moved to another topic

Harlong B. Carter, SW Regional commissioner of INS in 1963 who went on to alter the character of the National Rifle Association, has made it into MSM.

begin min. 1:20. https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house

 

7 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Firstly, thanks to William for posting this interesting thread which is getting lots of engagement. I find this post quite thought-provoking, Leslie. As you mention the most Googled man of 2022, Andrew Tate. Some friends, two of which who work in the field of psychology (one male, one female) and I sat last year and tried to understand why this ex-kickboxing champion, whose father worked for the CIA, had gained such popularity online and notoriety. We also discussed whether his characterisation in mainstream media was accurate. Why is he such a polarising character? 

Some may find Andrew Tate is archetypal nouveau riche, he brags, shows off, flouts his masculinity as a badge of honour and uses achieving wealth, and consuming what is grandiose as a high ideal. I do feel he is sexist and provocative, and I could certainly find some silly things he has said on the video, that have caused offence. I found a lot of it made me cringe. 

The conversation with friends went on for hours, and there was a very careful analysis, to better understand his popularity and revulsion. Given he had managed to be the most talked about man on the planet, was there a formula to this and what were the factors for his success? 

It occurred to all of us that you could not recruit such a following without a strategy and appeal. Tate has marketed a persona which is divisive in today's world but, it is also magnetic for a disenfranchised male youth. He has certainly infiltrated the consciousness of many people. Although at times his position seems conflicted there is one message above any other which resonates with men, and that is stoicism. This comes at a time when the traditional male role to provide, to be strong, to take on responsibility, where the highest ideal was to be a warrior, has now become almost extinct. Vast swathes of men have an identity crisis, as their role in life is undefined, and aimless, which feeds into an epidemic of mental health issues and things like self-harm, alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide. Lifestyles have changed dramatically, and even testosterone has dropped in men by around 60%. What Tate often promotes is that a man can be something, that he can achieve greatness, and that he should be strong, and resilient, and to strive for traditional stoic values.

Nobody really needs a Bugati or Lamborghini, however, I can see how that taps into the ancient wiring of man, showing his status within the tribe, and none of us can deny that women are not drawn like moths to a flame to status. Anybody who doubts that should perhaps understand why male rock stars have such a female following. We could look at actors, athletes or any number of fields to see the same phenomenon. Of course, there will always be exceptions. We could certainly have a long conversation as to what men are attracted to, biologically, personality-wise or look at any other variables. 

We would all say that sexism is rather unhelpful, regardless of who is guilty of it, but, I would argue that men having a purpose and reaching masculine maturity is very important in the world, if we are to have functional societies. We simply need competent men and women in the world. And conditions where each individual can be all they can be. We'd all want that for our children, whether they be male or female. 

Most of us here are becoming accustomed as to how MSM works and how it can mischaracterise people, how it as a mechanism can amplify details about a person, distorting reality, we see that with JFK's legacy, and many significant historical events. Truth no longer matters to most journalists, only agitation and what sells. Has MSM represented Tate accurately? Or, are they shaping our view of him? For me, the answer is; mostly mischaracterising, weaponising language, slurring, cancelling, and stigmatising. That is not to say that they are not correct in some cases. I certainly found videos and tweets that made me raise eyebrows. As always, I try to be open-minded, and to have balance. 

Here are some clips of what Andrew Tate has said which may explain the draw he has to a significant male audience, and lesser so, female audience:

Andrew Tate discusses the WEF and the strange invites he has received to private islands from wealthy elites:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CnzKt0bjdxC/

Here he talks about the fact you don't own your child anymore:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CqqbiMGMwu5/

He talks about aspirations as a youngster and wondered how he could afford a car:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CoQ4C-qgDbA/

He talks about the system being totally corrupt and forecasts that they will find a way to put him in jail or kill him:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CpuipwHOR3o/

He states that women are the most powerful force on the planet and explains the importance of finding a good woman:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CnlkiXrOeFK/

He states that the people doing the censoring are never the good guys. That they are weaponising virtue, and its always in the name of tyranny:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cpz8my4Nz1B/

All the people in charge have ever done is cheat.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cpr_5jxP-VN/

He talks about authority wanting to keep the population subdued:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CnunRdNOa5O/

He talks about the people running the world destroying the family unit.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cm01zY2piUr/

He makes a scathing criticism of the pandemic:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CouUDkWDjMt/

He suggests that the state creates dependency and the ability to print money does this:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Co426HFgQC3/

He asks why they promote mental illness and indicates social conditioning:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CnmfMIiBNyB/

He encourages people to think for themselves and cites Socrates:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CnCWKMaqVnO/

He mentions programming:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CmHZqy1JaaB/

He claims we are living in a world where slowly ever one of our choices is being removed:
https://www.instagram.com/p/ClEjWOcDVV5/

He discusses censoring and shaping reality on Piers Morgan:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CkxEtRioWUN/

He talks about chess and what it teaches you:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Clb4X_1jjUW/

He makes a sensational claim about mental illness and cites his followers:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CjdLnQgjbYA/

He talks about belief:
https://www.instagram.com/p/ClWxgZfjvDP/

This is a pretty randomised set of links that I have lifted from Instagram doing a search. I believe it represents a wider perspective as to who he is and why he has such a following. 

My conclusion is; weighing up all of his flaws and strengths, he is mostly feeling the ire of MSM because of the following:
- He attacks the system, government, social conditioning, fractional reserve banking, quantitative easing and corruption.
- Promotes free thinking. 
- He promotes a more traditional culture where men and women have roles more akin to their evolutionary biology. 
- He has managed to be the most popular person on the internet, organically, despite all of the censorship, shadow-banning, cancelling and even jail. 
- He gloats about wealth, which creates tremendous resentment. 

I think a lot of this branches into a much wider discussion. What we can all agree on is this; he understands implicitly how to infiltrate the minds of the masses, and he openly points out the methods used by others to do this. 

A word search for the term misogyny in your lengthy, purportedly balanced analysis of Mr. Tate comes up empty. Tell me if I missed reference to his condition, even if it's only one example?

Otherwise, this reads like an advert for Andrew Tate.  Was that your intention?

"I'm like a representative of the American Media now — speaking to an exile in Romania and welcoming him back into the brotherhood of journalists." — newly released video of Tucker Carlson discussing a forthcoming interview with self-avowed misogynist Andrew Tate. 

https://www.salon.com/2023/05/01/i-dont-want-to-be-a-slave-tucker-caught-trashing-fox-news-streaming-in-leaked-video/

 

Andrew Tate shows how fascists recruit online: Men fall victim to the insecurity-to-fascism pipeline

Young men’s dating woes attract them to online misogynists, who then convert them to authoritarianism

By AMANDA MARCOTTE, Aug 23, 2022

Across the English-speaking world, parents and teachers grew increasingly alarmed, hearing teenage boys and young men parroting Tate's woman-hating rhetoric. One teacher on Reddit last week complained about boys "saying dooky like 'women are inferior to men' 'women belong in the kitchen Ms____'.," and refusing "to read an article by a female author because 'women should only be housewives.'" . . .

 

He's been linked with a number of far-right American and British influencers, and not just because he loves Trump. He's been photographed dining with former Infowars anchor Paul Joseph Watson, who was recently recorded ranting about how he wishes "to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth." He's also associated with Jack Posobiec and Mike Cernovich, far-right trolls who pushed Pizzagate and similar hoaxes. 

But the 17-year-old kid who starts following Tate because he's titillated by TikTok videos espousing "edgelord" opinions about women doesn't know any of this.' 

Andrew Tate is back: These are his latest controversial and misogynistic tweets

He is causing offence on social media yet again.

"Avoid women who go to festivals," one tweet began. "They're either on some losers table whos feeding them cocaine or in a crowd of sweaty peasants because they're a sweaty peasant. . . .
 

On the same day, he shared a tweet which said: "If youre not gona listen to your man... what are you with him for? To argue?"

 

. . .a letter from Joseph Milteer (himself a racist and far right associate of Willoughby and Walker) to Charles Askins pertaining to a forthcoming meeting of one of the myriad clandestine organizations that the radical right was running during the ’60s, indicating very “hush-hush” stuff.  —  Jeffrey H. Caufield, M.D.  General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy

5 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

I knew Charley and he simply couldn't keep his mouth shut about all the unarmed people he murdered, and Jack was certainly capable of a such an act and could keep his mouth shut. But I knew him too and having talked to him on several occasions he was a great advocate of the handgun not the rifle. And again, it's not how long the string is but how many banks it stopped at.

I don't know your background, but I rubbed elbows with these folks AND had dinner on several occasions with Vegas Mafia and Agency friends. Knew several Green Berets and separately, Phoenix alumni.

 

I have a good friend who was involved in several events and simply disappeared into retirement. He had a significant number of people who he had put in the ground and never talked about them. There is simply a huge number of folks in this country who could have done much better than it was done.  Ruby? You have to be kidding. 

 

Evan, I'm not questioning whether you knew Canon and/or Askins personally, although I would note a significant age difference with Askins, and fairly significant difference with Canon so presumably they weren't exactly your peers. I assume you're not suggesting they would have told you about their involvement had they been in Dealey? And out of curiosity, what were the circumstances of your meetings with them? Professional, personal, casual, gun-related a.k.a. NRA; and remind me, did you know Harlon B. Carter?

 

. . .a letter from Joseph Milteer (himself a racist and far right associate of Willoughby and Walker) to Charles Askins pertaining to a forthcoming meeting of one of the myriad clandestine organizations that the radical right was running during the ’60s, indicating very “hush-hush” stuff. 

Will Trump testify?

Key takeaways from E. Jean Carroll's civil rape trial against Trump

Jeff Knutson, AXIOS


Kaplan previously said Trump was under no legal obligation to testify or attend the trial. The judge said Carroll had indicated she did not intend to call him as a witness.

• Trump's lawyers previously asked Kaplan to instruct jurors that Trump "wishes to appear" at the trial but his presence would be too logistically burdensome on the courthouse and New York City.
• Kaplan pushed back on the claimed burden of Trump's appearance and denied the request, saying it was "premature."

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/25/e-jean-carroll-civil-rape-trial-donald-trump

1 hour ago, Evan Marshall said:

Again, why bother with foreigners' who might out everyone else if thing get tough. There were American corporations who got filthy rich like Hiller Helicopter over Vietnam and a large talent pool of US shooters.

I thought the excerpt would provide you some insight that the assassination was an extension of the Cold War. Considering it through an Americentric lens has stalled the investigation for decades.

The question of "who/what got rich" from Vietnam is equivalent to asking, "how long is a piece of string?"

The team of US team is identified — Canon, Askins, Johnson, and those who served as spotters — all of whom were fueled by extremist ideology bound up in fifteen years' loyalty to Willoughby and those he aligned with. Kennedy needed to go. The international team was handpicked by Otto Skorzeny and Jean Souetre ... do you really think they didn't have a pool of loyal psychopaths to draw from — La Cagoule-types whose motives were ideologically driven? Americans believe Dallas was "special, one of a kind, the murder of the century." This was just another assassination in their world.

On the wings of murder. The pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee.

Clip, clip his wings.

—Lafitte datebook, November 9, 1963

 What do France in December 1942, World War II, and the French Resistance—precisely where our story begins—have to do with the assassination of the 35th president of the United States, John F. Kennedy, the event that shattered the American landscape? This chapter will begin to reveal that the roots of our great American tragedy dive deeply into European soil two decades back, at a time when democracies and monarchies hung by mere threads in the face of National Socialist Germany’s military juggernaut and when all hands and all means were called upon to save the Allies from defeat.

         As we shall read, the comrades in this monumental effort produced strange bedfellows and shifting expedient alliances that joined anti-National Socialists with French pro-fascist terrorists and gangsters, anti-communists, anti-monarchists, Allied commandos, all of whom exploited the means of assassination to advance their collective and sometimes contradictory ends. It’s clear from the outset that this chapter, and the fullness of the book, will not argue that the assassination in Dallas was a new weapon in the arsenal of war and international affairs. Far from it. The beginnings, described here, establish the foundation for what eventually evolved into a complex set of interrelated aims, enterprises, individuals and methods that ultimately triggered the murder of an American president. The events described in this chapter provided the tip of the spear for what ultimately became a kind of assassination incorporated. 

. . . Returning now to the assassination of Darlan which serves as template for the future set-up of Lee Harvey Oswald as “the perfect patsy” on November 22, 1963, soon after the execution of Francois Darlan’s assassin, Fernand Bonnier, there were scattered and persistent reports that the young Frenchman had been a patsy of sorts and that he was not an avid monarchist but was only an impressionable, somewhat naïve, youth, who had been manipulated toward murderous ends by skillful others. This belief stems from the fact that Bonnier’s “friend,” Henri d’Astier, while active in La Cagoule, on several occasions joined Filliol in carrying out a devious tactic for ridding La Cagoule of suspected double-agent members by manipulating them into veiled assassination efforts during which it would be highly likely that they would be captured or killed. Filliol dubbed this manipulation “the pigeon way.” Here, one is easily reminded of the quote by CIA official Miles Copeland: “You can sometimes gain points in the war of dirty tricks by killing an expendable person on your own side and blaming it on the other when considering this type of lethal deception.” And in mid-November 1963, Pierre Lafitte, in New Orleans, would jot down in his datebook: “On the wings of murder. The pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee [Oswald]. Clip, clip his wings,” no doubt a reference to Jean Filliol’s tactic of manipulation within his assassin camps. — H. P. Albarelli Jr.

@W. Niederhut Hilarious!  You made my day.
I'm going out on a limb here and speculate they didn't perform that little tune ever again! 

Returning now to the assassination of Darlan which serves as template for the future set-up of Lee Harvey Oswald as “the perfect patsy” on November 22, 1963, soon after the execution of Francois Darlan’s assassin, Fernand Bonnier, there were scattered and persistent reports that the young Frenchman had been a patsy of sorts and that he was not an avid monarchist but was only an impressionable, somewhat naïve, youth, who had been manipulated toward murderous ends by skillful others. This belief stems from the fact that Bonnier’s “friend,” Henri d’Astier, while active in La Cagoule, on several occasions joined Filliol in carrying out a devious tactic for ridding La Cagoule of suspected double-agent members by manipulating them into veiled assassination efforts during which it would be highly likely that they would be captured or killed. Filliol dubbed this manipulation “the pigeon way.” Here, one is easily reminded of the quote by CIA official Miles Copeland: “You can sometimes gain points in the war of dirty tricks by killing an expendable person on your own side and blaming it on the other when considering this type of lethal deception.” And in mid-November 1963, Pierre Lafitte, in New Orleans, would jot down in his datebook: “On the wings of murder. The pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee [Oswald]. Clip, clip his wings,” no doubt a reference to Jean Filliol’s tactic of manipulation within his assassin camps. 

         . . . What do France in December 1942, World War II, and the French Resistance—precisely where our story begins—have to do with the assassination of the 35th president of the United States, John F. Kennedy, the event that shattered the American landscape? This chapter will begin to reveal that the roots of our great American tragedy dive deeply into European soil two decades back, at a time when democracies and monarchies hung by mere threads in the face of National Socialist Germany’s military juggernaut and when all hands and all means were called upon to save the Allies from defeat.

As we shall read, the comrades in this monumental effort produced strange bedfellows and shifting expedient alliances that joined anti-National Socialists with French pro-fascist terrorists and gangsters, anti-communists, anti-monarchists, Allied commandos, all of whom exploited the means of assassination to advance their collective and sometimes contradictory ends. It’s clear from the outset that this chapter, and the fullness of the book, will not argue that the assassination in Dallas was a new weapon in the arsenal of war and international affairs. Far from it. The beginnings, described here, establish the foundation for what eventually evolved into a complex set of interrelated aims, enterprises, individuals and methods that ultimately triggered the murder of an American president. The events described in this chapter provided the tip of the spear for what ultimately became a kind of assassination incorporated. — Albarelli, Coup in Dallas

20 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

The HST letter I mentioned, which I've not looked further for yet, illustrates the remoteness of Aspen at the time.  At tiny, small plane airport or a long drive over two lane mountain passes.  A local TV station, yesterday's Denver Post.  A great place to hide someone at the time.

First trip through Turkey going that route to Colorado I forgot my cap.  Bought a Bob Wills Day one at the museum.  Still wear it occasionally.

 

Aspen Institute had been there for over a decade.

(We lived in Vail 1986-88 and drove that route a number of times.)

https://www.aspeninstitute.org/about/heritage/

Tks for Asleep at the Wheel!

52 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Salandria's warning, I think it was 25 years ago, addressed this problem. We knew enough then, he said, to at the very least surmise that Kennedy was murdered by the upper echelons of his own government (Salandria said he in fact knew enough to conclude that to be the case). We know more now. But instead of pushing ahead with that and finding ways to make the public aware of it, too many folks are solving puzzles that simply interest them.  Particularly, it seems, ones that are unlikely to help answer answers the main question--who organized and implemented the murder.  While time moves on.

 

The identity of the shooters *does* however have at least the potential of leading us back to the perps.  If, e.g., Souetre was one of the shooters, that leads to the CIA's ZRRifle project run by Bill Harvey, one of whose main tasks was finding foreign assassins.  The CIA formed the ZRRifle project under Harvey in early 1962 with a budget of its own and disbanded it in 1964.  Hmmm.

 

Whoever the shooters were, there had to be a plan to hustle them out of Dallas after the murder. I don't think the recent thread about Souetre in Dallas pinned down the he was one of them because I have doubts about the veracity of the French article that led to DeGaulle's people to send an inquiry about him to the FBI in March of 1964. French authorities closed the inquiry 8 days after it began having gotten no answer about Souetre's whereabouts from the CIA and FBI. There is more work to be done.

 

The French file on that inquiry, btw, is a legitimate thing for Bill and Larry to ask NARA to retrieve under the JFK Act, which provides for the retrieval of records held by foreign governments.

 

Thanks for the reference to CJ Hopkins in another thread.  Another person to read.

 

Have you seen recent pieces by the estimable Ed Curtin on Bobby Jr's run for the presidency?  https://edwardcurtin.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-to-heal-the-great-divide/.   https://edwardcurtin.com/heal-the-divide/.   https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_edward-curtin-on-rfk-jr-vs-the-american-political-wasteland/.

 

In other clips Junior has told the story of his father's refusal to talk about the JFKA in public, tho his immediate reaction was to suspect the CIA. Then one week before the California primary he was asked by a college student whether he intended to reopen the JFKA if he became president.  There was a long silence.  He said yes to thunderous applause. To my knowledge no one has asked Junior if he would do the same. I think I know the answer.

 

Which is why Junior's candidacy should be important to everyone here.

 

Agree, Roger, and I would add that the Souetre inquiry should resume with the INS in Dallas; where are the Bailey and Norwood reports?* Were they withheld or destroyed?  And what role might SW Region commissioner of the INS Harlon B. Carter have played?

It's clear by October 9 that Souetre — identified by Lafitte in ten entries in his 1963 datebook, beginning April 25 —  is integral to the Dallas operation. The day before, October 8, it's clear that Charles Askins has been added with the apparent blessing of Harvey as in William King of ZRRifle. 

We know from earlier entries that Charles Askins was being considered along with Jack Canon (September 12 and 14 respectively) based on Canon's long history with Gen. Willoughby and the Z org.

And from Askins, we arrive full circle, Dallas INS Harlon B. Carter who had been friends with Askins for a decade if not longer,having served together in the US Border Patrol. Could Carter assure Souetre's entry via Mexico, or turn a blind eye when he (or someone impersonating him) was detained in Dallas, or might Harlon have orchestrated the detention and expulsion himself?

A search for official records of Harlon B. Carter is ongoing.
 

*Both [J. Gary] Shaw and [Bud] Fensterwald, without benefit of the evidence revealed in the records of Pierre Lafitte, had astutely suspected that the failure of Texas officials to hold Souetre or possible accomplices for questioning revealed a potentially explosive breakthrough in the investigation into the assassination. Fensterwald wrote of the arrests: “. . . An INS Inspector named Virgil Bailey picked up a Frenchman at an apartment on either Gaston or Ross Street in Dallas. He believes the arrest was on Sunday, November 24, 1963, but can remember none of the details other than the person arrested was French, and that the matter was top priority. . . . Another INS Inspector named [Howell] Norwood received two urgent calls from INS Headquarters in Washington, stating that they wanted Mr. X (named unrecalled by INS), a foreigner, picked up immediately. Norwood was very surprised to find that Mr. X was already in the hands of INS Dallas; he had been picked up on November 22nd or 23rd as the result of a call from the Dallas police, who had apprehended him.”

         Not only had authorities failed to pursue their own arrests made in the first forty-eight hours of the assassination—with one spectacular exception, the arrest of the patsy Lee Harvey Oswald—but for decades, the responsible agencies deflected investigations into Jean Souetre and the clues he left behind that would expose the hierarchy behind Project Lancelot.

24 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Just ask the males here, you’re incorrect again. It’ll be raised if its an issue, as it often is when people get heated in debate. 

incorrect again? 

Ironically, only this morning a friend shared the following observation related to Chris Licht's abrupt restructuring of how the news is covered at CNN. You might recognize the relevance: 

When asked if there was a Lemon-Carlson parallel, Licht said both men were hired during a time when "people like them" were on the rise; America had moved on. "Like" them? That can only mean one thing: people who want to be free to speak confrontationally. In fact, word is that Lemon's (somewhat harsh) pushback against a bat-dooky crazy, machine gun-mouth guest who was spouting Trumpery (but never should have been on the damned show) was the last straw for Licht. And so you have good analysts of the likes of John Berman and Brianna Keillar (the former morning team) forced to wander about on-set, trying not to say anything that might be seen as confrontational . . . anything.

I wonder if Licht opposes on-air utterance of the word "N-azis" even in historical context? How might a compére pronounce N-azi?

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Get real; people are being convicted of seditious conspiracy. wtf lol

I believe it was Joe Bauer who recently remarked that Mae Brussell was [paraphrasing] sometimes a bit manic, and I thought, would that more Americans had paid heed to her alarms and those of Carl Oglesby. Would we be here today, parsing whether or not fascism is on our doorstep having marched here from Dallas?

Encouraging "calm" while enthusiastically endorsing, or at best calmly defending, the screeching diatribes of faux journalists like Carlson has allowed rapid acceleration of alt-right extremism in our country since Jan 6. 

And MAGA is preparing to nominate Trump who promises them, "I AM YOUR JUSTICE"?  

wtf indeed!  [exclamation intended.]

Just now, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Leslie Sharp I did come in late and was responding to a specific comment. sorry if i misunderstood

Thanks Larry. 

37 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

But, does she? 😂🤣

@Lawrence Schnapf
need I say more?

32 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Leslie Sharp  The fact that "calm" can sometimes be manipulative does not mean that it is generally not a good thing to seek. For democracy to work, we generally need to have rational discussions which involves rationale conversation/debate.  We are all like Mr. Spock continuing to balance the emotional component or our brain with the logical, rationale part (the frontal lobes). Hysterical or angry conversation rarely is productive. I'm sure you know that yelling at your spouse is not as effective as explaining how they have hurt or disappointed you.   

As a lawyer, I probably spend half my time trying to protect my clients from their own "animal spirits".  

Larry, you may not have followed the exchanges with Chris. When challenged, he resorts to psychoanalysis rather than addressing facts head on.

I'm fairly certain he doesn't pull the "emotion" card from his deck when addressing the male participants in the same conversation.  It's a tactic, and well-worn as no doubt you're aware.  

If you can identify when "animal spirits" have inveigled their way into my particular discourse, let me know?  I must say I'm a bit disappointed you've engaged in "explaining" things to me. 

31 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Or pointing out your confusion? 

This highlights your silliness or proclivity to make inane commentaries, Leslie. You are well aware that I am not a US citizen and that I have no eligibility to vote. 
If I could, I’d support RFK Jr. 

I wasn't certain, Chris. Thank you for verifying.  Transparency clears the air.  

2 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Bit of a conflict here, Leslie. You sound very mixed up. 

your words: 

“Transparency builds trust, and I think it's a waste of time to engage with you if I can't trust you are indeed here in good faith.” 
 

 

A bit of deflection, Chris?  When was the last time you registered to vote in a US election?

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

In which case, please don’t engage me. Thanks 🙂

If your comments catch my attention, and I believe they're worthy of challenge, I will continue to "engage" ... you're not obliged to respond.

17 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Do you do the same when visiting the Dr’s, or when a police officer appeals for that? Or anyone who is seeking calm? 
 

You could keep assuming everyone else is wrong, or look inwardly. Upto you. 🤷‍♂️
 

Do I need your trust, Leslie? 

You're not seriously equating yourself with my doctor or my policeman?

Until you convince me otherwise, I presume you're not as "independent" as you would like us to believe.

Transparency builds trust, and I think it's a waste of time to engage with you if I can't trust you are indeed here in good faith. When was the last time you registered to vote in US elections?

Jack Teixeira and Me

JEFF STEIN,

SpyTalk

APR 27, 2023

“If anybody thinks this is just a kid playing around on Discord, please go look at the charging documents, which feature the ideological writings, and the weapons, of Teixeira,” she wrote Thursday on Twitter. 

“Also, in case you haven't yet heard me say this, when it comes to the white power movement, THERE ARE NO LONE WOLVES,” she added (her caps). “Actors work WITHIN A MOVEMENT and we have to study both. DO NOT allow this to remain a narrative about one disaffected young man.”

It’s not. The movement is here, and metastasizing, it seems. How the military, especially, deals with it, is one hell of a problem—for us all. ### — Emma L. Briant, propaganda expert

https://www.spytalk.co/p/jack-teixeira-and-me?r=3zjty&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwAR12fCAugOd5zV8M-1v9ZG8yhIuxChfezYAkYRJ_2iM9C1eQNEQvpScdF64

 

 

Jack Posobiec on Jack Teixeira two weeks ago: https://humanevents.com/.../posobiec-congress-must...

 

HUMANEVENTS.COM

POSOBIEC: Congress must evaluate whistleblower protections for the Ukraine papers leaker.

On the question of metastization: Posibiec on "America First with Sebastian Gorka" back in October 2021:

https://www.sebgorka.com/video/is-america-first-winning-jack-posobiec-with-sebastian-gorka-on-america-first/