T/y Daz (and CAF, and Meryl Nass) - CAF refers to my substack on Tucker around the 56 minute mark


https://youtu.be/BvLz1bI2sXU?si=jdi6yXSJ9sdnN0wO&t=3417

Aka “we will attack Iran - also, be ethical, us Fabians really want you to be ethical, but our ethics, not yours”

https://t.me/disclosetv/20042

sitting reading comments on 'X', just to see what's boosted, and what isn't

it's pretty consisten - all the idiotic and low quality replies is visible, and those who have something worth listening to are generally buried.

that platform is just such a sh-hole i have no idea why people still stick aroujnd. they don't even attempt to hide it anymore.

i assume that after they started censoring the middle-sized accounts (most of the big accounts are allowed to grow large because they uphold the narrative, but the middle-sized ones are a threat to the narrative as they have no financial stake through twitter's reward scheme) they realised that they had to censor the primary replies as well, as that's where information tended to leak?

that platform is just such a cynical exercise in manipulaiton. intelligence services are obviously rammed right up the backside of twitter. holy hell, what a sh-hole.

incidentally, Fitts also address clamping down on free speech in that Tucker interview.

ah so now we have these BS pictures of everyone looking cool and composed, just as we did with obama and clinton

https://t.me/disclosetv/20049

hah, as soon as i arrive at the 3% monetisation rate on substack, in comes the cancellations. how utterly predictable. no cancellation for a month, then suddenly 5 within a few days. that's exactly what happened back in september.

completely statistically impossible. and now it's now happened twice, at the same threshold.

amusing, really, because that means these charts dont factor in alleged cancellations

... it does however give me an idea wrt how to engineer around the censorship... hmm...

The contemporary understanding of the ‘black nobility’ didn’t really exist until Coleman began spreading it in the early 1970s. The original historical term referred to something quite different

The book, the committee of 300, deliberately destroys all metadata - throwing names, dates, and institutions into a single bucket, making it nearly impossible to reverse engineer any specific claim

ive just read shillenberger's post on epstein, and... yeah... he says that either Epstein was running a sex blackmail operation for intelligence agencies, or he was a self-serving pervert acting alone. but the files don't support option A, therefore option B.

the third option - which he doesnt consider - is Epstein as the central switchboard node.

he presents a false binary. i didn't trust him one bit before reading it, and i trust him even less now.

https://escapekey.substack.com/p/epstein

not impressed by Webb's response ftr. she's spent years developing the intelligence-blackmail thesis, and now that the files don't support it, she's pivoting to financial crimes

but that still doesn't get to what the emails actually show

i think this is flying a little too close to the sun

her two-volume book is literally called One Nation Under Blackmail. the intelligence-blackmail thesis was her thesis

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2026/02/27/epstein-mythology/

it's not all about blackmail, get real. i've been consistent about this. blackmail on its own never could facilitate the outcome - if there is a single 'thing' which could, it's systems theory.

blackmail is coercion between two people. it doesn't scale, and it doesn't build institutions. systems theory explains how you coordinate JPMorgan, the Gates Foundation, a former Treasury Secretary, and Israeli intelligence into building interlocking layers of the same financial architecture - without any of them needing to be threatened, and without most of them needing to see the whole picture.

Amusing how many comments I now receive on substack all of a sudden that I am ‘jaded’. Look, you’re making it too obvious. At least phase it in gradually.

Oh wow so many aggressive comments on substack now, and commonly from 2 follower accounts.

The ‘mute’ button is receiving quite the polishing this morning.

reminder that Christine Maxwell sat on the Santa Fe Institute's board of trustees

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/41287

yeah, sure, NOW the fabian parasite is upset, how dare the iranians respond to aggression.

https://t.me/robinmg/45432

apologies if i don’t reply a lot on substack atm, notification counts are a bit overwhelming.

CAF’s TC interview has led to around 400 new subscribers, and has led to a lot of activity.

anyway, this is one realisation i had a few days ago. they compartmentalised everything. i reckon that’s a major flaw in their strategy, because now they have no-one who can argue the cross-disciplinary case.