person in the room, because you automatically seem more reasonable when your position is being compared to one that's one radical.
I was trying to make you seem more reasonable, and using the fact that I am crazy to my advantage. It's a way of turning a weakness into a strength.
Man, I wish I didn't have to explain this.
This is called "setting the frame". I recommend reading Pre-Suasion by Robert Cialdini if you're interested if learning something that could help you become more persuasive.
Tuck that word into the back of your brain, will you? PRE-SUASION. The alternative is the default, which is a null comparative.
Maybe when you're in a better mood (possibly after you have nice satisfying bowel movement), you'll get curious about these ideas. If you're in the business of persuasion, these are pro tips. Thank me later.
Alternatively, you could not look into these ideas, because they're now associated in your mind with me, and you don't like me. Your call. I don't know how curious of a person you are.
Too bad you read my piece at such a shallow level. There are a lot more layers to it if you take the time to think about them.
For instance, the title/subtitle combo is a joke about how electoral democracy works on the same principle as the double bind. Did you get that, or were you too busy being annoyed about being forced to publicly correct me?
On the surface, I'm just being a dick, but if you think about it a bit more, you might come to appreciate what I'm saying at a deeper level.
What I was trying to do was to shift the Overton window by taking a position straddling the line between radical and unthinkable, thereby moving the centre.
Oh yeah, one last thing. I didn't force you to do sweet fuck-all, sweetheart. I don't force anyone to do anything, and it's annoying to see a writer as talented as you use language so sloppily, whilst simultaneously lying and insulting me.
Yeah, I'm starting to get why you're soft on lawyers. Ah, well. You'll learn.
Are you really trying to distance yourself from someone who's trying to defend you? You must have had very different life experiences than I have if you think that it's smart to distance yourselves from people who are on your side in order to shield yourself from the ire of your enemies. Maybe you went to a private school or something. You don't seem to understand politics on an animal level.
Ah well, your loss. If you don't want people showing solidarity with you, fine. I'll shut up about you, and if you can return the favour we can both live happily ever after. Capiche?
But don't lie, please.
No, I didn't join anything. Margaret asked me if she could list me as a "contributor" on the site and re-post some of my essays. I said yes, because I trusted her, which was a mistake. I forgot about it until I encountered you, whereupon I asked her to remove my name. In any event, putting my name on your website doesn't make me a "member of your team." Please do leave me alone now. I find you annoying and creepy. Whatever your trip is, I do not want anything to do with it.
Okay! I wish you all the very best with your case. Thanks for setting the record straight.
Also, for the record, I think the word you were looking for was "arrogant", not "narcissistic".
I'll fully admit that I'm extremely arrogant, but I don't think I'm narcissistic.
If you'd like to make the case that I am narcissistic, I'm all ears.
Maybe you can help me become more self-aware.
How exactly am I narcissistic?
I'll save people a click: https://cjhopkins.substack.com/p/new-normal-germany-blues
If you wanna hear CJ's take on his own investigation, this'll work.
Thanks for sharing!
Now I am confused, who is telling the truth, and who is telling the lies?
Why did the author say that you were a part of this publication?
Guys, are you playing some trolling game with your readers?
CJ replied: No, I didn't join anything. Margaret asked me if she could list me as a "contributor" on the site and re-post some of my essays. I said yes, because I trusted her, which was a mistake. I forgot about it until I encountered you, whereupon I asked her to remove my name. In any event, putting my name on your website doesn't make me a "member of your team."
Fair enough, I guess.
He's totally lying. I don't get it. I wouldn't expect someone as smart as him to lie in such a blatant way, but maybe he's not as smart as I thought he was.
Here's my reply to CJ's comment:
Why the hell are you lying? Margaret Anna Alice invited you to join, and you were listed as a contributor on the website for many months. Then you took offence at me talking shit about lawyers and requested that your name be removed from the website.
I don't like being gas-lit, and she can set the record straight if need be. She won't like being dragged into this, though.
Good lord, you're crusty. Are you suffering from constipation or something? Sorry for trying to bring attention to your case. What a dick I am.
I get the feeling that you're taking advice from your lawyer. Let me know how that works out for you.
I was trying to lend a hand in your hour of need, but if you think that sticking your tail between your legs is the way to deal with false accusations, that's your call and I wish you the very best.
As for the "narcissism and sloppiness", all I can say that I would have thought that you, of all people, would get what I'm trying to do.
Do you really need a decoder ring? How deeply have you thought this through? Your reaction seems kinda knee-jerky to me.
It's unfortunate I have to explain this, but the best defence is a good offence. If you allow discourse to happen without the parameters set by your enemies, you're setting yourself up for failure. If you accept their logic, they win. If they get to be the referees, they win. If you play by their rules, they win.
If, on the other hand, you can make it your own game, where you make the rules, you're in a much stronger position. Do you know what Calvinball is? That's my jam.
Given that you recently wrote the Anti-Anti-Semitism Follies, I thought you understood how this bullshit works.
And yes, the whole spook of anti-semitism is bullshit, because most Jews are descended from European converts, not Semites. Read The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler if you don't believe me.
I'm part Ashenanzi Jew, by the way, and I have looked into things enough to conclude that Koestler was most likely right. I stand to be corrected though. Ethnography is complicated.
I'm curious if you believe that Ashkenazi Jews are Semites, but I have a feeling that we're not about to have a constructive, healthy, comradely discussion, which is a shame.
It's hilarious to me that you're defending Anti-Anti-Semitism after writing the Anti-Anti-Semitism Follies, but okay.
Are you really afraid of being associated with someone like me because the woke mob thinks I'm an anti-Semite? Lame.
I get that it wouldn't be smart for you to take a "I am whatever you say I am" approach, but I'm playing my hand. By being outrageous, it makes the next person seem more reasonable.
I have developed some effective persuasion strategies over the course of my activism career. If you weren't so emotionally reactive, maybe you'd learn something.
One of them is based on the understanding that it's always better to be the second most radical person in the room, because you automatically seem more reasonable when your position is being compared to one that's one radical.
I was trying to make you seem more reasonable, and using the fact that I am crazy to my advantage. It's a way of turning a weakness into a strength.
Man, I wish I didn't have to explain this.
This is called "setting the frame". I recommend reading Pre-Suasion by Robert Cialdini if you're interested if learning something that could help you become more persuasive.
Tuck that word into the back of your brain, will you? PRE-SUASION. The alternative is the default, which is a null comparative.
Maybe when you're in a better mood (possibly after you have nice satisfying bowel movement), you'll get curious about these ideas. If you're in the business of persuasion, these are pro tips. Thank me later.
Alternatively, you could not look into these ideas, because they're now associated in your mind with me, and you don't like me. Your call. I don't know how curious of a person you are.
Too bad you read my piece at such a shallow level. There are a lot more layers to it if you take the time to think about them.
For instance, the title/subtitle combo is a joke about how electoral democracy works on the same principle as the double bind. Did you get that, or were you too busy being annoyed about being forced to publicly correct me?
On the surface, I'm just being a dick, but if you think about it a bit more, you might come to appreciate what I'm saying at a deeper level.
What I was trying to do was to shift the Overton window by taking a position straddling the line between radical and unthinkable, thereby moving the centre.
Oh yeah, one last thing. I didn't force you to do sweet fuck-all, sweetheart. I don't force anyone to do anything, and it's annoying to see a writer as talented as you use language so sloppily, whilst simultaneously lying and insulting me.
Yeah, I'm starting to get why you're soft on lawyers. Ah, well. You'll learn.
Are you really trying to distance yourself from someone who's trying to defend you? You must have had very different life experiences than I have if you think that it's smart to distance yourselves from people who are on your side in order to shield yourself from the ire of your enemies. Maybe you went to a private school or something. You don't seem to understand politics on an animal level.
Ah well, your loss. If you don't want people showing solidarity with you, fine. I'll shut up about you, and if you can return the favour we can both live happily ever after. Capiche?
But don't lie, please.