Important to note that the author, Jacob Savage, is Jewish.

Savage is thus signalling to fellow tribesman that the diversity push is Bad for the Jews. His “common sense”/ “tales from the darkside” article are not a fellow white waking up and realizing that, even as a leftist, its bad. Its a Jew realizing its bad for Jews coded as white. And in Hollywood, the very industry Jews have controlled and dominated from the outset.

I predict Jews will move in three directions: 1) suck it up, whitey; 2) ok, its bad, we need to tamper down on this; or 3) Jews aren’t white. The last category will be interesting to see if it works on both check-the-box government forms and on the general public.

Jewish inbreeding also accounts for a lot of noted Jewish behavior.

Hypersexuality, extreme impulsive violence, higher incidence birth defects, and clannish behavior are all hallmarks of inbreeding. Jewish texts have, since they first appeared, fiercely attacked marrying outside the Tribe. In the post-Roman world, Jews self-isolated in neighborhoods to keep this inbreeding going, and their occasional banishment, either to ghettos or out of countries, only increased their inward-turns and inbreeding.

“Every Ashkenazi is a third cousin to every other.”

lol. U mad, bro?

R.G Gamera writes:

The “patsy” nonsense needs to stop.
It was stupid with Oswald (who took the shots), stupid with Sirhan Sirhan (who also took the shots), and its stupid now with Robinson.

UR readers, you have now read the ultimate ZOG PROPAGATED WHOPPER of the month.

I have had the misfortune of crossing paths with this mendacious yid Gamera* in the past, and I can at least give him credit for consistency.
He CONSISTENTLY LIES LIKE HE BREATHES.

Could a person in the book depository at that vantage point have made the shots?

YES.

You are not dealing with the main issue. If a different gun was used, at least four things follow:

1. Robinson must be a either a Jedi mind controlled patsy using unknown and invisible technology/methods and used as a distraction, or he or his family were paid big money for him to be executed for murder. There was definitely a shot fired from the roof. Look up analysis by Michael Kobs @MichaKobs on Xitter.

2. Both the autopsy and ballistics analysis must be faked, which would involve, I don’t know, maybe 30 people in total.

3. The second shooter runs the risk of being filmed by one of the gazillion phone cameras at the rally.

4. Since the patsy definitely fired a shot, where is the bullet? Sure the FBI can disappear bullets with ease, but there is the chance that the bullet fired by the 30.06 might either hit somebody else or leave a bullet hole somewhere and somebody films it.

So it follows that the patsy is either under Jedi mind control or bought off to fire a relatively easy shot. Therefore why bother with another shooter given that massive autopsy and ballistics fakery would also be required. It seems like a lot of effort. Why not just mind control him to shoot accurately, or at least ensure that he was up to date on his shooting practice.

There must be easier ways to get rid of somebody that don’t involve all this extra bullshit.

And here we go again.

For the record: Oswald took the shots, but was part of a larger conspiracy.

Don’t be a jackass. I am AGREEING that they were all part of conspiracies.

I AM MERELY SAYING THEY TOOK THE SHOTS THEY WERE SAID TO TAKE.

In other words, they were parts of conspiracies, but actively so.

This.

One hallmark of a bad conspiracy theory is it doesn’t explain the mechanics of what happened. It instead hand waves them away as “obvious” and then goes into lurid detail about X having the real motive, not the “patsy” who was arrested/accused/convicted.

I hate it with Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan, and I hate it with Robinson.

The “patsy” nonsense needs to stop. It was stupid with Oswald (who took the shots), stupid with Sirhan Sirhan (who also took the shots), and its stupid now with Robinson.

No one is killing famous figures and simultaneously finding someone to pin the blame on who, conveniently, can’t show they didn’t do it. Too many moving parts that need to be pulled off perfectly.

Instead, look to activation. Find a crazy who hates your target, gin them up, and give them info/training.

Antifa communist cells produce loads of psycho killer crazies. Could Ackman have nudged one cell to have one of their crazies shoot Kirk? Sure. But don’t start with “he’s not the real shooter” without hard proof. Follow Ackman’s money and see which antifa groups in UT received some. Go from there.

The problem with the patsy nonsense is it (1) draws attention away from the actual killer, and thus (2) draws our attention away from his connections/brainwashing. Thus we ignore how Oswald was an extreme lifelong communist who hated JFK for his belligerant anti-communism and how Sirhan Sirhan was a lifelong crazy jumping from church to church and cause to cause, looking for someone to point him the way in life. Both were primed to be directed by someone looking to gin up a guy to kill a target.

Except that Merkin and other Big Jews in the hedge fund world were still heavily invested in Madoff right at the end. When Madoff’s scheme was exposed, and Merkin’s heavy investment of hedge fund money with Madoff was also revealed (Merkin had claimed he was doing all the investing himself), Merkin had to declare bankruptcy and it set off a cascade effect of bankruptcies throughout the Jewish NY hedge fund world in 2008-2011, effectively freezing a ton of Big Jewish NY money.

I know, I was there. I worked in a hedgefund-related New York City white collar job and saw the rush up and then the freeze. After that, many hedgefund-related folks (including myself) got laid off because there was simply nothing to do since all the hedgefunds our companies siphoned our pay off of were frozen via bankruptcy and fraud investigations.

And I was working for a very Jewish company at the time (I’m not Jewish, btw). They got hammered. And the big names coming across my desk up until the big freeze and layoff invovled in the Merkin-related hedgefunds were Jewish.

Hence why Madoff’s scam got such huge headlines. Jews in the news/Hollywood had their Jewish cousins in finance ripped off by Madoff. The outrage! Something must be done! You don’t fool us, you fool goyim!

I’m not trying to play “actchully” guy here, btw. But its important to know that Ponzi schemes do follow consistent patterns, even at high levels.

“Republicans pounce.”

What a faggot-ass commie apologist.

Read the room, faggot.

ewish supremacist swindlers like Bernie Madoff

Just to correct: Madoff largely swindled other Jews.

Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme, which is traditionally done within an ethnic group. This is because it requires the suckers to trust the swindler more than usual but also have money and friends with money; thus, a co-ethnic, whom the sucker is “sure” would never swindle a fellow ethnic. Outside-ethnicities don’t have this blood-trust and therefore (usually) ask for more proof. (e.g. Ponzi largely fooled fellow Italian-Americans).

Madoff largely swindled fellow Jews. That these Jews happened to be rich, powerful, New York Jews did not prevent their blindness as to a fellow Jew’s rather obvious Ponzi scheme, because he was “one of us.”

Heck, it was Madoff’s ethnic “in” with other Jews that largely helped him avoid detection, e.g. the SEC never investigated him despite warnings, and Ira Merkin, the investing heavyweight, invested through him. It took a Greek accountant (Harry Markopolos) to expose Madoff, and only after years of screaming about him (because other Jews refused to believe a goyim about a fellow Jew).

Jim Crow and the KKK happened for a reason.

And “whitey just be evil, yo” is not that reason.

Jewish inbreeding=big cause of Jewish sexual prurience.

Inbred animals either become hyper-sexual or sexually a dead end.

The Christian Churches explicitly fought against inbreeding, both for hygiene purposes and because it would reduce warfare. In contrast, Jews did explicit inbreeding for thousands of years because of (1) religious prohibitions on group outbreeding; (2) few converts (Jews don’t proselytize) ; and (3) ghettoization/separation/expulsion due to refusal to assimilate to local populations and exploitation of locals.

The result is that many Jews are far more inbred than the Hapsburgs. “Every Ashkenazi is a 3rd cousin to every other” is a Jewish expression, and the prevalence of inbred diseases like Tay-Sachs among Jews is a sign.

Thus, Jews behave as many inbred animals do: obsessed with sex. Jewish jokes about being attracted to family members, Jewish mother syndrome, Jews involved in pornography, etc.

Its in the genes.

I wonder if this is true.

It sounds like either it could be true or could be a fantastically made up fiction made to sell books.

Corvy! Now assigned by his masters to Unz articles to derail, demoralize, and disinform.

How are Mr. Soros’s paychecks, little mendacious one?

We hired a bull in a china shop. Turns out he was just another employee.

Epstein’s clients walk free. We are run by pedophiles who are protected by our government.

Fuck This Ghey World.

Hoover probably had the highest IQ of any man to become president in the 20th Century, and likely only Thomas Jefferson rivaled his IQ among all presidents. Hoover’s technical knowledge in mining was extremely great, his work in unelected positions was greatly admired (which is how he got the nomination for President),and he & his wife learned Chinese in China, and then would speak it in their home in America as a form of code to hide their conversations from visitors. His post-presidency was also very intellectually active as he sought to rehab his image.

Meanwhile, FDR, as Unz references, probably had the lowest IQ of all 20th Century presidents. A second-rate intellect, but he had his family money, an incredible ego, no ties to any ideology other than what would help him win, and willingness to be politically ruthless and corrupt at all costs.

Hoover not only had the bad luck of being president when the Depression hit, but also the fact that he had no experience politicking. He had worked in government successfully, but always in unelected positions, so when he got the presidency he did not have any ability to get the average voter to instill trust in his administration when the crisis hit.

Hoover was a very smart man with zero political skills, while FDR was a second-rate thinker who had excellent political instincts, skills, and background support. There’s a lesson here in all that.

It has always surprised me that FDR has never had mainstream, semi-critical biopics of his life. I mean, even American “heroes” like Lincoln, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson have had that treatment, even if such biopics invariably made their subjects into perpetually the good guys, or, in the case of Lincoln, become hagiography. But Hollywood–despite being communist and deep-FDR supporters—apparently treats the cousin-banging FDR as some untouchable deity, unworthy of any human depiction, except perhaps as some aloof figure, as in Yankee Doodle Dandy, or in the one-off art-house flick Hyde Park on Hudson.

Ironically, Hollywood’s most stinging, searching critique of FDR came from Archie Bunker, when Norman Lear was trying to make Archie seem unreasonable:

It has also surprised me that FDR’s amazingly unprecedented and ego-driven decision to run for 3rd and 4th terms—and win them—has never been explored in the mainstream culture. It lead directly to the passage of a constitutional amendment barring anyone from doing it again. FDR’s king-like manner alarmed so many contemporaries that they wanted to stop any future FDR from doing it again. That would seem to be a lot of evidence of how divisive the man was.

It appears that FDR seems to have a a personality not just like Bush 43, but also Obama and Biden. The colossal ego of an untrained, unaccomplished politico thinking he can be a front-man president with no discernible political convictions (Obama), the trading on the family name and fortune to do it (Bush 43), the allowing underlings to do whatever they wanted (Bush 43, Obama, Biden), and the blatant selling of the office to the highest bidder through his family (Biden).

A few notes about Columbia:

-Columbia was sometimes called the “Jewish Ivy” due to its large Jewish student population.

-A joke: Columbia’s student population is 1/3 black, 1/3 Jewish, 1/3 lesbian, and the rest are white guys.

-Columbia has the smallest endowment (donations from alumni) of any Ivy League.

-Most Ivys have clubs for alumni to join, like the Harvard Club or the Yale Club. These are swanky physical buildings where alumni can dine, exercise, entertain, and stay overnight. Despite the university being literally in NYC there is no physical Columbia Club in NYC or anywhere else. There used to be, but alumni were so uninterested that they sold it in the 1960s once Columbia became known as a radicals school. Harvard actually has a club in NYC, as does Yale, but not Columbia. How embarassing.

It seems that the large Jewish undergad population and radical politics drive away $$$ and alumni interest, at least in comparison to other Ivys.

In recent years the Left has touted the Tulsa Race Riots of 1921 as some kind of Kristallnacht-level attack by evil whites on blacks. The event even got to appear in the failed Watchmen TV series on HBO (a TV series designed to “correct” the IP because the previous Watchmen movie had become popular among white right wing fanbois, so the TV series as hard communist-lefty and hard anti-white). Blacks even have started to claim that Tulsa was some kind of “Black Wall Street” that whites sought to destroy to keep them poor.

What really occurred was typical: a large concentration of blacks in Tulsa had been, as they always do, acting criminal and victimizing whites, even lynching a white guy the year before. Finally, a shoeshine boy sexually assaulted a white teenage girl and the dam broke. Whites rioted en masse, and black gangs used it much the same way they used the George Floyd marches: to start rioting, raping, and looting.

RooshV had a great website/good books on PUA and delved into other topics like JPower and patriarchy and the like. But thankfully, he swerved to Christianity and has since left the online world behind.

In pre-liberal Christendom, Jews were a barely tolerated alien minority with no access to political office without conversion. The fly in the ointment was the greed of the Christian elite, which allowed the Jews to practice usury as long as they gave the elite borrowers a lower interest rate. The result was always the same: mass anger at the economic exploitation, followed by violence against the usurers and the expulsion of Jews when the elite could no longer pay back the usurious loans.

That situation is actually quite common historically. Ruling groups, especially those who have conquered a foreign nation, will often choose ethnic minorities to govern the conquered people, because such minorities will have no loyalty to the locals and actually will great fear of the locals rising up, as the ethnic minority will surely be dealt with harshly even if they try to join the locals.

The Romans used this to great success. Quite famously, when Rome conquered Israel, they had the Herodians on the throne as client-kings. The Herodians were ethnically not Hebrews, but another ethnic group, and so were loyal to Rome. This is partially why, for example, in the Gospel Herod ratifies Pilate’s finding that Jesus is not guilty and they become “good friends” as a result; Herod is being more loyal to Rome (Pilate) than the local Jewish Sanhedrin.

Back in the 90s Richard Dreyfuss (yes, the actor) helped to pen an alternative history book with Harry Turtledove called The Two Georges, which has the British placing blacks in key positions ruling North America over the masses of Irish. This would have been a more canny move by the British, as the ethnically-small blacks would have been far more frightened of the mass of Irish than the British. Of course, it depends upon the fantasy that black IQ and black civilized behavior is higher on average than what it actually is, so it would not have worked in reality, but old 60s lefty Jewish Dreyfuss and mainstream author Turtledove were not going to believe anything else.

lol. Little ignorant one, why are so full of chutzpah to spout out these inane conspiracy theories? Please tells us more how Shakespeare was really a government psyop!

lol. So Mr. Soros pays you to harass Mr. Sailer, which is your style. But how many shekels does he pay you, Mordecai?

How typical! You are caught with your hand in the cookie jar, but you accuse the one who caught you for that!
You can’t find enough insults to heap on the head of those who exposed your ignorance.

lmao. Your ignorance and wild factless conspiracy theories are showing, little gormless one, especially as you flail about like this.

But do tell us more about this mass conspiracy of government agents writing all of Shakespeare’s plays and everyone playing along.

lmao. You Shakespeare Denialists have conspiracy theories more wild than the Flat Earthers!

lol. Yes, little Shakespeare Denialist, your responses are quite laughable. Do try harder, maybe you can make your wild, stupid conspiracy theory stick sometime!

Except that the plays in question (and not just Shakespeare’s) show precious little evidence of having been written by “scholars” and overwhelming evidence of having been written by professional men of the theater.

Good heavens, Watson! All of these ants appear to have been eaten by… an ant-eater — and not, as we suspected, by a polar bear!

lol. Yeah, buddy, you got me. The one Catholic plot I named was actually not her against but James I. Totally messed that one up.

Meanwhile, here’s all the other Catholic plots that did occur during her reign:
-1569 – The Northern Earls’ Rebellion
-1571 – The Ridolfi Plot
-1583 – The Throckmorton Plot
-1586 – The Babington Plot

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zg68tyc/revision/3

Jackass.

Now bad to your Shakespeare Denialism, brainless one!

My experience is that male celebrities are usually very short or very tall. I could speculate why, but maybe thats just confirmation bias.

I am shocked, SHOCKED to hear that Jewish John Johnson is hyper-sensitive and argumentative about Jewish slights.

SHOCKED, I tell you.

He and JackD share the same room at the hasbara internet center in Tel Aviv.

The Germ is a great at telling tall tales.

Already on this thread he claimed to have babysat Bowie, met Bono (Sonny?), had a meal with Mike Myers, and almost got murdered at MacArthur Park.

Or something.

lol. Yes, Corvy, we all know you’re really good at telling tall tales. No need to reinforce the notion. You’re a liar, through-and-through, this we’ve all discovered all on our own.

P.S. Are you in Israel, your homeland? Or are you stateside, and synagogue-adjacent to your job at Media Matters?

God bless your friend.

Grammar’s personal life has been excessively sad, violent, and very prole. In addition to his father and sister’s murders, he’s gotten involved with several strippers/hookers and domestic violence situations, and he had addiction to some substances. In his personal life, he’s a lower-profile Charlie Sheen.

Yet his public image as this erudite, intelligent, upper-caste guy has never suffered, even when he came out as a Hollywood Republican. I chalk it up to his voice, his agents, and his work, which almost exclusively appeals to NPR-listeners, and so they all can’t imagine him rolling around in a strip club. He also excessively courts homosexual audiences—not only were a lot of the cast, writers, and guest stars on Frasier gay, but his excessive fussiness and high-brow-theater references were designed to capture that audience’s praise.

Shakespeare was likely being self-serving in not attacking Catholicism. Remember that during his lifetime England was precipitously on the brink of several swerves back to Catholicism.

Elizabeth I was a hugely polarizing ruler whom several Catholic plots were launched against (e.g. the famous Guy Fawkes) and the 1588 Spanish Armada only failed due to some of it being blown off course. And then the more Catholic-sympathetic James I took over when Shakespeare was mid-career. In short, Shakespeare could never be sure if Catholicism might suddenly come back into power in England as it had threatened, so he avoided attacking it.

Being so prudent was also historically intelligent. Shakespeare’s father famously had a Catholic will secreted in the walls of his home on the off-chance the Catholics took over again, and in the 50 years before Shakespeare was born you had the terrifying shifts of England from Catholic to Protestant to Catholic to Protestant from Henry 8th-Elizabeth, complete with associated purges of the old guard after the latest shift.

Marlowe was not only a playwright, but an agent of Elizabeth, so he was doomed to death or exile if the Catholics ever got back into power. So he was more bold in making the propaganda, as it meant more to him.

If what Camara says is true about Twain vis-à-vis Catholics, I don’t hold it against the man.  I hate Catholics too, in so far as they follow their Pope.  I don’t think arrogance has anything to do with it.  He wrote two brief articles on the Indians, one very derogatory, the other sort of resigned.

As a boy I read Tom Sawyer at least three times, Huckleberry Finn twice, and I didn’t get the impression Twain thought small town people were all idiots or that they couldn’t appreciate goodness and genius.  About the last, since there are no geniuses in the novels, how could he give that impression?

Years ago I read the essay on James Fenimore Cooper that Camara refers to, “Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offences,” and some years later read it again, so I think I recall it pretty well.  The odd think about the essay is that everything Twain says is true but it is all trivial compared to what value there really is in Cooper’s work.  You might put it this way: Cooper needed a good copy editor.  I think what we get are first drafts.  (There is one exception, a dreadful, and dreadfully long, satirical novel, polished and not overwritten.  Well, there could be more exceptions, I’ve read only a fraction of his work.)

Camara seems to think he can read Twain’s mind.  Camara claims Twain hated people who didn’t bow down to his (derogatory quotes Camara’s) “genius.”  How does Camara know this? In fact, he doesn’t know it.  Sure, Twain had a high opinion of his writing compared to his contemporaries (he writes this somewhere); he deserved to have it.  Camara claims Twain hated the residents of the small town where he grew up, relenting only when they gave some sort of celebration for him.  Again, Camara doesn’t know this.

At least Camara qualified with “think” his claim that Twain was an anti-Shakespearean only because people held Shakespeare in higher esteem than Twain.  I doubt anyone ever thought to compare Twain – the great playwright and poet, LOL – with Shakespeare.  Furthermore, in “Is Shakespeare Dead” Twain has nothing but praise for the man’s work itself and thus for the author, whoever it was.

It just occurred to me: Camara’s crack about Twain hating Catholics might be due to his defense of Joan of Arc.  Read Twain’s essays on Joan of Arc; there are two, long and short.  Also his long essay in defense of Shelley’s wife.

Conservatism, an extension of Protestantism at the time, was obsessed with defeating an ascendant communism at all costs and saw small moves in that direction as necessary to keep communism at bay.

No, they were obsessed with helping it. Most of our spy apparatus was infiltrated by communists and sympathizers seeking to help it. McCarthy and the Cambridge 5 were just the tips of the icebergs.

And communism has always been the philosophy of the 1%. It is a top-down apparatus. Jews and WASPs love it.

Defeating the petty bourgeoisie in America—largely ethnics—was something the commies had to do to take over. Unlike with Russia, which had a top-down apparatus that commies seized, in America the power was more diffuse, and thus a take over would require defeating those factions by sabotage.

It is helpful to consider that secret American foreign policy post WW2, as demonstrated in the actions of the CIA, was to install moderately Leftist governments in post war Europe in the hope of fending off communist governments.

Viewed from another angle, it was the policy of pro-communist intelligence agencies to enact Communism via Fabianism in the west via slowly pushing them left, like installing further and further left-wing governments.

“That’s a lot of assumption to pull out of one’s ass. “

Not at all. He has a book out. Paid appearances. Substack is a money machine for the one who NOTICES.

“But why stop there? As long as you’re improvising give us a lurid tale of espionage, murder and gratuitous sex. I’m already casting the film version.”

That’s Germ Theory”s wheelhouse.

lol. Corvy, why do you pull everything you say out of your ass? Is it because David Brock puts it there for you?

That’s a lot of assumption to pull out of one’s ass. But then the enthusiastic “vague impression” has always been your forte.
But why stop there? As long as you’re improvising give us a lurid tale of espionage, murder and gratuitous sex. I’m already casting the film version.

“Shiloh has raised almost 400k now.”

No comparison to Trump the grifter. If this was Biden doing this same thing, you’d be seething.

—Trump announced this week that the top 220 buyers of his $Trump (strump, as in strumpet) meme coin between now and mid-May will be invited to an exclusive dinner on May 22 (“a night to remember”) at his golf club outside Washington, D.C. The Washington Post and other outlets have reported that in the days since the announcement, “buyers have poured tens of millions of dollars” into the coin; further, that the holders of 27 crypto wallets have acquired at least 100,000 coins apiece, “stakes worth about a million dollars each.” Holders of crypto wallets are anonymous, if they want to be, so the identities of these people (or businesses or countries or sovereign wealth funds or whatever they might be) are unknown and will presumably remain so until the big dinner or, who knows, maybe for all time.—

lol. U mad, wittle Soros-bot?

Lots of folks have noted this is Jewish influence, but have ignored/forgotten it was WASPs as well.

This was really a Jewish-WASP alliance against Ellis Island Catholics (Irish, Italian, and to a lesser extent Poles, French-Canadian, and German Catholics) and Southern protestant Scots-Irish, using blacks as the cat’s paw.

WASP elite hated losing control of America to the Catholics and especially the Irish; e.g. the loss of Boston from Brahmin stronghold to the Honey Fitz-types was a huge blow ego-wise to the WASP powers of our nation. Ellis Island’s overload pissed the WASPs off to no end, but in the face of overwhelming numbers they couldn’t do much at first. Aligning with Jews to use Civil Rights laws to screw over the city Catholics who had taken over was sweet revenge. Punishing Scots-Irish in the South first with black integration was a welcome first blow and a test run from the WASP point of view.

Earl Warrren? Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.? William Douglas? Harry Blackmun? All WASP elitists.

Those old judges who put this evil into place WASPs by and large. And knew what they were doing, with Jewish egging on.

Clint Eastwood’s take on McCarthy was from his bio pic on Hoover was that McCarthy was “an opportunist, not a patriot.”

BTW Ron, I’d love to hear your take on J. Edgar Hoover’s deliberate longtime denials of the existence of the Mafia until Joe Valachi testified to Congress in October 1963. The FBI working side by side with the Mafia and protecting them in exchange for street-level thug work and dock/shipping protection against Nazi and Communist saboteurs is a page of history woefully under developed.

I missed you, too. You must have gotten your back pay from Putin. We are all so lucky for you to once again soil this fine opinion webzine with your conspiracies about Jews. I will admit, it’s entertaining.

lol. Now now, little Soros-bot, you’re telling on yourself with that projection. Anyone who disagrees with the Jewish Corvy must be a Putin-bot, for no one could ever disagree with Mr. Soros’s favorite paid troll!

Tell me, is there a list of “go-to responses” given to you by Media Matters, or is your knee-jerk ” You’re a Putin stooge!” spittling something innate to your low-IQ mind?

It’s a great way to build his subscription base. He’s iSteve, the one who NOTICES. He got tired of you and us rubes of getting free stuff and gimmedats. Time to pay for his content.

“Sailer was an absolutely hysterical nincompoop when it came to the Covid.”

To the contrary, he was generally on point.

“If thinking ‘by the numbers’ means he was willing to advocate for a police state”

See, right there is your problem. No police state was involved. Rather, it is representative democracy. Get it right next time.

Corvy! I missed you, little Soros-troll. How was your Passover?

Why is Harris defined as “black” rather than Mumbai Indian?

Since the age of 18, Harris has very publicly and loudly defined herself as black. For university she chose Howard University, the most famous historically black college in the U.S., and conveniently located in Washington D.C. While at Howard, she was a very outgoing in joining a black sorority and being a loud well-known sorority girl (college-educated blacks take their membership in black-only fraternities/sororities very seriously; its a status fight amongst the black elite, like Skull & Bones membership v. Scroll & Key membership fights amongst Yalie grads).

Thus, from her first days an adult, Harris’s choice to be identified as black was nakedly political: she chose to identify as black at a politically black school to get the DEI cred from the get-go. Her later public dalliances with Willie Brown and Montel Williams were also to assure her black street cred. She realized being black in U.S politics was akin to getting a 50 meter head start in a 100m dash and made sure she got it. Her accomplishment-free career, horridness on the national scene, and yet rocket-fueled rise to VP is only more proof that, at least among Democrats, being a black female who can read pablum will get you very, very far.

Harris keeps her Indian side quiet. She acknowledges it in smaller moments, but on large stages and in public she’s Blackity Black Black Black, y’all! She knows where her career bread is buttered, and it ain’t on the Tamil side of town.

The Kennedys totally dominated the MSM during the early 1960s, so a JFK sex scandal promoted by his enemies might have hurt him a little but hardly would have been fatal.

This I agree with. The Kennedy’s controlled so much of the media its embarrassing. For example, Ben Bradlee– the supposed “fearless” editor of the Washington Post who broke Watergate and helped take down Deep State-enemy Richard Nixon — was nothing more than Kennedy lackey, tagging along with JFK all during his administration as an eager partier/friend/confidant. Bradlee later published a book called Conversations With Kennedy, which is so much a tongue bathing of JFK during their friendship that Jackie should have sued for Bradlee being the other woman.

(As for Bradlee’s “fearlessness” in going after Nixon—once a Democrat hatchet man, always a Democrat hatchet man. He went after JFK’s old opponent Nixon, the same as he had done in 1960, but this time with more power behind his position).

The Kennedy’s have long courted media power. For example, Joe, the Irish rumrunner from Boston, was dispatched to Hollywood in the 1920s to “reorganize” (re: use violence to control) Hollywood studios. He banged every Hollywood starlet he could while bringing the violent hammer down on unruly Hollywood studios and unions and people who refused to play ball.

*eyeroll*

Lee Harvey Oswald told Sheriff Fritz that he was “out front with Bill Shelly” at the time of the shooting.

Guy accused of crime denies committing crime. Film at 11.

several TSBD workers said they saw Oswald on the 1st or 2nd floor around the time of the assassination,

Very precise there. (/s)

Oswald expressed admiration for Pres. Kennedy, so there is no known motive for Oswald to have shot him.

JFK’s time in office:
-Launched Vietnam War to contain Communism
-Launched Bay of Pigs (against communism)
-Cuban Missile Crisis (against communism)
-Berlin Wall erected overnight in the face of JFK’s policies.
-JFK delivers the fiery, stridently oppositional ” Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in response to Berlin Wall.

By November 1963, it was clear that JFK was openly hostile and aggressive against Communism, to the point of military action on 3 of 5 occasions above, and was threatening it in Berlin. Whatever Oswald felt in 1960 when JFK was elected, by November 1963 JFK was revealed a violent, and even reckless, enemy of communism, thus Oswald’s motive.

QED.

And of course since Pres. Kennedy was shot twice from the front, that by itself rules out Lee Harvey Oswald as Pres. Kennedy’s assassin.

Oswald shots have been repeatedly shown to have been possible using physics and computer recreations. A motivated shooter could have made the shots, and Oswald was indeed motivated.

Motive, means, and opportunity for Oswald have thus all been established. Thus the only question is whether Oswald acted alone or else he did it as part of a larger effort.

Ron, your argument in favor Israel being involved is fairly weak:

-Israelis tried to kill a U.S. president before
-Kennedy opposed Israel’s nuclear policy
-Johnson was scared the Kennedy’s were about to destroy him, and was pro-Israel
-the only policy that significantly changed was U.S. policy towards Israel
-Johnson immediately ducked when he heard gunfire
-Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian, was described as “in a trance” when he acted, and was a distraction for the real killer (the security guard you claim hated the Kennedys)

All of this is so much smoke of proof. Lots of groups hate U.S. presidents—goes with the job. Lots of groups try to assassinate U.S. presidents—goes with the job (e.g. Truman was not only a target of Israelis, but also Puerto Rican nationalists). Motive to kill is thus not enough: lots of people had motive to kill JFK.

Johnson’s political career destroyed by an article? Why would someone trying to kill JFK need Johnson’s ok? Telling Johnson was unnecessary under your theory. And Johnson ducking when he heard a gunshot? I mean, are you really saying a high-level figure who ducks when he hears gunshots “proves” anything? Lots of people will react in fear upon hearing a gunshot. The fact that Johnson reacted more quickly than others proves nothing other than self-preservation instincts.

But most importantly you haven’t dealt with the obvious: Oswald. Oswald had motive, means, and opportunity. Oswald could have made the shots, Oswald was a motivated actor (lifelong committed communist/JFK was belligerent with communists from the start of his administration), Oswald had the opportunity to make the shots (was in that nest).

Many Oswald denialists hand wave these details away, or else start giving false facts, e.g. about how much time Oswald had to make the shots. If you’re going to assert a conspiracy, start with proving that Oswald couldn’t have made those shots. However, if you agree he could, but still think there was a conspiracy, then explore what connections he had before going postal on JFK. What has been long denied by conspiracy theorists is the Communist desire to be rid of JFK, and how Oswald as a lifelong communist was doing what most communists wanted done at the time–kill the anti-communist JFK. And lots of communists infiltrated U.S. positions at high posts–e.g., Alger Hiss. As in other high-level security/spy services (e.g. the Cambridge 5).

As to RFK: having Sirhan Sirhan be a “patsy” makes no sense where he did it. A crowded back room with RFK loyalists, where a secret henchmen security guard can kill RFK with no one in his bodyguard/retinue of followers noticing or grabbing him as the real killer? That’s far too many moving parts to get away with it, far too much that could have gone wrong, too many eyes and ears present who could have noticed something was amiss. e.g., was Rosy Grier in on it? George Plimpton?

More likely Sirhan was the real killer and was brainwashed to do so, and any other shots might have come from the security guard/others returning fire.

Now, as to the trance-like description of Sirhan: the CIA and KGB did a lot of work on hypnosis/brainwashing in the 40s and 50s (e.g. MKULTRA). Oswald and Sirhan fit the bill as brainwashed “true believers” in their respective causes, killing figures harmful to both the CIA and the communists. All with the plausible deniability of “lone nuts.” Look there. Maybe Israel was involved in the brainwashing/hypnosis, maybe not, but what you have is just your own personal hypothesis with no proof other than motive.

Trump, a lifetime NYCer (largest Jewish city in the world) who worked in NYC real estate (heavily Jewish) and then became a major TV star (Hollywood run by Jews) who’s own daughter married a Jew and converted (and both became his closest advisors) knows the # 1 rule in the world:

Don’t Cross the Jews.

I think Steve’s mindset has always been that he deliberately wouldn’t “notice” anything beyond a few pet bugaboos that he could easily and ruthlessly defend with statistics. This would separate him from other people, who notice one thing and then start noticing a whole bunch of things in other areas, rendering them vulnerable to the “conspiracy theorist” label. Thus, Steve could seem more believable to a lot more people.

Can’t say he’s wrong to have that mindset. Steve was cancelled two decades ago and yet just had a hit book and is thriving at his new blog and is the most influential deep thinker of the Dissident Right (and all the Right, if we’re honest).

All this from a guy who regularly posts about the intricacies of golf course architecture. Wild!

lol. But I give you thanks anyway.

It’s telling that you favor someone who clearly wants you and your tribe dead.

On the contrary, I was calling him out for anti-Jewish animus!

lmao. Ooh, so now we know Corvy’s Jewish as well as a paid troll.

I’m generally pretty chill about anti-Jewish stuff. But Corvy Jewish? Them’s fightin’ words!

Hysterical sissy is hysterical sissy, film at 11.

Sullivan hyperventialated on Bill Maher about the deportations of Venezuelan gang members, breaking down in tears. Probably because his rent boys were trafficked by the gang.

“Levels of indecency never before seen”

Worse than Clinton’s antics, or Biden soiling himself? Sullivan has a rather elastic idea of indecency, which isn’t a surprise coming from a degenerate.

Andrew Sullivan.

What a fag.

News Channel 3 (local CBS affiliate in Detroit): “CBS News Detroit’s Jack Springgate spoke with two cancer survivors who attended the rally. ‘They’re cutting children’s cancer research and the NIH and also interfering with grant funding rules for medical research,’ said rally attendee Elliot Stephens. ‘I have a daughter with cancer, and that for me is unforgivable.’ Stephens and his brother are also cancer survivors. They say potential health care cuts could have fatal consequences. ‘If they cut Medicaid, that’s going to hurt a lot of people,’ Elliot Stephens said. ‘Senior citizens, disabled people, single moms, children who rely on Medicaid, it’s going to hurt them. People are going to die from that.’”

Oh, well. Too bad for then. According to Elon, if they die, they die.

Corvina, cuts in legitimate Medicare and social security payments will occur right after the invasion of Greenland.

None of the cancer protesters are going to die because of Trump, and they know it. They just hate the Orange Man. Using their own sick kid to hate on Trump is typical of these hatey haters.

lol. Now now Corvy, would your rabbi like you saying that, no matter how much Mr. Soros pays you?

Disagree that we’re not supposed to laugh at the Dude. Plenty of scenes come to mind:

-When he’s high as a kite driving his car and singing Creedence
-When he’s wide eyed in his dream sequence staring up women’s skirts
-When he gets Donny’s ashes blown in his face
-when he executes the lame comeback “Well, that’s just like, your opinion man.”
etc.

I do agree the Cohens downplay his loserishness because he is the main character, but we are still meant to find him a figure of fun. Its just that he’s the laid back, directionless weirdo surrounded by a maelstrom of hyper-driven weirdos on their life missions. So the Dude gets swept up in their adventures by the force of their winds, and his outsider status to their lives allows their weirdness to shine through. He comes across as likeable because everyone else’s schemes and drives and actions seem so bizarre when viewed from the outside. I mean, why bother, man?

Its a similar setup to Seinfeld, where Jerry is surrounded by crazies and he’s the sanest one, but still has foibles to laugh at (e.g. his always finding a small tick in a gf to cause him to break up, his weird hate-rivalry with Newman).

The Big Lebowski paints LA not as some metropolis but as a small town full of weirdos. The only catch is that all the weirdos get caught up in a murder-kidnapping plot involving a porn slut.

lmao. Ooh, so now we know Corvy’s Jewish as well as a paid troll. Will his revelations never cease?

The problem with your theory is that it makes too much sense and fits the facts.

Jews have a persecution complex. Like women, they are always the victim without cause or accountability, and their victimhood must be so hysterically extreme; everyone must be out to get them.

Therefore, to Jewish paranoia can’t just be error, it must the super-hyper-competent-conspiring Nazis ruthlessly and efficiently murdering everyone so precisely and can’t just be typical wartime conditions.

Jews got kicked out of 100+ countries because they economically exploited the locals ruthlessly, refused to assimilate, spat upon local houses of worship, pushed horrendous vices on the locals to control them, and let a small group of their unhinged brethren commit rape and murder on locals whilst covering it up.

Yet despite such cold hard facts Jews claim they were only thrown out due to anti-Semitism and they did nothing wrong. Such a group psychological failure to admit wrongdoing shows a selfish group persecution complex that means that when they actually do get the sharp end of the sword in the mouth it must be (in their minds) so surgically cut into them as to carve a name in cursive instead of a random jab.

lol. Mr. Soros really paying you a lot for these kinds of posts, eh?

The “6 million” number is some kind of recurring trope amongst The Tribe historically. Before the Holocaust, it was a number that got repeated in many situations. It may be just a default kneejerk number they repeat due to that, or it may have some sort of religious significance now forgotten. Or perhaps in Hebrew/Yiddish it rhymed or something (I don’t know, I don’t know those languages).

I do know both those languages and I am unaware of this trope/repetition in many situations. I suspect that your source has confused the number 600,000, which is indeed a ‘trope’ in Jewish history (The number of those who left Egypt, a general number meant to encompass the Jewish nation, etc.) with 6 million.

Ah, thank you. So perhaps 600K got an extra zero added to it at some point.

The “6 million” number is some kind of recurring trope amongst The Tribe historically. Before the Holocaust, it was a number that got repeated in many situations. It may be just a default kneejerk number they repeat due to that, or it may have some sort of religious significance now forgotten. Or perhaps in Hebrew/Yiddish it rhymed or something (I don’t know, I don’t know those languages).

I’ve not found the origin yet, but I believe its similar to when a little kid might constantly say “a billion people” or “a billion things to do” when describing a large number. Except that Jews have decided that now its not merely a placeholder for “a lot” but is an accurate, definitive number for the Holocaust. Which makes them look silly and like liars.

As you’ve stated, if they just climbed down off defending this number as sacrosanct the Holocaust deniers would largely dry up. But like their foolish refusal to admit Leo Frank obviously raped and killed Mary Phagen, or that the Rosenbergs were indeed both guilty spies for communists, they discredit themselves thoroughly by standing on this number with such fantaticism.

Much like women, Jews cannot merely admit they were wrong and climb down off their obvious mistakes, and get hysterically vindictively angry when you try to make them. 100+ countries and counting…

Arguments about literacy pre-20th century should focus on whether it was useful for X’s job to be literate. People didn’t have books, books were expensive, and most jobs didn’t require reading. So learning to read was a net negative for most people —unuseful for $$$, and likely never to be used as a skill with the lack of written word around.

Lots of very smart accomplished people never learned to read or had trouble with it, e.g. Charlemagne struggled with learning to read.

lmao. You argued that Shakespeare was “commanded” to write Richard III, but cited no evidence to prove it. And then added that it could have also been written completely by a government propaganda office and they slapped Shakes name on it. Again, with no evidence for such an outlandish theory.

I merely offered a hypothesis about Shakespeare’s “lost” years that fit his class and status and situation, and emphatically stated it was based on nothing but my own imagination.

We are not the same, liar.

But thanks for the lulz.

You’ve been debunked.

Corvy does not argue in good faith and lies constantly. Paid troll. Ignore him or laugh at him.

“It was useless information. Was a crime committed? Please cite”.

It goes to show the corruptive nature of Trump and the influence by Russians in his foreign policy agenda. Your response? Bury your head in the sand.

“Again, no evidence from you of “Russia/Putin influences Trump’s conduct in office”.”

Yes, in Comment 736, which you entirely dismissed.

“I see you’re abandoning your “Russia/Putin influences Trump’s conduct in office” claim”

I haven’t abandoned it at all. I provided the evidence. You’re simply ignoring it. The cognitive dissonance is way too strong for you to overcome.

You aren’t some disinterested party who just wants an “accurate number”. You want a LOWER number – that’s clear from your own words. If I told you it was ten million Jews you wouldn’t like it.

If you want an accurate number just ask ChatGPT or any other AI. They will tell you it was approximately 6 million because that is the number that is widely accepted by reputable scholars and historians who are not Holocaust deniers like you. You aren’t really interested in historical accuracy at all, just in establishing that the well accepted number is too high.

Again that brings me to why? Most people are willing to accept the mainstream consensus on historical events (or else they don’t care at all). But Holocaust deniers such as you have some agenda where they have some need for the number to be lower. Let’s assume that the accepted number is too high (it isn’t but let’s assume it is for the sake of argument). If the Nazis only killed 3 million Jews or a million or whatever number makes you happy, how does that change anything?