Coleman Hughes Misfires on Tulsi Gabbard as DNI

I very much admire Coleman Hughes. He bravely stood up to the race-hucksters over the past five years and advocated for the type of color-blindness embraced by almost all classical liberals. But on CNN he naively stepped into an area in which he is not well informed: National Security. Almost everything he says in opposition to Tulsi Gabbard is incorrect and it wouldn't have taken much time to get informed before going live. Very disappointing, but this illustrates something ubiquitous. Everyone I know (even myself) who gets a lot right sometimes falls off the rails. The causes are many: tribalism, hubris, fatigue and failing to be self-critical. It happens to all of us, some of the time and free speech is the best approach we know to limit these missteps. So here is Glenn Greenwald speaking freely about Coleman's embarrassing moment on CNN:

Glenn Greenwald:

There was a panel discussion about why Tulsi Gabbard is this great evil, and the opposition to her was led by Coleman Hughes, who--I don't really understand when he became an expert on foreign policy. He became known speaking, I think, quite insightfully, about things like race and class and the intersection of them. I've been on his show before. He's been on mine.

Suddenly, though, he's now a great expert in the Middle East, he's a vehement supporter of Israel--as much as Barry Weiss or Sam Harris or people like that are. And here he is on CNN, maligning Tulsi Gabbard, who knows 10 million times more about foreign policy in her toenail than Coleman Hughes has in his entire arsenal of knowledge. But here he is expressing why she's such a terrible choice as DNI [Director of National Intelligence].

Coleman Hughes:

It's a very confounding. Look, call me crazy, but I think the Director of National Intelligence should be a person who, A) trusts US intelligence, and B) likes US intelligence. What do we know about Tulsi Gabbard? We know that when Assad gassed civilians in 2017 and our intelligence agencies determined that and Trump decided to strike those facilities, Gabbard doubted that. She doubted the findings of our own intelligence and she went to go visit Assad. And we know that she defends Julian Assange, who released classified informations that imperiled the people we were working with in Afghanistan and the Taliban went out there and were able to kill them one by one. And so, you know, this is exactly the opposite of the person you would want leading national intelligence.

Glenn Greenwald:

He's saying that the only kinds of people you want to lead the intelligence agencies are people who A) trust what they tell you and B) like how they operate. How can any sentient human being who knows anything about the last 25 years of American history, --and even if you want to go back much further--and it's the same thing. But just going back to the last 25 years since the war in Iraq and the run up to it, going all the way through things like Syria and Libya and Russiagate and the Hunter Biden laptop, and all the different ways that these intelligence agencies have interfered in our politics, improperly and based on lies--It's not disqualifying to distrust the intelligence agencies or to dislike how they operate and want to change it. What's disqualifying is to trust the intelligence agencies. How mindless must somebody be to say, "Yeah, I really trust the CIA. I think their pronouncements are all correct."

Oh, the audacity of her to question anything that the CIA was saying about the war in Syria, when the CIA was leading, one of those dirty wars that they love to fight at a billion dollars a year that Obama unleashed them to fight in order to remove Bashar Al Assad from power and replace [him with] someone else they wanted. Oh no, questioning the intelligence agencies. Tulsi Gabbard questioned what they said, doubted some of their pronouncements, and now she's somehow ineligible to lead them, because she doesn't have blind, mindless faith in them.

This is conventional wisdom in Washington. Coleman doesn't know anything about the topics of which he's opining, including what he said about WikiLeaks. And the idea that WikiLeaks is supposed to be considered some sort of nefarious group that nobody can defend when they've done more than anybody to bring transparency to our government, including the lies they told about the wars in which Tulsi Gabbard fought and the corruption of our allies, and all the lies that we've been told as the public about what our government was doing.

The idea that defending Julian Assange for bringing transparency is somehow disqualifying? I'm sure he would say the same thing about Edward Snowden, who Tulsi Gabbard also supports, is just mind-blowingly dumb. But this we showed you this because it's so reflective of how Washington thinks. Coleman Hughes--what he does when he doesn't know what he's talking about, is--he just picks up on conventional wisdom and the world in which he resides with Bari Weiss and those kind of people, he just repeats what that world thinks without an even an inch of knowledge. But it's nonetheless worth seeing, because that is the opposition to Tulsi Gabbard: "Oh, she's not a fan of the CIA. She's not a fan of the NSA. She doesn't think the intelligence agencies like Homeland Security have been doing a good job, have been honest with the American people. This is what Donald Trump ran on. He didn't run on appointing the kind of people that Coleman Hughes thinks should be appointed: people who think the intelligence communities are so trustworthy in whatever they're doing.

[Trump] ran on a campaign promise to uproot them, to fundamentally drain their swamp and to rebuild them into more ethical and trustworthy institutions, and Tulsi Gabbard represents that. The only people scared of her are the people who should be scared, the people who want to keep those institutions in place, despite all the lies they told and the corruption they've imposed, precisely because they're the ones who benefit most from it. But they don't want any one questioning, let alone changing, how Washington works.

Continue ReadingColeman Hughes Misfires on Tulsi Gabbard as DNI

What People are Missing if They Aren’t reading X (Twitter)

It's wild out there in the lands of Politics and Culture. I've been doing some collecting and I'd like to offer some of the things that especially caught my attention recently.

Glenn Greenwald is on fire. Here he is once again pointing out DNC/Corporate Media Hypocrisy:

I've lost count of the people who have told me that they don't know what Robert F. Kennedy actually says and they don't want to find out. And then They claim that he is "anti-vax" and a "conspiracy theorist," as though saying that is a substitute for knowledge. Michael Shellenberger comments:

This really happened. How could EVERYONE in the corporate media forget?

The Ukraine war (which has killed 600,000 Ukrainians so far) must must must go on because . . . trust us . . . says Anthony Blinken, neocon in Joe Biden's cabinet and one of the architects of the Iraq War.

Tulsi Gabbard was really put on this list this year after she expressed a political position in support of Trump. Everything else here is absolutely true. Does this sound like America?

It's guaranteed won't hear these things about Matt Gaetz at your favorite corporate media outlets. Independent journalist Lee Fang will tell you:

If really you'd like to learn RFK, Jr's positions on important topics (and you should want to know them), here are some of his main points, succinctly set out and annotated:

Continue ReadingWhat People are Missing if They Aren’t reading X (Twitter)

What it is Like to Start Seeing the Progressive Left for What it is.

Fascinating video. This woman recently started seeing the DNC and progressive left for what they are. She describes the experience of scales falling from her eyes.

I created a transcript of her 3-minute video:

I feel like I have a unique perspective with this whole election thing. Because I used to be very, very far left, like I was one of the people having a fucking mental breakdown in 2016 when he won, right? And I didn't even like him up until six months ago, when it became very obvious that they were staging a coup and tried to assassinate him. And then some shit started clicking. So I'm still very new to this whole side of things. But the thing is, when I was very far left, like, radically far left, I thought I knew what was going on. I genuinely believed I was informed. I thought I knew better than everybody else, and that's what these people think, too. And the thing is I would get so triggered and so angry when people would question me because I didn't actually know what the hell I was talking about. I thought I did, but really I didn't actually know any policies. I didn't actually know any politics. All I actually knew was what I had seen online, in mainstream media, and because everybody was saying, I just assumed it had to be right, right. And I think where a lot of this comes from is like, people just don't want to be wrong. Like, it's humbling and it's embarrassing to acknowledge that you were wrong or that you didn't know as much as you thought you did, but I would get so defensive and fly off the handle when and whenever somebody would question me, because I didn't actually have any talking points, and the talking points I did have were inaccurate.

But I didn't want to be wrong so I just kept fucking regurgitating. I just kept echoing the same shit that I was hearing over and over again, and that's what people are still doing. And I I don't blame them. I'm not mad at them, because really, I mean, if you're only exposed to that, then that's what you're gonna believe.

But it's crazy to be on the other side of it for this election and see just how misinformed people are, and they will argue with you, and I won't have a card, because they will argue with you till they're blue in the face because they are just so convinced that they're right, and I was one of those people, and the fear they're feeling is very real. I'm not invalidating the fear. I'm just it's just that the fear is not founded in anything factualbecause it's not the things that they're scared about. It's not going to happen. It didn't happen last time, it's not going to happen this time.

And it's just it's so crazy. It's like being the sober person at a party full of drunk people.

Continue ReadingWhat it is Like to Start Seeing the Progressive Left for What it is.

RFK, Jr.’s Position on Vaccines

The corporate news, which is largely financed by Big Pharma and pressured nonstop by the U.S. security state, has lied to us for years regarding RFK, Jr.'s position on vaccines. That why so many people have sincerely looked me in the eyes and asserted that RFK, Jr. is "against vaccines" or is a "conspiracy theorist regarding vaccines."  People are free to agree or disagree with him, but responsible people should make sure they accurately understand RFK, Jr.'s position before hurling ad hominems at him out of ignorance and laziness.

Here is RFK, Jr.'s actual position regarding vaccines:

I just want to make this clear. I don't want to take vaccines away from people. I don't want to impose my choices on the American public. If vaccines are working for you, you ought to be able to get them. And I'll make sure that happens. But people should have informed choice. So they should have good science that tells them the cost and the benefits of these products, particularly since they're being ordered to use them.

76 million kids a year are required to use them. and they're healthy children. So it's the only medical product that's given to healthy people. You want a product like that to be extra solid, to make sure there's no risk, because you can take, you know, there's certain risks that you'll take if you're sick to get better. Of course. But if you're not sick, and you shouldn't be required to take a product unless it is iron-clad, unless you know what the... you know, what all the costs and benefits are.

And the problem with vaccines is that they were originally introduced by the Public Health Service, which is one of the five military services. That's why there's a surgeon general. And the Public Health Service introduced them and pushed them as a national security defense against biological attacks on our country. So they wanted to make sure that if the Russians attacked us with anthrax with some other biological agent They could quickly formulate a vaccine and then deploy it to 220 million American civilians without regulatory impediments.

A normal Medical product takes about eight years to get to market because it has to go through double-blind placebo controlled trials And you need to see long-term effects. There are many effects On every medical product that have long diagnostic horizons long incubation periods They didn't want to go through that because they said it's going to be a national emergency. So instead of calling it a medicine, we're going to call it a biologic and we're going to exempt biologics from pre-licensing safety studies.

So there's no vaccine on that schedule, that 72 vaccines, that has ever gone through a pre-licensing safety study placebo-controlled trial against a real placebo. And that's wrong because that means that nobody knows what the risk profiles are on these products. And nobody can tell you whether that product is averting more problems than it's causing.

And what I will do, you know, if I'm given this job in the White House, is I'll make sure that those studies get done, that there are people on the panels that approve these products that are not loaded with conflicts of interest. So it's real science. disinterested people and that doctors and patients and Americans know exactly what the costs and benefits of every vaccine are and can make a rational decision.

Continue ReadingRFK, Jr.’s Position on Vaccines

The Color Revolution Playbook. What is the Blob’s Strategy During/After this Election

Start at Min 5 . . . then see below.

Excellent Summary of Mike Benz by Robert Randanon (@Randanon5):

Step 1: Delay, prevent certification, buy time to execute a color revolution regime change at the point of maximum vulnerability

Here's the formula to prevent Trump from taking office, per @MikeBenzCyber, keying off "Transitions from Postcommunism" by fmr Amb to Russia, CIA #colorrevoluion coordinator, Michael McFaul:

Following this, we'll talk a bit about the key Blob vulnerabilities and how to counter it.

The Playbook:

    1. De-legitimize the Trump win -- must happen quickly and delay any certification
    2. Prevent certification via chaos, threats to key congress people, immense media pressure, and massive public protests and street riots (rent-a-mobs + useful idiots), etc. (The mob is crucial. The mob muscle is the most important pressure mechanism.)
    3. Move the decision to SCOTUS, and pile on the pressure to void Trump's win.
    4. Media surround-sound lionizes the mob as freedom fighters, fighting for "democracy" and it's non-stop. The country is "on fire."
    5. The SCOTUS justices are intimidated, as they were in 2020... install Trump in office and "the whole country will burn down." Redo the election? Can't! The country will burn!
    6. SCOTUS acquiesces, to "save the country," and appoints Harris and the Blob maintains control via their color revolution. (Once they're in power, I would expect the political prisoner count to go through the roof.)
    7. Per Benz, the final "arrangement" is a compromise, a split between the guys with guns (often feds vs more local law enforcement). They stand down.

How Do you Stop a Color Revolution? What is the Achilles heel? Well, we have examples of it. Several of them in different areas of the world have in fact been intercepted and stopped, but it takes some strong action. There are three key vulnerabilities. They are:

      Media Control

      Rent-a-mob generation, and

      Corporate Extortion Funding

    1. Absolute control of the media -- The Blob has to control the narrative. They must portray the plight of "poor demonstrators" as highly moral, a fight for "freedom" against "tyranny." The rioters are saints, fighting against a clearly "stolen election." The rioters are the "saviors of democracy."
    [More ...]

Continue ReadingThe Color Revolution Playbook. What is the Blob’s Strategy During/After this Election