People get tetchy about receiving too many newsletters in one sitting and unsubscribe rates jump up (it doesn't matter if the newsletter is good or bad; it's pure frequency of receipt). It's one of the reasons I stopped the Daily Beagle Roundup (viewing figures crashed to a mere 11 views back then).
I used to publish two articles a day back at the beginning and it killed subscription rates. The soft spot seems to be about one detailed - unique - article every two days. I can always piggyback the notice of correction onto the next letter pending. People really do not like to receive too many emails.
I think the biggest lesson this teaches is there are no white knights. No hero going to lead the charge to victory and safety. Human agency relies upon the strength of individuals each acting in accordance with their own values. We can unite together but each of us has to be strong in our own right else we are nothing but a herd desperately looking for a shepherd.
May not be that grim, because one of the commentators highlighted I made a mistake. I've updated the article with a correction notice at the top and I hope I can be forgiven of my journalistic error.
But you know what? I'd rather be wrong about something being evil, than right.
Yes, I'm glad about that, but still the stuff about Kennedy is truly depressing. (And no, I hadn't spotted the error either!) Well done, Rhubarbgal - who, judging from the moniker, is unlikely to be a Sir?
In the words of Richard Ayoade 'it is a non-gendered term'. A bit like 'guys'. I do believe females are addressed as 'sir' in the military. In this case I'm using it to mean they were more senior in their thinking than I was.
Have I errored somewhere and made a reference to Children's Defense Fund? Could you refer me to the section of the article so I can issue a correction?
Yeah, it also jumped at me while reading the article. I was going to comment on this. You beat me to it.
That being said, I believe the author is on to, well, something when he's focusing on those pesky little legal shenanigans between CHD and Big Pharma, that essentially go nowhere. I mean, if it works so poorly, why keep at it? And by the way, why did Rand Paul let Fauci walk out scot-free from those hearings where Fauci was caught lying through his teeth under oath? And don't even get me started on Malone...
The question boils down to, who is on our side? No pun intended.
I couldn't even refer a copy of the EMA leak documents to Senator Ron Johnson because his whistleblower email inbox was 'full'. His main form/email gets no response when this is highlighted. I think it is intentional - pretend you support whistleblowing but don't in reality. I still have the rebound email message in my inbox.
Malone is interesting. I'm not sure what to make of him. He has patents on mRNA, but waits until after product development decades later to warn of the dangers? Odd sense of timing. If I spot any issues I deem serious, I personally try to raise it as soon as possible.
I get the feeling he'd try to argue 'some' mRNA products are safer than others, rather than acknowledge the entire thing is a bust. I don't know enough to pass judgement.
Oct 22, 2022·edited Oct 23, 2022Liked by The Underdog
First, your understanding of the American politics clownshow is humbling. I have not seen this level of awareness since I've read Miles Mathis, and even him occasionally gets hoodwinked, and certainly never bothered to spell it out like you did with your guide.
Then, thanks for some very enlightening info about Ron Johnson. I'm just expecting to read something of that nature about the too-good-to-be-true, man-of-the-hour, groomed-for-presidency De Santis whom the bankers need for a hard right turn now that the damage has been done by the left, and since Trump is kind of a hard sell now.
About Malone, I don't know enough to pass judgement either, but I get the same cringy feeling you do about him. Although I've used some of his statements, I would trust him with any kind of injection as far as I would a rattlesnake. The fact that he has the spookiest face ever could be written off as a milieu thing but the Linkedin profile of his wife - whom Malone introduces as his "partner" - is telling, to say the least. I've recently bumped into a video from someone who addresses the issue - sorry, I can't find it now. Amongst other major red flags, you will find creatures such as Richard Branson, Bill Gates and Justin Trudeau amongst her most influential people, plus the whole cornucopia of Big Pharma companies she has worked with - and yes, Pfizer. Same thing goes for a bunch of others, including my fellow Belgian Geert Vanden Bossche. Small world.
I've had a personal theory that I cannot factually substantiate - it's more of a gut feeling: "Cherchez la femme". In Malone's case, I would say that she's not his "partner", she's his boss. It works for a whole lot of other prominent characters, too, including top political figures. And their ladies were often not born as such...
PS: I hope my English is readable, I'm a native French-speaker and a blogger (just add .blog to my alias). Substack is one my main sources, and you've officially now become the least suspicious one ;-)
Your English is excellent and very well written! In-fact, if you had not told me I would have thought you were an academic.
De Santis' flaws are twofold (despite his amazing spearheading of the defeat of the mandates); the first is he passed an "anti-semitism" censorship bill. Even ignoring the First Amendment violation, It is not the 'anti-semitism' you'd define, but one defined by a specific Israeli political group, and the definition includes the absurd prohibition of criticism of Israel (both country and government).
The second is much earlier this year I warned De Santis of food shortages (read: food price rises) would start happening and gave him a series of mitigation strategies. This was before the Ukraine war even started. De Santis did not adopt a single policy. He was more interested in going after Disney than securing Florida's food supply chain. I pushed him on two separate occasions spaced over several months and saw nothing happen in Florida.
"Amongst other major red flags, you will find creatures such as Richard Branson, Bill Gates and Justin Trudeau amongst her most influential people, plus the whole cornucopia of Big Pharma companies she has worked with - and yes, Pfizer."
Yes, I find the corrupt rarely stray from each other, and there's almost an 'orbit of gravity' of which no-one escapes. You will never see a turncoat within their own ranks beyond a certain point, and anyone who claims to have turned on their old ways, I often find is controlled opposition or a fraud.
I'm confident they're held in line by the Jeffrey Epstein pedo trafficking, that exposed the likes of Former British PM Tony Blair, 'Prince' Andrew, Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak, and others, and there's blackmail material that compels compliance among them. If they don't get assassinated, then their public image is destroyed by mere disclosure. It's not that they won't turn - they can't turn.
Thank you for your insight. Also, . .your instincts seem correct on these shady characters . .This is one sick, fractured and inverted world. Glad I’m older. . Where we are headed is not pleasant and the place we’re at has been deeply disturbing. .
Substack Terms of Service prohibits Substackers soliciting funds outside of the platform.
The available options are a monthly, yearly or founding member plan.
Monthly is taken once a month and is $7. I do not know if it is automatic. You could do a monthly subscription and then cancelling just before the next month. It takes 14 days to clear a payment as this is the time period for right-of-refund for digital services.
Yearly is a single lump sum of $77 which is taken in one go, with the same 14 day clearing time. I do not know if yearly is automatic, but you will have an entire year to cancel.
Founding member is $299, but it can be 're-negotiated' to as low as the yearly amount of $77. I think, but I'm not sure, that 'founding member' is Substack's version of a lifetime membership.
Alternatively, if you're okay waiting some time (it might be a few weeks or longer), what I may do is ask Substack behind the scenes to offer a one-time donation option and see if I can get them to build such an option instead, as there's clearly a use case scenario for it.
Please forgive my delay, I have been busy with research and marketing.
So I had a word with Substack support. They said the one-time donation is *not* prohibited by the Terms of Service, so long as I'm not giving away a subscription to my publication as part of it.
Additionally, in response to your concerns about payment options, I have gone into Stripe and expanded the available payment options. You should even be able to pay by bank transfer if you so prefer.
I have also gone and figured out how to make a one-time donation link in Stripe as well.
That said, if you are struggling economically, I prefer it if you keep the money. I've put the donation link you requested below. If you have any problems, please let me know. Alternatively, if you want, you could frame challenge me by telling me what your biggest expenditures are, and see if I can find ways to save you money before you donate, then you can give me whatever percentage of what you save as a win-win.
Lowest donation option is .50 cents. Feel free to put in whatever amount you're comfortable with, or if you're worried about finances, skip the donation.
After thinking about what you said, without asking the reasons for why you're out of work, if you're out of work due to the vaccine mandates, you might want to look at the 'No Vax Mandates' job board on Gab (you may need to register/log in on Gab before you can see it):
I could make some shitty comment here about perhaps double-checking your research instead of spending time berating knowledgeable commenters/subscribers at length - but I won’t. Overall, your insights and ability to dig up relevant and illuminating information are very valuable, and your writing style is enjoyable and humorous. You ought to be encouraged and lauded for your pursuits, and recognized and rewarded for your work.
In spite of the problem that was pointed out, you make some excellent points about the how the staleness and lack of vigor in an organization can result in huge lost opportunities and actually impede progress in the overall movement. Keep doing what you are doing - your tenacity is a great strength.
Thank you for the compliments. Unfortunately in this case it was a psychological block on my part (I would have sworn it said 'Children's Health Defence' had it not been pointed out) and it required a second pair of eyes to spot. With the exception of the nuclear article, which I gave a draft copy to a friend to review for formatting errors, I don't currently have a draft reviewer.
It is more frustrating for me, I feel stupid I missed such an obvious mistake but I was psychologically blind to the wording. I had re-read to check for typographical errors and formatting but still did not spot my own mental sleight-of-hand. I'm not sure how I would guard against myself being misconceived. I'm glad I opened the floor to a discussion as I felt I was off on something.
Commenters have been very graceful in their response to my mistake. I've got some lessons to learn.
Sir, I must thank you for highlighting my mistake. I have added a correction to the top of the article, and I shall leave the article up as a testament that humans are fallible. This is why I wanted this discussion as I felt like I was missing something. There shall be no censorship or hiding of my error.
I will say, I am however bothered by CHD's refusal to go for the jugular, but that does not excuse my grave mistake. Can people stop naming their things variations of 'Children' and 'Defense' please, it is very confusing to my addled, sleep deprived brain.
Funny you should suggest such a thing??? I used to post comments regularly on CHD articles, but was inexplicable removed by CHD arbiter 'Discuss'. I appealed many times, but CHD failed to assist??? My comments were regarding the inexplicable EXEMPTION from LIABILITY that the deadly injection makers somehow enjoy. Their unjustifiable 'Licence to Kill' makes no logical sense but has continued since 1976 when they were awarded a TEMPORARY CONCESSION for a supposed "vaccine" for Swine Flu that failed miserably. 50+ US POST-VAX deaths caused the 'Experiment' to be abandoned, but somehow Temporary became Permanent! It defies logic! Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer.
Maybe send another newsletter so people see the update in their inbox?
People get tetchy about receiving too many newsletters in one sitting and unsubscribe rates jump up (it doesn't matter if the newsletter is good or bad; it's pure frequency of receipt). It's one of the reasons I stopped the Daily Beagle Roundup (viewing figures crashed to a mere 11 views back then).
I used to publish two articles a day back at the beginning and it killed subscription rates. The soft spot seems to be about one detailed - unique - article every two days. I can always piggyback the notice of correction onto the next letter pending. People really do not like to receive too many emails.
I think the biggest lesson this teaches is there are no white knights. No hero going to lead the charge to victory and safety. Human agency relies upon the strength of individuals each acting in accordance with their own values. We can unite together but each of us has to be strong in our own right else we are nothing but a herd desperately looking for a shepherd.
As the words of Benjamin Franklin echo: we must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately.
Being in love can make one blind from reality Kay! Mick from Hooe (UK). Unjabbed to live longer and fight.
That is just so grim and depressing. Good fact-finding, but so depressing.
May not be that grim, because one of the commentators highlighted I made a mistake. I've updated the article with a correction notice at the top and I hope I can be forgiven of my journalistic error.
But you know what? I'd rather be wrong about something being evil, than right.
Yes, I'm glad about that, but still the stuff about Kennedy is truly depressing. (And no, I hadn't spotted the error either!) Well done, Rhubarbgal - who, judging from the moniker, is unlikely to be a Sir?
In the words of Richard Ayoade 'it is a non-gendered term'. A bit like 'guys'. I do believe females are addressed as 'sir' in the military. In this case I'm using it to mean they were more senior in their thinking than I was.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/alpha-blog-charlie/202103/the-female-military-officer-is-called-sir
Are you suggesting that Children's Defense Fund and Children's Health Defense are one in the same?
Oh God, I just realised my mistake.
Have I errored somewhere and made a reference to Children's Defense Fund? Could you refer me to the section of the article so I can issue a correction?
Yeah, it also jumped at me while reading the article. I was going to comment on this. You beat me to it.
That being said, I believe the author is on to, well, something when he's focusing on those pesky little legal shenanigans between CHD and Big Pharma, that essentially go nowhere. I mean, if it works so poorly, why keep at it? And by the way, why did Rand Paul let Fauci walk out scot-free from those hearings where Fauci was caught lying through his teeth under oath? And don't even get me started on Malone...
The question boils down to, who is on our side? No pun intended.
Well, I'm definitely on your side.
Rand Paul's 'investigation' of Fauci knowing he lied in sworn testimony and letting him go is predictable (I even published a downloadable image of the 'political script', it rarely deviates: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/a-nutshell-guide-to-us-politics).
I couldn't even refer a copy of the EMA leak documents to Senator Ron Johnson because his whistleblower email inbox was 'full'. His main form/email gets no response when this is highlighted. I think it is intentional - pretend you support whistleblowing but don't in reality. I still have the rebound email message in my inbox.
Malone is interesting. I'm not sure what to make of him. He has patents on mRNA, but waits until after product development decades later to warn of the dangers? Odd sense of timing. If I spot any issues I deem serious, I personally try to raise it as soon as possible.
I get the feeling he'd try to argue 'some' mRNA products are safer than others, rather than acknowledge the entire thing is a bust. I don't know enough to pass judgement.
First, your understanding of the American politics clownshow is humbling. I have not seen this level of awareness since I've read Miles Mathis, and even him occasionally gets hoodwinked, and certainly never bothered to spell it out like you did with your guide.
Then, thanks for some very enlightening info about Ron Johnson. I'm just expecting to read something of that nature about the too-good-to-be-true, man-of-the-hour, groomed-for-presidency De Santis whom the bankers need for a hard right turn now that the damage has been done by the left, and since Trump is kind of a hard sell now.
About Malone, I don't know enough to pass judgement either, but I get the same cringy feeling you do about him. Although I've used some of his statements, I would trust him with any kind of injection as far as I would a rattlesnake. The fact that he has the spookiest face ever could be written off as a milieu thing but the Linkedin profile of his wife - whom Malone introduces as his "partner" - is telling, to say the least. I've recently bumped into a video from someone who addresses the issue - sorry, I can't find it now. Amongst other major red flags, you will find creatures such as Richard Branson, Bill Gates and Justin Trudeau amongst her most influential people, plus the whole cornucopia of Big Pharma companies she has worked with - and yes, Pfizer. Same thing goes for a bunch of others, including my fellow Belgian Geert Vanden Bossche. Small world.
I've had a personal theory that I cannot factually substantiate - it's more of a gut feeling: "Cherchez la femme". In Malone's case, I would say that she's not his "partner", she's his boss. It works for a whole lot of other prominent characters, too, including top political figures. And their ladies were often not born as such...
PS: I hope my English is readable, I'm a native French-speaker and a blogger (just add .blog to my alias). Substack is one my main sources, and you've officially now become the least suspicious one ;-)
Your English is excellent and very well written! In-fact, if you had not told me I would have thought you were an academic.
De Santis' flaws are twofold (despite his amazing spearheading of the defeat of the mandates); the first is he passed an "anti-semitism" censorship bill. Even ignoring the First Amendment violation, It is not the 'anti-semitism' you'd define, but one defined by a specific Israeli political group, and the definition includes the absurd prohibition of criticism of Israel (both country and government).
The second is much earlier this year I warned De Santis of food shortages (read: food price rises) would start happening and gave him a series of mitigation strategies. This was before the Ukraine war even started. De Santis did not adopt a single policy. He was more interested in going after Disney than securing Florida's food supply chain. I pushed him on two separate occasions spaced over several months and saw nothing happen in Florida.
"Amongst other major red flags, you will find creatures such as Richard Branson, Bill Gates and Justin Trudeau amongst her most influential people, plus the whole cornucopia of Big Pharma companies she has worked with - and yes, Pfizer."
Yes, I find the corrupt rarely stray from each other, and there's almost an 'orbit of gravity' of which no-one escapes. You will never see a turncoat within their own ranks beyond a certain point, and anyone who claims to have turned on their old ways, I often find is controlled opposition or a fraud.
I'm confident they're held in line by the Jeffrey Epstein pedo trafficking, that exposed the likes of Former British PM Tony Blair, 'Prince' Andrew, Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak, and others, and there's blackmail material that compels compliance among them. If they don't get assassinated, then their public image is destroyed by mere disclosure. It's not that they won't turn - they can't turn.
Thank you for your insight. Also, . .your instincts seem correct on these shady characters . .This is one sick, fractured and inverted world. Glad I’m older. . Where we are headed is not pleasant and the place we’re at has been deeply disturbing. .
I put my money where my mouth is, and suscribed for one year. You deserve every penny of it.
Thank you, greatly appreciated!
Dear DB: May I make a donation instead of a subscription as I’ve been out of work for an extended period and yet I want to support your fine work ?
If so, how? I don’t have Apple Pay?
Thanks , Dolly
Hi Dolly,
Substack Terms of Service prohibits Substackers soliciting funds outside of the platform.
The available options are a monthly, yearly or founding member plan.
Monthly is taken once a month and is $7. I do not know if it is automatic. You could do a monthly subscription and then cancelling just before the next month. It takes 14 days to clear a payment as this is the time period for right-of-refund for digital services.
Yearly is a single lump sum of $77 which is taken in one go, with the same 14 day clearing time. I do not know if yearly is automatic, but you will have an entire year to cancel.
Founding member is $299, but it can be 're-negotiated' to as low as the yearly amount of $77. I think, but I'm not sure, that 'founding member' is Substack's version of a lifetime membership.
Alternatively, if you're okay waiting some time (it might be a few weeks or longer), what I may do is ask Substack behind the scenes to offer a one-time donation option and see if I can get them to build such an option instead, as there's clearly a use case scenario for it.
Hi Dolly,
Please forgive my delay, I have been busy with research and marketing.
So I had a word with Substack support. They said the one-time donation is *not* prohibited by the Terms of Service, so long as I'm not giving away a subscription to my publication as part of it.
Additionally, in response to your concerns about payment options, I have gone into Stripe and expanded the available payment options. You should even be able to pay by bank transfer if you so prefer.
I have also gone and figured out how to make a one-time donation link in Stripe as well.
That said, if you are struggling economically, I prefer it if you keep the money. I've put the donation link you requested below. If you have any problems, please let me know. Alternatively, if you want, you could frame challenge me by telling me what your biggest expenditures are, and see if I can find ways to save you money before you donate, then you can give me whatever percentage of what you save as a win-win.
Lowest donation option is .50 cents. Feel free to put in whatever amount you're comfortable with, or if you're worried about finances, skip the donation.
https://donate.stripe.com/00geXOfZ2fnu25yeUU
Dolly,
After thinking about what you said, without asking the reasons for why you're out of work, if you're out of work due to the vaccine mandates, you might want to look at the 'No Vax Mandates' job board on Gab (you may need to register/log in on Gab before you can see it):
https://gab.com/groups/49159
They also have a slew of 'No Vax Mandates' job boards for other countries/specific States:
https://gab.com/search/groups?q=job
If that isn't the reason, I apologise, but I am more than happy to try to help.
I could make some shitty comment here about perhaps double-checking your research instead of spending time berating knowledgeable commenters/subscribers at length - but I won’t. Overall, your insights and ability to dig up relevant and illuminating information are very valuable, and your writing style is enjoyable and humorous. You ought to be encouraged and lauded for your pursuits, and recognized and rewarded for your work.
In spite of the problem that was pointed out, you make some excellent points about the how the staleness and lack of vigor in an organization can result in huge lost opportunities and actually impede progress in the overall movement. Keep doing what you are doing - your tenacity is a great strength.
Thank you for the compliments. Unfortunately in this case it was a psychological block on my part (I would have sworn it said 'Children's Health Defence' had it not been pointed out) and it required a second pair of eyes to spot. With the exception of the nuclear article, which I gave a draft copy to a friend to review for formatting errors, I don't currently have a draft reviewer.
It is more frustrating for me, I feel stupid I missed such an obvious mistake but I was psychologically blind to the wording. I had re-read to check for typographical errors and formatting but still did not spot my own mental sleight-of-hand. I'm not sure how I would guard against myself being misconceived. I'm glad I opened the floor to a discussion as I felt I was off on something.
Commenters have been very graceful in their response to my mistake. I've got some lessons to learn.
You’re humble, thorough and exceedingly curious. You’re also honest about the error. Respect and admiration!
"Kay Johnson was working as a ‘policy staff person’ for Children’s Defense Fund,"
Sir, I must thank you for highlighting my mistake. I have added a correction to the top of the article, and I shall leave the article up as a testament that humans are fallible. This is why I wanted this discussion as I felt like I was missing something. There shall be no censorship or hiding of my error.
I will say, I am however bothered by CHD's refusal to go for the jugular, but that does not excuse my grave mistake. Can people stop naming their things variations of 'Children' and 'Defense' please, it is very confusing to my addled, sleep deprived brain.
You've got integrity.
You're a kind soul James.
Funny you should suggest such a thing??? I used to post comments regularly on CHD articles, but was inexplicable removed by CHD arbiter 'Discuss'. I appealed many times, but CHD failed to assist??? My comments were regarding the inexplicable EXEMPTION from LIABILITY that the deadly injection makers somehow enjoy. Their unjustifiable 'Licence to Kill' makes no logical sense but has continued since 1976 when they were awarded a TEMPORARY CONCESSION for a supposed "vaccine" for Swine Flu that failed miserably. 50+ US POST-VAX deaths caused the 'Experiment' to be abandoned, but somehow Temporary became Permanent! It defies logic! Mick from Hooe (UK) Unjabbed to live longer.