Hi folks,
at the start of Today’s UKColumn they cover the federal charges against Trump and in the last 10 minutes they show clips of Kennedy “flying the Israeli flag” over his policies!
Who can the American people vote for? Is it just like the UK - “same bum, but 2 cheeks”?
cheers
Yes I think so CJ: getting anywhere near the White House is a tough fight and alienating the Israel lobby is asking for trouble. (Although Biden has been very lukewarm towards Israel and apparently he really detests Netanyahu. Don’t we all.)
There was a fairly intense argument between Patrick Henningsen and Vanessa Beeley in the Extra for that show.
PH was pointing out that anyone aspiring to power in the US would be nobbled by the Israeli lobby sooner or later, usually sooner. Beeley pointed out that RFK had always been sympathetic to Israel so it was nothing to do with the lobby really. (Which struck me as disingenuous.) They yelled at one another at cross-purposes for several minutes, despite essentially being on the same page. That seemed odd but I suspect the real problem is that she is left dumbfounded for long periods on the Friday show with Patrick dominating discussion. This is what happens when one guest is sat next to you while the other is on video link, making refereeing much harder.
The same cadre dictates policy in the UK as well, but pointing this out is of course antisemitic.
I haven’t looked at the UK Column News link. Did they mention that more than a year ago Kennedy compared, at a Washington DC anti Covid psy op event, Anne Frank to xyz?
Immediately he was attacked to the point that his own wife came out and publicly distanced herself from her own husband in order to defend herself from the howling wolves in the media.
So it doesn’t really matter Kennedy’s past beliefs whether pro Israel or not. He’s obviously serious about wanting to be president so he has to appease ‘the lobby’ to the extent possible, whether he believes in zionism or doesn’t believe in zionism. He doesn’t want to be a ‘show candidate’, he wants to win. So we’re seeing what a candidate has to do if he or she wants to have a chance of winning.
Given that Kennedy as president may be just a pro Israel as any other candidate, but MIGHT be serious about regulatory capture by BigPharma, perhaps he could if elected make a difference.
I’m a Kennedy fan but I’m prepared to be 100% disappointed. And I’m not going to waste much time on him in the interim. If he says stuff with which I agree I’ll promote it in my own little way.
good points - those are my gut reactions too - since someone needs to change the system then I believe he has what it takes even though I doubt anyone can overturn the corruption of the machine which aligns the policies of both Democrats and Republicans. The biggest danger of course is “the Kennedy curse” - he’s a brave guy!
cheers
PH appeared to be ‘on’ something: he argued pointlessly with Mike Robinson in a similar way after old-manning VB so rudely. He has a very heavy workload, that bloke, and it would be no surprise to learn that he partakes of some kind of artificial assistance to see himself along.
His disgusting character assassination of Rosemary Frei on UKC over her (prescient) article on Vanden Bossche in March 2021 was in the same vein: there is an unfortunate streak of arrogance there.
Kennedy will not deliver. Saw a video the other day, where VVP was talking on a chat show. He spoke about Western leaders and how they don’t get to do what they want. Specifically mentioned Obama with Guantanamo. He described men in dark suits appearing with the message “This is how it is done”
I’m agnostic. I have more belief or faith (ironic words) in Sister Fatima’s prediction than any western leader helping the masses.
Isn’t that ‘2 cheeks of the same arse’ analogy a Galloway confection? Anyroad, he was talking to Neil Oliver the other day and concluded that, what with the similarities of the 2 main parties, we now have an arse with a sole cheek - it tickled me at least.
That’s surprising - and alarming - PH is usually a respectful and thoughtful chap - - I always got the impression that he had a great deal of respect for VB - shame if it is the inevitable pressures that are impacting upon the lad.
Wrt Kennedy kowtowing to the I lobby - it’s a shame since it’s likely that the upstart state likely had a hand in offing his uncle. That said, I can’t see it coming to pass anytime soon that POTUS candidates will not have to prostrate themselves before AIPAC.
A giant chocolate starfish that consumes all in its path
: )
Thing is, LY, it being a sole check and all, it puzzles me that there’d be nowhere to situate the chocolate starfish - which could mean that with no outlet for the politexcreta (standard parliamentary business, ahem) the shite will just keep on backing-up to the point where we are confronted with something akin to a Mr Creosote-type explosion!! 
If you’re a twitter fool, and I am, though I’m trying to kick the habit, maybe you’ve seen that since RFKjr did the Greenwald interview and then the Joe Rogan interview many big account influencers are demanding that BigPharma criminal Peter Hotez debate RFKjr on Rogan. Including Twitter owner Musk. They’ve already ‘raised’ two million dollars ‘to go to a charity of Hotez’s choice’ if he’ll debate Kennedy. Hotez went on BigPharma TV and defended his cowardice.
Frankly it feels like a twitter psy op.
Let’s ask ourselves: would this twitter campaign had happened if Kennedy had had a different political line concerning Israel? I doubt it. In fact I’d say he is now being ‘rewarded’ for the line he took. He also dissed Putin as an evil dude. That helped also no doubt.
So, we cheer the pressure being put on Hotez. Don’t we? Sure, I do. But then, on the other hand, I recognize this is probably a top down narrative shift operation.
Any ideas, anybody?
I’m not very active on Twitter. A couple of months ago I deleted my account because I was being ever-more drawn into its clutches - actively quarrelling with the few voices I saw taking a different view than mine - - and that’s a thing, I didn’t see very much in the way of views that deviated from mine - to all intents and purposes my view was the dominant one. I recently opened a fresh Twitter account and in the ‘setting-up’ phase I opted to see ‘interests’ that I have no truck with or interest in - and lo, my feed was full of things/ideas that I find ghastly, with only the occasional glimpse of views from the other side (the side I actually champion) - and again, one could be fooled into believing the position I’d adopted in the fresh account appeared to be the dominant one. In short, that’s a long-winded way of saying Twitter may be all things to everyone - each user tailors their feed to suit their interests, with just enough stimuli in there to keep one rattled and fulminating.
Sorry, E - that probably adds little/nothing to your question explicitly - though I do think that pretty much everything is top down - however, the zeal with which some of those top-down narratives are embraced by wannabe Brown Shirts does in turn increase the quotient of shitty quislings redirecting top-down directives back up through the public sphere via the burgeoning totalitarian mobs - and that’s when things really start to become fraught!.
When visiting unsavoury places, just lurk. Wondering outside of my views has rewarded me with sites such as Unz. Most of it is awkward to face, but gems shine through.
Also plays havoc with their profiling of you online
My son directed to me this 3 hour long Joe Rogan interview with RFK Jnr for those with the time I would recommend it, he is a very good candidate!
cheers
I don’t think it’s a psy-op. It seems to have stemmed from Hotez own interactions with Rogan. Naturally Rogan gave him the challenge, especially as Hotez has been viciously slandering everyone who doesn’t want his vaccines for years. When you do that you’ve no right to duck questions.
Hotez position is a posture. He is happy to debate with Rogan, a kind of journalist, but claims debating with RFK, who is scrupulously polite, would turn it into a Jerry Springer show.
Despite this the media present it as a ridiculous idea. “Why should he, RFK is not a doctor?”
Unfortunately the idea that medicine in practice is all science and no politics has a lot of traction. Despite this, there seem to be many without knowledge of this politics, who are asking why the good ‘doctor’ doesn’t want to put his non-medical opponent in his place, given the damage he claims is being spread by him.
So I think the reality is this is situation is disadvantageous for Hotez (hence the reason it’s being hammered at by Hotez’s opponents) but not as harmful to him as getting wiped by RFK on vaccine corruption would be.
Cheers
Here’s a great btl on this fawning Forbes piece :
"This article made Peter Hotez appear somewhat untrustworthy and I now question his accolades solely due too having read this masterpiece of endless flattery. "
Indeed. While the article refers to "…the noxious bullying of Hotez by Rogan and Musk ", Hotez
has likened ‘anti-vaxers’ to anti Semitic, fascists, who have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and who should be dealt with using methods of anti-terrorism.
PS how’s this for a cringe
"No serious person should demand a debate on vaccine science between
and non-doctor RFK Jr," says
. “Debates with anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists only serve to elevate them—and most importantly, they don’t change anyone’s minds.”
This presenter, medic Mehdi Hasan is the author of a book called Win Every Argument! He likens RFK to Alex Jones. He says in this clip “experts shouldn’t agree to debate cranks”
You’ve clearly delved a bit deeper than I have Evvy. If non-doctor Bill Gates can opine at great length about vaccines I can’t see any reason why RFK Jr can’t.
Random thought: Sirhan Sirhan (sp?) was a Palestinian was he not? Perfect Patsy for a Mossad job.
Until the Patrick/Vanessa squabble dominated last Friday’s Extra I hadn’t realised her father was from the Diplomatic Corps and a life-long Israel-sceptic. I hope they can put this behind them as I think they’re the best two reporters that UK Column have, though Debi Evans is definitely growing on me. I agree with the earlier comment that PH was unnecessarily overbearing.
Hi @Evvy_dense , the Rogan interview I posted above ( which I now notice was referred to by Everyman above) starkly reveals why no-one wants to debate RFKjr. He has an excellent memory of the key elements on several scientific fronts ( even explaining off the cuff, in surprising depth, the Invisible Rainbow stuff on EMF damage to mitochondria in the human body from cell phones, towers and WIFI which Rogan had not been aware of!) - as he points out, if you want to win a legal action on any subject you need to fully research it and understand it. This is something most people can do - reading scientific papers is a difficult process but there are writers out there who have mastered the art and can explain stuff to laymen like me - Rosemary Frei is a case in point on many medical subjects I have listened to. The “no virus” camp generally have good explanatory skills together with medical licences! ( although, as you have pointed out @Evvy_dense, their cause produces a split in the anti-jab project so supporting their position becomes difficult - I’m a fence sitter here, seeing both viewpoints!) It’s noticeable that RFKJr didn’t express any view on the no-virus position and Rogan didn’t raise a question on it.
We have been subjected for decades to the rhetorical trick of appealing to authority in many arguments - but there is a distinct difference between quoting the opinion of “scientists” and quoting scientific research which has been fully investigated and supported by their unconflicted peers in the subject ( which is slightly different from the much criticised “peer reviewed process” ). The bogus appeal to scientific authority is often seen in adverts for cosmetics or simple health products by dressing up presenters in white coats and stethoscopes, but it has now spread over almost anything being sold which has to show health safety ( without of course proving health safety or even efficacy!). The use of this rhetorical trick to undermine the rights of “non-scientists” to debate scientific subjects is just another step further into ignorance and control. Scientists are happy to quote peer reviewed papers from expert scientists in support of their arguments, and yet pro-Hortez fools are claiming that non-scientists should not be allowed to quote alternate expert scientific papers in support of their arguments in debates, it’s ludicrous!
cheers
Surely what we are seeing play out in these public exchanges is whether Technocracy is fit to replace, openly, Plutocratic Democracy.
The notion that rule by expert is the best has been, since the switch to agriculture 10,000 years, one of our basic political beliefs. Thus, the priest/astrologers/astronomers who predicted the yearly flooding of the Nile. The priests who defined dietary and marriage laws. Plato who promoted rule by trained experts required to live in poverty.
Now it’s the technocrats. The rich technocrats like Gates and Musk are the bosses, the broad class of lower level technocrats, yeah the ones who betrayed our long fought for civil rights for ourselves and our children, are well rewarded for serving the higher level technocrats.
And so we are not, by definition, ABLE to judge ‘consensus’ scientific opinion. Even when your cough says ‘cancer causing’ and the doctor says ‘oh, there’s no real evidence your smoking is linked to cancer’, your own primary perception is NOT EXPERT, and you are over-ruled. Smoking was good. Yes. And now the vaxx is good. Shut up and take it.
Yes @KarenEliot there are two sets of rules in play making what Bill Gates has to say drown out the other non-medic RFK.
It’s interesting that Kennedy’s scientifically robust position on vaccination isn’t what he was choosing to lead with, it’s been wheeled out by his enemies - in the Democrat dominated media world - as a political weakness to attack; tapping in to virus fears and vaccine sentiment which is strongly supported by the media (to a lesser extent in the population). This is played out in the negative body language of the media puppets; fake fond smiles and sighs when his name comes up, near eye-rolls and references to … well nothing, maybe some other nonexistent or fake ‘rebuttal’ of RFK they saw that was sooo good.
RFK’s counter has been well there’s my evidence, show me where I am wrong. At some point viewers might recognize that he’s been saying that for a long time and that maybe he isn’t wrong, and that those with the expertise who should be challenging him on the evidence are appearing only to throw the custard pies, under the knowing smiles of the puppets who should be frowning and saying to them ‘Stop that!’.
As to who will stop RFK are you thinking there could be a re-run of the play using his pro-Israel position?
@CJ1 @AlanG I only vaguely remember the Frei/Vanden Bosche thing but I remember thinking too much was being made of it. Anti-narrative brethen at officer level are not plentiful enough to warrant turning them on each other. Sounds like Patrick’s arrogance isn’t showing any sign of being directed outwards where it needs to be.
CJ1 that’s a good parallel with the white coats of the Fairy Liquid commercials. Now the actual white coats are fake too! Now mainly used to signify speakrank. In this matter, non-white coats are plebs - not evcen authorised to talk about scientific papers. A White Coat can say you’re wrong and above your station.
@Everyman explains the old/new dynamic in what used to be class terms, but updated for the new currency. Class is dead! As long as you have a white coat. Or a permitted passport.
“Smoking was good. Yes. And now the vaxx is good. Shut up and take it.”
Insight and precision!
Thanks guys. I rest your case 
Hi folks,
thinking further about the debate challenge presented to Hortez - maybe his response should be an honest one :
~perhaps it was wrong of me to present complicated issues to the public in the format of an interview with a person who has no background in the subject under discussion, which has led to this debate challenge in the same media format! The subject matter lends itself to a lecture format with slide support or of course written articles or research papers rather than the debate format with which I have little experience.~
This of course could be expressed with greater honesty :
~ I would be unable to hide from an experienced debater and my attempts to do so would be obvious to the public, I’m far better just laying out the propaganda to friendly journalists who will pick it up and feed it to the public in the best way ~
cheers
RFKJ deftly fields some of the opposition’s most awkward vaccination memes here
https://twitter.com/i/status/1674266437890744323 (13m)
His lauded performance here does benefit from a civilized platform, giving him time to answer in his usual way, with telling medical or historical context. So far, his views on vaccine policy don’t look like a political weakness! Maybe they’ll curb this line of attack as it’s been good for him.
Though I wonder how it would have gone if the interviewer had been in his face the whole time.