Since super-Tue I've paid fairly close attention to Infowars.com.  And have caught up on some of the older stuff that I'd missed since I only paid attention sporadically over the last 15 years.  I never saw the episode you reference, or anything like it.  If you want to provide a link, please do.  I strongly suspect that such a thing is a figment of your imagination and doesn't exist.

The main reason I've been a regular consumer of Infowars.com material for the later part of the 2016 election cycle is that they have been head and shoulders above any other outlet in just having real people on the ground getting real interviews and such.  Additionally, their contacts are fantastic and many of them have been right on with the inside stories.  It's like a snow-ball rolling down a hill in that since they have the balls to actually report real information, more real information comes to them.

Alex Jones has definitely earned his place at the top of today's media.  This was helped by the implosion of the 'establishment media' which is nothing more than absurd propaganda mouthpiece and rich people's blog.  I doubt that even Jones predicted the implosion of the establishment media in the way that it has.

Trump will probably be getting a briefing about the various psy-ops undertaken during the previous administration.  I hold out hope that he will do the right thing and declassify them.  One way or another, I doubt that Trump will retain Cass Sunstein as and adviser or continue the guy's strategies.

Sounds like you may not know it, but nobody actually believes the 'flat earth' thing.  The main goal was to give people without an argument something they perceive as 'clever' to say.  Most of the people who fall for it are to ignorant to realize that the joke is on them.

edit:  As a taster, here's a decent piece at Salon from back in the day when Greenwald was a contributor:  http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

I personally don't know that.  I think it highly likely correct, but am not sure and never have been.

From the establishment's point of view you've got two major things at work here:

 - Want the spycraft secret so you can catch unwitting people.  This works less well as more information is out there.

 - Want the surveillance public so that people are afraid to do things which might be construed as being against the will of TPTB.  Obviously this intimidation doesn't work unless people know about it.

One can form a couple of curves here which have a meeting point.

The thing of it is, nothing really surprised me that much in the Snowden disclosures.  Lots of the stuff had been leaked/inferred by attentive techies, and presumably by criminals/terrorists who are on top of things enough to be a genuine threat or otherwise of interest.

To the second point, after the Snowden disclosures and others I know for a fact that some less technical people are, at this point in time, nervous about so much as watching Infowars.com vids on youtube in case they get put on a 'watch list' of some sort.

It is at least possible that the Snowden affair was a psy-op designed to switch the surveillance system to more of an intimidation tool.  I'm not saying I know one way or another, but until I have more confidence than I do currently I would not be in favor of letting Snowden totally off the hook.

---

Manning and Assange are different (to me.)  I have a high degree of confidence in (and a lot of gratitude toward) Assange at this point.  I've always felt that Manning did the right thing for the right reasons.  One of the few positive actions of Obama that I can think of was that he commuted Manning's sentence, though it is tempered with the knowledge that he had the guy tortured to suicide levels for however many years.

I think if I were prez and had the ability to do so I would have denied Manning his/her freedom to much on the premature side given his crimes (and they were crimes), but as soon as it was clear the reasons for his actions and any useful info had been extracted, I would have given him a sentence in a minimum security environment and made things as comfortable for him as realistic.  I might even have given him some award or another as well.  I would be mindful of the fact that it is an act of bravery to leak information when no other workable channels are provided, and the lack of these is in a military setting ultimately leads right up to the commander-in-chief's desk.

Trump 45 seems to have happened!  Would love to see the OP pop back up to celebrate, but I'm not holding my breath.  If Wilikon can/is reading this, thanks for starting the thread and the inputs in critical phases.

Now I switch phase to trying analyze, hopefully fairly, Trump's activities to find out how 'for real' the guy is.

My chief concern at this point (after some relatively recent observations) is that 'first' in 'America First' includes all nation states including ones who's supporters may have extra-ordinary influence here in the U.S.  Specifically, Israel.  I dearly hope that we throttle way back on the 'evil' we do around the globe (and perhaps replace it with 'good' when practicable.)  In spite of my complaints over the years I'm still OK with 'standing with Israel' for certain technical reasons and in appreciation of the attitude of segments of their population, but not if it means being painted as supporters of some of the things that the Zionists tend toward.

In a struggle such as for POTUS, one is expected to fight 'to win' up to a certain threshold that one defines for themselves.  My observation through this thing is that the Trump side was able to remain amazingly ethical.  Not that I expect that they would not have gone farther if the need was there, but it was simply a good strategy to stay well behind the line.

As far as I can tell, there were a number of groups which worked toward the goal of a Trump presidency, but they did so with relatively little coordination, and in many cases perhaps none.  Even so the choreography could hardly have been better.  A hell of a lot had to come together to pull off this rather amazing feat and one which I had not expected to be possible given the forces aligned against the guy.  If I were a religious person I could easily convince myself of divine intervention of some sort.

For my part I consider this thing a fight against 'global corporate technocracy' and I read Trump as the best hope toward this long-term goal (though I don't rule out the possibility that I've been chumped.)  I would say that in this context we are only at the point of having won a preliminary battle.  The adversaries are still around and retain enormous strength and resources.  It would be a big mistake to turn our backs to them.  I believe that the best way forward is to shine the light on their activities of the last century and try to open the eyes of those who've bought into their propaganda (as I myself had to a degree for many years.)  If nothing else this will be much more possible under a Trump presidency if he is even part way 'for real.'

China, in it's various geographical permutations, has a very long history with a lot of different dynasties.  Maybe the Ming and Tang were unusually benevolent (or not), but others probably not so much.  Even if it were true that all dynasties were exclusively inward looking, that does not necessarily indicate that it would always be so.

I expect that the leadership of China will do what they have to do to retain power in the trying times ahead that that nation faces.  Or try to.  If 'globalism' collapses (which I dearly hope to be the case for all of our sake) then they lose the bouy which they've grown dependent upon.  China has the boots to put on the ground if they choose that route...and if their leadership stays in power long enough to give that a go..  I do not expect the results of either the weening or the efforts to avoid it to be pretty.


The U.S. has changed significantly over our relatively short existence.  We peeps have traditionally been quite isolationist much to the chagrin of those who wished to enlist our muscle to help in their own struggles (esp, the Brits in the 1900's.)  It wasn't really until WW-II when we came our of the thing in fantastic shape that the street-level attitude about fucking around with others militarily became positive (although yellow journalism has always been able to rally the peeps to a cause.)  Even after that we finally put an end to the military/industrial complex scam in Vietnam via popular resistance.

As for cunning and intrigue, a good bit of that seems attributable to the machinations by and for the privately owned central bank and financial cartels which we were not vexed with until Wilson.  To a degree I would say that we American peeps are victims in the same way that others around the world are, but admittedly we end up getting more of the mine and less of the shaft here in the homeland.  At least those of us who not resting in Arlington, but combat casualties are a decreasing problem with technology advances.

I don't really want to go to bat for the fucked up things that the U.S. has done and continues to do, but I do think that it is deceptively easy to oversimplify things and pin the blame less precisely than is necessary for a good understanding.  And such an understanding is key to making forward progress in some of these areas.

As for people eating up the idiotic aspects of 'American culture', that's their own damn fault.  I'm shocked and chagrined to see it whenever I travel.  My opinion is that most of people who fancy themselves 'thinking outside of the box' probably are mostly just absorbing fairly standard-fair collectivist output from people who themselves are, ironically enough, anything but communists.  They mostly just find it the pinko construct tunable to a desirable resonance, and fancy to drones who lap it up to be controllable.  This group are mostly interested in the 'collect' part of 'collectivism' as a means to their own ends.  IOW, they know that when the time is right it will be they who end up with 'the collection.'

While it seems generally true that China has been more inward looking there are at least some tactical reasons for this.  Specifically, it has been looked upon as a target making a defensive posture the natural one.  And, of course, the standard internal conflicts have been a factor.  The borders of the nation have shifted outwards as well as inwards, and even today they are claiming a pretty absurd bite of the maritime areas nearer other nations.  There is probably little or nothing innate to 'Chinese' people which precludes either overt conquest or less overt methods of control, and nothing which would indicate that they are less capable than any other people of treating the people they conquered as basically sub-human.  Indeed, many nations on their border seem to have very little use for them.

Germany had, as I understand it, a pretty clear-cut plan for the Soviet people when conquered them (or so it is written in the victor's history books.)  It eclipses anything (currently known) about what the U.S. did.  Mao and Stalin racked up some pretty impressive kill scores internally and there is little reason to think that they would have been at least as brutal in conquered territories if they had the opportunity.  King Leopold II got quite a decent score in Africa.

I suspect that the U.S. is actually quite on the 'good' side when it comes to allowing ethnocentrism to justify actions.  This mostly a fallout from our 'nation of immigrants' history.  It's probably more of a struggle to get the American peeps to hate on others to the point of genocide on the basis of racial or ethnic differences, though various PR efforts have given it the old college try.  Oddly, mostly against people who are more of a threat to Israel than to the U.S..

I would not be surprised to find out eventually that certain 'American' efforts have achieved the biggest ethnocentric genocides yet under the guise of world population control, but these would be more a hobby of a handful of wealthy globalists (some 'American', and some not) more than an up-front declared matter of national policy such as war or territorial management.  We peeps might be guilty of being ignorant and not putting an end to such operations but that's different than being outright 'evil'.

I don't rule it out as a possibility.  Only time will tell, but I do believe that there are people in this world who have the disposition to do the right thing and the innate abilities to execute.  I can only hope that Trump is one of these.

I do also believe that people such as I've described are systematically discriminated out from the ruling classes.  Both at a figurehead level and otherwise (visible and shadow govt respectively.)  I just watched an interesting interview with some Dutch academic and was amazed at how his thesis aligned very closely to the hypothesis I've been working on vis-a-vis the 'kakistocracy.'

https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-the-kakistocracy-tjeerd-andringa-on-the-corbett-report/

The thing which gives me the most hope about Trump are the people who are against him, and it doesn't seem to be only for show.  WRT security, I think that on the levels that count, Trump is not at all ignorant of certain types of threats and is probably not as reckless as it may seem.  He could be the type of person who has taken appropriate back-end steps to discourage certain types of attacks, and he certainly knows how to use the environment to obtain and maintain leverage.  And he has the Kennedy situation to learn from.  Might be enough.  Again, we'll only know when we know.

There is an argument that if not the U.S. as the global hegemon, it would be someone else who might be even worse.  Even at my most 'anti-American progressive' phase I was unable to counter or shake this contention fully.

I always have been of the opinion that the U.S. is doing very awful things all over the world.  We couch these activities as 'national security' which is absurd.  These things are done mainly at the behest of elitist interests, some U.S. based and some not.  I do not rule out the possibility that as awful as some of these actions are, they are still sometimes tempered with a certain level of 'decency' which alternative hegemons would not necessarily display.  IOW, 'it could be worse.'

The U.S. hating elements of the world can at least be happy that the most awful elements within our leadership have increasingly turned their attentions inward.  I believe that the citizens of the U.S. itself are increasingly recognized as the primary threat and primary enemy just as is the case in most countries of size and China in particular.  Hopefully the (I think unexpected) Trump election can and will produce the cover needed to shine the light on some of these activities, but the jury is still out in this.  If it comes to pass, hopefully it will contribute to a clean-up of some of our games overseas.

Isn't Japan below replacement levels (in addition to being the source of over half of the world's general weirdness)?  Gee, I wonder how that has happened?  At least their leadership has had the basic decency to be a little more careful with their schedules and somehow found it in themselves to tell the Gardasil eugenicists to go fuck themselves.  The society may survive yet...at least in sufficient numbers to at least design cars and excavators for me.

---

I was just thinking (while enjoying my Japanese excavator today) progressive tend to love them some buttfuckin'.  Even when they don't they probably have to do it in order to stay cool and trendy with their peers sometimes.  With all the tissue tearing and fecal matter and the like I'd bet that the incidents of negative health impacts from buttfucking exceed by a wide margin the 1/100,000-ish numbers we've been tossing about vis-a-vis 'vaccine preventable disease' problems.

I'm sure that none of the progressives who are hot to trot about mandating injections and withhold govt services from non-complaint individuals will have no problem at all when some new group of fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, whatever) takes over and puts the boot on their neck.  Especially if it is demonstrable that buttfucking is a legitimately bigger threat to 'the collective' than mumps.  No doubt they would totally welcome a microchip implanted in their bunghole just to help keep tabs on any blunt intruders.

---

Speaking of bio-social engineering:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuigSuKqZqI

The reason I went back and found this chart was because I thought your 1980-forward stuff from the first link was to narrow.

The plot I dug up is meant to call into question the 'fact' that vaccines are as effective as commonly claimed and deserve the 100% credit for disease reduction that their proponents love to communicate.  The reason why scarlet fever is there and is important is that there never was a vaccine for it yet the trajectory of the disease mirrors the others.  This lends strength to the contention that something other than vaccinations is at play.  Again, strongly hypothesized is sanitation and food availability.

As for the Swedish data, I'm not sure I would completely trust data from the 1700's.  Nor would I map Jenner's technology to what is modern.  I actually do think that a few vaccinations probably do pass the risk/reward test and make sense, and smallpox is likely one of these.  Perhaps and perhaps not on an ongoing basis.  In some cases it may make sense to vaccinate only when a near extinct disease is threatening to make a come-back among a given population.  None-the-less this doesn't conflict with the points I am trying to make.

---

Here's another question...not that similar ones have been answered or anything, but anyway:

If vaccination is very safe with negligible negative health impacts, why is it necessary to give product liability immunity to drug makers for vaccines in particular?  Can they not just price the (near-zero) incidents of harm into their product like everyone else?

Seems to me (and a lot of other people) that this liability immunity granted to select pharma product manufactures is contributing to a lower level of testing and quality control which is endangering a lot of people.  IMO, many many times more people than are threatened by this failure than by the very diseases that the product is supposed to provide (some) protection against.  To add insult to injury, the target diseases are in many cases laughably mild in the first place.  e.g., chickenpox and mumps both of which I've had and thus have lifetime reliable immunity to.  I would much rather have either of these two short-duration nuisance ailments than a lifetime of some debilitating auto-immune related malady and/or neurological damage.

---

As for the 1/100,000 death rate, no, I don't find that terribly significant.  There is other low-hanging fruit which can be addressed with more effect and fewer problems.  1965 was about the time they started putting seat-belts in cars.

The autism rate is supposedly up to around 1/50 (up from like 1/10,000 when I when I was a kid.)  Nobody is allowed to question vaccination as a contributing factor and, coincidentally, nobody can seem to figure out what is going on either.  Even if the rate increase stops, when integrated across the population we are talking about on the order of 6,000,000 people effected in the U.S.  6 million is about 3000 times the 2k which bothers you so much.  True, most autistic people are not 'dead', but in severe cases being dead is vastly preferable.  Or it would be to me.

To answer your question (again, since I explained it to a degree in the snipped text) I skimmed the dude's Roush and Murphy chart of pre-vaccination preventable deaths and high-balled to be safe.

You are saying 'millions dead' from smallpox alone.  If we take US population (which is appropriate in context) and, say, a 2-year epidemic, we get something like 2M/700M 280/100,000.  This compares to 15/100,000 in the worst year in the U.S. which was around 1918.  To be more accurate, let's take 1962 just before measles vaccine was introduced.  Here we see 1/100,000

The long and the short of it is that you seem to have been massively terrorized by propaganda.  I would not rule out that people's immune systems have been so fucked up by over-use of vaccination that we do see historically high numbers for infection rates, but the answer to a problem is not more of the same problem.  At least that is not _my_ answer, but I also don't hold shares of Merck.

Perusing the data, a few things strike me:

 - What a remarkably infinitesimal problem 'vaccine preventable disease deaths in the U.S. actually are even by these numbers.  15,000/300,000,000 = 0.00005.  Even if vaccines did work and didn't cause any health impacts, the cost/benefit of manufacturing, distribution, and forcing everyone at gunpoint to the clinic multiple times per year doesn't seem to be there.  That makes me extra suspicious that there is a different motive at work here.

 - Smells like it came from the same propaganda house who says that claim astronomical numbers of lives saved by flu shots.  Odd because the flu itself is almost never a fatal ailment.  Turns out that they estimated that 'maybe half' of the people who died had the flu or something idiotic like that.  The obvious truth is that old people who are near the end anyway are often tipped over the edge by something like the flu.

---

Here's another 'visualization.'  The 'snake oil' chart I'm thinking of from a different post.  From: https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/



---

Question for you.  Was not answered in the last thread:

Does it make sense to give every newborn Hep-B on the first day of life when the disease is contracted almost exclusively by un-safe sex and illegal drug use and the vaccine typically wears off by age 8 or so?  If not, why do you think it is done?

My sense is that the Khazarian Mafia didn't know whether to shit or go blind in the early days when bitcoin were cheap.  I mean, we all know that they own and control the chief competition (fiat) so you had the Chucky Schumers of the world in a panic.  By the time they decided to buy in the Chi-comms had already taken a pretty big slice of the pie.

---

Ya, I'm trolling again and finally looked up the term 'Khazarian Mafia'...but if one looks at the recent string of Fed chairpersons...

Firstly, life expectancy for 'whites' (or 'white males', forgot which) in the U.S. has started it's decline so I remember reading a bit ago.  The 'scientific' explanation is that they 'have nothing to live for' so they are starting to die sooner.

Secondly, life expectancy increases attributable to avoidance of infectious disease map very well to improvements in sanitation and food supply.  This holds true for infections diseases for which there never was a vaccine such as scarlet fever.  Mapping the introduction of vaccination onto the mortality rate curve of many of these diseases seems to show no measurable effect whatsoever.  In other words, a lot of vaccines look suspiciously like pure snake-oil.  Not saying they are or are not.  I simply don't know but am not relying on the snake-oil salesman for 'truth', but you go right ahead.

Thirdly, it seems that the age which humans live to is not much different now than it ever has been.  That is to say, you'll find 80, 90, and 100 year old people in all societies.  Just not as many of them where risks and living conditions are more of a problem.  Back in the earlier times and other places childbirth and war were big killers but people who made it through that often lived to a similar age that some people do now.

Who cares what you said, or how many times you said it?

What you and yours say is as often as not a dead match for what Sharyl Attkisson in her TEDx talk here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

I've already said that I've listened intently to at least 100 presentations from real medical doctors and scientists who unhappy enough to torpedo their careers by speaking out.  And I've read a lot more.  In point of fact, it's getting obvious enough by this time that your rapidly expanding vaccination regime is fucking up a lot of people's immune systems and contributing to a cascade of problems.

Anyone who pays much attention to contentious scienctific debates in our time (vaccinations, GMOs, global climate change, etc) recognizes 'peer review' as a laughable circle-jerk which means little or nothing when corporate money is involved and corporate profits are on the line.

Do you have a particular problem that made you clip my rather common sense suggestion?"

Qualitatively at least you are telling me that I need to sicken myself in order to offset the risk of someone else who has a regrettable deficiency which I have nothing to do with.  Or simply the power to buy their way out.  Screw that!

Logically speaking, the tiny minority with the supposed deficiency should be the ones who are 'exiled to an uninhabitable island'.  Being a classical liberal rather than an indoctrinated collectivist totalitarian wannabe, however, I don't wish malice upon them and would favor more humanitarian conditions.

If I felt confident that the risk/reward of 'doing good' by someone who has misfortune was transparently and accurately calculated, I very well might do just that.  This is not AT ALL the case with the medical/industrial complex in this country at this time.  Fix that problem BEFORE you force-march people into the the clinic to get whatever big-pharma wishes injected into their bloodstream.  Or expect significant resistance.

The wealthy and affluent are the ones who are most resistant to vaccinating their kids.  They have the time are resources to do the research, and in some cases are probably well aware of the game and evil enough to be in favor of it.  And they don't need your stinkin' welfare checks.  The kids of this 1% class need to compete against others in their peer group so it is a non-starter to physically damage them with vaccines.  In fact the gauntlet that your average rich-kid runs (fast cars, quality drugs, etc) is already nearly as dangerous as most of the inner city youth face.

The rate set for 'herd immunity' is completely flexible and has varied a lot depending on pharma needs.  The elite 1% kids can easily be slipped into whatever cracks need to be opened up.  A handful of doctors can be chosen to issue waivers, and with 'privacy' laws things could be pretty much completely opaque.  A very interesting study even right now would be to compare the titer levels of the affluent teens vs. the 99%.

It's actually a rather clever system design to:

 - 'persuade' (aka, 'extort') the needy into poisoning their offspring using welfare checks as the carrot.

 - force the middle class to:

    - foot the bill for the welfare check extortion

    - sicken their own kids

    - join the ranks of the needy once all of their property and savings have been handed over to the 1%

Through it all the controllers can harvest the bizzaro autists who pop out.  Classroom bio-metric feedback collection anyone?  Being generally bereft of normal ethical potential and sometimes unusually bright in some ways, such 'human resources' can make very capable technocrats.  Just need to sieve them out.

When this cycle is complete and the middle class is history, the non-useful 'human resources' can be disposed of.  They'll have limited means of resistance being mentally damaged, sick, and totally dependent on the corp/gov state.

Damn!  Nice shootin' Tex!

The value of gold is that someone will give you around $1180 for an ounce.

---

It is interesting that the charges leveled against Au apply even better against Bitcoin.  Bitcoin was a first-cut at a crypto-currency, and through various lessons learned much better implementations in it's class and a lot less baggage can and probably do exist.

The value of Bitcoin is that someone will give you around $904 for one.

Nope.  Because the Hearndresen bloat-to-big-corp-only attack failed and there are more than '5 copies' of the blockchain world-wide, Bitcoin will eventually be revived.  Anyone who keeps their secret keys secret and not let them be destroyed will eventually be able to re-capture value.  Possibly at vastly inflated rates.  But yes, it won't happen for a number of years and a Bitcoiner will have to have more primitive options (and a lot of luck) to keep them alive long enough to realize the stored value.