Show me a provable Caananite or Babylonian and you might have a point. The polity, society, and culture are entirely gone. Blood is blood, notorious for bleeding. "Spirit" is entirely conjectural and immaterial.

I was answering the question of where the 3,000 babies came from. I have no idea how your reply is relevant to either the question or my answer.

Unless you can provide a birth certificate to prove the point, calling Bronstein/Trotsky a "Khazarian Jew" is only a fantasy. On a par with calling people Babylonians or Hittites.

I have been a longtime reader of Russian history, especially of Solzhenitsyn. The Bolsheviks were wolves in human form. But to call them "Jews" makes about as much sense as calling them red-headed, or left-handed. Just as it is beside the point to emphasize the Italian side of the Mafia. (If there were no Italians there would be no Mafia?)

Without human beings, there would be no sin. Are you aware of the logic of what you are saying?

A lot of inconsequential points that add up to nothing in support of a non-existent alternative story.

• You pose the usual repellent denial of mass murder, thus trivializing the deaths of innocent victims. Somehow, the play-acting of a fake mass murder is more objectionable in your eyes than the reality of all the death.

• There is nothing to conclude about the note-taking habits of someone who has more important matters driving them along. The handwriting looks in common from all pages.

• People who are acting out a psychodrama are self-obsessed. This fails to be important to the reader (posterity) if he doesn't identify himself.

• The psychodrama is all important. The deaths of victims are the point of it all. No conflict in this person's mind over priorities.

• It is standard procedure for a serious project, which must come off without a hitch, that the sequence of events should be phased in time. It is also a part of imparting reality to a fantasy. As he executes the phases of his plan, he has the feeling that he is working according to fate. (Everything is going according to plan.)

• There isn't anything to "buy." Apparently, you want to believe anything but what is in front of us: This guy had worked up a head of hatred and resentment against ORDINARY kids, mostly because of their ordinariness (himself being self-selected out of their ranks). Since he had no real basis for resentment, he borrowed the usual liberal tropes.

No evidence that the document is anything but real. Don't go making up a myth.

Not a manifesto. Just some resentful venting, anticipatory fantasizing, and detailed timeline of action.

No declaration or elaboration of a larger purpose and perspective ("manifesto").

I get it: All the Italians are members of the Mafia, and all the Germans are Nazis. All Russians are Communists and all Kenyans are Mau-Maus. I have no patience with racial / ethnic / political collectivism.

And there is a lot of nonsense that many will admire and call truth. (Interesting that the Khazarian Empire can be "destroyed"...yet right afterward there is a thriving "Khazarian Mafia." They must have risen from the dead.)

Pregnant mothers were taken as prisoners during the collection phase of the program. No merit ticket to be passed over for pregnancy.

Because if we didn't, we would never have gotten our astronauts back from the International Space Station, when we depended on the Russians for transport in their Soyuz capsules.

The Communists in Russia are over with, by the way, for the past 30 years. You might want to catch up with the times.

Most of the death camps were in Poland, Eastern Europe, and Western Russia. Why? To paraphrase Willie Sutton, "That's where the Jews were."

Since the authority is stated in the Constitution, it can be "clarified" only by a Constitutional amendment. Any law that purports to supersede the language of the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) should be deemed null and void.

Thanks for my morning laugh. I offer references that you can check out for yourself, and you respond with great irritation---and no refutation of the references. You immediately launch into insults and name-calling. Then wrap up with a shot at a subject that was not in issue between us. ("When in doubt, shoot the chicken.")

This pretty much tells me that you have no interest in truth, but are only interested in bias confirmation. For you, the anon watchword "Question everything," does not apply to your own bias. I have to wonder what aspect of your personality is threatened by the knowledge that the "Protocols" are a hoax. It would demolish some key principle that you cherish, no? It looks to be an ugly principle.

Of what? The "Protocols" were contrived ca. 1905 by the Okhrana, as very recent research has confirmed. They were known to be a hoax at the time they were popularized in Germany.

The scholarship on this appears pretty solid. It seems a convenient trick to dispose of the fact that it is a hoax by saying it is a plagiarism of something authentic. Where would be the proof of that? And how would that supposed original not also be a hoax?

This seems a problem of "itchy ears" seeking to hear what they want to hear. The blatant bias confirmation is so sweet, that being based on a lie is dismissed as inconsequential.

I've done my digging. What point from Carr do you want to make? If you are upholding the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," Konrad Heiden was not the first to identify Matvei Golovinski as one of the authors, confirmed by recent contemporary research, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matvei_Golovinski (The entry is sourced, so spare me the obligatory "you can't trust Wikipedia.")

This was discovered right after the outbreak by the same Dr. Didier Raoult, who had to interrupt his test-and-control study for ethical reasons: it was immoral to condemn the control group to the disease if it could be cured by HCQ. Shortly after that, the debunking "studies" began to show up.

Probably because they finally realized the "Protocols" were a hoax produced by the Tsarist government of Russia to rationalize their pogroms and anti-Semitic policies. This backstory was elaborated by Konrad Heiden in his 600-page history of the rise of the Nazi Party, "The Fuehrer" (1944).

Heiden was a German journalist who was "there" throughout the emergence and the 1933 rise to power of Adolf Hitler. Once Hitler became Chancellor, Heiden fled the country for the West. It is a fascinating read. The rise to power was haphazard, full of chance, and hinged on Hitler's obsession to rule.

If only their removal would indeed make people think.

Not to mention the irony of the Tesla automobile running on direct current.

This is sheer fancy. No better example than to take John Trump's statement and declare it a lie. Right out of the gate. Then we move on to Anonymous fairy tales. The fact of the matter is that Tesla, in his later years, had plenty of ideas but no evidence that they were real or practical.

And if Donald Trump was supposed to have used the pseudonym "John Titor," it would help credibility to have some evidence of that. The presence of such a person on the internet proves exactly nothing. ("I am Spartacus!") We don't even know who "Q" is, and we take Trump to be an internet cosplay hero?

Sad or glad to say, Dr. Knauss appears to be bogus, regardless of what one might think of viruses. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/covid-19-hoax-disinformation-dr-derek-knauss/

Of course, if viruses didn't exist, the protocol of the late Dr. Vladimir Zelenko should never have worked (yet it did). And it would be impossible to see them in electron micrographs (yet we do). https://duckduckgo.com/?q=virus+electron+micrograph&t=newext&atb=v259-1&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images

I'm not aware of any "detoxification" process (presumably healthy for the body) that requires a fever (potentially lethal for the body). Detoxification occurs in the liver, so why would we ever have symptomology involving the lungs and expectoration? Or how could we claim bodies communicate non-verbally through some "unknown" mechanism---if it is unknown?

"Meditate on these things." -- Philippians 4:8

So much of this strains credulity. Not about what Lake says, but what maneuvers are being performed. That the power structure which sees Biden and Harris to be losers cannot see that Newsome is also a loser? (His maneuvers seem self-obsessed, not the playscript of a plot.) That this same loser-sensitive power structure cannot see that Michelle Obama has nothing but negatives about her?---she radiates nastiness, has no political chops, has said she wants nothing to do with it, and is not the most pliable personality. Charles Schumer is (to me) a more credible shoe-in, but nobody mentions him. Hmmm... That's an interesting thought. Keep the masses distracted with sensational possibilities and then blindside everyone at the last instant with Schumer, a familiar name with plausible experience and gravitas. You read it here first!

I pretend nothing, so what seems to you "pretentious" is from your own bias filter. I share what I know, and you can think what you want, but what I share is factual. It is interesting to me that you don't believe what you can never disprove. (Not that one should, but it seems to prove no problem for many on this board.) The problem I see is that you are focusing on the messenger, but not the message.

"A wicked messenger falls into adversity. But a faithful envoy brings healing." -- Proverbs 13:17

Remarkable moral clarity and integrity from Fetterman! Someone is actually home with the lights on.

In the early days of 2016, I was supporting Ben Carson. I read his autobiography book and liked what I saw. Then the convention happened and Trump weighed in. I hadn't known much about Trump up to then, so I was curious. I noticed a lot of people down-rating Trump on the basis of personal ethics, morality, personality, etc. But it was obvious during the convention that Trump and Carson got along well, and they later became friends, and we all know that Carson was appointed to his cabinet and performed so well that there were no press attacks on him.

My point is that, for me, Ben Carson's friendship with Trump was like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Anyone Ben Carson was willing to be friends with had to be a good guy. That unlocked for me the bad press Trump was getting.

Be happy. Natural disasters are notoriously non-discriminatory.

I'm only a mediocre online participant, but I don't have nearly the same levels of errors, halts, and skips. It signifies either clumsiness (he is not a good typist) or inattention. Since one can always review before hitting the "send" button, there seems little excuse.

But the point that calls out to me is the contradiction between the purpose of communication and the tolerance of errors. The purpose is to transmit a clear message. This post of Patel's is a classic instance of signal / noise ratio, and he deliberately allows that ratio to be low...which abandons the purpose of quality communication.

Plus, the whole challenge seems juvenile. The explanation of being addled by drink may explain it---but what kind of personal discipline would permit him to think that "posting under the influence" is a good idea. Very strange all around.

I get it. You have a Ph.D. in calling names. And you want to engage in violating the rule of "Bad Behavior," by demanding I reveal my identity. My credentials are true credentials. Your reaction is to assume I am lying, instead of taking me seriously. I have also written over 400 technical memoranda in my career and nearly a like number of formal internal documents. My point being that I know how to communicate technical concepts, and I have read a lifetime's worth of popular science articles. Some are good, others are flash. In that quote, I point out that the artist's illustration was figurative, not literal, and that some readers were taking it literally. Part of what goes along with a technical career is a very good ability to discriminate bullshit. And all I can see from you is no Ph.D. to name, and simple hostility. In order to get, you have to give, and you have scuttled off like a cuttlefish in a cloud of ink.