Mr. Scholz vowed to keep governing until the end of the year and then to demand a confidence vote in Parliament in January, a test he may fail. That would open the way for early elections, a rarity in Germany since World War II, possibly in March.
Archiv: happy leader happy life..
Ende der Ampelkoalition: „Über Nacht in den Wahlkampfmodus“
…Als Politikwissenschaftlerin kann man natürlich nicht geheim halten, dass das alles hochinteressant und spannend ist und man sich darüber freut, das beobachten zu können. Als Bürgerin des Landes gebe ich aber auch offen zu, dass das bewegende Zeiten sind und weitreichende Zeiten, und insofern ist es ein gemischtes Gefühl, mit dem man auf das schaut und sich schon fragt, wenn wir in den USA gestern früh anfangen und hier in Deutschland, in Berlin gestern Abend enden, was so an einem einzigen Tag alles an Bewegungen stattfinden kann und uns jetzt über Monate, womöglich Jahre beschäftigen wird. …
Tabu hinter “Verschwörungstheorie”: Hierarchie und Befehlskette
(2. Mai 2017)
Um in der real existierenden Weltordnung Kriege, Attentate oder einen (schleichenden) Staatstreich durchzuführen oder zu vernebeln, braucht es lediglich eine entsprechend mächtige Hierarchie, sowie Individuen, die sie entweder benutzen, manipulieren oder sich hinter ihr verstecken können.
(…)
Beispiel 3:
Präsident A will sein „Einflussgebiet“ („Area of Influence“) vergrößern. Er hat sich zum Sturz der Hierarchie des nicht kontrollierten Staates bzw Gebietes Evil entschieden. Warum, wie, auf wessen Drängen auch immer spielt keine Rolle mehr, sobald die Entscheidung gefallen ist. Denn dann steht nicht nur seine Macht über die gesamte eigene Hierarchie, sowie aller eingegliederten und untergeordneten Hierarchien auf dem Spiel, sondern wiederum deren Macht, letztlich diese selbst. Daher muss Evil im Zweifel auch erobert werden, wenn der Sturz von dessen Hierarchie nicht gelingt.
A lässt entsprechende Pläne ausarbeiten. Zur Sicherung des Umsturzes vor seinen Untergebenen auf den unteren Ebenen innerhalb seiner eigenen Hierarchie, sowie den einfachen Untertanen im Einflussgebiet, die zwar den vielgeliederten Hierarchien der Hierarchie wie Konzernen, Parteien, örtlichen, regionalen und staatlichen Regierungen, etc, pp, unterworfen sind, aber ihnen nicht angehören, verzichtet A auf den Einsatz ihm direkt unterstellter regulärer Truppen, sondert verlangt von Monarch B, C, D, E, F, G, sowie Monarchen H, I, J, die sich aber nicht Monarchen nennen, sondern vielleicht Sultan, sowie von Kapitalisten K1, K2, K3, K4….K17, den Einsatz von Geld.
Mit diesem Geld, welche B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K1, K2, K3, K4….K17 auch deswegen einsetzen, weil sie sich eigenen Profit versprechen, in welcher Form auch immer, bezahlen diese örtliche oder internationale Söldnerfirmen, Kriegsfürsten, tribale Anführer von „Stämmen“, allgemein alle, die Bewaffnete zur Verfügung stellen. Dabei ist es den Monarchen B-J und Kapitalisten K1-17 völlig freigestellt, was sie jeweils den einzelnen Anführern ihrer Söldnern erzählen. Vorgabe ist nur, dass diese wiederum ihren jeweiligen Söldnern, Milizionären, Attentätern / Paramilitärs irgendetwas anderes erzählen und das am Ende alle tun was ihnen befohlen wird. Die Koordination, sowohl der militärischen Operationen, wie auch die jeweile Versorgung mit Waffen, Infrastruktur und permanenten Nachschub, etc, übernimmt die A (regulär) unterstellte Geheimdienstbehörde und Hierarchie X1, welche wiederum unter ausführender Leitung von Funktionär X1-y auch eigene Sondereinheiten ins Feld schickt, die als übergeordnete Kommandeure dienen, ohne im Feld selbst in Erscheinung zu treten. Gleichzeitig schickt auf Befehl von Präsident A auch dessen Militärbehörde Z1 eigene Sondereinheiten der Unterbehörden Z2, Z3, Z4 ins Feld stellt, ggf in Koordination mit Monarchen B-J und Kapitalisten K1-17, oder mit einigen davon, eine eigene Hierarchie von Söldnern auf.
Kommt die Lage in Schwung, da sich der Umsturz hinzieht, stehen am Ende eine Vielzahl von ggf öffentlich mit einander konkurrierenden oder verfeindeten Söldnern bzw Milizen im Feld, deren Fusstruppen allerlei Embleme twittern, Flaggen schwenken, Menschen massakrieren und keine Ahnung von den tatsächlichen Vorgängen haben, geschweige denn die „breite“ Öffentlichkeit. Dieser wird stattdessen durch entsprechende Maßnahmen von Geheimdiensthierarchie X1 und wiederum deren zahllose untergebenen Hierarchien Angst vor den eigenen geführten Söldnern gemacht. Gut kombinieren lässt sich dies mit urplötzlichen Wanderungsbewegungen, Attentaten, der Beförderung geostrategischer Vorgaben wie der Implementierung z.B. einer Mittelmarsunion (Name zum Schutz des betroffenen Gebietes geändert) und / oder weiterer Schritte in der Transformation des eigenen Einflussbereiches, der mit der Welt immer mehr Ähnlichkeit entwickelt, bzw umgekehrt.
Alle untergeordneten Hierarchien im eigenen Einflussgebiet, wie reguläre Regierungen eines gelenkten Staates, Tiefe Staaten, Apparate, Konzerne, Medien, Parteien, etc, sind entsprechend aktiv eingebunden, bleiben passiv oder „versagen“ bei Notwendigkeit.
Bleibt die Eroberung von Evil stecken bzw reicht die Zahl der organisierten und geführten Söldner und Milizen nicht aus, werden neue aufgestellt und alles beginnt von vorne. Die Hierarchie aller eingesetzten Proxy-Truppen endet dabei immer bei A, bzw dessen Untergebenen bei X1 und Z1. Die Proxy-Truppen können wahlweise kombiniert werden, untereinander überlaufen, sich neue Namen geben, eigene Territorien mit blumigen Namen gründen, etc, solange alle der Eroberung von Evil, oder alternativen Planmodellen dienen, wie der Zerschlagung von Evil, und / oder übergeordneten längerfristigen strategischen Zielen, wie der Zersetzung oder Zerschlagung noch vorhandener demokratischer Strukturen oder ganzer Staaten im eigenen Einflussbereich, z.B. durch die Erzeugung gewaltig-heiliger Intelligenz- und Erleuchtungswellen durch „mehr Atlantik“.
Eventuelle geostrategisch vermeintlich oder tatsächlich konkurrierende Hierarchien werden gekauft und ruhiggestellt, z.B. indem man ihnen das eigene Konzept zur Transformation des Herrschaftsbereiches andreht. Man versteht sich. Man will doch nicht streiten. Wo doch alle profitieren, von der Lage.
Eine Verschwörung hat nicht stattgefunden. Es sind einfach alle vernünftig.
Pakistan Army Chief Says Need To Move On From „Politics Of Anarchy“
Politicians and political parties rise and fall with the backing of the military, which this year was widely believed to be backing the party of three-time former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.
After Hamas: Rationales and dilemmas for US-Saudi nuclear agreement persist
(19 October 2023)
The United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) have for over a decade negotiated without success the terms of an agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation. These negotiations have intensified recently in the context of US efforts to broker a normalisation agreement between the KSA and Israel, which have included discussions about how the US could solidify its own support for Saudi Arabia. On the 7th of October 2023, Hamas terrorists appeared to drive a stake through the heart of the US effort to broker Israel-KSA normalisation. This has sent shockwaves through the region, and the full implications remain uncertain. However, it seems likely that in the longer run, rationales for normalisation and for US nuclear engagement with Riyadh will remain, reflecting the fact that the Hamas attacks underscored that a future nuclear-armed Iran would be a yet more formidable adversary for both Israel and the KSA.
LIVE: Revelers ring in new year in Berlin
Berlin welcomes New Year with fireworks at Brandenburg Gate landmark
«Netanyahus Sohn sitzt den Krieg am Strand in Florida aus»
(13. November 2023)
Der älteste Sohn von Benjamin Netanyahu betreibt in den sozialen Medien gezielte Desinformation.
Offiziell übt er keinen Beruf aus – laut israelischen Medien soll er aber seit Jahren die Social-Media-Strategie des Vaters lenken.
Nur ein Bruchteil der Posts enthält tatsächliche Informationen.
Israelis have noticed this image from Gal Eizenkot‘s grave: One father standing over the coffin of his son killed in battle; another father who got underlings to illegally grant his toxic troll son a diplomatic passport when he returned from 9 sybaritic months on Miami Beach.
Tabu hinter “Verschwörungstheorie”: Hierarchie und Befehlskette
(2. Mai 2017)
Um in der real existierenden Weltordnung Kriege, Attentate oder einen (schleichenden) Staatstreich durchzuführen oder zu vernebeln, braucht es lediglich eine entsprechend mächtige Hierarchie, sowie Individuen, die sie entweder benutzen, manipulieren oder sich hinter ihr verstecken können.
(…)
Beispiel 3:
Präsident A will sein „Einflussgebiet“ („Area of Influence“) vergrößern. Er hat sich zum Sturz der Hierarchie des nicht kontrollierten Staates bzw Gebietes Evil entschieden. Warum, wie, auf wessen Drängen auch immer spielt keine Rolle mehr, sobald die Entscheidung gefallen ist. Denn dann steht nicht nur seine Macht über die gesamte eigene Hierarchie, sowie aller eingegliederten und untergeordneten Hierarchien auf dem Spiel, sondern wiederum deren Macht, letztlich diese selbst. Daher muss Evil im Zweifel auch erobert werden, wenn der Sturz von dessen Hierarchie nicht gelingt.
A lässt entsprechende Pläne ausarbeiten. Zur Sicherung des Umsturzes vor seinen Untergebenen auf den unteren Ebenen innerhalb seiner eigenen Hierarchie, sowie den einfachen Untertanen im Einflussgebiet, die zwar den vielgeliederten Hierarchien der Hierarchie wie Konzernen, Parteien, örtlichen, regionalen und staatlichen Regierungen, etc, pp, unterworfen sind, aber ihnen nicht angehören, verzichtet A auf den Einsatz ihm direkt unterstellter regulärer Truppen, sondert verlangt von Monarch B, C, D, E, F, G, sowie Monarchen H, I, J, die sich aber nicht Monarchen nennen, sondern vielleicht Sultan, sowie von Kapitalisten K1, K2, K3, K4….K17, den Einsatz von Geld.
Mit diesem Geld, welche B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K1, K2, K3, K4….K17 auch deswegen einsetzen, weil sie sich eigenen Profit versprechen, in welcher Form auch immer, bezahlen diese örtliche oder internationale Söldnerfirmen, Kriegsfürsten, tribale Anführer von „Stämmen“, allgemein alle, die Bewaffnete zur Verfügung stellen. Dabei ist es den Monarchen B-J und Kapitalisten K1-17 völlig freigestellt, was sie jeweils den einzelnen Anführern ihrer Söldnern erzählen. Vorgabe ist nur, dass diese wiederum ihren jeweiligen Söldnern, Milizionären, Attentätern / Paramilitärs irgendetwas anderes erzählen und das am Ende alle tun was ihnen befohlen wird. Die Koordination, sowohl der militärischen Operationen, wie auch die jeweile Versorgung mit Waffen, Infrastruktur und permanenten Nachschub, etc, übernimmt die A (regulär) unterstellte Geheimdienstbehörde und Hierarchie X1, welche wiederum unter ausführender Leitung von Funktionär X1-y auch eigene Sondereinheiten ins Feld schickt, die als übergeordnete Kommandeure dienen, ohne im Feld selbst in Erscheinung zu treten. Gleichzeitig schickt auf Befehl von Präsident A auch dessen Militärbehörde Z1 eigene Sondereinheiten der Unterbehörden Z2, Z3, Z4 ins Feld stellt, ggf in Koordination mit Monarchen B-J und Kapitalisten K1-17, oder mit einigen davon, eine eigene Hierarchie von Söldnern auf.
Kommt die Lage in Schwung, da sich der Umsturz hinzieht, stehen am Ende eine Vielzahl von ggf öffentlich mit einander konkurrierenden oder verfeindeten Söldnern bzw Milizen im Feld, deren Fusstruppen allerlei Embleme twittern, Flaggen schwenken, Menschen massakrieren und keine Ahnung von den tatsächlichen Vorgängen haben, geschweige denn die „breite“ Öffentlichkeit. Dieser wird stattdessen durch entsprechende Maßnahmen von Geheimdiensthierarchie X1 und wiederum deren zahllose untergebenen Hierarchien Angst vor den eigenen geführten Söldnern gemacht. Gut kombinieren lässt sich dies mit urplötzlichen Wanderungsbewegungen, Attentaten, der Beförderung geostrategischer Vorgaben wie der Implementierung z.B. einer Mittelmarsunion (Name zum Schutz des betroffenen Gebietes geändert) und / oder weiterer Schritte in der Transformation des eigenen Einflussbereiches, der mit der Welt immer mehr Ähnlichkeit entwickelt, bzw umgekehrt.
Alle untergeordneten Hierarchien im eigenen Einflussgebiet, wie reguläre Regierungen eines gelenkten Staates, Tiefe Staaten, Apparate, Konzerne, Medien, Parteien, etc, sind entsprechend aktiv eingebunden, bleiben passiv oder „versagen“ bei Notwendigkeit.
Bleibt die Eroberung von Evil stecken bzw reicht die Zahl der organisierten und geführten Söldner und Milizen nicht aus, werden neue aufgestellt und alles beginnt von vorne. Die Hierarchie aller eingesetzten Proxy-Truppen endet dabei immer bei A, bzw dessen Untergebenen bei X1 und Z1. Die Proxy-Truppen können wahlweise kombiniert werden, untereinander überlaufen, sich neue Namen geben, eigene Territorien mit blumigen Namen gründen, etc, solange alle der Eroberung von Evil, oder alternativen Planmodellen dienen, wie der Zerschlagung von Evil, und / oder übergeordneten längerfristigen strategischen Zielen, wie der Zersetzung oder Zerschlagung noch vorhandener demokratischer Strukturen oder ganzer Staaten im eigenen Einflussbereich, z.B. durch die Erzeugung gewaltig-heiliger Intelligenz- und Erleuchtungswellen durch „mehr Atlantik“.
Eventuelle geostrategisch vermeintlich oder tatsächlich konkurrierende Hierarchien werden gekauft und ruhiggestellt, z.B. indem man ihnen das eigene Konzept zur Transformation des Herrschaftsbereiches andreht. Man versteht sich. Man will doch nicht streiten. Wo doch alle profitieren, von der Lage.
Eine Verschwörung hat nicht stattgefunden. Es sind einfach alle vernünftig.
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, however, addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
IDF estimates: Fighting in Gaza will last a year;
intensity of military operations & combat methods will vary. via @N12News
PM warns ministers to pipe down after comments on new ‘Nakba’ and nuking Gaza
“Every word has meaning when it comes to diplomacy. If you don’t know — don’t speak,” the prime minister said during Sunday’s cabinet meeting.
“We must be sensitive,” he added.
The prime minister was referring to recent comments by ministers that are viewed as having caused damage to Israel’s international legitimacy.
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, however, addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report
(December 26, 1977, Page 32)
“Conspiracy theories,” the cable went on, “have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit circulation of such claims in other countries.”
The C.I.A. was careful to caution its stations overseas not to initiate a discussion “of the assassination question” where such a discussion was “not already taking place.” But where such discussions were under way, C.I.A. officers abroad were directed to “discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors,” and to “employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics.”
Bundesregierung erklärt Zahlungen an Journalisten von ARD, ZDF und Deutsche Welle zur geheimen „Verschlusssache“
Anfang März 2023 war zunächst bekannt geworden, dass die Bundesregierung in den letzten Jahren rund 1,5 Millionen Euro an circa 200 Journalisten, mehrheitlich bei ARD und ZDF beschäftigt, für diverse Aufträge wie beispielsweise „Moderation“ oder „Konzepterstellung“ gezahlt hatte. Kanzleramt und Ministerien räumten zwar die Zahlungen ein, hielten aber bisher die Namen der Journalisten mit Verweis auf „Datenschutz“ anonymisiert. Diese Namen liegen jetzt den NachDenkSeiten vor.
Defense Contractor Funded Think Tanks Dominate Ukraine Debate
Few Americans know what a think tank is or does, although they play a pivotal role in the U.S. political process.2 Think tanks operate as something of a conduit between academia and the policymaking community, conducting research and opining on pressing policy issues, including everything from healthcare to climate change to U.S. foreign policy. Think tanks also work directly with policymakers in the executive branch and Congress. Their experts regularly testify before Congress and go on to serve in key positions in the executive branch. Former government officials in turn often go on to work for think tanks, earning them the nickname of “holding tank” where former government officials await a change in party affiliation of Congress or the Presidency.
Of most direct relevance to this brief is the fact that think tanks are a go–to source for media outlets seeking opinions on pressing policy issues. Think tank experts provide the comments and articles you read in prominent national media outlets . They’re the voices you hear providing commentary on NPR, podcasts, and even local radio stations. They’re the faces you see on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC opining on the most pressing U.S. policy issues of the day. In short, think tanks are a key component of public debates about U.S. politics and policy.
אין מרגש ונכון יותר מאשר לחגוג יחד עם עשרות אלפי אחיותנו ואחינו את 56 השנים לשחרור ירושלים ואיחודה. בעזרת השם ובאהבת חינם, נחגוג יחד לעוד שנים רבות, ארוכות ובטוחות ונאמר אמן! עם ישראל חי, וליבו – ירושלים המאוחדת לעד!
The Tel Aviv Protest Was a Success, but It’s Only the First Test in a Long Struggle
But this protest still has no leader. The official leader of the opposition, Yair Lapid, wasn’t even there and the smaller opposition figures were greeted with politeness at best, but with no great excitement. There were even some angry shouts towards Labor leader Merav Michaeli.
Looking forward to going through all the tweets complaining about “PR for the richest man on earth,” and seeing how many of them have run stories for anonymous sources at the FBI, CIA, the Pentagon, White House, etc.
1. Thread: THE TWITTER FILES
(03.12.2022)
2. What you’re about to read is the first installment in a series, based upon thousands of internal documents obtained by sources at Twitter.
3. The “Twitter Files” tell an incredible story from inside one of the world’s largest and most influential social media platforms. It is a Frankensteinian tale of a human-built mechanism grown out the control of its designer.
Note to Readers
(Dec 2, 2022)
Those of you who’ve been here for years know how seriously I take my obligation to this site’s subscribers. On this one occasion, I’m going to have to simply ask you to trust me. As it happens, there may be a few more big surprises coming, and those will be here on Substack. And there will be room here to to discuss this, too, in time. In any case, thanks for your support and your patience, and please hold me to a promise to make all this up to you, and then som
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, however, addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
How Mossad Chief Got Arnon Milchan to Boost Music Career of Oligarch‘s Daughter
(13.02.2019)
On a summer evening about a decade ago, an unusual group entered the spacious Israeli beach house home of Israeli Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan. His guest at his home in Beit Yanai, to which he had made a special trip from his home in Los Angeles especially for the meeting, was Meir Dagan, the director at the time of Israel’s Mossad espionage agency.
Also in attendance was a Russian oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin and the oligarch’s young daughter. They were joined by several others as well.
(…)
While he was head of the Mossad, Dagan viewed the development of close ties with Russia, with Putin and with his close circle of associates as a strategic goal, and he accompanied the Israeli prime ministers under whom he served — Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and Netanyahu — in their meetings with the president of Russia.
Tabu hinter “Verschwörungstheorie”: Hierarchie und Befehlskette
Um in der real existierenden Weltordnung Kriege, Attentate oder einen (schleichenden) Staatstreich durchzuführen oder zu vernebeln, braucht es lediglich eine entsprechend mächtige Hierarchie, sowie Individuen, die sie entweder benutzen, manipulieren oder sich hinter ihr verstecken können.
(…)
Beispiel 3:
Präsident A will sein „Einflussgebiet“ („Area of Influence“) vergrößern. Er hat sich zum Sturz der Hierarchie des nicht kontrollierten Staates bzw Gebietes Evil entschieden. Warum, wie, auf wessen Drängen auch immer spielt keine Rolle mehr, sobald die Entscheidung gefallen ist. Denn dann steht nicht nur seine Macht über die gesamte eigene Hierarchie, sowie aller eingegliederten und untergeordneten Hierarchien auf dem Spiel, sondern wiederum deren Macht, letztlich diese selbst. Daher muss Evil im Zweifel auch erobert werden, wenn der Sturz von dessen Hierarchie nicht gelingt.
A lässt entsprechende Pläne ausarbeiten. Zur Sicherung des Umsturzes vor seinen Untergebenen auf den unteren Ebenen innerhalb seiner eigenen Hierarchie, sowie den einfachen Untertanen im Einflussgebiet, die zwar den vielgeliederten Hierarchien der Hierarchie wie Konzernen, Parteien, örtlichen, regionalen und staatlichen Regierungen, etc, pp, unterworfen sind, aber ihnen nicht angehören, verzichtet A auf den Einsatz ihm direkt unterstellter regulärer Truppen, sondert verlangt von Monarch B, C, D, E, F, G, sowie Monarchen H, I, J, die sich aber nicht Monarchen nennen, sondern vielleicht Sultan, sowie von Kapitalisten K1, K2, K3, K4….K17, den Einsatz von Geld.
Mit diesem Geld, welche B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K1, K2, K3, K4….K17 auch deswegen einsetzen, weil sie sich eigenen Profit versprechen, in welcher Form auch immer, bezahlen diese örtliche oder internationale Söldnerfirmen, Kriegsfürsten, tribale Anführer von „Stämmen“, allgemein alle, die Bewaffnete zur Verfügung stellen. Dabei ist es den Monarchen B-J und Kapitalisten K1-17 völlig freigestellt, was sie jeweils den einzelnen Anführern ihrer Söldnern erzählen. Vorgabe ist nur, dass diese wiederum ihren jeweiligen Söldnern, Milizionären, Attentätern / Paramilitärs irgendetwas anderes erzählen und das am Ende alle tun was ihnen befohlen wird. Die Koordination, sowohl der militärischen Operationen, wie auch die jeweile Versorgung mit Waffen, Infrastruktur und permanenten Nachschub, etc, übernimmt die A (regulär) unterstellte Geheimdienstbehörde und Hierarchie X1, welche wiederum unter ausführender Leitung von Funktionär X1-y auch eigene Sondereinheiten ins Feld schickt, die als übergeordnete Kommandeure dienen, ohne im Feld selbst in Erscheinung zu treten. Gleichzeitig schickt auf Befehl von Präsident A auch dessen Militärbehörde Z1 eigene Sondereinheiten der Unterbehörden Z2, Z3, Z4 ins Feld stellt, ggf in Koordination mit Monarchen B-J und Kapitalisten K1-17, oder mit einigen davon, eine eigene Hierarchie von Söldnern auf.
Kommt die Lage in Schwung, da sich der Umsturz hinzieht, stehen am Ende eine Vielzahl von ggf öffentlich mit einander konkurrierenden oder verfeindeten Söldnern bzw Milizen im Feld, deren Fusstruppen allerlei Embleme twittern, Flaggen schwenken, Menschen massakrieren und keine Ahnung von den tatsächlichen Vorgängen haben, geschweige denn die „breite“ Öffentlichkeit. Dieser wird stattdessen durch entsprechende Maßnahmen von Geheimdiensthierarchie X1 und wiederum deren zahllose untergebenen Hierarchien Angst vor den eigenen geführten Söldnern gemacht. Gut kombinieren lässt sich dies mit urplötzlichen Wanderungsbewegungen, Attentaten, der Beförderung geostrategischer Vorgaben wie der Implementierung z.B. einer Mittelmarsunion (Name zum Schutz des betroffenen Gebietes geändert) und / oder weiterer Schritte in der Transformation des eigenen Einflussbereiches, der mit der Welt immer mehr Ähnlichkeit entwickelt, bzw umgekehrt.
Alle untergeordneten Hierarchien im eigenen Einflussgebiet, wie reguläre Regierungen eines gelenkten Staates, Tiefe Staaten, Apparate, Konzerne, Medien, Parteien, etc, sind entsprechend aktiv eingebunden, bleiben passiv oder „versagen“ bei Notwendigkeit.
Bleibt die Eroberung von Evil stecken bzw reicht die Zahl der organisierten und geführten Söldner und Milizen nicht aus, werden neue aufgestellt und alles beginnt von vorne. Die Hierarchie aller eingesetzten Proxy-Truppen endet dabei immer bei A, bzw dessen Untergebenen bei X1 und Z1. Die Proxy-Truppen können wahlweise kombiniert werden, untereinander überlaufen, sich neue Namen geben, eigene Territorien mit blumigen Namen gründen, etc, solange alle der Eroberung von Evil, oder alternativen Planmodellen dienen, wie der Zerschlagung von Evil, und / oder übergeordneten längerfristigen strategischen Zielen, wie der Zersetzung oder Zerschlagung noch vorhandener demokratischer Strukturen oder ganzer Staaten im eigenen Einflussbereich, z.B. durch die Erzeugung gewaltig-heiliger Intelligenz- und Erleuchtungswellen durch „mehr Atlantik“.
Eventuelle geostrategisch vermeintlich oder tatsächlich konkurrierende Hierarchien werden gekauft und ruhiggestellt, z.B. indem man ihnen das eigene Konzept zur Transformation des Herrschaftsbereiches andreht. Man versteht sich. Man will doch nicht streiten. Wo doch alle profitieren, von der Lage.
Eine Verschwörung hat nicht stattgefunden. Es sind einfach alle vernünftig.
Netanyahu Fans Design Golden ‚Loyalty Necklace‘ in His Image
Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu is known for his fervent supporters, many of whom refer to him as “King Bibi,” but a prominent Likud activist took things even further on Sunday evening at a party event when she attempted to drape a golden medallion featuring the former prime minister’s visage around lawmaker Israel Katz’s neck.
In a video clip widely circulated online, Heidi Mozes could be heard declaring that the necklace was “a declaration of allegiance to our party,” adding “we are proud to be in this party that we have excellent elected officials and a wonderful soon to be Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”
So apparently #Biden’s betrayal of progressives extends to foreign policy. Look at this love fest with #Netanyahu. PRIMARY CHALLENGER!!!
While Israeli Prime Minister Lapid got a fist-bump from @POTUS @JoeBiden on the red carpet upon his arrival, Biden gave former @netanyahu a firm handshake. #Biden told #Netanyahu – „you know I love you“
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy‘s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission‘s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission‘s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
He too once ruled supreme. So what lessons does Bibi have for Boris?
The British PM is discovering that his supporters are not quite as loyal as Netanyahu‘s
Olmert: I Called the Netanyahus Mentally Ill After Consulting With Experts
(Jan. 10, 2022)
At the start of the hearing, Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court Judge Amit Yariv asked Olmert what he based his claim on when he said “what can’t be fixed is the mental illness of the prime minister and his wife and son. That’s not fixable.”
Olmert responded that “I followed their actions, I listened to recordings of the family members, I consulted with experts and with people close to them who know them well. They described to me behavior that … is known as abnormal behavior, crazy behavior.”
Corruption Of The Peer-Review And Publishing Process: “Follow The Silence”
On that thread, and at the risk of losing my advertising again, scientific integrity has managed to sink even lower since the onset of the pandemic. As noted by Dr. Bret Weintstein in a recent DarkHorse video (embedded below), a new and much anticipated study into the prevalence of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) following a COVID vaccination has, at the eleventh hour, been refused by the publishers — this is even though the paper passed the peer-review process!
As Dr. Weinstein, an environmental biologist, explains: “This paper had passed peer-review and was headed for publication when the Elsevier Journal, a cardiology journal, replaced the pre-print of the paper with a note saying that it had been removed.”
Corona: Ist die „Zustimmung der Mehrheit“ ein gutes Argument?
Die bloße Berufung auf eine „Mehrheit“, die hinter den eigenen Anliegen stehen würde, ist nicht immer ein gutes Argument: Oft genug wurde in der Geschichte eine angebliche oder tatsächliche Mehrheit entweder verdammt oder heilig gesprochen – je nach Gusto und Medienmacht. Und wie relevant sind emotionale Umfrageergebnisse nach Virus-Panik-Kampagnen? Dazu kommt die Unsicherheit über die seriöse Herstellung der jeweiligen Umfragen. Der Gipfel ist, eine durch Zwang erhöhte Impfquote indirekt zu einer Zustimmung zu ebendiesem Zwang zu erklären.
What Is the Fundamental Key to Happiness?
(2016)
When our minds are still, all is well. We don’t suffer when we’re not creating negative mental stories. We must remember that these harmful stories are in our minds and when we quiet our minds, all our suffering ends.
Israeli Data Suggests Possible Waning in Effectiveness of Pfizer Vaccine
(today)
The new numbers still show overwhelmingly strong protection against severe disease but diminished effectiveness against infection.
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy‘s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission‘s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission‘s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy‘s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission‘s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission‘s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
(01. April 1967)
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy‘s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission‘s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission‘s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission‘s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
(…)
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
(…)
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
Imagine time traveling back to 2010 to explain this headline
Here‘s why, despite what polls say, Trump is winning
In August, the respected CATO Institute reported that 62% of Americans acknowledge holding views that many people consider offensive. Among conservatives, that number skyrockets to 77%. With potentially tens of millions of closeted fans, Trump is a pollster’s nightmare. The wife of a pro-Trump buddy of mine detests the 45th president. Yet, when she slams Trump — which is very often — my friend smiles, nods approvingly, and replies, “I hear ya, sweetie,” or, “you sure got that right, honey.” Another guy who does the same thing says, “Happy wife; happy life.”