Wow! This has such an interesting correspondence to my piece on Buchanan's book: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/corbett-unz-and-wwii-the-unnecessary. I can definitely see why he would have been an easy target of flamethrowing pundits like Trump. But that it ushered in the exact person who fit the label? That's too ironic.
in this article, I learned that I'm approximately two years older than you. We were all glued to Perot in those days! That was a fun time. :) And who could forget Nader, who was himself Unsafe at Any Speed?
I distinctly remember Pat Buchanan but not Trump's demonization of him as a Nazi. I remembered because in my parents' social circle, Buchanan was the favored choice among social conservatives earlier on in the 2000 campaign. And you're exactly right, they all shuffled themselves toward Dubya to prevent Gore from getting elected.
I remember Trump flirting with politics before, but not him talking about Buchanan in this way. But now that I see that video, it feels rehearsed in a similar way to how Trump smeared Gary Johnson in 2016.
Trump's current silly schtick has always seemed "off" to me as not coincident with his former polished appearance and smooth ways prior to 2014 or so. Trump always did fun ads, but he became excessively clownish in 2016 and flipped like a switch. Because who can also forget about him saying what a great job Hillary would do as president? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK03Ckor-VI
We are supposed to believe that Donald "Father of the Beautiful Vaccine" Trump thought Hillary would make an awesome president, and then only suddenly turned on the establishment in 2014-2015? He also "saw the light" and had a "come to Jesus moment" on gun control and abortion almost overnight in 2016? Trump had intellectual and moral growth? Laf. Even more unbelievable, we're supposed to believe it happened suddenly one day in his 70s?
This made no sense at all to me in 2016. But people have short memories.
Will the real Donald Trump please stand up? Haha! And there's another great video clip of a sit-down interview of Trump that I can't find on YT at the moment that was widely available in 2016 -- NOT the YouTube clip above -- where he said again what a great job Hillary would do as president. It's possible that second interview has been effectively scrubbed from YouTube by now.
I became interested in evolutionarily informed approaches to health in the 2007 melamine pet food scare, and then "food freedom" and "medical freedom" soon thereafter.
With the notable exception of RFK Jr, no one in that space had heard of the various boomer gurus who have now launched themselves into notoriety as "medical freedom" advocates in 2020.
Oh, and let's not forget that Trump promised to look into vaccines as a cause of chronic illness in children and then promptly "forgot" about it after his meetings with RFK Jr and Fauci in a very short timespan.
Although very true, I think you miss something even more important. While Trump certainly didn't follow through on his promise to RFK Jr., he 1) at least listened to Bobby for 3 hours and then supported him and 2) he arranged (ordered?) Fauci and Collins to meet with Bobby. RFK Jr still uses the letter from that meeting as a smoking gun on vaccine safety/testing.
While Trump ultimately ran like a dog, he didn't need to do either in the first place. Certainly prudence, political or otherwise, would have said stay as far away as possible from the vaccine issue. Oddly by shafting RFK, Trump ruined his Presidency because if he had had 3 years of Bobby out telling the truth about Vaccines and the Medical Mafia, Covid would have turned out very different and Trump would still be President.
Instead of asking why Trump ran away, I think the more interesting question is why he committed to looking at it in the first place?
(Great comment and great name. We must be related, Cuz.
my family tree is a Welsh guy fought for Bonny Prince Charley. When that didn't work out so well, he fled to Ireland with a price on his head. He married an Irish girl that hide him and his kid end up in the Colonies, my ancestor. Years ago I learned something interesting while in Ireland. I was told by a reputable source that actually a lot of Hughes were Irish. Using the divide and conquer approach, figuring that it would be a lot harder for the peasants to rebel in a foreign country, the English Lords exported Irish to Wales to be basically slaves on the English plantations. I was shown some of the bonds issued by Irish used to finance the Easter Uprising that ultimately kicked the English dictators out most of Ireland. The CFO was named Hughes. So we have a long family history of rebelling against tyranny. Sadly, nothings changed. Again, good comments. Up The Rebels!
I can't help thinking that we didn't clean up properly after WWII. We left far too many actual Nazis knocking around. Vera Sharav was not being hyperbolic when she says she sees the same evil now that she did in the concentration camps as a child.
I thought about this some time ago and asked myself the question: Did America win or lose the Cold War? The way that I assessed this was to ask whether America was now the same as before the end of WW II or more like the Soviet Union. If you win a war, you do not change and become more like your enemy. We have adopted much of the ideology and most of the ideas of state apparatus of the former Soviet Union. I concluded that no one won the Cold War, and especially not the U.S.A. It was reported decades ago that the head of the one of the tax-exempt foundations said that they were working to so alter life in the United States so that it could eventually be merged with the Soviet Union, AND that this was consistent with the (unstated) policy of the Eisenhower administration!
Thanks for the walk down memory lane. Trump, for all his bluster, did virtually nothing to stop the March of the Uniparty. He didn't reverse any of the last minute Obama Administration Russia collusion National Security Assessment, the Federalization of previously State controlled elections, or the EPA CO2 endangerment finding. He not only left in place the Deep State's structural framework, he massively expanded it. The massive expansion of the Deep State Intelligence Censorship Industry was on his watch. He didn't release the critical secret information needed to expose the Deep State. He filled his Administration with Deep State actors and fired virtually no one, particularly Russian Collusion fellow travelers. Virtually no wrong doers were actually punish in any serious way. Finally, he promoted the Deep States' ultimate power grab to date, the Covid Scam. It is easier to make the case that Trump was a Deep State cover artist than an actual Protector of the People. He certainly caused the greatest expansion of the Deep State in recent history.
A couple of points on Perot, although it is long ago and may have been lies. I believe there were ties (like board memberships) with Hilary Clinton and Perot. Also, if the blackmail worked once, why didn't it work a second time?
Finally, I have always thought there was something very fishy about the alleged Prescott Bush (G.H.W.'s Dad and G.W.'s Grandpa) Business Man's Fascist overthrow plot. Was it also a false flag operation to enhance FDR's power and cow his enemies? A few things make me think it was. 1. the idea that Prescott Bush's small group of Fascist involved could allegedly seize control of the US Government was absurd on the face of it. The last thing the Depression masses would follow were a bunch of Wall Street millionaires. The Federal government had very little power to enforce their will. So what if they declared a fascist coup? What States would have gone along? The US military was almost nothing. The US Army couldn't have fought its way into Texas, to say nothing of the rest of the country. That assumes the troops went along with the alleged coup, a big assumption. 2. The choice of General Smedley Butler to run the military arm of a Fascist coup never made sense to me. He was way too much a "common man" not a "fascist elite". If you wanted to pick a guy who you knew would turn against Elite plotters to provide states evidence and protect the Constitution, you couldn't have picked a better guy. Also, he was the perfect patsy. If they had picked a Doctor Strangelove General character, an obvious clown, the coup narrative wouldn't have sold. Picking a G.I. Joe Hero General was critical to make it seem real, something other than tin foil hat stuff. Having had first hand experience with a slimy "political" general, they are all whores. I can believe they may well have gone along with an overthrow if it benefited them. General Butler was anything but. He had two Congressional Medals of Honor. He bled for this country. 3. With General Butler's congressional testimony, the supporting evidence, and Grandpa Bush's Nazi collaborations, how easy would it have been to create massive fear of a Nazi Fifth column to shift non-interventionist opinion? FDR could have hung him out to dry and made huge political capital out of it. Even though FDR was talking about war with Nazi Germany in 1937 and burning the alleged Nazi collaborators and Fascist supporting Bush Business plotters was hugely in his interest to change the public opinion with massively radio broadcast show trials, he didn't. Why? He could have been the Hero of Constitution. 4. Was the plot set to fail from the beginning? Controlled opposition?
Some other random thoughts. Why didn't history make FDR the Saint of the Constitution, after Lincoln, for stopping the alleged Fascist coup. Why isn't it taught in ever history text book? When Daddy Bush and Baby Bush ran for president why wasn't the Media all over alleged traitor Prescott? That would have killed their political careers. It is easy to see as Head of the CIA Daddy, keeper of the CIA dirty files, protecting himself and Baby against the corrupt, compromised, and controlled Political Class. (Humorous, but illustrative, aside - Daddy's CIA Security Clearance application, Father's Occupation - alleged Fascist coup plotter.) Where was the Press? They are generally corrupt, compromised, and controlled whores also, but they are Democrat whores. If they are just crippled arms of the Democrat party, why did they gives the Bushlings a free ride? One answer is the Press was just protecting controlled opposition? Maybe it wasn't coincidental, when politics were over, the Bushs got in bed with accused rapist Bill Clinton. Maybe that explains the Family Bush's (including the failed Bush Light's) free ride. They were the same Uniparty.
Sorry for being so long, but I hope they add to your Controlled Opposition theme.
Thank you very much for the excellent references. I was totally unaware of them, but will look into Mathis further. WRT to the sources.
Part 1 - I totally agree with and admire his depth and insights. Very much in line with my thoughts, particularly the causes of the Great Depression. I would have added CreditAnstalt failure and the impact of global credit market collapses on money supply declines. That said, he definitely gets both the Great Depression, FDR, and New Deal right. His information on the Business Man Plot is great and confirms (and way supersedes) my comments. I found his comment on Corbett interesting and would like to know more about that. I like Corbett but think he is wrong on somethings in an anti anti-government way sometimes, which would certainly be consistent with a limited hangout motivation. Or he just could be wrong.
Part 2 - He certainly makes a good case that Butler was part of the plan. Some of this thoughts on how bravery works I believe could be off, but he has a solid logic basis for his comments on that. I also think that Butler could have just been following orders. While Butler may have been fully aware of what was going on, he may have not been fully aware of why. That said, I will also accept Mathis' point could be right and that Butler was. I disagree that Butler's Bonus Army speech was pure sellout. What was he going to say, attack the Capital and get shot down like dogs? "Attacking" the Capitol didn't work out so well on 1/6. Peace was by far the better approach, although if you are starving you value judgments are different. I think he may stretch the intelligence connections going back multiple generations a bit, but I am definitely open to further thoughts. While Butler's family line was not complete nobodies, it also was not creme de la creme, although that may have been more fluid in the 1800's. Finally some of Mathis comments on Butler not going into the causes of the war may be true. However, some of the information Mathis condemns Butler on, like the sinking of the Lusitania which the Brits only declassified it carried war goods in 1982, may have been developed from information not available to Butler. One area he missed completely was the critical role of the drug triads (Green Dragon gang if I remember right) in the Chinese Nationalist government. The addition of that point supports his overall argument. It may be wishfully thinking on my part more than fact that holds out hope Butler wasn't a slimy political General, but I will definitely concede Mathis makes a strong case otherwise. One area I think Mathis is definitely off on is the wide spread publication of the Businessman's Plot. As I noted, it was the perfect way to teach future generations that FDR was a Saint of the Constitution, and it is certainly totally consistent with overwhelming media narrative that Businessman = Evil. However, he argues look at all the sources that talk about it. In total they add up to almost nothing, and outside truth seekers like us, the Plot is virtually unknown. Since the Deep State controls history for the great masses, while this may not be totally inconsistent with his view that the Plot was known and used at the time in a controlled way. Given how the Deep State uses stereotypical villian types to scare the public, the Plot seems to me to be a propaganda gold mine that was scarcely mined.
All in all. Thanks for a great new source. My personal Ego/truth sensor is a bit rewarded that the key idea, the Business Plot was controlled opposition, was correct. I am much more open to Butler as a co-conspirator. I have written on Robert Malone and whether he is a controlled opposition leader. I have said I have serious doubts about him but as long a he says No Shots and No WHO/UN agreements, we need all the help we can get, even if its not from angels. I would probably say much the same about Butler and "War is a Racket".
As my general view is that all of America's wars are lies and "a Government that will lie you into War, will lie you into anything." As sadly we are currently living through.
Thanks again. I love new information and idea sources. I will follow up on more from Mathis. If you would like to know more about some of my thoughts, my substack is listed and I publish at AmericanThinker.com under Vic Hughes. Would love any insights you have on my writings.
Thanks again. "To stop a friend from making a mistake, is a gift of Paradise."
I used to live in West Chester, PA (mid-1990s). Smedley Butler had resided in Newtown Square, a bit east of there, and he is buried in a cemetery near where I lived. In a way, I am sorry that I was not so aware at the time of General Butler and did not try to visit those places, although I did first hear about him around then. I will be reading the new sources listed, and wishing that I had more time. I once had little interest in history, but it is now both enlightening and often discouraging, since it appears sometimes to lead into never-ending rabbit holes!
No doubt anytime there brews an effective disruption of power the infiltrative clowns are sent in. I mean, isn’t that what you’d do? Playing devil’s advocate of course. I think they enjoy it too. It’s a fun game to herd the hordes. Lucrative as well. As long as most don’t see it it’ll always be effective. People choose their heroes and stick by them. My ex-wife’s mother was a German WWII immigrant and had been a school teacher in Germany. She said Hitler was a great man. Reputation smeared by the west. I was 19 years-old then. That’s when I began to realize not everyone saw the world as displayed on TV, Hollywood movies and history books. The science of influence is a real thing. Criticize Trump. See what happens.
There's a Japanese proverb "deru kugi wa utareru" - the nail that sticks up gets hammered down. And I'll come back to that.
I doubt anyone would disagree that the 0.2% largely control the 1%, and thus the two major parties, and every well funded political group, almost all NGOs, all major media, et cetera et cetera.
So with respect to the question of whether the medical freedom movement might plausibly attract chaos agents, it seems that the biological principle that every successful system attracts parasites is very related.
So how does this all relate to a Japanese proverb?
I think that once the nail just barely begins to poke its shiny head above the prevailing agenda, some professional or perhaps enthusiastic amateur hoping to gain status in the college or economy of social control either publishes an essentially defamatory article or sidles up and insinuates himself with "the nail", or maybe contacts Chase Manhattan about that problematic nail.
Thus we see much smaller fry than the MFM with dedicated and zealous trackers and squelchers.
For example, Ryan Dawson and Mike Peinovitch completely debanked, Eric Striker tracked and physically threatened by antifa. You had Mark Kulacz sidling up to Jay Couey and drawing him into stupid debates about whether atom bombs are real. You had Bjerknes engaging Kevin McCairn for 5 hours at a time on whether Jesus was Lucifer.
So if little bitty nails are getting pounded hard, then yes, I think it's very plausible that a movement that also boasts a presidential candidate currently out-polling Trump and Biden is probably either 100% controlled or engineered to achieve some other candidates ultimate victory.
Is MFM entirely controlled? Oops, I didn't mean to imply that - I think it's mainly on the side of the angels, and I guess everybody can practice their own version of safe sects within the movement. A little bit of Malone, some Kirsch, some eye shadow and pink lip gloss - who am I to judge what others do with the privacy of their own laptops?
"stupid debates about whether atom bombs are real"
You gotta love this stuff. The flat earthers proliferated on Facebook in 2015. In 2023 it's "no virus" and "no atomic weapons" "theorists."
There are also now tons of people calling themselves "star seeds." They believe they are literal space aliens who were planted on earth. I actually met one in real life the other day.
This one doesn't seem to be on the radar of the "medical freedom movement" yet.
I voted for Ross Perot in 1992; what did I do? Nothing? Anything? I responded to a cattle call for extras for the movie of representative democracy, and got the part?
Regarding the Medical Freedom Movement (MFM), let’s not employ thinly veiled criticism and speak in direct, plain English. Are you proposing that Kirsch and Malone are CIA plants/assets tasked with sowing chaos in the MSM? If so, please steel man the case for and against. My thoughts are that while both men may have made mistakes or had questionable past associations, they both “got religion” and are clearly leading critics of Covid vaxx safety and efficacy, masking, and lockdowns and solidly pro MFM.
If you have the time to read arguments "for and against," then take the time yourself and begin at the beginning of Mathew's Substack, following its evolution and how Mathew, over these months and years (!), has honed in his assessments of others. Doing so might be even better for you than for Mathew to take more time to write summaries for you, because you will be able to *better see* what Mathew himself might not see in his own writing, and so you will be *better able* to see the strengths and weaknesses present in his thinking *process*, not simply in his stated claims. You will also see how Mathew has gradually related how his relationships with different people he now openly criticizes —for different kinds of errors, different sorts of faults— developed, this providing, once again, an evolutionary perspective on his disagreements.
Or, you can take the time yourself and search his entries for specific phrases, tags, or whichever to find the different places and contextual framework for why he's talking about those specific things, saving yourself some time at the expense of incorporating more pieces and nodes in the overall development (you will miss out on the seemingly random but deeply interconnected puzzle pieces you won't have known about because you already restricted yourself to specific words and phrases you're invested in [re: the drunk only looking for his lost keys at night under the street light]). You are sure to find a lot of entries this way, as many as you have the time to investigate for yourself.
But you know all of this, right? I'm not telling you something you don't already know how to do, so there's no need to ask for more arguments. You can go right into citing previous entries, claims, and his provided evidences already posted and then offering your own criticisms, corrections, observations, evidences for conflicting interpretations —you can demonstrate that you have the tenacity and the determination to make your own mind up through reasoned, evidenced, and mutually framed conversations informed by a respectful appreciation of what your interlocutor *has already written and argued and elaborated and lived out.* You can show that you understand he's already been making his case and doesn't need to craft yet another just for you.
You could take that time, write it all up, and even use Substack to post it. Then other people can come along, read what you have to say, enjoy it and agree with it or dislike it and toy with it, and then you and many others can see past all the thin veils dividing us from understanding one another, for we will have been conversing, sharing, learning, and speaking in the English that suits us in a world of free and published and shared speech.
Note that your lengthy polemic contains no data or evidence (with which you are presumably well acquainted). In the immortal words of Sergeant Joe Friday, “All we want are the facts, ma’am.”
I tell you that you have the capacity to do your own research at your own pace on a website with a backlog of conversations happening over time that you are free on your own time to investigate and study. You respond in a short comment telling me that you don't see "data or evidence," as though that is what I should have supplied for you.
So, rather than demonstrate independence and freedom of thought and discussion, you demonstrate that you want others to think of you as a vocal, passive recipient of what you are told. You demand others do for you what you can easily take the initiative to do for yourself. What is the point in demanding facts if you can't perform your own analysis and investigation?
Your behavior and language is consistent with someone who trolls, detracts from conversations, and provides fewer opportunities for mutual enlightenment. You can be so much better than this.
I always remembered Trump being involved in politics prior to 2016. People around me insisted that wasn't true, but I remembered it. However I could not find the specific instance/story where he was involved. Thanks for helping me remember.
"Incumbent POTUS George H.W. Bush, a leader who strangely felt almost no real heat from the days when his father, Prescott Bush, helped bank Hitler's Nazi Party (via Harriman Bank), blamed Perot (probably rightly) for his failure to serve a second term in office."
Not quite accurate.. Hitler's funders were from Brown Bros Harriman & banking done through The Union Bank Corp. BBH is as notable for its creation of OSS/CIA from its ranks of Yale Bonesmen that included Prescott Bush. Those funds were seized under Trading with the Enemy Act but quietly returned post WWII and Prescott used his ill gotten gains to fund Senate run.
Was Prescott Bush not the organizer of the funds that went from BBH through intermediary nodes and into the Fuhrer's coffers? I guess I don't really understand what the contradiction is.
Funds did not go through BBH several principles were simultaneously directors/board at UBC which is clear if you read the link. The difference is one is a squishy attribution that's hard to verify the other factual accurate money trail. My initial expectation was thanks for more refined & historically accurate data not pretzel logic to defend a trivial error,
As deepfake abilities increase, recreating earlier media formats will become easier, leading many to observe "found footage" that seems convincingly accurate to what someone remembers (or: thinks they are remembering) of earlier media formats, and come away with a belief that they've seen something that was once available but now suppressed.
My Dad watches old episodes of Gunsmoke or Tales of Wells Fargo, but now on his new television with digital smoothing upping the shows' framerates by creating new images in between the original frames —so many, in fact, that he's actually watching *more* re-created digital images than he is the originally recorded images. I notice these things, but for some reason, my Dad doesn't. To him, he says, it just looks like it always has. ("It doesn't look like anything to me," some other character on some other show says.)
I combine these things with the earlier thoughts and conversations about "the Mandela effect" and how confederates in the audience can help the magician on the stage, or the Substacker making a point, perform a feat of illusion they will all remember as such.
People like to say things like "The Internet never forgets." But then they also want more, want less censorship. They don't see all the sites that have vanished. They can't go back to geocities anymore. Some people never even once saw a vine. If the Internet does forget, it can also be made to remember things just as easily as any collective of people subtly primed for remembering.
Memory is not a passive thing, but it is an active engagement with your own philosophy, your own imagination, your own morality, and your own self-determination. Only a person who learns to find an expansive and active balance of all these things will develop a lucid and reliable memory filled with honest and accurate happenings. For all the rest of us, we're doomed to whatever fantasies and illusions we can trust.
It looks fairly obvious the the head of the CDC, Mandy Cohen, is part of the machine. And her husband too. I read a substack post about her history. Corruption in the open.
I'll never forget being 2 weeks shy of being able to vote for Ross Perot in my first election. I loved his charts! With that said, the only reason I knew who Ross Perot was in 1992 was because I was taking AP US Government / Economics at the time. I didn't know Pat Buchanan or Donald Trump ran for Reform Party nominee until a few months ago when I watched that documentary about Roger Stone.
One thing I can remember was that year, 1992, the DJIA reached a new high - off the top of my head it was $4,000. The Perot video showed we were $4 trillion in debt at the time. Today roughly $30 trillion in debt with DJIA ~$30,000. Coincidence?
How much different would things have been if GHW Bush had defeated Bill Clinton in 1992? How much different would things have been if Al Gore had won in 2000?
Watching the video of Trump comparing Pat Buchanan to Hitler just makes me more mad at the media... It's no wonder we have a middle class worried more about the price of eggs vs how much they pay in taxes.
Wow! This has such an interesting correspondence to my piece on Buchanan's book: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/corbett-unz-and-wwii-the-unnecessary. I can definitely see why he would have been an easy target of flamethrowing pundits like Trump. But that it ushered in the exact person who fit the label? That's too ironic.
in this article, I learned that I'm approximately two years older than you. We were all glued to Perot in those days! That was a fun time. :) And who could forget Nader, who was himself Unsafe at Any Speed?
I distinctly remember Pat Buchanan but not Trump's demonization of him as a Nazi. I remembered because in my parents' social circle, Buchanan was the favored choice among social conservatives earlier on in the 2000 campaign. And you're exactly right, they all shuffled themselves toward Dubya to prevent Gore from getting elected.
I remember Trump flirting with politics before, but not him talking about Buchanan in this way. But now that I see that video, it feels rehearsed in a similar way to how Trump smeared Gary Johnson in 2016.
Trump's current silly schtick has always seemed "off" to me as not coincident with his former polished appearance and smooth ways prior to 2014 or so. Trump always did fun ads, but he became excessively clownish in 2016 and flipped like a switch. Because who can also forget about him saying what a great job Hillary would do as president? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK03Ckor-VI
We are supposed to believe that Donald "Father of the Beautiful Vaccine" Trump thought Hillary would make an awesome president, and then only suddenly turned on the establishment in 2014-2015? He also "saw the light" and had a "come to Jesus moment" on gun control and abortion almost overnight in 2016? Trump had intellectual and moral growth? Laf. Even more unbelievable, we're supposed to believe it happened suddenly one day in his 70s?
This made no sense at all to me in 2016. But people have short memories.
Will the real Donald Trump please stand up? Haha! And there's another great video clip of a sit-down interview of Trump that I can't find on YT at the moment that was widely available in 2016 -- NOT the YouTube clip above -- where he said again what a great job Hillary would do as president. It's possible that second interview has been effectively scrubbed from YouTube by now.
I became interested in evolutionarily informed approaches to health in the 2007 melamine pet food scare, and then "food freedom" and "medical freedom" soon thereafter.
With the notable exception of RFK Jr, no one in that space had heard of the various boomer gurus who have now launched themselves into notoriety as "medical freedom" advocates in 2020.
Oh, and let's not forget that Trump promised to look into vaccines as a cause of chronic illness in children and then promptly "forgot" about it after his meetings with RFK Jr and Fauci in a very short timespan.
Poof!
Although very true, I think you miss something even more important. While Trump certainly didn't follow through on his promise to RFK Jr., he 1) at least listened to Bobby for 3 hours and then supported him and 2) he arranged (ordered?) Fauci and Collins to meet with Bobby. RFK Jr still uses the letter from that meeting as a smoking gun on vaccine safety/testing.
While Trump ultimately ran like a dog, he didn't need to do either in the first place. Certainly prudence, political or otherwise, would have said stay as far away as possible from the vaccine issue. Oddly by shafting RFK, Trump ruined his Presidency because if he had had 3 years of Bobby out telling the truth about Vaccines and the Medical Mafia, Covid would have turned out very different and Trump would still be President.
Instead of asking why Trump ran away, I think the more interesting question is why he committed to looking at it in the first place?
(Great comment and great name. We must be related, Cuz.
There are a lot of welsh people :P
my family tree is a Welsh guy fought for Bonny Prince Charley. When that didn't work out so well, he fled to Ireland with a price on his head. He married an Irish girl that hide him and his kid end up in the Colonies, my ancestor. Years ago I learned something interesting while in Ireland. I was told by a reputable source that actually a lot of Hughes were Irish. Using the divide and conquer approach, figuring that it would be a lot harder for the peasants to rebel in a foreign country, the English Lords exported Irish to Wales to be basically slaves on the English plantations. I was shown some of the bonds issued by Irish used to finance the Easter Uprising that ultimately kicked the English dictators out most of Ireland. The CFO was named Hughes. So we have a long family history of rebelling against tyranny. Sadly, nothings changed. Again, good comments. Up The Rebels!
I can't help thinking that we didn't clean up properly after WWII. We left far too many actual Nazis knocking around. Vera Sharav was not being hyperbolic when she says she sees the same evil now that she did in the concentration camps as a child.
Heritage America was played in WWII. We were told we won, but we lost, big time.
I thought about this some time ago and asked myself the question: Did America win or lose the Cold War? The way that I assessed this was to ask whether America was now the same as before the end of WW II or more like the Soviet Union. If you win a war, you do not change and become more like your enemy. We have adopted much of the ideology and most of the ideas of state apparatus of the former Soviet Union. I concluded that no one won the Cold War, and especially not the U.S.A. It was reported decades ago that the head of the one of the tax-exempt foundations said that they were working to so alter life in the United States so that it could eventually be merged with the Soviet Union, AND that this was consistent with the (unstated) policy of the Eisenhower administration!
Thanks for the walk down memory lane. Trump, for all his bluster, did virtually nothing to stop the March of the Uniparty. He didn't reverse any of the last minute Obama Administration Russia collusion National Security Assessment, the Federalization of previously State controlled elections, or the EPA CO2 endangerment finding. He not only left in place the Deep State's structural framework, he massively expanded it. The massive expansion of the Deep State Intelligence Censorship Industry was on his watch. He didn't release the critical secret information needed to expose the Deep State. He filled his Administration with Deep State actors and fired virtually no one, particularly Russian Collusion fellow travelers. Virtually no wrong doers were actually punish in any serious way. Finally, he promoted the Deep States' ultimate power grab to date, the Covid Scam. It is easier to make the case that Trump was a Deep State cover artist than an actual Protector of the People. He certainly caused the greatest expansion of the Deep State in recent history.
A couple of points on Perot, although it is long ago and may have been lies. I believe there were ties (like board memberships) with Hilary Clinton and Perot. Also, if the blackmail worked once, why didn't it work a second time?
Finally, I have always thought there was something very fishy about the alleged Prescott Bush (G.H.W.'s Dad and G.W.'s Grandpa) Business Man's Fascist overthrow plot. Was it also a false flag operation to enhance FDR's power and cow his enemies? A few things make me think it was. 1. the idea that Prescott Bush's small group of Fascist involved could allegedly seize control of the US Government was absurd on the face of it. The last thing the Depression masses would follow were a bunch of Wall Street millionaires. The Federal government had very little power to enforce their will. So what if they declared a fascist coup? What States would have gone along? The US military was almost nothing. The US Army couldn't have fought its way into Texas, to say nothing of the rest of the country. That assumes the troops went along with the alleged coup, a big assumption. 2. The choice of General Smedley Butler to run the military arm of a Fascist coup never made sense to me. He was way too much a "common man" not a "fascist elite". If you wanted to pick a guy who you knew would turn against Elite plotters to provide states evidence and protect the Constitution, you couldn't have picked a better guy. Also, he was the perfect patsy. If they had picked a Doctor Strangelove General character, an obvious clown, the coup narrative wouldn't have sold. Picking a G.I. Joe Hero General was critical to make it seem real, something other than tin foil hat stuff. Having had first hand experience with a slimy "political" general, they are all whores. I can believe they may well have gone along with an overthrow if it benefited them. General Butler was anything but. He had two Congressional Medals of Honor. He bled for this country. 3. With General Butler's congressional testimony, the supporting evidence, and Grandpa Bush's Nazi collaborations, how easy would it have been to create massive fear of a Nazi Fifth column to shift non-interventionist opinion? FDR could have hung him out to dry and made huge political capital out of it. Even though FDR was talking about war with Nazi Germany in 1937 and burning the alleged Nazi collaborators and Fascist supporting Bush Business plotters was hugely in his interest to change the public opinion with massively radio broadcast show trials, he didn't. Why? He could have been the Hero of Constitution. 4. Was the plot set to fail from the beginning? Controlled opposition?
Some other random thoughts. Why didn't history make FDR the Saint of the Constitution, after Lincoln, for stopping the alleged Fascist coup. Why isn't it taught in ever history text book? When Daddy Bush and Baby Bush ran for president why wasn't the Media all over alleged traitor Prescott? That would have killed their political careers. It is easy to see as Head of the CIA Daddy, keeper of the CIA dirty files, protecting himself and Baby against the corrupt, compromised, and controlled Political Class. (Humorous, but illustrative, aside - Daddy's CIA Security Clearance application, Father's Occupation - alleged Fascist coup plotter.) Where was the Press? They are generally corrupt, compromised, and controlled whores also, but they are Democrat whores. If they are just crippled arms of the Democrat party, why did they gives the Bushlings a free ride? One answer is the Press was just protecting controlled opposition? Maybe it wasn't coincidental, when politics were over, the Bushs got in bed with accused rapist Bill Clinton. Maybe that explains the Family Bush's (including the failed Bush Light's) free ride. They were the same Uniparty.
Sorry for being so long, but I hope they add to your Controlled Opposition theme.
Regarding Elite-controlled opposition, these reports on Smedley Butler: http://mileswmathis.com/butler.pdf
http://mileswmathis.com/butler2.pdf had me wondering if I'd been conned once again. Fake heroes seems to be a specialty of theirs...
Thank you very much for the excellent references. I was totally unaware of them, but will look into Mathis further. WRT to the sources.
Part 1 - I totally agree with and admire his depth and insights. Very much in line with my thoughts, particularly the causes of the Great Depression. I would have added CreditAnstalt failure and the impact of global credit market collapses on money supply declines. That said, he definitely gets both the Great Depression, FDR, and New Deal right. His information on the Business Man Plot is great and confirms (and way supersedes) my comments. I found his comment on Corbett interesting and would like to know more about that. I like Corbett but think he is wrong on somethings in an anti anti-government way sometimes, which would certainly be consistent with a limited hangout motivation. Or he just could be wrong.
Part 2 - He certainly makes a good case that Butler was part of the plan. Some of this thoughts on how bravery works I believe could be off, but he has a solid logic basis for his comments on that. I also think that Butler could have just been following orders. While Butler may have been fully aware of what was going on, he may have not been fully aware of why. That said, I will also accept Mathis' point could be right and that Butler was. I disagree that Butler's Bonus Army speech was pure sellout. What was he going to say, attack the Capital and get shot down like dogs? "Attacking" the Capitol didn't work out so well on 1/6. Peace was by far the better approach, although if you are starving you value judgments are different. I think he may stretch the intelligence connections going back multiple generations a bit, but I am definitely open to further thoughts. While Butler's family line was not complete nobodies, it also was not creme de la creme, although that may have been more fluid in the 1800's. Finally some of Mathis comments on Butler not going into the causes of the war may be true. However, some of the information Mathis condemns Butler on, like the sinking of the Lusitania which the Brits only declassified it carried war goods in 1982, may have been developed from information not available to Butler. One area he missed completely was the critical role of the drug triads (Green Dragon gang if I remember right) in the Chinese Nationalist government. The addition of that point supports his overall argument. It may be wishfully thinking on my part more than fact that holds out hope Butler wasn't a slimy political General, but I will definitely concede Mathis makes a strong case otherwise. One area I think Mathis is definitely off on is the wide spread publication of the Businessman's Plot. As I noted, it was the perfect way to teach future generations that FDR was a Saint of the Constitution, and it is certainly totally consistent with overwhelming media narrative that Businessman = Evil. However, he argues look at all the sources that talk about it. In total they add up to almost nothing, and outside truth seekers like us, the Plot is virtually unknown. Since the Deep State controls history for the great masses, while this may not be totally inconsistent with his view that the Plot was known and used at the time in a controlled way. Given how the Deep State uses stereotypical villian types to scare the public, the Plot seems to me to be a propaganda gold mine that was scarcely mined.
All in all. Thanks for a great new source. My personal Ego/truth sensor is a bit rewarded that the key idea, the Business Plot was controlled opposition, was correct. I am much more open to Butler as a co-conspirator. I have written on Robert Malone and whether he is a controlled opposition leader. I have said I have serious doubts about him but as long a he says No Shots and No WHO/UN agreements, we need all the help we can get, even if its not from angels. I would probably say much the same about Butler and "War is a Racket".
As my general view is that all of America's wars are lies and "a Government that will lie you into War, will lie you into anything." As sadly we are currently living through.
Thanks again. I love new information and idea sources. I will follow up on more from Mathis. If you would like to know more about some of my thoughts, my substack is listed and I publish at AmericanThinker.com under Vic Hughes. Would love any insights you have on my writings.
Thanks again. "To stop a friend from making a mistake, is a gift of Paradise."
I used to live in West Chester, PA (mid-1990s). Smedley Butler had resided in Newtown Square, a bit east of there, and he is buried in a cemetery near where I lived. In a way, I am sorry that I was not so aware at the time of General Butler and did not try to visit those places, although I did first hear about him around then. I will be reading the new sources listed, and wishing that I had more time. I once had little interest in history, but it is now both enlightening and often discouraging, since it appears sometimes to lead into never-ending rabbit holes!
Thanks, will definitely use. You may enjoy my comment above.
Sorry all just noticed a typo it is "1933" not "1936"
No doubt anytime there brews an effective disruption of power the infiltrative clowns are sent in. I mean, isn’t that what you’d do? Playing devil’s advocate of course. I think they enjoy it too. It’s a fun game to herd the hordes. Lucrative as well. As long as most don’t see it it’ll always be effective. People choose their heroes and stick by them. My ex-wife’s mother was a German WWII immigrant and had been a school teacher in Germany. She said Hitler was a great man. Reputation smeared by the west. I was 19 years-old then. That’s when I began to realize not everyone saw the world as displayed on TV, Hollywood movies and history books. The science of influence is a real thing. Criticize Trump. See what happens.
The wonderful Tereza Coraggio is treading on these dangerous stepping stones too in her recent Substacks. worth reading. Everything is a lie it seems.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thirdparadigm/p/churchills-atrocities?r=7enp1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
I read Tereza’s stuff. She knows what’s up.
There's a Japanese proverb "deru kugi wa utareru" - the nail that sticks up gets hammered down. And I'll come back to that.
I doubt anyone would disagree that the 0.2% largely control the 1%, and thus the two major parties, and every well funded political group, almost all NGOs, all major media, et cetera et cetera.
So with respect to the question of whether the medical freedom movement might plausibly attract chaos agents, it seems that the biological principle that every successful system attracts parasites is very related.
So how does this all relate to a Japanese proverb?
I think that once the nail just barely begins to poke its shiny head above the prevailing agenda, some professional or perhaps enthusiastic amateur hoping to gain status in the college or economy of social control either publishes an essentially defamatory article or sidles up and insinuates himself with "the nail", or maybe contacts Chase Manhattan about that problematic nail.
Thus we see much smaller fry than the MFM with dedicated and zealous trackers and squelchers.
For example, Ryan Dawson and Mike Peinovitch completely debanked, Eric Striker tracked and physically threatened by antifa. You had Mark Kulacz sidling up to Jay Couey and drawing him into stupid debates about whether atom bombs are real. You had Bjerknes engaging Kevin McCairn for 5 hours at a time on whether Jesus was Lucifer.
So if little bitty nails are getting pounded hard, then yes, I think it's very plausible that a movement that also boasts a presidential candidate currently out-polling Trump and Biden is probably either 100% controlled or engineered to achieve some other candidates ultimate victory.
Is MFM entirely controlled? Oops, I didn't mean to imply that - I think it's mainly on the side of the angels, and I guess everybody can practice their own version of safe sects within the movement. A little bit of Malone, some Kirsch, some eye shadow and pink lip gloss - who am I to judge what others do with the privacy of their own laptops?
"stupid debates about whether atom bombs are real"
You gotta love this stuff. The flat earthers proliferated on Facebook in 2015. In 2023 it's "no virus" and "no atomic weapons" "theorists."
There are also now tons of people calling themselves "star seeds." They believe they are literal space aliens who were planted on earth. I actually met one in real life the other day.
This one doesn't seem to be on the radar of the "medical freedom movement" yet.
Don't worry! It will be! HAHA!
I voted for Ross Perot in 1992; what did I do? Nothing? Anything? I responded to a cattle call for extras for the movie of representative democracy, and got the part?
Vote harder next time! 😂
Regarding the Medical Freedom Movement (MFM), let’s not employ thinly veiled criticism and speak in direct, plain English. Are you proposing that Kirsch and Malone are CIA plants/assets tasked with sowing chaos in the MSM? If so, please steel man the case for and against. My thoughts are that while both men may have made mistakes or had questionable past associations, they both “got religion” and are clearly leading critics of Covid vaxx safety and efficacy, masking, and lockdowns and solidly pro MFM.
If you have the time to read arguments "for and against," then take the time yourself and begin at the beginning of Mathew's Substack, following its evolution and how Mathew, over these months and years (!), has honed in his assessments of others. Doing so might be even better for you than for Mathew to take more time to write summaries for you, because you will be able to *better see* what Mathew himself might not see in his own writing, and so you will be *better able* to see the strengths and weaknesses present in his thinking *process*, not simply in his stated claims. You will also see how Mathew has gradually related how his relationships with different people he now openly criticizes —for different kinds of errors, different sorts of faults— developed, this providing, once again, an evolutionary perspective on his disagreements.
Or, you can take the time yourself and search his entries for specific phrases, tags, or whichever to find the different places and contextual framework for why he's talking about those specific things, saving yourself some time at the expense of incorporating more pieces and nodes in the overall development (you will miss out on the seemingly random but deeply interconnected puzzle pieces you won't have known about because you already restricted yourself to specific words and phrases you're invested in [re: the drunk only looking for his lost keys at night under the street light]). You are sure to find a lot of entries this way, as many as you have the time to investigate for yourself.
But you know all of this, right? I'm not telling you something you don't already know how to do, so there's no need to ask for more arguments. You can go right into citing previous entries, claims, and his provided evidences already posted and then offering your own criticisms, corrections, observations, evidences for conflicting interpretations —you can demonstrate that you have the tenacity and the determination to make your own mind up through reasoned, evidenced, and mutually framed conversations informed by a respectful appreciation of what your interlocutor *has already written and argued and elaborated and lived out.* You can show that you understand he's already been making his case and doesn't need to craft yet another just for you.
You could take that time, write it all up, and even use Substack to post it. Then other people can come along, read what you have to say, enjoy it and agree with it or dislike it and toy with it, and then you and many others can see past all the thin veils dividing us from understanding one another, for we will have been conversing, sharing, learning, and speaking in the English that suits us in a world of free and published and shared speech.
Note that your lengthy polemic contains no data or evidence (with which you are presumably well acquainted). In the immortal words of Sergeant Joe Friday, “All we want are the facts, ma’am.”
I tell you that you have the capacity to do your own research at your own pace on a website with a backlog of conversations happening over time that you are free on your own time to investigate and study. You respond in a short comment telling me that you don't see "data or evidence," as though that is what I should have supplied for you.
So, rather than demonstrate independence and freedom of thought and discussion, you demonstrate that you want others to think of you as a vocal, passive recipient of what you are told. You demand others do for you what you can easily take the initiative to do for yourself. What is the point in demanding facts if you can't perform your own analysis and investigation?
Your behavior and language is consistent with someone who trolls, detracts from conversations, and provides fewer opportunities for mutual enlightenment. You can be so much better than this.
I always remembered Trump being involved in politics prior to 2016. People around me insisted that wasn't true, but I remembered it. However I could not find the specific instance/story where he was involved. Thanks for helping me remember.
"Incumbent POTUS George H.W. Bush, a leader who strangely felt almost no real heat from the days when his father, Prescott Bush, helped bank Hitler's Nazi Party (via Harriman Bank), blamed Perot (probably rightly) for his failure to serve a second term in office."
Not quite accurate.. Hitler's funders were from Brown Bros Harriman & banking done through The Union Bank Corp. BBH is as notable for its creation of OSS/CIA from its ranks of Yale Bonesmen that included Prescott Bush. Those funds were seized under Trading with the Enemy Act but quietly returned post WWII and Prescott used his ill gotten gains to fund Senate run.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061012044406/http://www.ctrl.org/P.Bush-Union_Banking/P.Bush-Union_Banking.html
What was inaccurate?
Prescott worked for Harriman (and married into the family), specifically heading the Nazi banking operation.
Union Bank Corp is not Harriman Bank.. stickler for research level accuracy ref linked
Was Prescott Bush not the organizer of the funds that went from BBH through intermediary nodes and into the Fuhrer's coffers? I guess I don't really understand what the contradiction is.
Funds did not go through BBH several principles were simultaneously directors/board at UBC which is clear if you read the link. The difference is one is a squishy attribution that's hard to verify the other factual accurate money trail. My initial expectation was thanks for more refined & historically accurate data not pretzel logic to defend a trivial error,
As deepfake abilities increase, recreating earlier media formats will become easier, leading many to observe "found footage" that seems convincingly accurate to what someone remembers (or: thinks they are remembering) of earlier media formats, and come away with a belief that they've seen something that was once available but now suppressed.
My Dad watches old episodes of Gunsmoke or Tales of Wells Fargo, but now on his new television with digital smoothing upping the shows' framerates by creating new images in between the original frames —so many, in fact, that he's actually watching *more* re-created digital images than he is the originally recorded images. I notice these things, but for some reason, my Dad doesn't. To him, he says, it just looks like it always has. ("It doesn't look like anything to me," some other character on some other show says.)
I combine these things with the earlier thoughts and conversations about "the Mandela effect" and how confederates in the audience can help the magician on the stage, or the Substacker making a point, perform a feat of illusion they will all remember as such.
People like to say things like "The Internet never forgets." But then they also want more, want less censorship. They don't see all the sites that have vanished. They can't go back to geocities anymore. Some people never even once saw a vine. If the Internet does forget, it can also be made to remember things just as easily as any collective of people subtly primed for remembering.
Memory is not a passive thing, but it is an active engagement with your own philosophy, your own imagination, your own morality, and your own self-determination. Only a person who learns to find an expansive and active balance of all these things will develop a lucid and reliable memory filled with honest and accurate happenings. For all the rest of us, we're doomed to whatever fantasies and illusions we can trust.
It looks fairly obvious the the head of the CDC, Mandy Cohen, is part of the machine. And her husband too. I read a substack post about her history. Corruption in the open.
I'll never forget being 2 weeks shy of being able to vote for Ross Perot in my first election. I loved his charts! With that said, the only reason I knew who Ross Perot was in 1992 was because I was taking AP US Government / Economics at the time. I didn't know Pat Buchanan or Donald Trump ran for Reform Party nominee until a few months ago when I watched that documentary about Roger Stone.
One thing I can remember was that year, 1992, the DJIA reached a new high - off the top of my head it was $4,000. The Perot video showed we were $4 trillion in debt at the time. Today roughly $30 trillion in debt with DJIA ~$30,000. Coincidence?
How much different would things have been if GHW Bush had defeated Bill Clinton in 1992? How much different would things have been if Al Gore had won in 2000?
Watching the video of Trump comparing Pat Buchanan to Hitler just makes me more mad at the media... It's no wonder we have a middle class worried more about the price of eggs vs how much they pay in taxes.
Yes. Yes. The "intelligence" community. Thanks, Mathew. Interesting history I didn't remember, or never knew about.