David A. Hughes Speaks With Deep Original Insight About His Pioneering Work Unpacking the COVID Operations. Hughes Explains the Covidian Assaults as a Vicious Style of Psychological Warfare.
Thanks for heads up on this. There is so much Christian Zionism and such among parts of the community that coalesced in and around critical understanding of the COVID scam. The interview helped illustrate much of the content of my prior essay. Frankly I found David Hughes analysis so compelling that I cut him slack I guess. I was moved to consider the Jewish question in relationship to the jab (jj?) when I added my own elements to Dr. R.N. Watteel's critique of Dr. David Fisman
I wonder what to make of your statement that “Neither speaks of the looming elephant in the room,” which isn’t to say that I disagree with it.
Thanks for the link to the interview of Maryann with Norman Fenton. Until now I have known nothing about Maryann, but I have followed Norman for about 3 years and have always appreciated his risk-benefit analyses with respect to Covid and the “vaccines”. I knew that he was strongly pro-Zionist, but in this interview with Maryann he appears to have lost all objectivity with regards to the events of Oct 7, or ability to see through pro-Israeli propaganda. Does it follow that I should revise my regard for those risk-benefit analyses?
Regarding David Hughes I wouldn’t expect him to raise the “elephant” in that interview if, as you say, Maryann is a mega-Zionist. I first became aware of David when he was pilloried for his article “9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline”, which may be found here, https://www.academia.edu/42094058/9_11_Truth_and_the_Silence_of_the_IR_Discipline. In that article he says:
“Universities, the supposed guardians of legitimate knowledge, remain the one place where
research into the events of 9/11 is generally forbidden. No doubt such research would displease
corporate and state funders, as well as the sizable portion of students, staff, and the general public who, having never independently investigated the events of 9/11, uncritically accept the official narrative. Contrary to ideas about academic freedom, the reality has been that barely a word threatening official orthodoxy on 9/11 may be uttered in academia. Those academics who have spoken out have tended to be emeritus or retired professors with little to lose career-wise, for example, David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Morgan Reynolds, Graeme MacQueen, Richard Falk, Robert Korol, Eric Larsen, John McMurtry, and Kees van der Pijl.
Van der Pijl found himself on the receiving end of the new McCarthyism in 2019, when he
resigned his emeritus status at Sussex University after the university threatened to withdraw it
because of a tweet in which he alleged Mossad involvement in 9/11. He accompanied his decision with a full-length academic paper providing supporting evidence for his claim, noting that criticism of the state of Israel does not equate to anti-Semitism and claiming that the university’s attempt to censor him amounts to an attack on free speech and academic freedom (van der Pijl, 2019). Whatever one thinks about van der Pijl’s views on 9/11, the latter points are surely valid.”
The citation of van der Pijl is to his essay “Academic Corruption, the Israel Lobby, and 9/11, or, Why I have resigned from my emeritus status at the University of Sussex,” which may be found here https://www.academia.edu/38701130/Academic_Corruption_.
Well, maybe Hughes here is not jumping up and down and yelling “elephant,” but he’s not exactly ignoring it either. Trying to speak the truth to an audience susceptible to dismissing anyone who sounds like they might be hateful is a tricky business.
You may have missed my comment on a previous article on this stack. There I provide a link to a free copy of Hughes book: “Covid-19,”Psychological Operations, and The War for Technocracy, Vol. 1 (London, Palgrave MacMillan, 2024): https://ulincoln.academia.edu/DavidHughes/Books. I consider it to be a very useful resource.
Also, Hughes has lost his position at the University of Lincoln. Despite your comment I still recommend giving him any financial support you can. One way of doing it is to become a paid subscriber to his substack. You can also go here: https://davidahughes.net/about/.
Andrew, thanks for the effort you put in to this well articulated comment. When I get a chance - it's summer, and I'm overwhelmed in my gardens - I will try to do it justice and elaborate and expound (and perhaps clarify) on my short, "drive-by shooting" comment above. Meanwhile, be well.
Neither speaks of the looming elephant in the room. Maryann Gebauer is a Pro-Uber-Mega-Zionist.
https://www.gtvflyers.com/every-single-aspect-of-the-covid-agenda-is-jewish/
See this whopper if you like:
Dr. Norman Fenton | In Defence of Jews - Maryann & The Professor from 8 months ago
https://www.bitchute.com/video/W74ZhDnJTtCr
Thanks for heads up on this. There is so much Christian Zionism and such among parts of the community that coalesced in and around critical understanding of the COVID scam. The interview helped illustrate much of the content of my prior essay. Frankly I found David Hughes analysis so compelling that I cut him slack I guess. I was moved to consider the Jewish question in relationship to the jab (jj?) when I added my own elements to Dr. R.N. Watteel's critique of Dr. David Fisman
https://anthonyjhall.substack.com/p/genocide-and-fraud
I wonder what to make of your statement that “Neither speaks of the looming elephant in the room,” which isn’t to say that I disagree with it.
Thanks for the link to the interview of Maryann with Norman Fenton. Until now I have known nothing about Maryann, but I have followed Norman for about 3 years and have always appreciated his risk-benefit analyses with respect to Covid and the “vaccines”. I knew that he was strongly pro-Zionist, but in this interview with Maryann he appears to have lost all objectivity with regards to the events of Oct 7, or ability to see through pro-Israeli propaganda. Does it follow that I should revise my regard for those risk-benefit analyses?
Regarding David Hughes I wouldn’t expect him to raise the “elephant” in that interview if, as you say, Maryann is a mega-Zionist. I first became aware of David when he was pilloried for his article “9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline”, which may be found here, https://www.academia.edu/42094058/9_11_Truth_and_the_Silence_of_the_IR_Discipline. In that article he says:
“Universities, the supposed guardians of legitimate knowledge, remain the one place where
research into the events of 9/11 is generally forbidden. No doubt such research would displease
corporate and state funders, as well as the sizable portion of students, staff, and the general public who, having never independently investigated the events of 9/11, uncritically accept the official narrative. Contrary to ideas about academic freedom, the reality has been that barely a word threatening official orthodoxy on 9/11 may be uttered in academia. Those academics who have spoken out have tended to be emeritus or retired professors with little to lose career-wise, for example, David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Morgan Reynolds, Graeme MacQueen, Richard Falk, Robert Korol, Eric Larsen, John McMurtry, and Kees van der Pijl.
Van der Pijl found himself on the receiving end of the new McCarthyism in 2019, when he
resigned his emeritus status at Sussex University after the university threatened to withdraw it
because of a tweet in which he alleged Mossad involvement in 9/11. He accompanied his decision with a full-length academic paper providing supporting evidence for his claim, noting that criticism of the state of Israel does not equate to anti-Semitism and claiming that the university’s attempt to censor him amounts to an attack on free speech and academic freedom (van der Pijl, 2019). Whatever one thinks about van der Pijl’s views on 9/11, the latter points are surely valid.”
The citation of van der Pijl is to his essay “Academic Corruption, the Israel Lobby, and 9/11, or, Why I have resigned from my emeritus status at the University of Sussex,” which may be found here https://www.academia.edu/38701130/Academic_Corruption_.
Well, maybe Hughes here is not jumping up and down and yelling “elephant,” but he’s not exactly ignoring it either. Trying to speak the truth to an audience susceptible to dismissing anyone who sounds like they might be hateful is a tricky business.
You may have missed my comment on a previous article on this stack. There I provide a link to a free copy of Hughes book: “Covid-19,”Psychological Operations, and The War for Technocracy, Vol. 1 (London, Palgrave MacMillan, 2024): https://ulincoln.academia.edu/DavidHughes/Books. I consider it to be a very useful resource.
Also, Hughes has lost his position at the University of Lincoln. Despite your comment I still recommend giving him any financial support you can. One way of doing it is to become a paid subscriber to his substack. You can also go here: https://davidahughes.net/about/.
Andrew, thanks for the effort you put in to this well articulated comment. When I get a chance - it's summer, and I'm overwhelmed in my gardens - I will try to do it justice and elaborate and expound (and perhaps clarify) on my short, "drive-by shooting" comment above. Meanwhile, be well.
Andrew handled that response well. Andrew made himself something of an expert on my case by putting together this platform.
https://academicfreedomanthonyhall.ca/
Dr Judy Wood? We've got a challenge flag.
The ruling on the field has been overturned. Plenty of nano-thermite evidence found in the dust.