I've arrived to the conclusion that I cannot -and will not- trust democrats. At the twilight of my life, the events carried by democrat, overwhelmingly, have been detrimental to our Republic and the its citizens. Now, the entire globe is suffering. RFK is deep into that doctrine (how can he not be) and as you pointed out the next 'weapon' in their lugubrious arsenal will be devastating. He wrote about it in his latest book; perhaps hoping that we'd think that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. So many have been siding with him.
Climate has been one of their perpetual' repeatedly failed, prophesies. The ultimate weapon for their ambitious domain on humanity.
The events perpetrated by the Democratic party have been overwhelmingly detrimental to our Republic and to its citizens because the arguments made by the Democratic party violate The Principles of Reasoning. These principles are "entropy minimax," as described by me earlier in this blog.
RFK is getting a pass on much, and lots of support, because of his vax stance which certainly resonates with many. But he has always been as crazy about climate as Birx was about covid -- and the ends will be worse. So agree...not having it.
The climate, like food, water & many other things, is being artificially manipulated.
Those currently in control basically want to slowly replace natural living organisms with artificial synthetic controllable ones. Whether they end up getting that, or nature intervenes in a not so pleasant way, or the technology is wrested away from them & used wisely (or not at all) are three of many different possible future outcomes.
By taking this position, RFKJr exhibits his ignorance of the Principles of Reasoning aka "entropy minimax." Every public policy of the government of United States should satisfy these principles.
Thanks for posting this, Jim. I admit that my thoughts on climate change were different in 2020 than they are now. But I still see regenerative agriculture, giving local control over food production and animal husbandry, as the solution. I'm skeptical of RFK myself, much as I LOVED his RAF book. But I see him surrounding himself with people I think are fakes, and not calling them on it. I'd be curious as to what his solutions were in the book (although not quite curious enough to buy or read it.)
As Jim knows, I've written extensively on Robert Malone, who is associated with Steve Kirsch, who started the SuperPAC for his campaign. Here's one that goes to the Desmet issue, and I've borrowed much from Jim in previous ones: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-the-breggins-part-one
And then there's Meryl, who's tied to Malone at the hip. And Vera--think the focus on Nazism is suspect, there's a reason they want us to believe good people can suddenly be taken over. I look more closely at WWII in this one: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/did-fascists-win-wwii.
I'm not saying these are all CIA psyops, just people whose analysis of the problem I don't agree with. And Catherine Austin Fitts, whose focus on investment strategies doesn't solve the problem, imo.
I've gotten through your piece on the Breggins and Malone so far. Still don't see why people regard him as leader of "the movement," or hold him in such high regard, seeing as he was instrumental in creating the huge problem we're needing to live with. He's very good at selling himself, is all I can say. Objections to the mRNA vaccines started long before he surfaced.
Thanks for your answer and writings. I'll work my way through them. I'm familiar with criticisms of and skepticism about Robert Malone and Meryl but haven't read much in that vein about Naomi Wolf or CAF.
You have said that you think these people are fakes, then later said you disagree with their analyses. These are different statements in my mind. Could you clarify? Also, how do you feel RFK "surrounds himself with" them vs. them supporting his work/candidacy?
Good questions and you're right, I conflated two points here. The only person I feel to be knowingly deluding the public is Malone. Maybe Steve. The question that I've had is why Kennedy would allow someone to represent the movement who says 'I am in no way, shape or form an anti-vaxxer' and who brought the Ebola Merck vaccine together that Kennedy writes against, among many other examples of Malone's contradictions to his current role.
When I first started questioning Malone, after being a staunch supporter of his, he posted that he'd asked a colleague and co-speaker what to do when people accuse you of being controlled op. The other person said we should assume that anyone could be controlled op. For some reason, I feel that might have been Kennedy.
There's no way that this controversy could have escaped him, since it calls his own credibility into question. So I've wondered that he doesn't take a position. At the same time as the Pfizer hoax was when Steve announced his SuperPAC. Some speculate that Malone would head up HHS or FDA or CDC if Kennedy won. That would make me hesitant to vote for him.
That was a great answer, whether or not it was Kennedy -- "we should assume that anyone could be controlled op." Kennedy doesn't disparage right or left or anyone. I respect him for that. CAF wrote a piece praising him highly, in particular about him learning early bc of the family he was born into to stay above the fray, not let insults, attacks, etc., get to him.
As far as Kennedy "allowing" someone to represent the movement, what control would he have over that? Although he has been pushing for safe vaccines for a long time, it's not HIS movement, and it's not even a cohesive movement, maybe not even a movement at all. Also, I remember him saying not too long ago that he was not anti-vax, that his children were vaccinated. There are doctors and scientists who are speaking out against the covid vaccines today that have said they are not anti-vax. It's a position statement that many seem to use to increase the likelihood that they will be listened to.
Not that I think Malone is anti-vax. Not at all, and like you, I used to support him bc I felt the info he shared was very valuable. But over time, his self-centeredness showed, and I came to doubt that he was speaking out for the right reasons.
Steve -- what can one say about him? Always taking polls, offering people money to debate with him. He does some valuable work, but he's like a bug trapped in a jar with holes in the lid, blindly hitting against the lid again and again but without making it out through a hole and into the light. I know that's not very complementary, but it's how I see his efforts, in a way.
I get tired of everything. This person did this, this one did that, this one is controlled, etc., etc.
Brass tacks: no police state. What happened during Covid was an unwarranted police state, and we must work to ensure this doesn't happen again. Forget about what the CDC or FDA or Malone did, the bottom line is: no police state. Yes, they need to be reformed but what we really want is no police state.
Maybe Kirsch could put his money toward advocating for cancelling police states???
“One day, democrats will restrict your freedoms, restrict your history, and restrict your safety. All in the name of professional victims that don’t understand the consequences of their ignorance. --Ronald Reagan, 1987.---
“This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that the little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” Reagan Speech, 1964
Collectivism is the problem; Democrats represent collectivism. The problem in a collective government is that someone has to decide what the "greatest good" is that everyone should be subject to. The problem is solved somewhat when we say that each individual determines for themselves what their own greatest good is, within the broad confines of the law.
The climate "crisis" is one of many false conclusions that are reached through disregard for The Principles of Reasoning. While Aristotle left us the Principles of Reasoning for the deductive logic he did not leave us the Principles of Reasoning for the inductive logic. The inductive differs from the deductive logic in the respect that information about the outcomes of the events of the future for the physical system being modelled is missing. The late theoretical physicist Ronald Arlie Christensen left us the Principles of Reasoning for both the inducductive and the deductive logic. They are "entropy minimax." See Christensen's seven volume work entitled "The Entropy Minimax Sourcebook" for details. Entropy minimax solves the ancient, previously unsolved Problem of Induction. The problem is of how, in a logically permissible way, to select the set of inferences that will be made by a model of a physical system form a larger set of possibilities. Many of the catastrophes for mankind that are currently unfolding result from failure to implement Christensen's Principles of Reasoning. The resurgence of totalitarian rule over mankind is amongst these catastrophes.
I've arrived to the conclusion that I cannot -and will not- trust democrats. At the twilight of my life, the events carried by democrat, overwhelmingly, have been detrimental to our Republic and the its citizens. Now, the entire globe is suffering. RFK is deep into that doctrine (how can he not be) and as you pointed out the next 'weapon' in their lugubrious arsenal will be devastating. He wrote about it in his latest book; perhaps hoping that we'd think that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. So many have been siding with him.
Climate has been one of their perpetual' repeatedly failed, prophesies. The ultimate weapon for their ambitious domain on humanity.
The events perpetrated by the Democratic party have been overwhelmingly detrimental to our Republic and to its citizens because the arguments made by the Democratic party violate The Principles of Reasoning. These principles are "entropy minimax," as described by me earlier in this blog.
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, California, USA
1-650-518-6636 (mobile)
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com
RFK is getting a pass on much, and lots of support, because of his vax stance which certainly resonates with many. But he has always been as crazy about climate as Birx was about covid -- and the ends will be worse. So agree...not having it.
I don't understand why people aren't seeing this: "stay safe" fanaticism is a bad thing, whether it originates from pandemics or from climate.
It's the same fanaticism. But worse, the climate catastrophe isn't even real.
The climate, like food, water & many other things, is being artificially manipulated.
Those currently in control basically want to slowly replace natural living organisms with artificial synthetic controllable ones. Whether they end up getting that, or nature intervenes in a not so pleasant way, or the technology is wrested away from them & used wisely (or not at all) are three of many different possible future outcomes.
By taking this position, RFKJr exhibits his ignorance of the Principles of Reasoning aka "entropy minimax." Every public policy of the government of United States should satisfy these principles.
Well, I can only hope you're wrong on that.
I've been following Tony Heller for years now.
I must say I was moved by RFK's speech: hard to believe he'd sell us out like that.
We so desperately need a good, intelligent leader.
Time will tell, I guess.
I hope I am wrong.
Thanks for posting this, Jim. I admit that my thoughts on climate change were different in 2020 than they are now. But I still see regenerative agriculture, giving local control over food production and animal husbandry, as the solution. I'm skeptical of RFK myself, much as I LOVED his RAF book. But I see him surrounding himself with people I think are fakes, and not calling them on it. I'd be curious as to what his solutions were in the book (although not quite curious enough to buy or read it.)
Who among those you see him surrounding himself with do you think are fakes? Just curious.
Anyone who believes that CO2 catastrophe is real doesn't understand the real science.
As Jim knows, I've written extensively on Robert Malone, who is associated with Steve Kirsch, who started the SuperPAC for his campaign. Here's one that goes to the Desmet issue, and I've borrowed much from Jim in previous ones: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-the-breggins-part-one
And then there's Meryl, who's tied to Malone at the hip. And Vera--think the focus on Nazism is suspect, there's a reason they want us to believe good people can suddenly be taken over. I look more closely at WWII in this one: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/did-fascists-win-wwii.
And I also question Naomi Wolf and her direction towards Biblical condemnation of evil: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-devil-and-naomi-wolf.
I'm not saying these are all CIA psyops, just people whose analysis of the problem I don't agree with. And Catherine Austin Fitts, whose focus on investment strategies doesn't solve the problem, imo.
I've gotten through your piece on the Breggins and Malone so far. Still don't see why people regard him as leader of "the movement," or hold him in such high regard, seeing as he was instrumental in creating the huge problem we're needing to live with. He's very good at selling himself, is all I can say. Objections to the mRNA vaccines started long before he surfaced.
Thanks for your answer and writings. I'll work my way through them. I'm familiar with criticisms of and skepticism about Robert Malone and Meryl but haven't read much in that vein about Naomi Wolf or CAF.
You have said that you think these people are fakes, then later said you disagree with their analyses. These are different statements in my mind. Could you clarify? Also, how do you feel RFK "surrounds himself with" them vs. them supporting his work/candidacy?
Good questions and you're right, I conflated two points here. The only person I feel to be knowingly deluding the public is Malone. Maybe Steve. The question that I've had is why Kennedy would allow someone to represent the movement who says 'I am in no way, shape or form an anti-vaxxer' and who brought the Ebola Merck vaccine together that Kennedy writes against, among many other examples of Malone's contradictions to his current role.
When I first started questioning Malone, after being a staunch supporter of his, he posted that he'd asked a colleague and co-speaker what to do when people accuse you of being controlled op. The other person said we should assume that anyone could be controlled op. For some reason, I feel that might have been Kennedy.
There's no way that this controversy could have escaped him, since it calls his own credibility into question. So I've wondered that he doesn't take a position. At the same time as the Pfizer hoax was when Steve announced his SuperPAC. Some speculate that Malone would head up HHS or FDA or CDC if Kennedy won. That would make me hesitant to vote for him.
That was a great answer, whether or not it was Kennedy -- "we should assume that anyone could be controlled op." Kennedy doesn't disparage right or left or anyone. I respect him for that. CAF wrote a piece praising him highly, in particular about him learning early bc of the family he was born into to stay above the fray, not let insults, attacks, etc., get to him.
As far as Kennedy "allowing" someone to represent the movement, what control would he have over that? Although he has been pushing for safe vaccines for a long time, it's not HIS movement, and it's not even a cohesive movement, maybe not even a movement at all. Also, I remember him saying not too long ago that he was not anti-vax, that his children were vaccinated. There are doctors and scientists who are speaking out against the covid vaccines today that have said they are not anti-vax. It's a position statement that many seem to use to increase the likelihood that they will be listened to.
Not that I think Malone is anti-vax. Not at all, and like you, I used to support him bc I felt the info he shared was very valuable. But over time, his self-centeredness showed, and I came to doubt that he was speaking out for the right reasons.
Steve -- what can one say about him? Always taking polls, offering people money to debate with him. He does some valuable work, but he's like a bug trapped in a jar with holes in the lid, blindly hitting against the lid again and again but without making it out through a hole and into the light. I know that's not very complementary, but it's how I see his efforts, in a way.
I like the analogy re: Steve Kirsch!
I get tired of everything. This person did this, this one did that, this one is controlled, etc., etc.
Brass tacks: no police state. What happened during Covid was an unwarranted police state, and we must work to ensure this doesn't happen again. Forget about what the CDC or FDA or Malone did, the bottom line is: no police state. Yes, they need to be reformed but what we really want is no police state.
Maybe Kirsch could put his money toward advocating for cancelling police states???
Agreed on all points, Peter. That's funny about Kirsch, my sentiments exactly but your analogy is great ;-)
REMINDER:
“One day, democrats will restrict your freedoms, restrict your history, and restrict your safety. All in the name of professional victims that don’t understand the consequences of their ignorance. --Ronald Reagan, 1987.---
“This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that the little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” Reagan Speech, 1964
Collectivism is the problem; Democrats represent collectivism. The problem in a collective government is that someone has to decide what the "greatest good" is that everyone should be subject to. The problem is solved somewhat when we say that each individual determines for themselves what their own greatest good is, within the broad confines of the law.
Collectivism is inconsistent with the Principles of Reasoning as described by me earlier in this blog.
The climate "crisis" is one of many false conclusions that are reached through disregard for The Principles of Reasoning. While Aristotle left us the Principles of Reasoning for the deductive logic he did not leave us the Principles of Reasoning for the inductive logic. The inductive differs from the deductive logic in the respect that information about the outcomes of the events of the future for the physical system being modelled is missing. The late theoretical physicist Ronald Arlie Christensen left us the Principles of Reasoning for both the inducductive and the deductive logic. They are "entropy minimax." See Christensen's seven volume work entitled "The Entropy Minimax Sourcebook" for details. Entropy minimax solves the ancient, previously unsolved Problem of Induction. The problem is of how, in a logically permissible way, to select the set of inferences that will be made by a model of a physical system form a larger set of possibilities. Many of the catastrophes for mankind that are currently unfolding result from failure to implement Christensen's Principles of Reasoning. The resurgence of totalitarian rule over mankind is amongst these catastrophes.
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, California, USA
1-650-518-6636 (mobile)
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com