Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 完整档案凯文·巴雷特(Kevin Barrett)播客
理查德·库克谈 Neocons 和乌克兰; 弗朗西斯·博伊尔(Francis Boyle)反对医疗暴政
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签


理查德库克中, Challenger disaster whistleblower, asks: “Who are the Neocons and what are they trying to do with respect to the Ukraine war? Why are they trying to use the US, UK, and NATO/EU to destroy Russia? How are Biden, Johnson, Scholz, van der Leyen etc. their instruments? Is Zionism part of it? These questions are not being addressed by most commentators. Btw, your essay on Leo Strauss, I thought, was spot-on. The hybrid war against Russia, and against both Christianity and Islam, was right out of that playbook.”

Next 30 minutes: International Law professor Francis Boyle 讨论他的新书 Resisting Medical Tyranny: Why the COVID-19 Mandates Are Criminal. Boyle: “This book proves that the COVID vaccines and their related mandates violate the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation that the United States government used to prosecute, convict, and execute Nazi doctors at Nuremberg. The COVID vaccines and their related mandates are a Nuremberg Crime against Humanity under international criminal law.”

(从重新发布 真相圣战 经作者或代表的许可)
 
隐藏8条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. anon[236]• 免责声明 说:

    I’ve got Boyle to thank as the guy who first warned me of the clot shots. Right off the bat he pointed out the UNC frankengerm origins and the smoking guns of banned bio weapons. That made it clear that the other shoe would drop: vaccine profiteering. It was AMERITHRAX/Biothrax all over again. A quick look and you find the nutty professors of Emergent, glowies you wouldn’t trust to sell you fill dirt, and swarms of spooks from the Ebola, H1N1, and AIDS catastrophes.

    Boyle is an eminent man. Maybe I owe him my life.

  2. peterAUS 说:

    From Amazon review:

    …He provides key principles that can be used by individuals around the world, armed with good lawyers, in fighting back….

    设计失败。

    • 回复: @IreneAthena
  3. @peterAUS

    I’m curious why you think so. Are you dismissing the possibility that 任何 legal action against the C19 criminals is designed (by whom? prosecuting attorneys?) to fail?

    I just finished writing a comment (on a more recent Kevin Barrett article, the “Jan6/elephant in the room” one) about two more groups of lawyers who are pursing legal action (whether independent of each other and Boyle, I don’t know.)

    I know, I know, and agree: the conglomeration of the c19 criminals and the financial criminals with the globalists and their planned social-credit-system-managed-digitized-economy, it all seems too big for mere mortals to be able to oppose…

    …BUT, united legal action could be another significant stepping stone towards resistance. I also think about what Vernon Cole says, about the part of the resistance being other than “merely mortal.”

  4. peterAUS 说:

    I’m curious why you think so. Are you dismissing the possibility that any legal action against the C19 criminals is designed (by whom? prosecuting attorneys?) to fail?

    当然不是。
    A very rich person, with an access to a very competent team of lawyers could take a successful legal action against the C19 criminals. Say…he/she can get an exemption from wearing a mask. Or similar.
    Using legal/law approach to challenge the Scamdemic in general 失败。

    I just finished writing a comment (on a more recent Kevin Barrett article, the “Jan6/elephant in the room” one) about two more groups of lawyers who are pursing legal action (whether independent of each other and Boyle, I don’t know.)

    I know, I know, and agree: the conglomeration of the c19 criminals and the financial criminals with the globalists and their planned social-credit-system-managed-digitized-economy, it all seems too big for mere mortals to be able to oppose…

    正确。
    目前。

    …BUT, united legal action could be another significant stepping stone towards resistance. I also think about what Vernon Cole says, about the part of the resistance being other than “merely mortal.”

    Define “united”. THAT is the problem.
    IF you can get, say, where I live, 1 000 000 团结 behind such an action, yes, I am sure that the local administrators will buckle.
    Or a billionaire, on Musk level, to support those small groups you mentioned.

    What people like you appear not to be understanding is that difference between good ideas and having them implemented on the ground. How the power, in practice, really works.

    Or…you appear to have misplaced faith in a common person.

    Example from here: before elections it appeared that third of the populace had really enough with all that Clovid nonsense. The ONLY party which championed that attitude got zero…I repeat..ZERO seats in the parliament. What does it tell you?

    I did point to you that material some time ago; I really suggest at least skimming through it. Could clarify some delusions and, consequently, suggest a better approach to the problem.

    At this stage all we can do is to try to minimize a damage on a personal/family/close circle of people we care for level. Nothing more.
    If…IF…something happens in the future then we could try to do more. That “something”, again, is rather well explained by Sam Francis in his writings about Middle American Radicals. It applies to anywhere within the West, IMHO.

    • 回复: @IreneAthena
  5. JWalters 说:

    Very glad of Mr. Cook’s focus on the neocons. They have been the drivers of disastrous American policies, and aimed to benefit a foreign country. Reporters and analysts are reluctant to talk honestly about Jews or even Israelis, but feel somewhat safer talking about neocons. So by all means, let’s get that discussion rolling by focusing on neocons.

    Also highly relevant here is Laurent Guyenot’s analysis of the Biblical roots, the fundamental 字符 of the neocons’ goals and deceptive techniques. In this incisive interview he discusses key points from his book From Yahwe to Zion.
    The Cult of Yahweh Know More News LIVE feat Laurent Guyenot

    The interview makes clear that the US and Europe 必须 throw off these certifiably 邪恶 gangsters, who so readily sacrifice the people of America and Europe.

    The book itself (translated into English by Kevin Barrett) is available here.
    从耶和华到锡安
    https://archive.org/details/from-yahweh-to-zion-laurent-guyenot

    And my thanks also to Dr. Boyle for his work on justice for the Covid & vaccine criminals. Another mass crime by the same gang.

  6. @peterAUS

    Define “united”. THAT is the problem.

    当然可以!

    “United” as defined by the odious World-EF/HO-etc.org’s means “uniform.” Everybody gives/gets/does/BECOMES what the PTP decides and ordains they will give/get/do/become. Whatever needs to be done to achieve a uniform population (of “Untermensch”) will be done, that all will go according to the plans of the Enlightened Ubermensch in Central Planning, who know what’s best for the rest of humanity.

    The PROBLEM (or one of them, hoo boy, we have many, many problems) is, various people trying to create a “united” resistance to TPTB are using the same definition of “united” which TPTB use: “uniform.” Everybody must believe/perceive/prioritize & address problems the way this thinker (or this one, or that one) believes/perceives/prioritizes & addresses problems. Results are: wasted energy/frustration/potential allies alienated.

    This raises the question: so how can the “uniform” definition of “united” work so well for TPTB? Answer: They have no compunctions about ruthlessly eliminating opposition in the ranks. This raises another question: Is this really the model we want to emulate? Which touches on an element of resistance strategy (I think) you’ve mentioned: wait for a large enough fault line to develop within the TPTB, then take advantage of the fissure. But in what kind of formation, with what kind organization, using which definition of “united?”

    I march to the beat of a different drum. Yet I have faith (no, not total faith in a single human leader!) that others marching to the beat of yet another different drum can…are… working toward a humanity that is “united” along the lines of one model, a model in polar opposition to that of TPTB’s: “ …. the whole body being fitted and held together by what EVERY JOINT supplies, according to the proper working of each INDIVIDUAL PART, which makes the body grow, building itself up in love.”

    So yes, at the moment, job-one is looking after the people we care about. Birds of a feather will flock together. I as a sparrow neither belong with the eagles nor do I have any business telling them how or where to fly or feed their young.

    But when the eagles and the sparrows see an opportunity to free themselves from a common enemy: It’s “Alfred Hitchcock” time.

    You’re probably tired of reading, and I’m tired of writing.

    • 回复: @peterAUS
  7. peterAUS 说:
    @IreneAthena

    …This raises another question: Is this really the model we want to emulate?..

    是的。

    …what kind of formation, with what kind organization, using which definition of “united?”…

    Sinn Fein would be a good example.

    …others marching to the beat of yet another different drum can…are… working toward a humanity …

    Free will. Good luck.

    …at the moment, job-one is looking after the people we care about…

    是的。

    ..You’re probably tired of reading…

    Not really. We fundamentally disagree, but, at least we try to be civil and put some practical, coherent, ideas online. Sorely lacking in this online pub, and getting worse.

  8. Rush 说:

    The podcast provides some nuggets of information from Mr Cook and Mr Barrett, such as Zelensky’s speech to the US Congress being authored by Washington lobbyists. However I don’t know why they add extraneous material to buttress the points made which are at best superfluous but which require further proof if not to undermine the case. Keep the premises as simple as possible. So for example bringing in Mossad as behind JFK and 9/11 as an Israeli false flag operation detracts from the credibility of the points made concerning neocon meddling in Ukraine.

当前评论者
说:

发表评论 -


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Kevin Barrett评论