Matthew Koch Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 45 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said: Why do a demolition at all? Wouldn't it be enough to damage the building beyond repair? Because the planes hitting the buildings and the buildings going down are distractions for bigger thefts going on. Pentagon announced it lost 2.3 trillion dollars the day before and the part of the buildings where those records were stored was where the building was hit. In addition, Enron's case for ripping off people in California was in building 7 and untold amounts of SEC stock fraud cases were lost in it. Ptech computers were found to be doing massive financial transactions during the time the towers were being evacuated, and Building 6 which housed bank vaults and gold bars and the gold was found to be gone. On top of all of that, the Federal Reserve stepped in and declared their emergency powers and cleared trillions worth of coming stock debt that was supposed to be paid because the records of the debt were destroyed in the collapse of Buildings 1 & 2. Then you can factor in the two resulting wars, one of which lasted until earlier this year of billions a years.. this is racketeering on a higher level. https://rumble.com/v2fee8e-pentagon-announces-it-lost-2.3-trillion-dollars-the-day-before-911.html https://rumble.com/v2g2q88-911-insider-trading.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 11 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: It was shock and awe, folks. And it worked. America couldn't wait to go conquer the Middle East just like the PNAC wanted. A psychological operation. Fear is almost always the tool of coercion, as its perhaps the most powerful human emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted May 2, 2023 Author Share Posted May 2, 2023 17 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: It was shock and awe, folks. And it worked. America couldn't wait to go conquer the Middle East just like the PNAC wanted. Ding! Ding! Ding! Give that man a cee-gar! 🤓 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 3 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Give that man a cee-gar! 🤓 I don't smoke but I'm fuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Sharp Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 2 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said: 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? Dictionary definition of misogyny: noun 1) hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, manifested in various forms such as physical intimidation and abuse, sexual harassment and rape, social shunning and ostracism, etc.: the underlying misogyny in slut-shaming;Historically witch hunts were an embodiment of the misogyny of the time. 2) ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against women; sexism. —————————————————- Definition 2: sexism Which was my linguistic choice. What’s your problem? 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Sharp Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 (edited) moved to another topic Edited May 2, 2023 by Leslie Sharp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Sharp Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said: Dictionary definition of misogyny: noun 1) hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, manifested in various forms such as physical intimidation and abuse, sexual harassment and rape, social shunning and ostracism, etc.: the underlying misogyny in slut-shaming;Historically witch hunts were an embodiment of the misogyny of the time. 2) ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against women; sexism. —————————————————- Definition 2: sexism Which was my linguistic choice. What’s your problem? 🙂 One might ask "what's yours?" You seem to have avoided Tate's avowed misogyny in your promo. Edited May 2, 2023 by Leslie Sharp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 2 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said: One might ask "what's yours"? I thought that maybe you could indulge in a rational conversation. Perhaps your self-confessed experience representing the HL Hunt family in a PR capacity could have added something. I guess I was wrong. Never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 49 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. Thanks for those links, pretty interesting, I saw Andrew Tate on Tucker a while ago and then on Piers Morgan he seems like a smart dude, I guess his father worked for the CIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Sharp Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 43 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said: Thanks for those links, pretty interesting, I saw Andrew Tate on Tucker a while ago and then on Piers Morgan he seems like a smart dude, I guess his father worked for the CIA. Andrew Tate on TikTok. Photograph: @tate_inspire/TikTok The ObserverTikTok Inside the violent, misogynistic world of TikTok’s new star, Andrew Tate Andrew Tate says women belong in the home, can’t drive, and are a man’s property. He also thinks rape victims must “bear responsibility” for their attacks and dates women aged 18–19 because he can “make an imprint” on them, according to videos posted online. In other clips, the British-American kickboxer – who poses with fast cars, guns and portrays himself as a cigar-smoking playboy – talks about hitting and choking women, trashing their belongings and stopping them from going out. “It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck. Shut up bitch,” he says in one video, acting out how he’d attack a woman if she accused him of cheating. In another, he describes throwing a woman’s things out of the window. In a third, he calls an ex-girlfriend who accused him of hitting her – an allegation he denies – a “dumb hoe”.https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/06/andrew-tate-violent-misogynistic-world-of-tiktok-new-star Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Sharp Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 This is who Tucker Carlson wants to "welcome back into the brotherhood of journalism." And Tucker Carlson has become the poster child for the JFK Records Act. 'Andrew Tate says women belong in the home, can’t drive, and are a man’s property. He also thinks rape victims must “bear responsibility” for their attacks and dates women aged 18–19 because he can “make an imprint” on them, according to videos posted online. In other clips, the British-American kickboxer – who poses with fast cars, guns and portrays himself as a cigar-smoking playboy – talks about hitting and choking women, trashing their belongings and stopping them from going out. “It’s bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck. Shut up bitch,” he says in one video, acting out how he’d attack a woman if she accused him of cheating. In another, he describes throwing a woman’s things out of the window. In a third, he calls an ex-girlfriend who accused him of hitting her – an allegation he denies – a “dumb hoe.' — Shanti Das, The Guardian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 (edited) 8 hours ago, Matthew Koch said: Here you go Micah, this guy proved it's possible from his backyard. https://rumble.com/v2e4uqg-the-great-thermate-debate.html The ground zero rubble does not show such messy cuts, as would be expected from the columns being melted straight through with thermite. The "slices" seen on some photos appears to be from the thermal lances of ground zero workers. Ordinary thermine can not heat or melt through a skyscraper column in a fraction of a second, even one pre-weakened with demo work, and it can not create timed explosions to explain all of the "squibs" which are allegedly bombs or blasting caps instead of ordinary air pressure. One possible way to have quieter explosives would be to somehow pre-heat a column in a fraction of a second could be taken out with a kicker charge planted on the weld point, but I am not aware of any technology that could heat such thick steel so fast. The sound problem probably can't all be explained away with pre-9/11 demo work. Edited May 2, 2023 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 “Did you ever talk with [Hunter Biden] on the phone?” a staff member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee asked Blinken on Dec. 22, 2020. “Not that I recall,” Blinken responded. “Did you have any other means of correspondence with him — emails, texts?” the staff investigator pressed. “No,” Blinken said without equivocation, later going on to describe his relationship with Hunter as a “friendly acquaintanceship.” However, data from the first son’s abandoned laptop shows that on May 22, 2015, Hunter had emailed Blinken’s AOL account to ask: “Have a few minutes next week to grab a cup of coffee? I know you are impossibly busy, but would like to get your advice on a couple of things. Best, Hunter.” “Absolutely,” Blinken emailed back. “I’m just about to land in Tokyo en route back DC from Burma. I’ll be in office from Tuesday on. Copying Linda in my office to find a good time. Look forward to seeing you. Tony.” ---30--- oooof. Maybe Neiderhut is right about 9/11, if not on details, then on larger picture. Robert Mueller became FBI Chief just before the towers came down, and suffocated in the crib a true investigation into the catastrophe--that was Mueller's task, why he has brought in. Unfortunately, the globalist DC establishment answers to no one. PS---And who uses an AOL account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 (edited) 12 hours ago, Matthew Koch said: Because the planes hitting the buildings and the buildings going down are distractions for bigger thefts going on. Pentagon announced it lost 2.3 trillion dollars the day before and the part of the buildings where those records were stored was where the building was hit. In addition, Enron's case for ripping off people in California was in building 7 and untold amounts of SEC stock fraud cases were lost in it. Ptech computers were found to be doing massive financial transactions during the time the towers were being evacuated, and Building 6 which housed bank vaults and gold bars and the gold was found to be gone. On top of all of that, the Federal Reserve stepped in and declared their emergency powers and cleared trillions worth of coming stock debt that was supposed to be paid because the records of the debt were destroyed in the collapse of Buildings 1 & 2. Then you can factor in the two resulting wars, one of which lasted until earlier this year of billions a years.. this is racketeering on a higher level. https://rumble.com/v2fee8e-pentagon-announces-it-lost-2.3-trillion-dollars-the-day-before-911.html https://rumble.com/v2g2q88-911-insider-trading.html Just shaking my head in disbelief. Even assuming all these things happened, which I doubt, the Insiders behind this alleged inside job would have had to be astonishingly powerful to have arranged to have Muslim terrorists strike the Twin Towers and the Pentagon with airliners so they could use the attacks as cover for controlled explosions in the Twin Towers to supposedly carry out the most gigantic theft in world history. Occam's razor screams against this convoluted, unbelievable theory. Many children's fairy tales are more believable than this yarn. And what in the devil does any of this have to do with the JFK case? Edited May 2, 2023 by Michael Griffith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now