"Will the real journalists please stand up?" - How can they? They do not exist. Or better - no one knows or "sees" or "recognizes" them - the endless propaganda and control by the criminals is to constantly distract the moronic masses with garbage like Malone, Rappaport, Peters, Kirsch, and just about everyone else who is on "everybody's lips." Not in any given time in "history" a true contrarian ever became "popular" - the criminals simply cannot allow that. So there is only garbage or "vacuum" - everything that is truly valid is made void, nullified, unseen. For that reason there is this huge pile of garbage which is being constantly circulated and tossed for the "benefit" and distraction/further dumbing down of the moronic public.
You said: "...not in any given time in history [a] true contrarian ever became popular..."
Are you sure?
How about Ludwig Von Mises, Garett Garett, Ayn Rand, Lysander Spooner, Thomas Paine, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, Publius Poplicola or Henry David Thoreau?
And how do you define popular? Academic success? Millions of fans?
Hayek won the Nobel Prize. Rand and Paine and Thoreau were adored by millions. Rothbard single handedly rebranded Isabel Patterson's model of libertarianism (really classical liberalism) into anarcho-capitalism.
Surely, these men and women were not all "controlled opposition."
How about Rudolph Rockers anarcho-syndicalists, or Bakunin's collectivist anarchism, or Noam Chomsky who still, at 96, spends his time propagating Rockers vision? No? How about Galileo's contrarian position that the earth revolves around the sun, or Hugo Grotius's escape from prison inside a chest of books, or William Wallace's Scottish rebels. Were they controlled opposition, too?
When Kennedy spoke out against secret societies was he also controlled?
When Nikola Tesla's genius descended into an intellectual black hole, inside a tiny hotel room, was he "controlled opposition?" Weren't his ideas a bit "contrarian?" I mean, this is a guy who sent hate letters to people, including Einstein, who he basically called a chump :)
He wasn't exactly mainstream.
Is Christoper Langan's CTMU "controlled opposition?"
The state is certainly engaged in propaganda, but I think one should be careful when descending down the rabbit-hole.
Hi, EFR, you certainly know more about history than I do! There is a great link below that made my post hit paydirt for me in terms of getting a piece of concrete and well referenced dossier on Dr Maloney Baloney, the mechanisms of which can probably be applied to many other suspicious characters. Hope you'll go for it and continue to make your valuable comments for us.
Sure, a few of these people could be considered controlled opposition notably Noam Chomsky. Surely, you don't suggest he isn't? Seriously? He believes 9/11 was the work of 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters.
So because Chomsky disagrees with your position on 9/11, he's now "controlled opposition?"
If I disagree with your political views, am I "controlled opposition?"
The point of my comment was to rebut the claim that "... no true contrarian has ever existed." I think my point remains valid. All of those names are contrarians -- and Chomsky is a contrarian that I disagree with. I don't support his political views, but nobody would call an anarcho-syndicalist mainstream.
The anarcho-syndicalists haven't been mainstream since the Spanish Civil war, but even at the time, in that country, which is the only place they ever gained traction, they were, as Orwell stated, considerably outnumbered and outfinanced by marxist factions -- of which there were many.
The other point is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which I don't think the author would disagree with. Malone, might in fact be controlled opposition or a fake contrarian, but I would want to argue that one must be careful when using the term "controlled opposition", and/or accusing people of being controlled because it can lead to unjustified witch hunts.
Hey EFR, NC believes in 1. C-19 as "very serious", 2. Nukes, 3. Global warming. None of these things even actually exist much less argue about them.
He doesn't know Polio was due to DDT? It was a big story in the 50s. And he thinks the Salk vax was ok??? I've only have been studying the real way the world works for 4.5 years-and only part time, but I'm light years ahead of him? All I did was look and think, I'm not a famous guy going on YT any day soon. But if I did, and had 3.6 scribers like he does, I WOULD LOOK INTO THESE THINGS!
He doesn't even question WTF is going on with corona because it is obviously so absurd.
His YT here is following the NWO fear-line to the T. Either he is really grossly misinformed, an absolute dunce, or he is part of the blob. This is beyond just political opinion, and we don't have to even invoke the 9.11 absurdity.
Fair enough. I would only argue that being incorrect doesn't equate to being controlled. The definition that Petra uses is not one that I would agree with.
Ok thanks, I see what you are trying to say, but this guy's a real work of art😥. I'm basically only parroting what HE SAYS about the world in his own words on that YT vid that I just looked up based on your comments (and I've never been interested in following him after seeing him speak once or twice a number of years ago) so I know very little about him. Be sure, I never said he was CO, I said he could be part of the blob (=the NWO Cabal and it's minions). Personally I do think he is a nincompoop (and feel he is intentionally lying...but I digress) in addition to whatever other of the 3 choices I gave you above.
"Controlled opposition" isn't the greatest term because it applies to two very distinct categories:
--- paid agents - I guess who we traditionally refer to as controlled opposition
--- those who genuinely believe/are anchored in the second-level propaganda
There's never any need for a witch hunt. We can call people whatever we like but it's the evidence that counts. Chomsky doesn't "disagree with my position on 9/11", he's so very obviously completely got it wrong, just as he has on covid. I mean, come on!
What I mean by "controlled opposition" are people who propagate material against the mainstream but which is simply second-level propaganda and thus are speaking against the truth ... and Chomsky does that in spades.
It's got nothing to do with political views and everything to do with propaganda versus facts.
In other words, those who genuinely believe something to be true, but who disagree with your views, are now "speaking against the truth" -- the truth as you believe it to be -- and are thus controlled opposition insofar that they are unwittingly promulgating "second-level propaganda." It has to be unwittingly, according to your definition, because they genuinely believe it.
The word "Control" generally means the power to direct or determine a course of action. Expanding that definition to include those who are wrong doesn't seem to be helping your cause.
It's also quite arrogant, because it presumes that your analysis is correct.
I worry where that type of thinking leads. Does it lead to reeducation camps? Should Chomsky now be reeducated because as you say he: "obviously completely got it wrong."
And precisely what is the difference between being wrong, and second-level propaganda? Your definition, if taken to its conclusion, would suggest that being incorrect equates to second-level propaganda
Finally, every good scholar must have a degree of humility. One must always leave the door open to argument and debate, and the possibility that their position, their logic, and their conclusion might in fact be wrong. Calling people who reach different conclusions "controlled opposition" and/or "second level propaganda" is not very productive.
It certainly won't win any debates in the marketplace of ideas.
It seems to me that it would be more productive to make an argument in opposition of Malone, Chomsky, etc, and to simply state that their analysis is incorrect, as opposed to resorting to ad hominem attacks and a broad defintion of "controlled opposition"
It's not about "views", it's about facts. I don't think I'm arrogant. Rather I test my hypothesis as much as I can and what is clear is that others don't - in some cases when you test your hypothesis as much as possible it's really quite difficult to be wrong, however, I will always accept that possibility but when you can see other people plainly talking nonsense or simply not responding to challenges to their beliefs in the correct manner ... I mean, when Chomsky refers to Architects & Engineers as a "small group of people" as if that means anything we can see his reasoning is way off. He should know that the truth is taboo and we would only expect a small number of people to be speaking it and it's not a matter of number in any case, it's content that counts.
Yes, I do believe that being wrong is promoting second-level propaganda (where we can see propaganda affecting people's views) - that is what is happening whether you believe what you're saying or whether you're deliberately misinforming. The thing is when I challenge people who seem genuine but who are propagating second-level propaganda their reaction is to dismiss my challenge and not to defend their belief. It's all in people's attitudes. People comfortably anchor in whatever it is they want to believe and simply won't respond to perfectly reasonable challenges.
I don't think it's ad hominem to label a person according to their behaviour and I'm not suggesting anything be done to these people. Seriously? I'm just saying who I think they are according to how they argue. I don't see a problem with it. I don't call them controlled opposition in my argument with them - that might be considered ad hominem - I just say that's who they are 'cos that's how they're behaving.
In the case of Chomsky he is not controlled opposition with regard to 9/11, he pretty much follows the mainstream as he does with covid and JFK, he is more controlled opposition at a higher level, that is, he makes out he's a critic generally but with big events he follows the mainstream. Just to say: I went quite a number of rounds with Chomsky in an email exchange and he just would not accept basic facts such as the argument "If the Bush administration had been responsible for 9/11 they would have chosen Iraqi terrorists not Saudi" takes the form of the logical fallacy, argumentum ad speculum. I mean when a scholar cannot see his argument takes the form of a logical fallacy what can you do?
The inter web has not only democratised science but also the news.
Science papers are now available to all, and not just through elite institutions libraries, well, most of them are. And I guess I could pay for the ones that are not freely available now that scihub has been disabled by my provider-Sky- anyone know any other sites with free access?
Journalists are basically editors- selecting what bit about the 'news' to bring to their readers. In regards of science selecting the bits that follow whatever narrative agrees with their personal or employer's agenda. And In the case of MSM- not reading beyond the abstract, getting the wrong end of the stick and/or stating the complete opposite of what the paper says 99% of the time.
I have to be my own scientist and my own journalist.
Jon Rappoport is a personality and has a paywall so I aint' gonna follow him, but what I can read is. to me, faintly bigoted political ranting.
the news is like propaganda in real time. Looking back on history we can see how nationalism etc was deliberately encouraged to control populations. The skill is to be able to see history happening in real time. Historians I respect have got it completely wrong about covid, so makes me doubt what they write about history.
I have to be my own historian too.
Reading about China before and then under Mao- it was absolutely dire, and now under Xi, is he on the way out too out do we think?
We are, rightly, standing up for our rights, but I'd say those of us who've grown up in a Super Power democracy don't really know we're born.
Actually I agree with most of what you say. Today is a focus on the people in the post, but I dont want to get rude on them. The Rapp, to me has proven his stance on viruses for 40 years and I have no sense he is controlled op, but what do I know? I read him for a while and learned some stuff from him, but the concrete info I get from him is limited and the posts are tool long and I'm not a follower. I could have put Sam Bailey, even you guys as sources of true info (btw, the Rapp was on and gave a good interview on the Sam Bailey Show in '22). I put him out there as a comparison to others I think are twisting our minds. So basically we agree.
Yes, huge kudos to those who were on to the AIDS and virus fraud 40 years before myself and the Baileys were (I think they were just born then!). I hadn't heard of Celia Farber, the Rapp or the Perth group until I was woken up by the absurdity of covid and started looking into things properly, read Fan Wu's ridiculous novel coronavirus paper and then the AIDS myth just dissolved before my eyes with Virus Mania,( having worked in pathology in the 80's, received and tested 'AIDS' patient samples and never questioned a thing about how anyone knew there was a virus). So no kudos to me.
It's always good to have people pointing things out-saying hey have you looked at this?
I don't think any opposition to the narrative is controlled; in that it's micromanaged. I think some opposition is more allowed than others. Malone is allowed to question mRNA efficacy (which he absolutely did not invent, years of lab research and animal abuse had led to the place where everything was available to try the experiments out and the universe/ the force/God invented the incredibly beautiful and complex DNA/RNA system that modern medicine is screwing up) because he keeps to the virus existence narrative.
Opposition to the virus narrative itself is not allowed as we well know, and I think that tells us all we need to know about it.
PS I'd be happy if you want to post a comment showing some bigoted statements from the Rapp. I'm happy to accept any truths and anytime change my mind about anything.
I only briefly read his post about being the president, I felt it flippant and arrogant.
Some special groups do need special treatment and laws- such as women- some places should be women only, for example changing rooms; they should also not be locked up with pre-op men who identify as women, which is what has happened to an already abused woman in a women's prison in the US, who was subsequently raped by her cell mate, highlighted in one of Matt Taibi's posts.
And there are also genuine trans people in the 'wrong' bodies.
I wrote a post about this but the whole thing makes me so wound up I didn't post it.
I agree with your logic here of course! Sorry I don't know what Rap wrote exactly, and honestly I havn't done a deep dive on him, I just think he is not part of these "groups" like Del Bigtree, Alex Jones, Steve Kirsch, etc. that are deception agents, that's why he is my example, not because he is a "good" journalist per se, but he did nail AIDS many yrs ago.
Ray, I also wanted to report to you my guess about Corbett's ignoring the no virus issue now that I have noticed something.
He has a monthly appearance on the Dr. Meryl Nass show on CHD, even one with RFKJr. This is a big PR chance for him to get subscribers and I don't think he want to ruin that. He's also been on Del, and Alex Jones once I think.
CHD is rabidly avoidant and even hostile lately to the no-virus people (Cowan, Baileys, Lanka, etc) of which I guess I am now fully ideologically and scientifically part of (but don't have any contact with). I have contributed to Christine Massey's great FOIA site a few times and that is really how I got the confidence to step up to bat at the truth plate. She is very supportive and has looked over some of my draft posts to set me straight a few times.
Anyway that's Corbett, just being practical I guess.
Well, if you look at who all was paid for lying(and with some already for years), you should not be surprised - and in my opinion, exactly these media should be avoided like the devil the holy water :-)
Hey Rick, you are probably correct that my posts, not being so popular, will do very little. However, everybody working together can get out lots of info to open the eyes and minds of people to the mechanics of the disinformation and mind-control propaganda going on. Because at the end of the day, it is because of this very propaganda that over half the world has or is going to have serious medical problems if not death. Take care
Hello Ray and Rick, I understand both of your feelings. Right now I just suggest each one of you go back and delete each of the comments you made and want to delete so I dont have to make decisions on others' free speech. If either of you want to copy the thread and bring it to your own substacks or private email exchange it's free choice. I personally havn't deleted any of your comments, maybe they got deleted from Substack? I don't know how that works yet. I also havn't read deeply into them but in general suggest we work together because we are in a war against tyranny not each other.
Thanks Ray, appreciate your support and I usually read all of your nice posts too. I'm gonna be quite busy end of this month so dont mind if I dont seem to be on line, though I already have 2 posts on deck. I prefer if you guys manage your own comments. You can delete yours right? Or you can make periods in yours too, though I think leaving comments with a "." is hard to understand unless delete function doesn't work. I think the brouhaha would be over really in either case. I didnt copy any of you guys' comments sorry, but if you've both agreed to ditch the content that should mean the word-fight has been "self-detoxed" let's say?
Isn't Malone sueing the breggins too- or is that part of the Jane Ruby (I don't know who that is) group ?? I didn't know he was sueing McCollogh too. Has he gone mad?
This is amazing, great find Sanjoy, and actually that is the purpose of my post, for us to wring out lots of good info from the sponge of data floating around like the Malone doc. Really, thanks!
"Will the real journalists please stand up?" - How can they? They do not exist. Or better - no one knows or "sees" or "recognizes" them - the endless propaganda and control by the criminals is to constantly distract the moronic masses with garbage like Malone, Rappaport, Peters, Kirsch, and just about everyone else who is on "everybody's lips." Not in any given time in "history" a true contrarian ever became "popular" - the criminals simply cannot allow that. So there is only garbage or "vacuum" - everything that is truly valid is made void, nullified, unseen. For that reason there is this huge pile of garbage which is being constantly circulated and tossed for the "benefit" and distraction/further dumbing down of the moronic public.
You said: "...not in any given time in history [a] true contrarian ever became popular..."
Are you sure?
How about Ludwig Von Mises, Garett Garett, Ayn Rand, Lysander Spooner, Thomas Paine, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, Publius Poplicola or Henry David Thoreau?
And how do you define popular? Academic success? Millions of fans?
Hayek won the Nobel Prize. Rand and Paine and Thoreau were adored by millions. Rothbard single handedly rebranded Isabel Patterson's model of libertarianism (really classical liberalism) into anarcho-capitalism.
Surely, these men and women were not all "controlled opposition."
How about Rudolph Rockers anarcho-syndicalists, or Bakunin's collectivist anarchism, or Noam Chomsky who still, at 96, spends his time propagating Rockers vision? No? How about Galileo's contrarian position that the earth revolves around the sun, or Hugo Grotius's escape from prison inside a chest of books, or William Wallace's Scottish rebels. Were they controlled opposition, too?
When Kennedy spoke out against secret societies was he also controlled?
When Nikola Tesla's genius descended into an intellectual black hole, inside a tiny hotel room, was he "controlled opposition?" Weren't his ideas a bit "contrarian?" I mean, this is a guy who sent hate letters to people, including Einstein, who he basically called a chump :)
He wasn't exactly mainstream.
Is Christoper Langan's CTMU "controlled opposition?"
The state is certainly engaged in propaganda, but I think one should be careful when descending down the rabbit-hole.
Hi, EFR, you certainly know more about history than I do! There is a great link below that made my post hit paydirt for me in terms of getting a piece of concrete and well referenced dossier on Dr Maloney Baloney, the mechanisms of which can probably be applied to many other suspicious characters. Hope you'll go for it and continue to make your valuable comments for us.
https://mega.nz/file/cVB3EY6I#oktagI3HilNLz7tPVaWwPxa-xXiWtcepgBYj9QxBQgw
Sure, a few of these people could be considered controlled opposition notably Noam Chomsky. Surely, you don't suggest he isn't? Seriously? He believes 9/11 was the work of 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters.
So because Chomsky disagrees with your position on 9/11, he's now "controlled opposition?"
If I disagree with your political views, am I "controlled opposition?"
The point of my comment was to rebut the claim that "... no true contrarian has ever existed." I think my point remains valid. All of those names are contrarians -- and Chomsky is a contrarian that I disagree with. I don't support his political views, but nobody would call an anarcho-syndicalist mainstream.
The anarcho-syndicalists haven't been mainstream since the Spanish Civil war, but even at the time, in that country, which is the only place they ever gained traction, they were, as Orwell stated, considerably outnumbered and outfinanced by marxist factions -- of which there were many.
The other point is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which I don't think the author would disagree with. Malone, might in fact be controlled opposition or a fake contrarian, but I would want to argue that one must be careful when using the term "controlled opposition", and/or accusing people of being controlled because it can lead to unjustified witch hunts.
Hey EFR, NC believes in 1. C-19 as "very serious", 2. Nukes, 3. Global warming. None of these things even actually exist much less argue about them.
He doesn't know Polio was due to DDT? It was a big story in the 50s. And he thinks the Salk vax was ok??? I've only have been studying the real way the world works for 4.5 years-and only part time, but I'm light years ahead of him? All I did was look and think, I'm not a famous guy going on YT any day soon. But if I did, and had 3.6 scribers like he does, I WOULD LOOK INTO THESE THINGS!
He doesn't even question WTF is going on with corona because it is obviously so absurd.
His YT here is following the NWO fear-line to the T. Either he is really grossly misinformed, an absolute dunce, or he is part of the blob. This is beyond just political opinion, and we don't have to even invoke the 9.11 absurdity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASPTDg_3ADE
Fair enough. I would only argue that being incorrect doesn't equate to being controlled. The definition that Petra uses is not one that I would agree with.
Ok thanks, I see what you are trying to say, but this guy's a real work of art😥. I'm basically only parroting what HE SAYS about the world in his own words on that YT vid that I just looked up based on your comments (and I've never been interested in following him after seeing him speak once or twice a number of years ago) so I know very little about him. Be sure, I never said he was CO, I said he could be part of the blob (=the NWO Cabal and it's minions). Personally I do think he is a nincompoop (and feel he is intentionally lying...but I digress) in addition to whatever other of the 3 choices I gave you above.
"Controlled opposition" isn't the greatest term because it applies to two very distinct categories:
--- paid agents - I guess who we traditionally refer to as controlled opposition
--- those who genuinely believe/are anchored in the second-level propaganda
There's never any need for a witch hunt. We can call people whatever we like but it's the evidence that counts. Chomsky doesn't "disagree with my position on 9/11", he's so very obviously completely got it wrong, just as he has on covid. I mean, come on!
What I mean by "controlled opposition" are people who propagate material against the mainstream but which is simply second-level propaganda and thus are speaking against the truth ... and Chomsky does that in spades.
It's got nothing to do with political views and everything to do with propaganda versus facts.
That's a pretty scary definition.
In other words, those who genuinely believe something to be true, but who disagree with your views, are now "speaking against the truth" -- the truth as you believe it to be -- and are thus controlled opposition insofar that they are unwittingly promulgating "second-level propaganda." It has to be unwittingly, according to your definition, because they genuinely believe it.
The word "Control" generally means the power to direct or determine a course of action. Expanding that definition to include those who are wrong doesn't seem to be helping your cause.
It's also quite arrogant, because it presumes that your analysis is correct.
I worry where that type of thinking leads. Does it lead to reeducation camps? Should Chomsky now be reeducated because as you say he: "obviously completely got it wrong."
And precisely what is the difference between being wrong, and second-level propaganda? Your definition, if taken to its conclusion, would suggest that being incorrect equates to second-level propaganda
Finally, every good scholar must have a degree of humility. One must always leave the door open to argument and debate, and the possibility that their position, their logic, and their conclusion might in fact be wrong. Calling people who reach different conclusions "controlled opposition" and/or "second level propaganda" is not very productive.
It certainly won't win any debates in the marketplace of ideas.
It seems to me that it would be more productive to make an argument in opposition of Malone, Chomsky, etc, and to simply state that their analysis is incorrect, as opposed to resorting to ad hominem attacks and a broad defintion of "controlled opposition"
It's not about "views", it's about facts. I don't think I'm arrogant. Rather I test my hypothesis as much as I can and what is clear is that others don't - in some cases when you test your hypothesis as much as possible it's really quite difficult to be wrong, however, I will always accept that possibility but when you can see other people plainly talking nonsense or simply not responding to challenges to their beliefs in the correct manner ... I mean, when Chomsky refers to Architects & Engineers as a "small group of people" as if that means anything we can see his reasoning is way off. He should know that the truth is taboo and we would only expect a small number of people to be speaking it and it's not a matter of number in any case, it's content that counts.
Yes, I do believe that being wrong is promoting second-level propaganda (where we can see propaganda affecting people's views) - that is what is happening whether you believe what you're saying or whether you're deliberately misinforming. The thing is when I challenge people who seem genuine but who are propagating second-level propaganda their reaction is to dismiss my challenge and not to defend their belief. It's all in people's attitudes. People comfortably anchor in whatever it is they want to believe and simply won't respond to perfectly reasonable challenges.
I don't think it's ad hominem to label a person according to their behaviour and I'm not suggesting anything be done to these people. Seriously? I'm just saying who I think they are according to how they argue. I don't see a problem with it. I don't call them controlled opposition in my argument with them - that might be considered ad hominem - I just say that's who they are 'cos that's how they're behaving.
In the case of Chomsky he is not controlled opposition with regard to 9/11, he pretty much follows the mainstream as he does with covid and JFK, he is more controlled opposition at a higher level, that is, he makes out he's a critic generally but with big events he follows the mainstream. Just to say: I went quite a number of rounds with Chomsky in an email exchange and he just would not accept basic facts such as the argument "If the Bush administration had been responsible for 9/11 they would have chosen Iraqi terrorists not Saudi" takes the form of the logical fallacy, argumentum ad speculum. I mean when a scholar cannot see his argument takes the form of a logical fallacy what can you do?
Hello,
I think I disagree.
The inter web has not only democratised science but also the news.
Science papers are now available to all, and not just through elite institutions libraries, well, most of them are. And I guess I could pay for the ones that are not freely available now that scihub has been disabled by my provider-Sky- anyone know any other sites with free access?
Journalists are basically editors- selecting what bit about the 'news' to bring to their readers. In regards of science selecting the bits that follow whatever narrative agrees with their personal or employer's agenda. And In the case of MSM- not reading beyond the abstract, getting the wrong end of the stick and/or stating the complete opposite of what the paper says 99% of the time.
I have to be my own scientist and my own journalist.
Jon Rappoport is a personality and has a paywall so I aint' gonna follow him, but what I can read is. to me, faintly bigoted political ranting.
the news is like propaganda in real time. Looking back on history we can see how nationalism etc was deliberately encouraged to control populations. The skill is to be able to see history happening in real time. Historians I respect have got it completely wrong about covid, so makes me doubt what they write about history.
I have to be my own historian too.
Reading about China before and then under Mao- it was absolutely dire, and now under Xi, is he on the way out too out do we think?
We are, rightly, standing up for our rights, but I'd say those of us who've grown up in a Super Power democracy don't really know we're born.
🐒
Actually I agree with most of what you say. Today is a focus on the people in the post, but I dont want to get rude on them. The Rapp, to me has proven his stance on viruses for 40 years and I have no sense he is controlled op, but what do I know? I read him for a while and learned some stuff from him, but the concrete info I get from him is limited and the posts are tool long and I'm not a follower. I could have put Sam Bailey, even you guys as sources of true info (btw, the Rapp was on and gave a good interview on the Sam Bailey Show in '22). I put him out there as a comparison to others I think are twisting our minds. So basically we agree.
I am so glad! 😺
Yes, huge kudos to those who were on to the AIDS and virus fraud 40 years before myself and the Baileys were (I think they were just born then!). I hadn't heard of Celia Farber, the Rapp or the Perth group until I was woken up by the absurdity of covid and started looking into things properly, read Fan Wu's ridiculous novel coronavirus paper and then the AIDS myth just dissolved before my eyes with Virus Mania,( having worked in pathology in the 80's, received and tested 'AIDS' patient samples and never questioned a thing about how anyone knew there was a virus). So no kudos to me.
It's always good to have people pointing things out-saying hey have you looked at this?
I don't think any opposition to the narrative is controlled; in that it's micromanaged. I think some opposition is more allowed than others. Malone is allowed to question mRNA efficacy (which he absolutely did not invent, years of lab research and animal abuse had led to the place where everything was available to try the experiments out and the universe/ the force/God invented the incredibly beautiful and complex DNA/RNA system that modern medicine is screwing up) because he keeps to the virus existence narrative.
Opposition to the virus narrative itself is not allowed as we well know, and I think that tells us all we need to know about it.
🐒
PS I'd be happy if you want to post a comment showing some bigoted statements from the Rapp. I'm happy to accept any truths and anytime change my mind about anything.
I only briefly read his post about being the president, I felt it flippant and arrogant.
Some special groups do need special treatment and laws- such as women- some places should be women only, for example changing rooms; they should also not be locked up with pre-op men who identify as women, which is what has happened to an already abused woman in a women's prison in the US, who was subsequently raped by her cell mate, highlighted in one of Matt Taibi's posts.
And there are also genuine trans people in the 'wrong' bodies.
I wrote a post about this but the whole thing makes me so wound up I didn't post it.
🙏🏽
I agree with your logic here of course! Sorry I don't know what Rap wrote exactly, and honestly I havn't done a deep dive on him, I just think he is not part of these "groups" like Del Bigtree, Alex Jones, Steve Kirsch, etc. that are deception agents, that's why he is my example, not because he is a "good" journalist per se, but he did nail AIDS many yrs ago.
It was mostly Jon's past work that opened my eyes early into the plandemic.
His presence on Substack simply doesn't look authentic; it's a mediocre ghostwriter puking out a lot of nonsense with an occasional good article...
Ray, I also wanted to report to you my guess about Corbett's ignoring the no virus issue now that I have noticed something.
He has a monthly appearance on the Dr. Meryl Nass show on CHD, even one with RFKJr. This is a big PR chance for him to get subscribers and I don't think he want to ruin that. He's also been on Del, and Alex Jones once I think.
CHD is rabidly avoidant and even hostile lately to the no-virus people (Cowan, Baileys, Lanka, etc) of which I guess I am now fully ideologically and scientifically part of (but don't have any contact with). I have contributed to Christine Massey's great FOIA site a few times and that is really how I got the confidence to step up to bat at the truth plate. She is very supportive and has looked over some of my draft posts to set me straight a few times.
Anyway that's Corbett, just being practical I guess.
True, but he's getting quite elderly so I guess he deserves some slack.
No, I'd say he is definitely his own man and not part of any group!
https://www.sgtreport.com/2021/11/pandemic-payoff-bill-gates-injected-319-million-into-mainstream-media/
Well, if you look at who all was paid for lying(and with some already for years), you should not be surprised - and in my opinion, exactly these media should be avoided like the devil the holy water :-)
What does it matter?
Hey Rick, you are probably correct that my posts, not being so popular, will do very little. However, everybody working together can get out lots of info to open the eyes and minds of people to the mechanics of the disinformation and mind-control propaganda going on. Because at the end of the day, it is because of this very propaganda that over half the world has or is going to have serious medical problems if not death. Take care
.
.
.
.
The truth is never popular (not that anybody knows it all). At least you are authentic, which is more than most "authors" on Substack could say.
.
Hello Ray and Rick, I understand both of your feelings. Right now I just suggest each one of you go back and delete each of the comments you made and want to delete so I dont have to make decisions on others' free speech. If either of you want to copy the thread and bring it to your own substacks or private email exchange it's free choice. I personally havn't deleted any of your comments, maybe they got deleted from Substack? I don't know how that works yet. I also havn't read deeply into them but in general suggest we work together because we are in a war against tyranny not each other.
Thanks Ray, appreciate your support and I usually read all of your nice posts too. I'm gonna be quite busy end of this month so dont mind if I dont seem to be on line, though I already have 2 posts on deck. I prefer if you guys manage your own comments. You can delete yours right? Or you can make periods in yours too, though I think leaving comments with a "." is hard to understand unless delete function doesn't work. I think the brouhaha would be over really in either case. I didnt copy any of you guys' comments sorry, but if you've both agreed to ditch the content that should mean the word-fight has been "self-detoxed" let's say?
.
.
Isn't Malone sueing the breggins too- or is that part of the Jane Ruby (I don't know who that is) group ?? I didn't know he was sueing McCollogh too. Has he gone mad?
🐒
Or has been just part of the Deep State all along
My guess is you are correct and that this is all a dog and pony show to distract the masses.
A look into Malone:
https://mega.nz/file/cVB3EY6I#oktagI3HilNLz7tPVaWwPxa-xXiWtcepgBYj9QxBQgw
This is amazing, great find Sanjoy, and actually that is the purpose of my post, for us to wring out lots of good info from the sponge of data floating around like the Malone doc. Really, thanks!
Yes I've seen this, it's pretty cool