Tag Archives: shill

The Flat Earth Pacman Debate

Last night there was a flat earth debate between Lori Frary of the Flat Earth Conspiracy Youtube channel, Darren Nesbit (Daz Nex), Jeran Campanella (Jeranism) and David Weiss (DITRH). Lori and Darren were critical of the Azimuthal Equidistant (AE) round disc model, and they were promoting a 4D “Pacman”-model. I’ll discuss it later. Jeran and David were defending the Azimuthal Equidistant model. Overall I don’t think the debate itself went very well, since the AE model defenders were mostly muddying the waters instead of trying to understand their opposition’s point. All of the participants did get to reveal something about themselves at least.


The Crux of the Debate

I won’t go through the entire four and half hour debate, instead I’ll focus on one bit of it that sums up the whole debate pretty well. Towards the end of the debate Lori and Jeran are discussing simulation theory, different flat earth models and so on, then suddenly around 3 hours 48 minutes, Jeran says: “I think that you guys, and I’m just being completely honest, you either have something either against Mark Sargent, or for whatever reason you feel like…” Then Lori laughs and says she could care less about Mark Sargent. Jeran’s remark comes completely out of the blue, and is entirely irrelevant to the debate. Moreover, when you have to preface your argument with a “I’m just being completely honest”, it probably means you’re not. I doubt the name Mark Sargent had come up at all during the debate prior to this. I think by doing this Jeranism completely discredits himself, as it sounds like since he has no proper argument to defend his beloved AE model, he is trying to paint Lori and Darren as some sort of haters. As if they resent Sargent for introducing the AE map, but Lori points out that “Dubay brought Rowbotham and Rowbotham brought the map”. Jeran used similar derailing tactics elsewhere in the debate to distract attention away from arguments for the 4D-model or against the AE-model, but this was the most obvious example.

I cannot say what the underlying motivations of Jeran were for all of this, but somebody noted in the chat that Jeran has made a lot of money by pushing the AE map, which is why he is pushing it, and this makes him a shill. It might be that Jeran basically believes what he is saying, but he is blinded by his confirmation bias, and the fame and fortune he has made by praising the flat disc, so he is unwilling to entertain other possibilities. In the end of the debate, he even said that he will keep pushing the Azimuthal Equidistant map until he sees evidence that discredits it. He has seen plenty of evidence against it, but he is ignoring the evidence. I do believe that this makes Jeran pretty much irrelevant when it comes to flat earth research.

David Weiss on the other hand seems like he is the handler of Jeran. I haven’t seen many videos by any of the four people in the debate, and I am not well versed with any of them. The first time I heard about David Weiss is probably when Sofia Smallstorm had asked Jim Fetzer to debate flat earth with him. Weiss simply came off as crooked as a three dollar bill. That’s the impression I always get from him. I do think he is a smart guy, but extremely untrustworthy. When I saw a video, which I have discussed in previous posts, that Flat Earth Asshole mirrored from Antonio Subirats where David Weiss is saying the reason FEA went against the Azimuthal Equidistant map is because he is in “low-vibration” and influenced by demons is when I got my confirmation. My impression of David Weiss is that he is a perfect example of a gatekeeper. Some of the questionable antics of Jeranism might be explained with ignorance, but I don’t think that applies to David Weiss.


CIA Infiltrators

A famous maxim goes: “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.” I try to adhere to that, so the reason I am discussing these e-celebrities is to highlight how the flat earth movement has been infiltrated, or even hi-jacked by infiltrators. As time goes by, I’ve begun to respect Jake Gibson’s, i.e. Flat Earth Asshole’s, and ODD TV’s decision to call out Patricia Steere and Mark Sargent as shills even more. Both of their accusations are based on MGTV’s research, so the kudos should go to him. Often it is counterproductive to go out on shill hunts, since in the end it might end up biting you in the ass and distract from proper research, but since the attraction has been opened, we should ride it to its conclusion.

If I recall correctly, David Weiss said toward the end of the debate that no-one is a shill, that everyone is just trying to figure out the truth. Let’s think this through. Every single flat earther, including those in the debate, believe that the globe model of the earth is a lie. It’s a conspiracy that has lasted for centuries. They all believe in this vast global conspiracy, yet according to Weiss and some other flat earthers, there are no infiltrators in the flat earth research community. So basically when people began to find out the globe model is a lie, not simply false, but a deliberate lie, and the conspirators even faked the moon landings to further that lie, yet they simply let the flat earthers do their research with no interference? Does this sound credible?

Certain “flat earthers” are trying to make it seem like the reason there are conflicts within the flat earth research community is simply due to clashing of egos, nothing more sinister is going on. Flat Earth Reset showed a clip on his channel of a discussion between Mark Sargent, Patricia Steere, Robbie Davidson, IPS and some others I don’t know. One guy was saying: “Even if every single one of us had a history with the CIA, it wouldn’t make any difference. As Robbie so eloquently put, the truth is the truth no matter who says it. So who gives a damn if we’re all CIA shills?” Technically he is correct. The truth is the truth even if it’s coming from a bunch of CIA agents. However, do you really think that a bunch of CIA agents having a circle jerk are going to tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Is it not reasonable to suspect that these agents might have ulterior motives? Do you think that the people who have invested a lot of effort over the course of centuries into the globe lie, would not try to derail investigation into the true nature of the earth with disinformation? Anyone who is saying it does not matter whether the CIA is infiltrating them is a CIA agent or very daft.

Moreover, I should point out that you cannot have an open and honest discussion with someone who is acting in bad faith. Whether it’s about the flat earth or more mundane issues. Debates with shills are unlikely to aid the pursuit of truth.


The Pacman Model

Enough of shill talk. I’m going to discuss the 4D Pacman-model that Darren Nesbit and Lori Frary are promoting. The basic idea is that the earth has four corners, be it a square or a diamond-shape. When you step off the map, let’s say in the east, you appear on the edge of the map in the west. Like in the game Pacman, if he steps off the screen on the right, he appears on the left. Another way to illustrate it would be to depict the earth as a continuous rectangle. The continents keep repeating how far you go east or west (I’m not sure what happens is you go off the map in the north or south though.  I should look into it more). According to this model, the earth is basically a cylinder without curvature. If you’ve played Sid Meier’s Civilization games, you should know what I’m talking about.

This is the model shown in the debate.

Certainly when I first heard about this model some time ago, I thought it sounds ridiculous, but the same could be said about the flat earth as well. According to Lori and Darren, this model is the one that best fits observations. I don’t know if they are correct or not, nor am I convinced this model is correct, but I do think it warrants serious consideration. After all, are there any other reasonable alternatives?

I do like the argument that Darren Nesbit made that science might be able to reveal the supernatural nature of God’s creation. Also either Lori or Darren said that maybe God barred off his creation with doors instead of walls. Ultimately though, I would like to see a model that does not require supernatural explanations, but if it is impossible to explain the shape of the earth and the movement of the sun with regular physics, maybe this is the natural next step.



Live! Flat Earth Map Debate: Frary, Weiss, Campanella, Nesbit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKBZ-9dEgxY&t=

Flat Earth Psychosis MIRROR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVjf6uhyDWI&t=328s

Flat Earth Reset: Flat Earth Gate Keeping Pt1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHHdSg8Smbk&t=933s

WHY the official FLAT EARTH model is WRONG, and WHY it matters…: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAdH-u_NJlk


The Manchester Terrorist Bombing and Eric Schiffer

I already mentioned Eric Schiffer in my first article on the Manchester terrorist attack after an Ariana Grande concert. I am now even more convinced that the attack was a false flag or a hoax, since I’ve seen some very obvious crisis actor videos, or Disingenuous Relatives of Victims. I’ll probably write about that at a later date, but now I’ll focus on a person who might be somehow involved in the false flag: Eric Schiffer.


Schiffer / Grande Connection

A couple of days after the attack, Eric Schiffer was interviewed by Fox News about the attack. His role in the interview was that of a “crisis management expert”. As far as I know Eric Schiffer was not anywhere near the attack site, nor is he even British. He does, however, state in the interview that he knows Ariana Grande’s family: “She, I’m sure, is very devastated. I know the family.”

Ariana Grande has described her mother as follows: “My mom is a CEO and owns a company that manufactures communications equipment for the Marines and the Navy, so she’s not really the housewife type, if you get what I’m saying.” This was mentioned in an Illuminati Watcher article. Ariana’s mother is Joan Grande. Based on LinkedIn, the company seems to be HMC Communiations. Assuming that’s the correct Joan Grande. There’s no profile picture, and very little information about her.


Eric gets around

Eric Schiffer seems to have his finger in many pies. His own website says he is the “Chairman and CEO of Patriarch Equity, and serves as chairman of Reputation Management Consultants.” His LinkedIn profile also states he is the chairman of DigitalMarketing.com.

He has also been interviewed many times by various media organizations, so he seems to be well-connected among the elite.  In 2014 he was interviewed by Newsmax TV as an economist.  In 2016 he was a “tech expert” in a CGTN America clip. There are dozens of his interviews on Youtube.

Schiffer has been quoted by Salon about his statement on Donald Trump’s alleged anti-Semitic ties. In 2015 he wrote an article on The Washington Times how people shouldn’t be too politically correct when talking about Islamic terrorism. He was quoted by Forbes in connection to the controversy that PewDiePie is allegedly a Nazi. He is involved with a charity called “The Jewish Big Brothers and Big Sisters Annual Gala”. I’m not sure if Schiffer himself is a Jew, but his girlfriend Dr. Jenn Mann is.

These are just a few examples of how Eric Schiffer seems to be well-respected and connected in global elite, although I hadn’t heard about him before. Perhaps Americans know him better though.


Eric’s Companies

Now I’ll take a look at the companies Schiffer is involved with. Patriarch Organization or Patriarch Equity sounds like a sinister umbrella organization from a B-movie. And as far as I know they are, since I didn’t find much information about what they actually do, and with whom they are connected. They apparently control businesses in the digital industry and develop them somehow. I don’t know which businesses they have “helped”.

Digital Marketing (DM) sounds a less ominous version of Patriarch. They seem to be involved with, as the name suggests, marketing in digital media. The client list of the company is interesting though. It has some big names: Activision, Du Pont, Intel, Microsoft, Boeing, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, Fox and you can see the rest below.


I just realized Eric Schiffer was interviewed by Fox News and Fox is a client of his company. Isn’t that sort of a conflict of interest?

Anyway, something tells DM isn’t just helping faceless corporations make more money, but is involved in manipulating people’s opinions on a deeper level.


Reputation Management

Speaking of manipulating people’s opinions, let’s check out Reputation Management Consultants (RMC). This is where it gets good. It is as the name suggests involved in salvaging people’s reputations.


This includes suppression of information: “RMC offers much more than a fast suppression of negative search listings. Our compelling, quality content will be created and placed with your branding in mind.”

This is as it sounds: if search engines keep offering negative opinions on you, RMC will somehow manipulate the results to make you seem better.


They help “high-profile businesses and individuals”, such as politicians, high profile business owners, multinational corporations and local not-for-profit organizations.


They suppress negative views of their client by promoting existing press releases, or they write their own propaganda pieces to make you look good. They also create “Social Network profiles” to help their client. Sounds like paid shills to me.


They allege to be a successfull business, and work with “the wealthiest men and women in the world and high profile invididuals”. I wonder who exactly has been their client? Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, all of them?


I don’t know if all of this is legal, but sounds morally questionable as hell. You basically pay this corporation to lie for you across the internet and media. Not to mention that Eric Schiffer is also connected to Digital Marketing that works with defense contractors like Du Pont and Boeing, i.e. the military-industrial complex. Therefore I wouldn’t be suprised if the online shills you see, especially after false flags like the Manchester bombing, are controlled by RMC. I also suspect Eric Schiffer, or one of his companies, were somehow involved with the Manchester attack, or alleged attack. Perhaps they hire or control crisis actors as well. I cannot prove anything, yet. So this is still just my hunch.

That’s all I have now. I should probably check out Joan Grande’s company, HMC Communications, and verify that this Joan is actually Ariana Grande’s mother. I’m not very good at researching the backgrounds and connections of corporations, or their money trails, so I hope if someone else can do deeper research on Patriarch especially.



Ariana Grande speaks out on UK deadly blast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdrYhXEfGnw

Ariana Grande talks demons and magic in interview with Complex: http://illuminatiwatcher.com/ariana-grande-talks-demons-and-magic-in-interview-with-complex/

Joan Grande: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joan-grande-a2538510/

Eric Schiffer: http://www.ericschiffer.com/

Eric Schiffer: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericschiffer/

Newsmax TV interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo9RpHnEMis

A CGTN America clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJXqbH2YnS0

Damage control: How does Donald Trump convince Americans he’s not an anti-Semite when he’s surrounded by them?: http://www.salon.com/2017/03/19/damage-control-how-does-donald-trump-convince-americans-hes-not-an-anti-semite-when-hes-surrounded-by-them/

Say no to walking on eggshells: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/21/eric-schiffer-say-no-walking-eggshells/

Here’s Why PewDiePie Will Still Earn Millions, Even After Anti-Semitic Videos: https://www.forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/2017/02/16/heres-why-pewdiepie-will-still-earn-millions-even-after-anti-semitic-videos/#1884bc024e68

Philanthropist and Socialite Eric Schiffer, Attends The Jewish Big Brothers and Big Sisters Gala Hosted by Larry King: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/01/prweb337818.htm

Patriarch: http://www.patriarch.com/private-equity/

Digital Marketing: http://digitalmarketing.com/

Reputation Management Consultants: https://www.reputationmanagementconsultants.com

Stefan Molyneux on 9/11

I really don’t want to make Stefan Molyneux the star of my blog, but since the last few days I’ve watched several videos on him, and therefore Youtube offers suggestions to other videos that seem interesting, and then I watch it. Then I get some other idea, I google it and then I stumble on his views on 9/11. Before today I somehow, stupidly, just assumed he understands the significance and the Statist lies around it. Apparently he does not. Molyneux is unwilling to call 9/11 an inside job, and actually tries to dissuade people from looking at it.

First I have to get this out the way: Molyneux is a spineless sack of shit. I want to remain restrained and objective, but going through the intellectual anal waste I just went through watching his videos, I cannot help but express my honest feelings toward the guy.

“Stef”‘s Bulletpoints

Now, let’s get down to business. On the Freedomain Radio forum someone called Alex Truberg asks Molyneux what he thinks about 9/11 inside job conspiracy theories. “Stef” offers the short answer of:

“This is my reasoning, for better or worse…

  • If 9/11 was an inside job, it will never be proven. The evidence – and key witnessess – have all been destroyed.
  • If it is proven, it will only engender anger to certain individuals, not the state as a whole. It will actually increase the power of the state.
  • There are an infinity of truths out there, which will help our cause far more – why focus on this impossible one?
  • It’s not rational to focus on 9/11, therefore the motive must arise from childhood.”

How does he know the evidence and witnesses have been destroyed? In some video he stated that the rubble from the buildings has been destroyed. True, but according to Dr Judy Wood, the evidence was destroyed mid-air, before it even hit the ground, which itself is evidence of something quite weird. Assuming Wood is accurate and truthful in her claims, and as far as I know, she is. Moreover people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Larry Silverstein are all alive as far as I know. They might have something to tell, if only someone had the power and authority to take them into custody. But bringing criminals to justice is probably Statism.

It makes no sense at all what that telling the truth about 9/11 would only strengthen the state. At least for me, 9/11 has been one of the biggest evidence in my life that governments generally should not be trusted, and that transparency is necessary. I think if suddenly evidence so blatantly revealing that 9/11 was an inside job was brought to light, and even the main stream media could not cover it up, and everyone from your grandfather to the 5-year old kid understood that 9/11 was an inside job, they would be more skeptical of governments, and basically giving authority to people they know nothing about. I am aware that just in the previous paragraph I hinted that criminals should be brought to justice, and whether its anarchist vigilantes or police force hired by the state, I honestly don’t care as long as justice is served. If the Washington DC police force were to arrest some of the suspected criminals on 9/11, maybe it would prove that perhaps governments aren’t all bad, and discredit Molyneux’s extremist ideas on government.

Moreover, as Molyneux is a “philosopher” I thought truth should be a virtue to him on its own, but apparently not. Truth is only useful when it serves his agenda.

I’ve no idea how Molyneux knows that 9/11 is an “impossible” truth? And the stuff about “infinity of truths” makes no sense. It just sounds like bad poetry.

The last comment is the biggest pile of shit. No, you fuckface! Focusing on 9/11 is rational, since the most powerful political entity in the world, the US government, has participated in a vast crime, lied about it, convinced the majority of the world of its factuality, and has committed more crimes based on the lie, i.e. Patriot Act and Orwellian surveillance, wars in the Middle-East… The majority of the world is still believing a lie and acting schizophrenic because of it. Finding a cure to many of the world’s problems is tied in some way to 9/11, which is the biggest incident of our lives so far.

The comment about focusing on our childhood is disgustingly ridiculous. My parents were not behind the 9/11 attacks, nor was I as a child nor ever. Focusing on my personal life has little to do with the facts of what happened in the United States of America on September 11, 2001. You repulsive pile of Molygeux.

Later in the same forum thread Molyneux expounds on the childhood comment further: “I’ve also gone through what family issues in my view contribute to a preference for theories like this in a recent podcast…”

I don’t want to listen to any more of his podcasts, so I do know what he says in it, rather it appears he does not discuss the facts of 9/11, but the people who are interested in them. Fair enough. I’m sure he argues that people who are interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories are people who were brought up by loving parents who value truth, evidence and justice, and have imparted those properties to their children…

“Stef” says he was “quite swayed” by a piece in Skeptic magazine on 9/11. The article is much more honest, intelligent and objective than “Stef”, so I’ll just leave it at that.

The Three Videos

Another thread on the Freedomain Radio forum asks: “Does Stefan believe the states conspiracy theory on 911 and has he done a show about this?” Molyneux’s response is merely posting links to three of his videos. Lets jump in.

The first video, Statism is Dead – Part 5 – Terrorism, 9/11 and Politics, basically says that the state is a terrorist, and is OK, I guess, but doesn’t really answer the question what “Stef” thinks about the 9/11 conspiracy theory propagated by the state.

The second video, True News 22: 9/11, actually reveals much of what Molyneux thinks about 9/11. He suggests people avoid controversy and radical ideas, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, when promoting anti-statist ideas. I thought Molyneux was supposed to be a controversial and radical anarcho-capitalist, but I guess not. Anyways, he makes an argument that if you’ve apprehended a serial killer who has murdered 300 people, and he’s admitted to it, there’s physical evidence proving it and so on, the prosecutor shouldn’t focus on trying to prove he was the lone gunman on the grassy knoll. Makes sense, although I don’t know if that is really applicable to 9/11. He is merely making up bad pulp fiction instead of focusing on any of the facts of 9/11.

The other evidence on the murderer (i.e. the state) mentioned by Molyneux is stuff like the American war in the Philippines, FDR knowing about Pearl Harbour and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Good, I agree those are something we should be aware of, but there is one problem with all of them: they happened a long time ago. The war in Philippines happened over 100 years ago. I’m pretty sure all the war criminals are dead already. Probably most of the people involved in Pearl Harbour are dead too. Gulf of Tonkin is more recent, so some of the culprits might be alive. But for 9/11 I think most of the upper-level culprits are still alive and kicking, even though the Bush regime is no longer in government. We could have a trial on these criminals, or suspects. Not so much for the old events. But you know what, somehow I get the idea that Molyneux is not interested in having a trial for the flesh and blood humans who were responsible for 9/11. I think he wants to have a trial for THE STATE! He thinks the state is a murderer. The state killed those Philippinos, and those people during the Second World War and the Vietnam War. Or not.

The state is just a social construct, an abstract political entity, or something like that. I thought Molyneux knew that, being so anti-state as he is. So how are we going to have a trial for something non-existent, and then fry it in the electric chair or send it to prison? I think it was ultimately people who were behind these crimes he’s mentioned, although I agree the apparatus of the state was used by them to commit these crimes, but the state is still just a tool. A tool I am also very critical of, but ultimately it’s people who make the decisions.

Even though the government of the United States of America was complicit in crimes during the Philippine wars (I don’t know much of the details, but my understanding is it was immoral to say the least), and the same government was complicit in 9/11. I do not know if they were complicit in the actual attacks, but they were certainly complicit in the cover-up. Even though the US government was involved in both of these crimes you could easily argue that there is no connection, since none of the people who worked for the government a 100 years ago work for it now (except maybe Henry Kissinger). You can make an academic model based on these historical acts of false flags of government aggression to point out how governments are used by evil people to commit evil acts, but that still does not have any concrete baring on the facts on what happened on 9/11. I think it’s good to have this historical frame of reference as background for 9/11, as Molyneux pointed out, but to understand 9/11, we have to look at 9/11. And this is something Molyneux does not want you to do.

In fact, he says studying the facts of 9/11 is not an attack on the state, and is actually defending the state because it “confuses” and “discredits” those who criticize the US government “with a certain cadre of people who seem to be volatile” (nope “Stef”, we won’t be lumped in with you since you don’t care about 9/11). This is utter bullshit for several reasons. First of all, Molyneux only seems to care about his personal agenda of attacking the state, and frankly I’m growing tired of it. I care more about truth and justice. And if the truth is revealed, and somehow the US government ends up being proven not guilty in 9/11 I’ll be happy to apologize and admit I was wrong.

Secondly, I know that the world we live is fucked up and we often get judged for doing the right thing or acting rationally, and frankly that’s just something we have to deal with.

Thirdly, “Stef” you and your arguments are full of shit and you know it. Countless people all over the world understand that 9/11 appears to have been a false flag, and your hollow arguments aren’t going to dissuade anyone who is serious from looking into 9/11 more deeper.

Yes, he is actually trying to dissuade people from looking at 9/11 truth. He is not merely “expressing his opinion”, he is trying to manipulate the listener to turn away. In the same video Molyneux says something like it’s non-empathetic to care more about the American victims who died on 9/11 than the Iraqis who have died. He’s trying to make you feel like a selfish racist for caring about 9/11. That is fucking low, you maggot piece of Molyshit. Then he adds, if you only care about American lives, think about the Americans who have died in Iraq. What the fuck? So we’re supposed to care about every crime committed by governments ever in history, and all of the acts of terror committed by governments, except what happened on September 11, 2001? Do you understand, Mr Molygeux that the reason why the Iraq invasion was possible is that 9/11 happened, and because it wasn’t exposed as an inside job well enough soon after it occurred? 9/11 is the key to most of the Statist crimes of this Millennium, from government spying and police state to wars in third world countries. But we’re not supposed to look at what caused this catalyst event because it’s racist? Am I right, or am I fucking right saying that you’re a sniveling pile of shit, Mr Molyneux?

I’m almost done. There was a third video in the thread, but I don’t think it said anything at all, but my brain was so numb from the previous video, I cannot really say.

If you think I am being abusive or needlessly disrespectful toward Stefan Molyneux, I can understand your viewpoint. I would therefore direct you to wade through the feces I did, and peruse through the links below and say I am wrong in condeming Molyneux as being utter filth.

9/11 is the litmus test on whether or not you’re genuine. Although of course a fraud can pay lip service to 9/11 truth, but someone who doesn’t even do that is either too stupid, cowardly or dishonest to be worth your time.


Molyneux’s reasoning on 9/11: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/6668-fdr-767-768-911-muslims-and-the-numbers-game/

Dr Judy Wood : Evidence of breakthrough energy technology on 9/11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg

9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective by Phil Molé: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/

The three videos: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/32113-does-stefan-believe-the-states-conspiracy-theory-on-911-and-has-he-done-a-show-about-this/

Statism is Dead – Part 5 – Terrorism, 9/11 and Politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IRbwpc2XV4

America-Philippine war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War

True News 22: 9/11 (the video you should watch): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUm6aPytDqs

The third video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__mzya-heEY

911 False Flag – American Traitors & Mossad – Where are the Oath Keepers? – Ken O’Keefe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S10Aotp_tvo

The smiling Neonazi Ramzpaul in a nutshell: “I wish the Nazis had won the war”

This is the title of a Ramzpaul video on Youtube uploaded by a user called Trace Brady. It’s both funny and scary in its insanity and inaccuracy. The original video by Ramzpaul is titled My Tram Experience – British Woman Arrested. Trace Brady merely uploaded Ramzpaul’s video a second time with a new title and lower video quality.

Ramzpaul is an American nationalist who is usually quite witty and insightful, and generally seems like a decent guy. His videos are “Mostly satire that pokes fun at the establishment.”

Trace Brady’s video, and the only video he’s uploaded, has the following comment in the description section:

The smiling Neonazi Ramzpaul gives unwavering support for Hitler. Notice the striking similarity in looks to “Dr” David Duke…the shredded wheat wig and the effeminate Kermit the Frog voice !

at 2:41, his unwavering support for Nazis is evident

The “unwavering support for Nazis” Brady mentions is Ramzpaul’s comment on the Firebombing of Dresden and mention Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse 5 . Ramzpaul makes no mention of the word Nazi or Hitler in the video. He simply states that the Firebombing of Dresden was a massacre perpetrated by the Allies. This apparently is equivalent to supporting Hitler.

This is a great example of the insane world that most Cultural Marxists live in. They don’t care about the facts, except maybe the rare occasions when they happen to co-inside with their beliefs. But as Ramzpaul expresses concern for murdering German civilians he must be pro-Nazi since World War II was a black and white conflict where the good guys won. You cannot question that or point out that both sides committed brutal acts of violence.

Of course this isn’t merely about one Ramzpaul video, but of what he stands for in general. He’s a nationalist, and believes that all nations should have a right to determination. Cultural Marxists oppose self-determination vehemently, and especially the self-determination of European white peoples.

This video is how the imp-like Cultural Marxists reveal their inability to look at reality as it is instead of how they wish it was. They must invent attributes for people that they don’t have, and resort to ad hominem name-calling, i.e. effeminate Kermit the Frog voice, instead of discussing any of the points that Ramzpaul brought out in his video. I find this sort of insanity quite unsettling. I can only wonder if Trace Brady really believes what he is saying or it’s merely some alphabet agency shill trying to discredit real human beings saying something relevant.



Trace Brady’s video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUenHwhWRWA

Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIVdR0RAo74