Tried to spread your INCREDIBLE posts at 'The Truth About Cancer' substack, they blocked me, because of speaking about Trump's corruption and also linking to your previous posts. Just wonder what did the Mr. strange hair just recently covered in his Mar-go... villa with Netanyahu?
That addition here about RFK Jr. is SAD and extremely disturbing. That Israel connection is the corner stone of every politician.
Thank for spreading the message at great personal cost! Your best bet might be to outreach to places that might be more receptive to the ideas. I imagine places like Gab or 4chan might be more receptive.
I'm okay with individual Substacks having their own personal policies, as I often have to enforce one myself. You would not believe what happens behind the scenes.
I had one guy claim he was a paying subscriber for The Daily Beagle, who was also a pro-Israel handler who took contention with my reporting (specifically, my first post on the topic of Israel and how Israel shot their own people and financed Hamas: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/the-side-of-the-israeli-gaza-war).
I realised my reporting was working, but the fact someone was a paying subscriber (or claiming to be one) and I hadn't noticed they were attempting to influence my work meant I had to revise my moderation approach. I didn't expect hostile elements to actually pay in a desperate bid to shut down my work.
As a result I've taken a more aggressive stance towards banning possible disruptors. Several were posters I suspected of trying to IP log, several more tried to disrupt posts. Why am I saying this?
It means I can't finger wag at other Substacks if they ban or block people (or I'd be a total hypocrite). I can sympathise with what's happened with you though!
In terms of outreach, some tips (based on my own experience):
1) People really hate it if you post a plain link with no 'lead up' text, and it is good to have some short, single line of text explaining it. Don't write more than a single line or they won't read it.
2) Tie it into the context of whatever you're replying to. So if the topic was Conservatism, you might say 'Is this what Conservatism is supposed to be about? [Link]'. If it's mRNA shots, you might say 'Can we trust someone with ties to Epstein to help us to defeat mRNA? [Link]'
3) The less you mention from the link, the better. It fires up curiousity and gets people to check it out.
4) Avoid negative language or critical remarks, especially aimed at the host of the site you're writing on. No matter how infuriatingly wrong they are, *nobody* likes being criticized. Instead, maybe refer to something you agree on positively, like: 'I love the fact you're critical of the mRNA shots, what do you think about these Epstein ties? [Link]'. People are much more likely to be receptive if you're nice or positive towards them.
5) If anyone comments on your comment, try to ignore it (a sprawling argument/discussion turns everybody off), unless it is either the host, or the comment is trying to spread Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt about the link, in which case, just write a single, to-the-point, matter-of-fact rebuttal showing surprise at their dishonesty, E.G. 'I don't know why you're trying to attack this link but it contains mostly referenced images and not much else.'
6) Don't post multiple links in a single comment (looks like spam); don't post multiple individual comments with links in the same article/thread/section (looks like spam).
7) Only post to the most recent article that has the most activity. If you're able to post a comment to an article within the first 5 to 10 minutes of it going live, you will gain a *lot* of traction.
8) Easiest way is to just browse social media normally with the links on standby, and if you encounter a conversation where it is relevant, bring it up. You will nearly always find some discussion, debate or argument where it has relevancy.
9) If the site is hostile to the ideas, you can always perform the classic uno reversi: 'Man look at this dumb site, look at this stupid article for example [Link]'. I don't mind if it drags in haters because it is a chance the evidence will change their minds.
Truth about cancer is spinning with censorship lately, they went where they aren’t comfortable… amusing, sad. I was excited at first.. they couldn’t have an actual debate in the comments.
I think the law you're referring to involves the one that prevents non-government officials from trying to act on behalf of the US government - also known as the Logan act.
The problem is the Logan act has practically never been enforced except against small fry. Politicians do it all the time, and they recognise if they start enforcing it against bigger fry, it will eventually be used against them. Trump accused Obama of violating the Logan act, but never enforced it.
That said, the Logan act was invented by Federalists when George Logan successfully brought peace between America and France. So it is a tool often abused by those seeking war, rather than used by those seeking peace.
"No one has ever been convicted of violating the Act"
It runs afoul of the First Amendment free speech clause anyway. It's toothless. The only thing you could get someone on is fraudulent representation, but that's really not the issue here. I doubt Trump was saying to Netanyahu he was the President, and Netanyahu was likely addressing him in the capacity of his future candidacy (likewise with Harris).
What we have are numerous FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) violations with AIPAC "babysitters" not being registered as such (putting 'American' at the front of an organisation name does not make it non-foreign).
The US government has no issue using this against small time citizens (they're accusing Omali of being an "unregistered" agent of Russia; which is weird, as I'd claim half of Congress are unregistered agents of Israel):
Yes, thanks for that excellent explanation, and I was referring to the Logan act and FARA violations, which like you said are never prosecuted or enforced on big fries.
Probably since most of the USG are unregistered agents of some foreign country.
Regardless of how Trump and Bibi addressed each other in their clandestine meeting, what they would be discussing is important, since he might also be an unregistered agent.
Without going into too much detail, the President doesn't have any real power. If you consider the fact the US government has still been running with Joe Biden having dementia, you'll recognise something else pulls the strings behind the scenes.
Presidents can only really do three things: 1) Veto [which can be overridden], 2) Write executive orders which nearly always get overturned in courts when challenged and 3) Hire/fire heads of departments.
Congress writes the bills, so regaining control of Congress away from foreign influence is far more important. Presidential elections are a distraction tactic for the public.
I think we need to start paying attention to what these monsters actually say. Jared referring to the mass genocide of Palestinians as a "real estate dispute" that is holding up access to valuable "waterfront property" ; open admission of intent, motive and means.
There's no way to truly know. I can see why people think that and I don't discount that theory.
I'm of the view he's dead, because him still being alive poses a major risk of him being exposed, and those of whom he has blackmail material on being exposed along with it.
After all, it seems like Mossad bumped off Robert Maxwell under dubious circumstances (the idea he had 'an accident' on his yacht with no eyewitnesses is dubious to me), and the IDF shoot their own (https://news.antiwar.com/2024/06/20/idf-report-found-multiple-cases-of-friendly-fire-deaths-on-oct-7/), so I would not be surprised if they went so far as to kill Epstein as a desperate attempt to tie up loose ends.
perversion and distortion used to normalize mental illness and erode healthy values, but more importantly, all under the umbrella of Transhumanism - all of this leads toward the effective end of the human condition if allowed to propagate... https://eccentrik.substack.com/p/transhumanism-is-the-extermination
So frustrating how people don’t see the uniparty here. The lefties stay left, & those on the right stay right. All in for Trump cuz he’s gonna save us! And Make Merica Great Again! I’ve posted on a few other substacks & YT’s in the comments connecting JD, Trump, Thiel, Prince, etc. And how they’ll elevate Palantir to One World Surveillance, & digital currency. They’re chomping at the bit on this! And republicans are lining right up for it all. Whether it’s the Trump no matter what team, or the anybody but Trump team. We’re screwed.
I've got a sneaking suspicion it has something to do with the 'gay porn' that was filmed in Congress. Notice it's been caught at least twice. Would that not constitute the building of blackmail material? I'm surprised no-one connected the dots, and ask themselves 'why did they *film* themselves?'.
That could be, although no one seemed to care about the gay porn in Congress...at all. I have always assumed it's something that was filmed at Epstein Island and with little boys.
It only becomes an issue if the media scream about it very loudly at the top of their lungs non-stop. Public outrage is literally media created and directed. The outrage dies out the moment media stop talking about it.
Social media can also facilitate this, but the average endurance of a member of the public is not as good as a scriptmonkey fighting for their minimum wage breadcrumb typing a dozen-of-dribble scripts in order to survive.
As a result, the blackmail requires two parts: the ruinous material, and a media organisation willing to paste it non-stop onto the front pages until that person's reputation is destroyed. Remember Hunter Biden's pedo tapes? The media ran cover for him non-stop and nothing happened.
Sometimes they don't even need the blackmail material. Many media outlets will just run defamatory hitpieces (Covington Kid, for example, destroyed for "smirking"). Or they will create a situation (think Julian Assange 'rape accusation') to ruin a reputation.
The video material means selective prosecution can be enforced. Without it, it ends up in the court of public opinion, and repetition works dangerously well.
Yes, I totally agree with you and also, there are *so* many outrageous things happening at once that no "normal" person can keep up with it all. But honestly, the Hunter Biden stuff was hideous and I can guarantee you that most liberals know nothing about it or would say it's fake news. Sad times!
Tried to spread your INCREDIBLE posts at 'The Truth About Cancer' substack, they blocked me, because of speaking about Trump's corruption and also linking to your previous posts. Just wonder what did the Mr. strange hair just recently covered in his Mar-go... villa with Netanyahu?
That addition here about RFK Jr. is SAD and extremely disturbing. That Israel connection is the corner stone of every politician.
Thank for spreading the message at great personal cost! Your best bet might be to outreach to places that might be more receptive to the ideas. I imagine places like Gab or 4chan might be more receptive.
I'm okay with individual Substacks having their own personal policies, as I often have to enforce one myself. You would not believe what happens behind the scenes.
I had one guy claim he was a paying subscriber for The Daily Beagle, who was also a pro-Israel handler who took contention with my reporting (specifically, my first post on the topic of Israel and how Israel shot their own people and financed Hamas: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/the-side-of-the-israeli-gaza-war).
I realised my reporting was working, but the fact someone was a paying subscriber (or claiming to be one) and I hadn't noticed they were attempting to influence my work meant I had to revise my moderation approach. I didn't expect hostile elements to actually pay in a desperate bid to shut down my work.
As a result I've taken a more aggressive stance towards banning possible disruptors. Several were posters I suspected of trying to IP log, several more tried to disrupt posts. Why am I saying this?
It means I can't finger wag at other Substacks if they ban or block people (or I'd be a total hypocrite). I can sympathise with what's happened with you though!
In terms of outreach, some tips (based on my own experience):
1) People really hate it if you post a plain link with no 'lead up' text, and it is good to have some short, single line of text explaining it. Don't write more than a single line or they won't read it.
2) Tie it into the context of whatever you're replying to. So if the topic was Conservatism, you might say 'Is this what Conservatism is supposed to be about? [Link]'. If it's mRNA shots, you might say 'Can we trust someone with ties to Epstein to help us to defeat mRNA? [Link]'
3) The less you mention from the link, the better. It fires up curiousity and gets people to check it out.
4) Avoid negative language or critical remarks, especially aimed at the host of the site you're writing on. No matter how infuriatingly wrong they are, *nobody* likes being criticized. Instead, maybe refer to something you agree on positively, like: 'I love the fact you're critical of the mRNA shots, what do you think about these Epstein ties? [Link]'. People are much more likely to be receptive if you're nice or positive towards them.
5) If anyone comments on your comment, try to ignore it (a sprawling argument/discussion turns everybody off), unless it is either the host, or the comment is trying to spread Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt about the link, in which case, just write a single, to-the-point, matter-of-fact rebuttal showing surprise at their dishonesty, E.G. 'I don't know why you're trying to attack this link but it contains mostly referenced images and not much else.'
6) Don't post multiple links in a single comment (looks like spam); don't post multiple individual comments with links in the same article/thread/section (looks like spam).
7) Only post to the most recent article that has the most activity. If you're able to post a comment to an article within the first 5 to 10 minutes of it going live, you will gain a *lot* of traction.
8) Easiest way is to just browse social media normally with the links on standby, and if you encounter a conversation where it is relevant, bring it up. You will nearly always find some discussion, debate or argument where it has relevancy.
9) If the site is hostile to the ideas, you can always perform the classic uno reversi: 'Man look at this dumb site, look at this stupid article for example [Link]'. I don't mind if it drags in haters because it is a chance the evidence will change their minds.
Hopefully that helps.
Truth about cancer is spinning with censorship lately, they went where they aren’t comfortable… amusing, sad. I was excited at first.. they couldn’t have an actual debate in the comments.
Trump talking with foreign governments in the Ukraine is what caused trouble for him before, so why is doing that again now with Israel?
Since he is not the prez, isn't that a treasonable offense of "executive privilege"?
Acting as and pretending to be the prez when you aren't is too. Is it not?
Yes, what were he and Bibi discussing in private at his property?
That's a very good point.
I think the law you're referring to involves the one that prevents non-government officials from trying to act on behalf of the US government - also known as the Logan act.
The problem is the Logan act has practically never been enforced except against small fry. Politicians do it all the time, and they recognise if they start enforcing it against bigger fry, it will eventually be used against them. Trump accused Obama of violating the Logan act, but never enforced it.
That said, the Logan act was invented by Federalists when George Logan successfully brought peace between America and France. So it is a tool often abused by those seeking war, rather than used by those seeking peace.
"No one has ever been convicted of violating the Act"
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-logan-act-an-introduction
It runs afoul of the First Amendment free speech clause anyway. It's toothless. The only thing you could get someone on is fraudulent representation, but that's really not the issue here. I doubt Trump was saying to Netanyahu he was the President, and Netanyahu was likely addressing him in the capacity of his future candidacy (likewise with Harris).
What we have are numerous FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) violations with AIPAC "babysitters" not being registered as such (putting 'American' at the front of an organisation name does not make it non-foreign).
The US government has no issue using this against small time citizens (they're accusing Omali of being an "unregistered" agent of Russia; which is weird, as I'd claim half of Congress are unregistered agents of Israel):
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/57179/is-us-citizen-omali-yeshitela-facing-jail-for-producing-pro-russian-propaganda
Facilitating money, accepting donations, and travelling to the country all count.
Enforcement is another matter entirely.
Yes, thanks for that excellent explanation, and I was referring to the Logan act and FARA violations, which like you said are never prosecuted or enforced on big fries.
Probably since most of the USG are unregistered agents of some foreign country.
Regardless of how Trump and Bibi addressed each other in their clandestine meeting, what they would be discussing is important, since he might also be an unregistered agent.
Without going into too much detail, the President doesn't have any real power. If you consider the fact the US government has still been running with Joe Biden having dementia, you'll recognise something else pulls the strings behind the scenes.
Presidents can only really do three things: 1) Veto [which can be overridden], 2) Write executive orders which nearly always get overturned in courts when challenged and 3) Hire/fire heads of departments.
Congress writes the bills, so regaining control of Congress away from foreign influence is far more important. Presidential elections are a distraction tactic for the public.
Thanks again for another great explanation of this situation.
It explains why the unregistered foreign agents bought Congress first.
The AIPAC babysitters are not the only unregistered foreign agents, since many in Congress are also unregistered foreign agents themselves.
It also explains why all unconstitutional EOs should be ignored and challenged.
And yes, presidential elections are just a distraction tactic and clown show.
However, that 3rd thing the prez does is quite powerful and insidious.
Hiring/firing heads of departments is huge control over who runs the deep state. The ones who really run the show!
I think we need to start paying attention to what these monsters actually say. Jared referring to the mass genocide of Palestinians as a "real estate dispute" that is holding up access to valuable "waterfront property" ; open admission of intent, motive and means.
Draining the swamp would eliminate Trump/Harris/Kennedy jr.. Is Jeffery Epstein really dead, or on his island with a facial change?
There's no way to truly know. I can see why people think that and I don't discount that theory.
I'm of the view he's dead, because him still being alive poses a major risk of him being exposed, and those of whom he has blackmail material on being exposed along with it.
After all, it seems like Mossad bumped off Robert Maxwell under dubious circumstances (the idea he had 'an accident' on his yacht with no eyewitnesses is dubious to me), and the IDF shoot their own (https://news.antiwar.com/2024/06/20/idf-report-found-multiple-cases-of-friendly-fire-deaths-on-oct-7/), so I would not be surprised if they went so far as to kill Epstein as a desperate attempt to tie up loose ends.
Right? Always suspected that.
He looked a lot like Bill Clinton brother. Who also passed. Uh huh.
perversion and distortion used to normalize mental illness and erode healthy values, but more importantly, all under the umbrella of Transhumanism - all of this leads toward the effective end of the human condition if allowed to propagate... https://eccentrik.substack.com/p/transhumanism-is-the-extermination
So frustrating how people don’t see the uniparty here. The lefties stay left, & those on the right stay right. All in for Trump cuz he’s gonna save us! And Make Merica Great Again! I’ve posted on a few other substacks & YT’s in the comments connecting JD, Trump, Thiel, Prince, etc. And how they’ll elevate Palantir to One World Surveillance, & digital currency. They’re chomping at the bit on this! And republicans are lining right up for it all. Whether it’s the Trump no matter what team, or the anybody but Trump team. We’re screwed.
Do you think we'll ever get to see the kompromat they have on Lindsay Graham? It must be some kind of awful. *shudders*
I've got a sneaking suspicion it has something to do with the 'gay porn' that was filmed in Congress. Notice it's been caught at least twice. Would that not constitute the building of blackmail material? I'm surprised no-one connected the dots, and ask themselves 'why did they *film* themselves?'.
That could be, although no one seemed to care about the gay porn in Congress...at all. I have always assumed it's something that was filmed at Epstein Island and with little boys.
It only becomes an issue if the media scream about it very loudly at the top of their lungs non-stop. Public outrage is literally media created and directed. The outrage dies out the moment media stop talking about it.
Social media can also facilitate this, but the average endurance of a member of the public is not as good as a scriptmonkey fighting for their minimum wage breadcrumb typing a dozen-of-dribble scripts in order to survive.
As a result, the blackmail requires two parts: the ruinous material, and a media organisation willing to paste it non-stop onto the front pages until that person's reputation is destroyed. Remember Hunter Biden's pedo tapes? The media ran cover for him non-stop and nothing happened.
Sometimes they don't even need the blackmail material. Many media outlets will just run defamatory hitpieces (Covington Kid, for example, destroyed for "smirking"). Or they will create a situation (think Julian Assange 'rape accusation') to ruin a reputation.
The video material means selective prosecution can be enforced. Without it, it ends up in the court of public opinion, and repetition works dangerously well.
Yes, I totally agree with you and also, there are *so* many outrageous things happening at once that no "normal" person can keep up with it all. But honestly, the Hunter Biden stuff was hideous and I can guarantee you that most liberals know nothing about it or would say it's fake news. Sad times!
If voting works why does the Mafia use violence and succeed
All these belong to a different mafia.