• Peter Thiel is a Vampire
    The Strange Story of Peter Thiel – Part Three

    The Corbett Report

    by James Corbett
    corbettreport.com
    November 10, 2024

    If you've read "The Strange Story of Peter Thiel," then you'll know all about how this deep state-connected "PayPal Mafia" don rose to financial prominence on the back of his remarkable ability to found companies that either undergird the digital financial infrastructure (PayPal) or act as cutouts for the intelligence agencies (Palantir).

    And if you've read "Buying Politicians is Easy," then you'll know all about how Thiel has leveraged his ill-gotten wealth to buy himself real-world political clout. And you'll also know all about how he has wrapped the silicon tentacles of next-gen military contractors like Palantir, Clearview AI, Anduril and other Thiel-founded, Thiel-funded and Thiel-adjacent companies around the globe by signing contracts with foreign militaries.

    But after learning all of this, we're still left with some important questions. Namely:

    What (beyond the sweet smell of deep state blood money) motivates Peter Thiel?

    What ideology does he hew to?

    What is his endgame?

    In other words: Who is Peter Thiel and what is his real role in the deep state?

    Let's find out.

    Steering Bilderberg


    Yes, as we learned last week, buying politicians is a trivial pursuit for a power-seeking billionaire like Peter Thiel.

    And perhaps that's the point. Those of us who understand how power really operates in our modern "liberal democracies" know that real power is not to be found in any political office—even the Oval Office. Thiel himself has admitted as much:

    I think calling our society a democracy, whatever may be good or bad about democracy, is very, very deeply misleading. We’re not a republic. We’re not a constitutional republic. We are actually a state that’s dominated by these very unelected, technocratic agencies.

    Or, as BlackRock CEO Larry Fink put it even more starkly last month:

    I'm tired of hearing this is the biggest election in your lifetime. The reality is over time, it doesn't matter. [. . .] We work with both administrations and are having conversations with both candidates.

    The true measure of Thiel's position in the deep state, then, is not the extent to which he will wield power in the coming Trump administration through his bought-and-paid-for minion, J. D. Vance—significant as that power might be.

    Rather, the measure of Thiel's deep state status comes from his role in the premiere deep state institution: the Bilderberg Group.

    The Bilderberg meeting is, of course, one of the yearly highlights of any budding globalist's calendar. The annual conference brings together 150 or so of the wealthiest and most influential businessmen, financiers, tech oligarchs, heads of state, military planners, globalist super-gophers and royalty from Europe and North America (and, increasingly, from around the world) to conspire for three days in total, closed-door secrecy at a five-star resort somewhere within driving distance of a major European or North American capital.

    To be invited to Bilderberg once is surely a sign that a young globalist's deep state star is in the ascendant. To be invited a second time is a signal that one has arrived. But then there is the crème de la crème of this global cabal—the steering committee members who organize the conference and decide who will or will not be invited to each year's meeting. Past steering committee members have included such deep state stalwarts as David Rockefeller, Joseph Retinger, Prince Bernhard, Henry Kissinger and Edmond de Rothschild. And, as you might have guessed, Peter Thiel sits on the current Bilderberg steering committee along with Alex Karp, the CEO of Thiel-founded Palantir Technologies.

    Given the wall of secrecy that surrounds Bilderberg—remember when Dan Dicks and Luke Rudkowski got arrested for merely approaching members of the steering committee in a hotel lounge in Copenhagen in 2014?—the precise details of when and how Thiel acceded to the steering committee are unknown. We can definitively state that he has been a member of the steering committee since at least 2019 (the point at which the earliest backup of the official steering committee member list was made on The Wayback Machine), but beyond that it's impossible to tell when he first joined the committee.

    However, we do know that since 2010 Thiel has been a Director of the "American Friends of Bilderberg"—a group that tasks itself with "organizing and sponsoring conferences which study and discuss significant problems of the Western alliance" and with "collaborating on the Bilderberg Meetings held in Europe and North America" and whose board has boasted such luminaries as Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Richard Perle, James Wolfensohn and Vernon Jordan.

    We also know that:

    Thiel has been on the participant list for Bilderberg every single year since the Bilderberg Group started releasing official participant lists in 2007;

    Karp has joined Thiel as a Bilderberg invitee each year since 2012; and

    fellow Thielversians are frequent invitees to the Bilderberg festivities.

    Those Thielversians and PayPal mafia members who have made appearances at Bilderberg under Thiel's steering committee reign include:

    Reid Hoffman, a founding member of PayPal's board of directors who has a long history with Thiel;

    Palmer Luckey, the teenager who created the Oculus VR headset that Thiel funded into existence and who now runs the Thiel-funded Anduril Industries, which makes (as National Propaganda Radio puts it) "AI weapons for Ukraine"; and

    Kevin Harrington (the managing director of Thiel Capital).

    Unsurprisingly, the only journalists to ever directly question Thiel about his participation at Bilderberg were a gaggle of independent reporters who braved arrest and assault to cover Bilderberg 2016. Questioned by Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change about the seeming contradiction between his professed "libertarian" values and his participation in a closed-door meeting conspiring with government officials and their financial backers, Thiel served up a hefty portion of this awkward word salad:


    Or, transcribed:

    I believe that it's always important to exchange views with people . . . uh, no matter what their perspectives are. . . . Uh, I believe that uh, I'm, you know, I . . . I . . . I think that, uh . . . I think that we have a lot of problems in our society and we need to be . . . uh finding ways to talk to people who need to find ways to talk to people . . . uh, where not everything is completely transparent. Libertarianism is not synonymous with radical transparency. That's often an argument that the Stasi would make in East Germany, where, uh, everything had to be monitored by, uh, by society. And I think often you have the best conversations, uh, in smaller groups where not everything is being monitored. And that's how you can have very honest conversations and how you can think better about the future. Thank you very much.

    <sarc>Uh, I . . . I . . . I think that that's a very, a very, uh, candid and frank statement by, uh, an individual who . . . uh, is not thinking about what platitudes to mouth, and uh . . . I completely agree with his, uh, with his assessment.</sarc>

    More seriously, whether or not libertarianism is synonymous with "radical transparency," it is certainly not synonymous with financiers, heads of state, government contractors and other taxpayer-funded oligarchs conspiring behind closed doors about how best to steer the deep state, arm militaries around the globe and surveil citizens in the name of political power and personal profit.

    So, where on earth did people get the idea that Peter Thiel is a libertarian, anyway?

    Why, from Peter Thiel, of course!

    The (Mis-)Education of a (Fake) Libertarian


    In 2009, just as he began his dive into the political waters, Thiel penned "The Education of a Libertarian," an essay in which he declares in no uncertain terms that he is indeed a libertarian and has been since his youth.

    He devotes the bulk of the essay to explaining how he spent his student days at Stanford trying to bring about a libertarian awakening through political activism but has since learned that political activism is useless and that the real solution is to be found not in engaging in politics but in escaping politics.

    He concludes:

    I suspect that the mode for escape must involve some sort of new and hitherto untried process that leads us to some undiscovered country; and for this reason I have focused my efforts on new technologies that may create a new space for freedom.

    And what areas of technological advancement has Thiel chosen to focus his supposedly "libertarian" efforts on? He names three: cyberspace, outer space and seasteading.

    (Yes, that's "seasteading," as previously promoted by Milton Friedman's grandson, Patri, who has since ditched the seasteading dream to start a new venture capital firm—with seed money from Peter Thiel, naturally . . . but that's a whole other story.)

    Although the essay seems fairly old hat to readers of The Corbett Report, it had two important effects at the time.

    Firstly, Thiel's lament that "the extension of the franchise to women" has "rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron" gave plenty of pundits fodder for their obligatory "Look at this disgusting libertarian!"-style editorials. In fact, it continues to this very day to provide easy cut-and-paste editorials for finger-wagging, context-destroying online pundits despite Thiel's attempts at damage control.

    Secondly, the essay cemented in the minds of the lazy left-wing punderati that libertarianism is . . . well, whatever evil thing they say it is. After all, Peter Thiel is a libertarian ("You see! He says so himself! What other evidence do you need?"), ergo all libertarians are billionaire, taxpayer-funded, surveillance-supporting deep state oligarchs.

    See Wired's "The Libertarian Futurism of Silicon Valley Billionaire Peter Thiel" or "The Libertarian Logic of Peter Thiel" or Mannwest's "Peter Thiel: The articulate libertarian" for some prime examples of this phenomenon. Then enjoy laughing at Reason (no stranger to the concept of fake libertarianism) and its shocked pikachu face article, "Wait, Wasn't Peter Thiel a Libertarian?"

    This particular form of journalistic idiocy reached its zenith with Inverse's 2016 article on Thiel's Bilderberg membership. In that article, crack Inverse reporter Sarah Sloat somehow manages to both decry Thiel's membership in the conspiratorial Bilderberg group and simultaneously denigrate "conspiracy theorists" for being concerned about said group. She then ends her think piece with the most mind-meltingly stupid statement ever written:

    Thiel's allegiance to Bilderberg, which seems to have a libertarian bent, makes sense given his wealth and involvement in companies like Palantir Technologies that collect data on civilians.

    Only the intellectually challenged mind of an ideologically blinded and philosophically illiterate zealot—that is, someone for whom "libertarian" is simply a synonym for "anything I don't like"—could possibly conclude that Bilderberg "seems to have a libertarian bent," let alone that that libertarian leaning is reflected in "companies like Palantir Technologies that collect data on civilians" on behalf of the government.

    More honest writers are able to admit what should be glaringly obvious to all by now: Thiel is not, in fact, a libertarian, despite what he claims. Even Thiel's biographer, Max Chafkin, is forced to concede that "Thiel was, after 9/11 anyway, no longer much of a libertarian, if he'd ever been one in the first place."

    Gee, ya think?

    Yet, if we read "The Education of a Libertarian" even more closely, we garner something genuinely valuable from it: a clue to Thiel's actual ideology and his actual motivation. It comes right at the beginning of the essay, where he lays out his own highly idiosyncratic definition of the term "libertarian." According to Thiel:

    I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good. I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. For all these reasons, I still call myself “libertarian.”

    Ah yes, those classical libertarian values: Opposition to confiscatory taxes! Opposition to totalitarian collectives! And . . . opposition to "the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual"?

    Wait, what?! What on earth is "the ideology of the inevitability of death for every individual," and what does that have to do with libertarianism, anyway?

    Our instinct might be to skim past this line and to chalk it up to Thiel's eccentric, nerdy, sci-fi-obsessed character. But don't. This weird line tells us something important about who Peter Thiel really is.

    PETER THIEL IS A VAMPIRE


    Back in 2016, Inc. broke a story under the headline "Peter Thiel Is Very, Very Interested in Young People's Blood." It opened with the intriguing lede, "[. . .] if there's one thing that really excites Thiel, it's the prospect of having younger people's blood transfused into his own veins."

    Those of us who bother reading past the title (but who's got time for that?!) discover that the story itself is about Ambrosia, a company in Monterey, California, that was then conducting a medical trial titled "Young Donor Plasma Transfusion and Age-Related Biomarkers." The trial sought to establish whether there are anti-aging benefits to the practice of injecting older patients with the blood of younger people.

    The relevant part of this story is the revelation that Ambrosia's founder—Stanford-trained physician Jesse Karmazin—received a call out of the blue from Jason Camm, the chief medical officer at Thiel Capital and a "personal health director" to Peter Thiel himself. Sure enough, Peter Thiel's personal health director is particularly interested in life extension technologies.

    The Inc. reporter then cites an interview he conducted with Thiel the previous year. In that interview, while addressing the general topic of biotech and life extension medicine, Thiel had given hints about his interest in the blood of the young:

    I'm not convinced yet we've found a single panacea that works. It's possible there exist single-point things that could work. I'm looking into parabiosis stuff, which I think is really interesting. This is where they did the young blood into older mice and they found that had a massive rejuvenating effect. And so that's ... that is one that ... again, it's one of these very odd things where people had done these studies in the 1950s and then it got dropped altogether. I think there are a lot of these things that have been strangely underexplored.

    Ultimately, the article doesn't come to any grandiose conclusion. It notes that Ambrosia was conducting a clinical trial, not operating a business trafficking in adrenochrome. And even if Ambrosia were engaging in such a business, there is no proof offered that Thiel is actually a client.

    Still, it didn't take long for the sensational story to become even more sensationalized in the online retelling.

    First, Vanity Fair made the Inc. article's inference more explicit: "Peter Thiel Wants to Inject Himself With Young People’s Blood."

    Then, New Republic went full clickbait: "Is Peter Thiel a vampire?"

    (Hopefully, the title of this editorial will finally put the question to rest!)

    While there is, it must be admitted, no hard evidence that Peter Thiel is an undead creature of the night who flees his coffin each evening to assume bat form and feed on the blood of the innocent, one has to grant that there is no hard evidence that this isn't the case, either (despite his protestations to the contrary)!

    Perhaps the more important part of the story, though, is what it reveals about Thiel's mindset. That passing reference to "the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual" in his strange definition of "libertarian" was more than just a nerdy quirk. Thiel is, as it turns out, consumed by the belief that technology is on the cusp of "solving" the "problem" of death, and he, for one, plans to live forever. He's even reportedly signed up with Alcor, a cryonics company that promises to have a "medical team at your bedside" at the time of your death, "ready to start the process" of freezing your corpse at -196° C so it can be preserved and revivified on that glorious day when doctors "cure" death.

    Those versed in the transhumanist ideology, predicated as it is on the breakdown of "vitalism"—i.e., the idea that organic life and inorganic matter are fundamentally distinct—will already know where this is going. Parabiosis and cryogenics are just two of the many methods by which the transhumanists hope to transcend our mortal body and live forever in their future cyborg bodies—a key goal of the new transhumanist religion sweeping Silicon Valley these days.

    So, what does all of this have to do with libertarianism? Why, precisely nothing, of course! But don't expect any legacy media journalist to ever raise (let alone answer) this question.

    And where does that leave us in our pursuit of the answer to the question of who is Peter Thiel?

    THE BOTTOM LINE

    Let's review:

    Peter Thiel founded PayPal where, as PayPal co-founder Max Levchin brags, "we collaborated with every imaginable three and four-letter agency and those were some of the best, most productive relationships I've had as a business person."


    He used his role as PayPal CEO to set himself up as the "don" of a "mafia" that continues to rule Silicon Valley (and the world) through their business, government and intelligence contacts.


    He took the PayPal fraud detection software (developed in collaboration with those "three and four-letter" agencies Levchin spoke of) and spun off Palantir Technologies, a company that just happened to provide the US intelligence complex with the exact tracking, tracing and data-mining capabilities they needed at the exact moment they were "shelving" their publicly reviled Information Awareness Office.


    Thiel then went on to become not just an annual attendee of Bilderberg but also a member of their powerful steering committee, organizing conferences with his Palantir and PayPal mafia colleagues to discuss such topics as "Changing Faces of Biology" and "Continuity of Government and the Economy" in closed-door meetings with his buddies in government, business, finance, media and the intelligence world.


    Next he set his sights on purchasing politicians, going all in on Trump in 2016 and securing the orange one's "undying friendship" with a stirring speech about his homosexual Republicanism at the 2016 Republican convention.


    After successfully suing the US Army, he then used his position as "shadow president" on the Trump transition team to stuff the first Trump administration with a bunch of Palantir staffers and consultants, eventually securing an $800 million contract from the US Army as well as an ongoing series of contracts to supply targeting systems and weaponry for the military-industrial complex in the US and Israel and Ukraine and elsewhere.


    While placing Thielverse associates in high-ranking positions in the Biden administration, he set his sights on the 2024 (s)election, first buying J. D. Vance a US Senate seat for a cool $15 million (the largest amount given to boost a Senate candidate in the history of the United States) then personally effecting a rapprochement between Vance and Trump in a (successful) effort to get his bought-and-paid-for minion installed as Vice President.


    All the while he has been using his position as venture capital / hedge fund kingpin to invest heavily in various biotech "advances" and transhumanist life extension technologies.

    And, through all this, Thiel has managed to convince the world he is a "libertarian" (a word he has redefined to include opposition to "the ideology of the inevitability of death") simply on his say-so.

    With all that in mind, let's return to the opening question in this three-part series:

    What do you call someone who identifies as a “libertarian” but who has spent his entire career actively collaborating with governments, militaries and intelligence agencies in an effort to enrich himself and to grow the power of the state?

    Personally, I call him an oligarch.

    A Silicon Valley technocrat.

    A deep state collaborator.

    A transhumanist.

    A Bilderberg conspirator.

    An enemy of free humanity.

    Whatever you call him, however, he's surely not a "libertarian."

    But don't take my word for it. Now that Peter Thiel's surrogate is one heartbeat (or one gunshot) away from the Oval Office, I have a feeling the public will be learning more about who Peter Thiel really is in the coming years.

    Like this type of essay? Then you’ll love The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter, which contains my weekly editorial as well as recommended reading, viewing and listening. If you’re a Corbett Report member, you can sign in to corbettreport.com and read the newsletter today.

    Not a member yet? Sign up today to access the newsletter and support this work.

    https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/peter-thiel-is-a-vampire?triedRedirect=true

    https://donshafi911iamthefaceoftruth.blogspot.com/2024/11/peter-thiel-is-vampire-strange-story-of.html
    Peter Thiel is a Vampire The Strange Story of Peter Thiel – Part Three The Corbett Report by James Corbett corbettreport.com November 10, 2024 If you've read "The Strange Story of Peter Thiel," then you'll know all about how this deep state-connected "PayPal Mafia" don rose to financial prominence on the back of his remarkable ability to found companies that either undergird the digital financial infrastructure (PayPal) or act as cutouts for the intelligence agencies (Palantir). And if you've read "Buying Politicians is Easy," then you'll know all about how Thiel has leveraged his ill-gotten wealth to buy himself real-world political clout. And you'll also know all about how he has wrapped the silicon tentacles of next-gen military contractors like Palantir, Clearview AI, Anduril and other Thiel-founded, Thiel-funded and Thiel-adjacent companies around the globe by signing contracts with foreign militaries. But after learning all of this, we're still left with some important questions. Namely: What (beyond the sweet smell of deep state blood money) motivates Peter Thiel? What ideology does he hew to? What is his endgame? In other words: Who is Peter Thiel and what is his real role in the deep state? Let's find out. Steering Bilderberg Yes, as we learned last week, buying politicians is a trivial pursuit for a power-seeking billionaire like Peter Thiel. And perhaps that's the point. Those of us who understand how power really operates in our modern "liberal democracies" know that real power is not to be found in any political office—even the Oval Office. Thiel himself has admitted as much: I think calling our society a democracy, whatever may be good or bad about democracy, is very, very deeply misleading. We’re not a republic. We’re not a constitutional republic. We are actually a state that’s dominated by these very unelected, technocratic agencies. Or, as BlackRock CEO Larry Fink put it even more starkly last month: I'm tired of hearing this is the biggest election in your lifetime. The reality is over time, it doesn't matter. [. . .] We work with both administrations and are having conversations with both candidates. The true measure of Thiel's position in the deep state, then, is not the extent to which he will wield power in the coming Trump administration through his bought-and-paid-for minion, J. D. Vance—significant as that power might be. Rather, the measure of Thiel's deep state status comes from his role in the premiere deep state institution: the Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg meeting is, of course, one of the yearly highlights of any budding globalist's calendar. The annual conference brings together 150 or so of the wealthiest and most influential businessmen, financiers, tech oligarchs, heads of state, military planners, globalist super-gophers and royalty from Europe and North America (and, increasingly, from around the world) to conspire for three days in total, closed-door secrecy at a five-star resort somewhere within driving distance of a major European or North American capital. To be invited to Bilderberg once is surely a sign that a young globalist's deep state star is in the ascendant. To be invited a second time is a signal that one has arrived. But then there is the crème de la crème of this global cabal—the steering committee members who organize the conference and decide who will or will not be invited to each year's meeting. Past steering committee members have included such deep state stalwarts as David Rockefeller, Joseph Retinger, Prince Bernhard, Henry Kissinger and Edmond de Rothschild. And, as you might have guessed, Peter Thiel sits on the current Bilderberg steering committee along with Alex Karp, the CEO of Thiel-founded Palantir Technologies. Given the wall of secrecy that surrounds Bilderberg—remember when Dan Dicks and Luke Rudkowski got arrested for merely approaching members of the steering committee in a hotel lounge in Copenhagen in 2014?—the precise details of when and how Thiel acceded to the steering committee are unknown. We can definitively state that he has been a member of the steering committee since at least 2019 (the point at which the earliest backup of the official steering committee member list was made on The Wayback Machine), but beyond that it's impossible to tell when he first joined the committee. However, we do know that since 2010 Thiel has been a Director of the "American Friends of Bilderberg"—a group that tasks itself with "organizing and sponsoring conferences which study and discuss significant problems of the Western alliance" and with "collaborating on the Bilderberg Meetings held in Europe and North America" and whose board has boasted such luminaries as Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Richard Perle, James Wolfensohn and Vernon Jordan. We also know that: Thiel has been on the participant list for Bilderberg every single year since the Bilderberg Group started releasing official participant lists in 2007; Karp has joined Thiel as a Bilderberg invitee each year since 2012; and fellow Thielversians are frequent invitees to the Bilderberg festivities. Those Thielversians and PayPal mafia members who have made appearances at Bilderberg under Thiel's steering committee reign include: Reid Hoffman, a founding member of PayPal's board of directors who has a long history with Thiel; Palmer Luckey, the teenager who created the Oculus VR headset that Thiel funded into existence and who now runs the Thiel-funded Anduril Industries, which makes (as National Propaganda Radio puts it) "AI weapons for Ukraine"; and Kevin Harrington (the managing director of Thiel Capital). Unsurprisingly, the only journalists to ever directly question Thiel about his participation at Bilderberg were a gaggle of independent reporters who braved arrest and assault to cover Bilderberg 2016. Questioned by Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change about the seeming contradiction between his professed "libertarian" values and his participation in a closed-door meeting conspiring with government officials and their financial backers, Thiel served up a hefty portion of this awkward word salad: Or, transcribed: I believe that it's always important to exchange views with people . . . uh, no matter what their perspectives are. . . . Uh, I believe that uh, I'm, you know, I . . . I . . . I think that, uh . . . I think that we have a lot of problems in our society and we need to be . . . uh finding ways to talk to people who need to find ways to talk to people . . . uh, where not everything is completely transparent. Libertarianism is not synonymous with radical transparency. That's often an argument that the Stasi would make in East Germany, where, uh, everything had to be monitored by, uh, by society. And I think often you have the best conversations, uh, in smaller groups where not everything is being monitored. And that's how you can have very honest conversations and how you can think better about the future. Thank you very much. <sarc>Uh, I . . . I . . . I think that that's a very, a very, uh, candid and frank statement by, uh, an individual who . . . uh, is not thinking about what platitudes to mouth, and uh . . . I completely agree with his, uh, with his assessment.</sarc> More seriously, whether or not libertarianism is synonymous with "radical transparency," it is certainly not synonymous with financiers, heads of state, government contractors and other taxpayer-funded oligarchs conspiring behind closed doors about how best to steer the deep state, arm militaries around the globe and surveil citizens in the name of political power and personal profit. So, where on earth did people get the idea that Peter Thiel is a libertarian, anyway? Why, from Peter Thiel, of course! The (Mis-)Education of a (Fake) Libertarian In 2009, just as he began his dive into the political waters, Thiel penned "The Education of a Libertarian," an essay in which he declares in no uncertain terms that he is indeed a libertarian and has been since his youth. He devotes the bulk of the essay to explaining how he spent his student days at Stanford trying to bring about a libertarian awakening through political activism but has since learned that political activism is useless and that the real solution is to be found not in engaging in politics but in escaping politics. He concludes: I suspect that the mode for escape must involve some sort of new and hitherto untried process that leads us to some undiscovered country; and for this reason I have focused my efforts on new technologies that may create a new space for freedom. And what areas of technological advancement has Thiel chosen to focus his supposedly "libertarian" efforts on? He names three: cyberspace, outer space and seasteading. (Yes, that's "seasteading," as previously promoted by Milton Friedman's grandson, Patri, who has since ditched the seasteading dream to start a new venture capital firm—with seed money from Peter Thiel, naturally . . . but that's a whole other story.) Although the essay seems fairly old hat to readers of The Corbett Report, it had two important effects at the time. Firstly, Thiel's lament that "the extension of the franchise to women" has "rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron" gave plenty of pundits fodder for their obligatory "Look at this disgusting libertarian!"-style editorials. In fact, it continues to this very day to provide easy cut-and-paste editorials for finger-wagging, context-destroying online pundits despite Thiel's attempts at damage control. Secondly, the essay cemented in the minds of the lazy left-wing punderati that libertarianism is . . . well, whatever evil thing they say it is. After all, Peter Thiel is a libertarian ("You see! He says so himself! What other evidence do you need?"), ergo all libertarians are billionaire, taxpayer-funded, surveillance-supporting deep state oligarchs. See Wired's "The Libertarian Futurism of Silicon Valley Billionaire Peter Thiel" or "The Libertarian Logic of Peter Thiel" or Mannwest's "Peter Thiel: The articulate libertarian" for some prime examples of this phenomenon. Then enjoy laughing at Reason (no stranger to the concept of fake libertarianism) and its shocked pikachu face article, "Wait, Wasn't Peter Thiel a Libertarian?" This particular form of journalistic idiocy reached its zenith with Inverse's 2016 article on Thiel's Bilderberg membership. In that article, crack Inverse reporter Sarah Sloat somehow manages to both decry Thiel's membership in the conspiratorial Bilderberg group and simultaneously denigrate "conspiracy theorists" for being concerned about said group. She then ends her think piece with the most mind-meltingly stupid statement ever written: Thiel's allegiance to Bilderberg, which seems to have a libertarian bent, makes sense given his wealth and involvement in companies like Palantir Technologies that collect data on civilians. Only the intellectually challenged mind of an ideologically blinded and philosophically illiterate zealot—that is, someone for whom "libertarian" is simply a synonym for "anything I don't like"—could possibly conclude that Bilderberg "seems to have a libertarian bent," let alone that that libertarian leaning is reflected in "companies like Palantir Technologies that collect data on civilians" on behalf of the government. More honest writers are able to admit what should be glaringly obvious to all by now: Thiel is not, in fact, a libertarian, despite what he claims. Even Thiel's biographer, Max Chafkin, is forced to concede that "Thiel was, after 9/11 anyway, no longer much of a libertarian, if he'd ever been one in the first place." Gee, ya think? Yet, if we read "The Education of a Libertarian" even more closely, we garner something genuinely valuable from it: a clue to Thiel's actual ideology and his actual motivation. It comes right at the beginning of the essay, where he lays out his own highly idiosyncratic definition of the term "libertarian." According to Thiel: I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good. I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. For all these reasons, I still call myself “libertarian.” Ah yes, those classical libertarian values: Opposition to confiscatory taxes! Opposition to totalitarian collectives! And . . . opposition to "the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual"? Wait, what?! What on earth is "the ideology of the inevitability of death for every individual," and what does that have to do with libertarianism, anyway? Our instinct might be to skim past this line and to chalk it up to Thiel's eccentric, nerdy, sci-fi-obsessed character. But don't. This weird line tells us something important about who Peter Thiel really is. PETER THIEL IS A VAMPIRE Back in 2016, Inc. broke a story under the headline "Peter Thiel Is Very, Very Interested in Young People's Blood." It opened with the intriguing lede, "[. . .] if there's one thing that really excites Thiel, it's the prospect of having younger people's blood transfused into his own veins." Those of us who bother reading past the title (but who's got time for that?!) discover that the story itself is about Ambrosia, a company in Monterey, California, that was then conducting a medical trial titled "Young Donor Plasma Transfusion and Age-Related Biomarkers." The trial sought to establish whether there are anti-aging benefits to the practice of injecting older patients with the blood of younger people. The relevant part of this story is the revelation that Ambrosia's founder—Stanford-trained physician Jesse Karmazin—received a call out of the blue from Jason Camm, the chief medical officer at Thiel Capital and a "personal health director" to Peter Thiel himself. Sure enough, Peter Thiel's personal health director is particularly interested in life extension technologies. The Inc. reporter then cites an interview he conducted with Thiel the previous year. In that interview, while addressing the general topic of biotech and life extension medicine, Thiel had given hints about his interest in the blood of the young: I'm not convinced yet we've found a single panacea that works. It's possible there exist single-point things that could work. I'm looking into parabiosis stuff, which I think is really interesting. This is where they did the young blood into older mice and they found that had a massive rejuvenating effect. And so that's ... that is one that ... again, it's one of these very odd things where people had done these studies in the 1950s and then it got dropped altogether. I think there are a lot of these things that have been strangely underexplored. Ultimately, the article doesn't come to any grandiose conclusion. It notes that Ambrosia was conducting a clinical trial, not operating a business trafficking in adrenochrome. And even if Ambrosia were engaging in such a business, there is no proof offered that Thiel is actually a client. Still, it didn't take long for the sensational story to become even more sensationalized in the online retelling. First, Vanity Fair made the Inc. article's inference more explicit: "Peter Thiel Wants to Inject Himself With Young People’s Blood." Then, New Republic went full clickbait: "Is Peter Thiel a vampire?" (Hopefully, the title of this editorial will finally put the question to rest!) While there is, it must be admitted, no hard evidence that Peter Thiel is an undead creature of the night who flees his coffin each evening to assume bat form and feed on the blood of the innocent, one has to grant that there is no hard evidence that this isn't the case, either (despite his protestations to the contrary)! Perhaps the more important part of the story, though, is what it reveals about Thiel's mindset. That passing reference to "the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual" in his strange definition of "libertarian" was more than just a nerdy quirk. Thiel is, as it turns out, consumed by the belief that technology is on the cusp of "solving" the "problem" of death, and he, for one, plans to live forever. He's even reportedly signed up with Alcor, a cryonics company that promises to have a "medical team at your bedside" at the time of your death, "ready to start the process" of freezing your corpse at -196° C so it can be preserved and revivified on that glorious day when doctors "cure" death. Those versed in the transhumanist ideology, predicated as it is on the breakdown of "vitalism"—i.e., the idea that organic life and inorganic matter are fundamentally distinct—will already know where this is going. Parabiosis and cryogenics are just two of the many methods by which the transhumanists hope to transcend our mortal body and live forever in their future cyborg bodies—a key goal of the new transhumanist religion sweeping Silicon Valley these days. So, what does all of this have to do with libertarianism? Why, precisely nothing, of course! But don't expect any legacy media journalist to ever raise (let alone answer) this question. And where does that leave us in our pursuit of the answer to the question of who is Peter Thiel? THE BOTTOM LINE Let's review: Peter Thiel founded PayPal where, as PayPal co-founder Max Levchin brags, "we collaborated with every imaginable three and four-letter agency and those were some of the best, most productive relationships I've had as a business person." He used his role as PayPal CEO to set himself up as the "don" of a "mafia" that continues to rule Silicon Valley (and the world) through their business, government and intelligence contacts. He took the PayPal fraud detection software (developed in collaboration with those "three and four-letter" agencies Levchin spoke of) and spun off Palantir Technologies, a company that just happened to provide the US intelligence complex with the exact tracking, tracing and data-mining capabilities they needed at the exact moment they were "shelving" their publicly reviled Information Awareness Office. Thiel then went on to become not just an annual attendee of Bilderberg but also a member of their powerful steering committee, organizing conferences with his Palantir and PayPal mafia colleagues to discuss such topics as "Changing Faces of Biology" and "Continuity of Government and the Economy" in closed-door meetings with his buddies in government, business, finance, media and the intelligence world. Next he set his sights on purchasing politicians, going all in on Trump in 2016 and securing the orange one's "undying friendship" with a stirring speech about his homosexual Republicanism at the 2016 Republican convention. After successfully suing the US Army, he then used his position as "shadow president" on the Trump transition team to stuff the first Trump administration with a bunch of Palantir staffers and consultants, eventually securing an $800 million contract from the US Army as well as an ongoing series of contracts to supply targeting systems and weaponry for the military-industrial complex in the US and Israel and Ukraine and elsewhere. While placing Thielverse associates in high-ranking positions in the Biden administration, he set his sights on the 2024 (s)election, first buying J. D. Vance a US Senate seat for a cool $15 million (the largest amount given to boost a Senate candidate in the history of the United States) then personally effecting a rapprochement between Vance and Trump in a (successful) effort to get his bought-and-paid-for minion installed as Vice President. All the while he has been using his position as venture capital / hedge fund kingpin to invest heavily in various biotech "advances" and transhumanist life extension technologies. And, through all this, Thiel has managed to convince the world he is a "libertarian" (a word he has redefined to include opposition to "the ideology of the inevitability of death") simply on his say-so. With all that in mind, let's return to the opening question in this three-part series: What do you call someone who identifies as a “libertarian” but who has spent his entire career actively collaborating with governments, militaries and intelligence agencies in an effort to enrich himself and to grow the power of the state? Personally, I call him an oligarch. A Silicon Valley technocrat. A deep state collaborator. A transhumanist. A Bilderberg conspirator. An enemy of free humanity. Whatever you call him, however, he's surely not a "libertarian." But don't take my word for it. Now that Peter Thiel's surrogate is one heartbeat (or one gunshot) away from the Oval Office, I have a feeling the public will be learning more about who Peter Thiel really is in the coming years. Like this type of essay? Then you’ll love The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter, which contains my weekly editorial as well as recommended reading, viewing and listening. If you’re a Corbett Report member, you can sign in to corbettreport.com and read the newsletter today. Not a member yet? Sign up today to access the newsletter and support this work. https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/peter-thiel-is-a-vampire?triedRedirect=true https://donshafi911iamthefaceoftruth.blogspot.com/2024/11/peter-thiel-is-vampire-strange-story-of.html
    CORBETTREPORT.SUBSTACK.COM
    Peter Thiel is a Vampire
    The Strange Story of Peter Thiel – Part Three
    Haha
    1
    0 Σχόλια 1 Μοιράστηκε 1376 Views
  • The Khazarian Mafia in Hollywood
    Jonas E. Alexis, Senior EditorOctober 25, 2022
    by Jonas E. Alexis, VT Editor

    If you walk into the film industry and start interviewing people like Eli Roth, you will almost certainly hear incredible and bizarre things. Roth would tell you that he aspires to “fuck up an entire generation”[1] through movies.

    Roth and his brethren have been in the business for years, so they know the drill. Roth probably knows the story of Samson and Delilah. He probably knows that Samson’s lust darkened his mind and eventually sent him to his death.[2]

    Roth almost certainly knows that the best way to destroy the morals of his audience is to prey on their lust and appetite. That is why Roth’s brethren have spent years fighting against obscenity laws and pornography in the United States.[3]

    roth2

    As Jewish scholar Nathan Abrams himself puts it,

    “Older generation of Jewish filmmakers and actors, here [Woody] Allen, [Stanley] Kubrick and [Ron] Jeremy, arguably not only increased the Jewishness of their work but updated it to match the new post-1990 sensibility by defining it in increasingly sexualized (and pornographic) terms.”[4]

    Abrams declared elsewhere that “Jewish involvement in porn” is actually “is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.”[5]

    Another Jewish scholar by the name of Josh Lambert tells us that people like Larry David and Sarah Silverman “are challenging America’s powerful religious, family-friendly culture and asserting their Jewishness by glorifying obscenity.”[6]

    Yet David and Silverman are hardly the only people who are “glorifying obscenity” in Hollywood. David Cronenberg obviously beat them to the punch. Cronenberg got to the heart of the matter years ago by laying out his ideological weltanschauung in an interview with Rolling Stone this way:

    “Nothing is true. It’s not an absolute. It’s only a human construct, very definitely able to change and susceptible to change and rethinking. And you can then be free. Free to be unethical, immoral, out of society, and an agent for some other power, never belonging.

    “Ultimately, if you are an existentialist and you don’t believe in God and the judgment after death, then you can do anything you want: You can kill, you can do whatever society considers the most taboo thing.”[7]

    Cronenberg’s moral calculus here is logically and philosophically incoherent. If “nothing is true,” then Cronenberg’s statement that “nothing is true” is not true. In order for the statement to make sense, Cronenberg has to assume that it is true! And if it is true, then the “nothing is true” is categorically false, which means that his entire argument collapses.

    In short, Cronenberg is positing truth claims while denying truth exists! He is trapped in his own ideological matrix.[8]

    Living the incoherency of his system aside, Cronenberg is basically saying that you can only be free if you can come to the conclusion that nothing is true and that morality is, as philosopher Michael Ruse believes, “flimflam.”[9] But because he is morally and intellectually blind, Cronenberg could not realize that his axiom is self-defeating.

    Morality, as we all know, is inexorably linked to practical reason. It is also essential to esthetic truth and intellectual pursuit and honesty. As E. Michael Jones rightly puts it,

    “The intellectual life is a function of the moral life of the thinker. In order to apprehend truth, which is the goal of the intellectual life, one must live a moral life. One can produce an intellectual product, but to the extent that one prescinds from living the moral life, that product will be more a function of internal desire—wish fulfillment, if you will than external reality. This is true of any intellectual field and any deeply held desire.”[10]

    Truth, as Plato puts it, is like seeing things the way they really are.[11] And the practical reason (another word for morality) is one of the main tools for discovering metaphysical truth.

    Yet since Cronenberg dismisses practical reason in his ideological calculus, there was no way for him to make a logical point without falling into his own trap. In the process, he has become a monster, as one scholar has argued.[12]

    The Rolling Stone interviewer asked, “Does the artist have any moral or social responsibility?” Cronenberg:

    “No…Your responsibility is to be irresponsible. As soon as you talk about social or political responsibility, you’ve amputated the best limbs you’ve got as an artist. You are plugging into a very restrictive system that is going to push and pull and mold you and is going to make your art totally useless and ineffective.”[13]

    Cronenberg’s philosophy, scholar William Beard tells us, is “the disappearance of ethics.”[14] It is actually “a world of unimpeded desires without consequences, where ‘everything is permitted.’ Metaphorically, this is the world of violent video games, of indulgent Hollywood movies, and also of the transgressive, boundary-piercing cinema of David Cronenberg.”[15]

    No responsibility, no morality, no ethical values, and no limit, nothing but ultimate meaninglessness and existential hell in movies. Existence itself, as indicated in Cronenberg’s movie eXistenZ, means corruption, moral degradation, and ultimately pathetic death. The axiom of eXistenZ is that “nothing is true; everything is permitted.”[16]

    “Every time I kill someone in my movie,” says Cronenberg, “I’m rehearsing my own death…It’s an existential truth, it’s very raw and real.” Didn’t Cronenberg state that nothing was true? Why is he now smuggling in truth in his philosophical trap?

    Cronenberg, who has a “historic affinity with existentialism,”[17] is also playing with the lives of his viewers. He admits that eXistenZ is filled with “existential propaganda.”[18] Scholar William Beard comments:

    “The disappearance of stable theoretical foundations for human society and human values, the stark realization of the insignificant position of humanity in a material cosmos, the undermining of all kinds of knowledge about the world and ourselves, leaves the existential human subject without a clear guideline for living, with no certainty of anything but his or her own death…Culture, science, the whole edifice of modern European civilization are ineffectual in addressing the individual’s desperate plight.”[19]

    Once the existentialist denies metaphysical truth, he has to start creating his own “truth”: “From this, we must create ourselves as meaningful beings, and create the world as meaningful for ourselves. From this we must build up the new foundations of our own lives, adding other people, culture, history, and politics tentatively and fragmentedly as necessary…”[20]

    Existentialists like Cronenberg, says Beard, “cut individuals off from the fundamental questions of personal existence, and leave them alienated in a world crowded with facts but void of meaning.”[21] The philosophy of existentialism teaches Cronenberg that people “are all doomed to die and be swallowed up by Nothingness, but along the way, we may carve out a niche or ledge on the cliff…”[22]

    Therefore “science” and technology are meaningful if they can advance sexual desires and appetite.[23] It was no coincidence that Cronenberg seized technology in the information age to advance his appetite to a wider audience. He bragged that “technology is with us,”[24] meaning that he can use that kind of medium to get his essentially Freudian and therefore Talmudic ideas to unsuspecting viewers.

    Put simply, Cronenberg is indirectly reinventing what Nietzsche would have called the transvaluation of all values, which again states that morality is an illusion and that any culture which becomes docile to the moral order must be overthrown.

    But in order to do that, Cronenberg has to go back to his revolutionary roots, which is neither Western nor rational but essentially Talmudic or Freudian: “I think we start off with what Freud called a polymorphous perverseness.”[25]

    One can easily argue that this “polymorphous perverseness” is at the core of virtually every Cronenberg film. In fact, Cronenberg admitted that characters in movies like Crash, M. Butterfly, Naked Lunch, Dead Ringers, and Stereo, were “reinventing sexuality,”[26] which is another way of saying that Cronenberg’s characters were subverting the sexual order.[27] Cronenberg’s existential philosophy, Beard says, is

    “sexual or predatory, a drive, an appetite, that invokes Freud far more readily than the Sartre who heatedly rejected a Freudian view of life in which individuals were unfree prisoners of their psychic histories and hardwired desires.”[28]

    Cronenberg’s characters in eXistenZ, Beard continues,

    “seem to reproduce that quasi-Freudian sense that their individual freedom—a sacrosanct item of the existentialist creed—is compromised by appetites that are so powerful they are strongly impelled to do something ethically ugly. This happens to Pikul in the Chinese restaurant. He finds he wants to kill the waiter and is told by Geller that the impulse is part of his game character’s make-up and that he won’t be able to do anything to stop it.”[29]

    David and Brandon Cronenberg
    David and Brandon Cronenberg
    The interesting thing is that Cronenberg has successfully passed his essentially diabolical ideas to his son Brandon, who is now following the family tradition. That fact became quite obvious when David edited Brandon’s first feature film Antiviral,[30] which the Rolling Stone itself has described as “sickening,” and which has the same “disturbing obsession with bodies and technology that animates his father’s films, from The Fly and Dead Ringers to Videodrome and Existenz.”[31] The Rolling Stone reported,

    “The son was infected with his father’s own sense of cerebral horror, and he is not rebelling against it. ‘I wrestled with it at first,’ he says, ‘but you get affected by how you grow up….’”[32]

    Cronenberg, whether he likes it or not, should be called a Satanist precisely because he is anti-Logos.[33] But there is a bigger picture here. Cronenberg’s ideology has been transported to places like Japan as well. For example, one of Japan’s most controversial filmmakers is none other than Takashi Miike.

    Miike says that he is a fervent admirer of directors like David Lynch (Lost Highway), Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct), and of course David Cronenberg. These people are what one should call cultural subverters. Verhoeven meant it when he said:

    “As a director, my goal is to be completely open. Just look at how I portray sex in my films. They’re considered shocking and obscene because I like to carefully examine human sexuality. It has to be realistic.”[34]

    Verhoeven also declares that he has been “fascinated by the occult: black magic, UFOs, and kinetic energy. I also experimented with hypnotism, trying to get my friends to remember former lives.”[35] It was a natural step for Verhoeven to move from an interest in the occult to bringing his viewpoint to life in films. Turning from the unknown and unknowable, Verhoeven replaced his own ideology with reality:

    “My films became my anchor to reality, and I began to make extremely realistic movies. I felt compelled to show things as explicitly as possible—a tendency which many film critics have dismissed as banal.”[36]

    Verhoeven applied this tendency most often to the area of sexuality, explicitly portraying sex in movies like Showgirls, Basic Instinct, Turkish Delight, and The Fourth Man. Yet even in RoboCop, which in comparison has little sexuality, Verhoeven’s worldview is clear—this time he is substituting Logos incarnate with his own imagination:

    “It’s pure resurrection. For me, RoboCop is a Cytale. First, Murphy is gunned down in the most horrific way: that is Crucifixion. And it has to be so violent because the audience has to remember him.

    “Before that, he has not done anything in the film. He comes to the police station to put on his uniform, then he goes after the villains with his partner, and bang! he is dead. That shooting is the only thing about him—I did that deliberately.

    “Next, the film makes a steep descent into the finite, after which he experiences his Resurrection, in a modern-day…RoboCop is a Jesus figure—an American Jesus…Americans want to be humane, but if they think it takes too long, Christian morality is pushed aside for the moment and they go for their weapons—just like Robocop.”[37]

    Biographer Rob van Scheers writes,

    “Both in his films and in his personal life, Paul Verhoeven has always practiced a free sexual morality of which he makes no secret…Verhoeven would add in the gay magazine The Advocate: ‘Sex is a form of play—doing what you did when you were four or five years old and were playing in the street with your friends. Once you are grown up, it is difficult to be playful, but one of the ways you can is with sex. It is a way of showing yourself: That’s how I’m made. This is what I like.”[38]

    Takashi Miike and Eli roth
    Takashi Miike and Eli roth
    In short, Verhoeven and Takashi Miike are on the same subversive boat. Both individuals want to overthrow the moral order. Eli Roth and Takashi Miike are also in the same boat, working to “fu$k an entire generation.” Of course, Roth himself admitted that he admires Miike’s work. In fact, Roth would have loved to make Ichi the Killer 2. Keep in mind that Ichi the Killer is one of Miike’s “most controversial films,” an “ultra-violent” film that portrays “sadomasochistic” scenes.

    Miike admits in an interview with the BBC that he is a “feminist,” so it was inevitable that he would pull this ideology out of his film. “Miike has garnered international notoriety for depicting shocking scenes of extreme violence and sexual perversions…” Of course, this is exactly what Eli Roth and David Cronenberg have been doing for years.

    What we are seeing here is that Hollywood stirred the subversive pot, and other nations such as Japan and South Korea followed suit. Even the new South Korean movie, Train to Busan, “borrows heavily from World War Z in its depiction of the fast-moving undead masses while also boasting an emotional core the Brad Pitt-starring extravaganza often lacked.”[39]

    If no social progress is possible outside the moral order, then Satanists in Hollywood are contributing to the demise of social docility and cultural harmony around the world. The solution?

    A return to practical reason and metaphysical Logos, the essence of true creativity and beauty. Movies such as The Lord of the Rings were written under those premises. As Israel Shamir rightly points out, Logos is “the main fountain of creativity.” Shamir also argues that true visual art or poetry simply cannot exist outside of Logos.[40]

    If Satanists in Hollywood reject “the main fountain of creativity,” then they can only produce degradation, ugliness, meaninglessness, despair, and ultimate chaos and confusion. It was only a matter of time before the art world was used as a weapon against Logos:

    “A photograph of a crucifix in a container of urine, entitled Piss Christ, was exhibited in the Whitney Museum, which is headed by a great friend of [former Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon, a member of Mega, Leonard Lauder.”[41]

    This is one reason why people like Carolee Schneemann use nothing but blatant sadistic/ sadomasochistic sexual imagery in their “art.”

    First published in October 2016.

    Citations

    [1] Quoted in Stuart Dredge, “Netflix series Hemlock Grove: ‘People want their horror horrific,’ says Eli Roth,” Guardian, April 10, 2013.
    [2] See E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 1054-1056.
    [3] See Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2014).
    [4] Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012), 72.
    [5] Nathan Abrams, “Triple-exthnics,” Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2004.
    [6] Josh Lambert, “‘Dirty Jews’ and the Christian Right,” Haaretz, February 3, 2014.
    [7] David Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70.
    [8] It is almost the same thing with relativism. I have been listening to an interview E. Michael Jones did with Alex Fontana during which Fontana declared that he doesn’t know if he agrees with “objective reality.” He then lays out his position by saying, “I guess I am a relativist.” I was completely stunned because during the entire interview Fontana was basically dissecting some ideas in the culture and implicitly arguing that they were wrong! Fontana could not see that there is no way to adjudicate two fundamentally opposite ideas if relativism is true. I was also shocked because relativism has been abandoned by serious thinkers years ago precisely because it is devoid of coherency and rigor. This is why Jones told him that relativism “is incoherent. It makes no sense ultimately.” I have discussed the incoherency of relativism in numerous articles. An example can be found here.
    [9] Michael Ruse, “God is dead. Long live morality,” Guardian, March 15, 2010.
    [10] E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2012), 15.
    [11] Plato, The Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 116.
    [12] See for example William Beard, The Artist as Monster: The Cinema of David Cronenberg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006).
    [13] Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70.
    [14] William Beard, The Artist as Monster: The Cinema of David Cronenberg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 434.
    [15] Ibid., 443.
    [16] Ibid., 434
    [17] Ibid., 429.
    [18] Ibid., 430.
    [19] Ibid., 430-431.
    [20] Ibid., 431.
    [21] Ibid.
    [22] Ibid., 433.
    [23] Ibid., 430.
    [24] Ibid., 446.
    [25] Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70.
    [26] Beard, Artist as Monster, 452.
    [27] Beard goes into great detail of this. See pages 452-453, 455-456.
    [28] Beard, Artist as Monster, 433.
    [29] Ibid., 434.
    [30] Bruce Kirkland, “Brandon Cronenberg brings first feature film ‘Antiviral’ home,” Toronto Sun, September 9, 2012.
    [31] Logan Hill, “’Antiviral’ Explores Sickness of Celebrity Culture,” Rolling Stone, April 10, 2013.
    [32] Ibid.
    [33] For a dissertation on this, see E. Michael Jones, “The Great Satan and Me: Reflections on Iran and Postmodernism’s Faustian Pact,” Culture Wars, July/August 2015.
    [34] Rob van Scheers, Paul Verhoeven (London: Faber & Faber, 1997), 159-161.
    [35] Paul Verhoeven, Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2010), xi, 5.
    [36] Ibid., 6.
    [37] Van Scheers, Paul Verhoeven, 195.
    [38] Ibid., 258.
    [39] Clark Collis, “Train to Busan: EW review,” Entertainment Weekly, July 22, 2016.
    [40] Israel Shamir, Cabbala of Power (Charleston, SC: BookSurge, 2007), 153.
    [41] Ibid., 150.
    ATTENTION READERS

    We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
    In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

    About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
    Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.

    https://veteranstoday.com/2022/10/25/the-khazarian-mafia-in-hollywood/
    The Khazarian Mafia in Hollywood Jonas E. Alexis, Senior EditorOctober 25, 2022 by Jonas E. Alexis, VT Editor If you walk into the film industry and start interviewing people like Eli Roth, you will almost certainly hear incredible and bizarre things. Roth would tell you that he aspires to “fuck up an entire generation”[1] through movies. Roth and his brethren have been in the business for years, so they know the drill. Roth probably knows the story of Samson and Delilah. He probably knows that Samson’s lust darkened his mind and eventually sent him to his death.[2] Roth almost certainly knows that the best way to destroy the morals of his audience is to prey on their lust and appetite. That is why Roth’s brethren have spent years fighting against obscenity laws and pornography in the United States.[3] roth2 As Jewish scholar Nathan Abrams himself puts it, “Older generation of Jewish filmmakers and actors, here [Woody] Allen, [Stanley] Kubrick and [Ron] Jeremy, arguably not only increased the Jewishness of their work but updated it to match the new post-1990 sensibility by defining it in increasingly sexualized (and pornographic) terms.”[4] Abrams declared elsewhere that “Jewish involvement in porn” is actually “is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.”[5] Another Jewish scholar by the name of Josh Lambert tells us that people like Larry David and Sarah Silverman “are challenging America’s powerful religious, family-friendly culture and asserting their Jewishness by glorifying obscenity.”[6] Yet David and Silverman are hardly the only people who are “glorifying obscenity” in Hollywood. David Cronenberg obviously beat them to the punch. Cronenberg got to the heart of the matter years ago by laying out his ideological weltanschauung in an interview with Rolling Stone this way: “Nothing is true. It’s not an absolute. It’s only a human construct, very definitely able to change and susceptible to change and rethinking. And you can then be free. Free to be unethical, immoral, out of society, and an agent for some other power, never belonging. “Ultimately, if you are an existentialist and you don’t believe in God and the judgment after death, then you can do anything you want: You can kill, you can do whatever society considers the most taboo thing.”[7] Cronenberg’s moral calculus here is logically and philosophically incoherent. If “nothing is true,” then Cronenberg’s statement that “nothing is true” is not true. In order for the statement to make sense, Cronenberg has to assume that it is true! And if it is true, then the “nothing is true” is categorically false, which means that his entire argument collapses. In short, Cronenberg is positing truth claims while denying truth exists! He is trapped in his own ideological matrix.[8] Living the incoherency of his system aside, Cronenberg is basically saying that you can only be free if you can come to the conclusion that nothing is true and that morality is, as philosopher Michael Ruse believes, “flimflam.”[9] But because he is morally and intellectually blind, Cronenberg could not realize that his axiom is self-defeating. Morality, as we all know, is inexorably linked to practical reason. It is also essential to esthetic truth and intellectual pursuit and honesty. As E. Michael Jones rightly puts it, “The intellectual life is a function of the moral life of the thinker. In order to apprehend truth, which is the goal of the intellectual life, one must live a moral life. One can produce an intellectual product, but to the extent that one prescinds from living the moral life, that product will be more a function of internal desire—wish fulfillment, if you will than external reality. This is true of any intellectual field and any deeply held desire.”[10] Truth, as Plato puts it, is like seeing things the way they really are.[11] And the practical reason (another word for morality) is one of the main tools for discovering metaphysical truth. Yet since Cronenberg dismisses practical reason in his ideological calculus, there was no way for him to make a logical point without falling into his own trap. In the process, he has become a monster, as one scholar has argued.[12] The Rolling Stone interviewer asked, “Does the artist have any moral or social responsibility?” Cronenberg: “No…Your responsibility is to be irresponsible. As soon as you talk about social or political responsibility, you’ve amputated the best limbs you’ve got as an artist. You are plugging into a very restrictive system that is going to push and pull and mold you and is going to make your art totally useless and ineffective.”[13] Cronenberg’s philosophy, scholar William Beard tells us, is “the disappearance of ethics.”[14] It is actually “a world of unimpeded desires without consequences, where ‘everything is permitted.’ Metaphorically, this is the world of violent video games, of indulgent Hollywood movies, and also of the transgressive, boundary-piercing cinema of David Cronenberg.”[15] No responsibility, no morality, no ethical values, and no limit, nothing but ultimate meaninglessness and existential hell in movies. Existence itself, as indicated in Cronenberg’s movie eXistenZ, means corruption, moral degradation, and ultimately pathetic death. The axiom of eXistenZ is that “nothing is true; everything is permitted.”[16] “Every time I kill someone in my movie,” says Cronenberg, “I’m rehearsing my own death…It’s an existential truth, it’s very raw and real.” Didn’t Cronenberg state that nothing was true? Why is he now smuggling in truth in his philosophical trap? Cronenberg, who has a “historic affinity with existentialism,”[17] is also playing with the lives of his viewers. He admits that eXistenZ is filled with “existential propaganda.”[18] Scholar William Beard comments: “The disappearance of stable theoretical foundations for human society and human values, the stark realization of the insignificant position of humanity in a material cosmos, the undermining of all kinds of knowledge about the world and ourselves, leaves the existential human subject without a clear guideline for living, with no certainty of anything but his or her own death…Culture, science, the whole edifice of modern European civilization are ineffectual in addressing the individual’s desperate plight.”[19] Once the existentialist denies metaphysical truth, he has to start creating his own “truth”: “From this, we must create ourselves as meaningful beings, and create the world as meaningful for ourselves. From this we must build up the new foundations of our own lives, adding other people, culture, history, and politics tentatively and fragmentedly as necessary…”[20] Existentialists like Cronenberg, says Beard, “cut individuals off from the fundamental questions of personal existence, and leave them alienated in a world crowded with facts but void of meaning.”[21] The philosophy of existentialism teaches Cronenberg that people “are all doomed to die and be swallowed up by Nothingness, but along the way, we may carve out a niche or ledge on the cliff…”[22] Therefore “science” and technology are meaningful if they can advance sexual desires and appetite.[23] It was no coincidence that Cronenberg seized technology in the information age to advance his appetite to a wider audience. He bragged that “technology is with us,”[24] meaning that he can use that kind of medium to get his essentially Freudian and therefore Talmudic ideas to unsuspecting viewers. Put simply, Cronenberg is indirectly reinventing what Nietzsche would have called the transvaluation of all values, which again states that morality is an illusion and that any culture which becomes docile to the moral order must be overthrown. But in order to do that, Cronenberg has to go back to his revolutionary roots, which is neither Western nor rational but essentially Talmudic or Freudian: “I think we start off with what Freud called a polymorphous perverseness.”[25] One can easily argue that this “polymorphous perverseness” is at the core of virtually every Cronenberg film. In fact, Cronenberg admitted that characters in movies like Crash, M. Butterfly, Naked Lunch, Dead Ringers, and Stereo, were “reinventing sexuality,”[26] which is another way of saying that Cronenberg’s characters were subverting the sexual order.[27] Cronenberg’s existential philosophy, Beard says, is “sexual or predatory, a drive, an appetite, that invokes Freud far more readily than the Sartre who heatedly rejected a Freudian view of life in which individuals were unfree prisoners of their psychic histories and hardwired desires.”[28] Cronenberg’s characters in eXistenZ, Beard continues, “seem to reproduce that quasi-Freudian sense that their individual freedom—a sacrosanct item of the existentialist creed—is compromised by appetites that are so powerful they are strongly impelled to do something ethically ugly. This happens to Pikul in the Chinese restaurant. He finds he wants to kill the waiter and is told by Geller that the impulse is part of his game character’s make-up and that he won’t be able to do anything to stop it.”[29] David and Brandon Cronenberg David and Brandon Cronenberg The interesting thing is that Cronenberg has successfully passed his essentially diabolical ideas to his son Brandon, who is now following the family tradition. That fact became quite obvious when David edited Brandon’s first feature film Antiviral,[30] which the Rolling Stone itself has described as “sickening,” and which has the same “disturbing obsession with bodies and technology that animates his father’s films, from The Fly and Dead Ringers to Videodrome and Existenz.”[31] The Rolling Stone reported, “The son was infected with his father’s own sense of cerebral horror, and he is not rebelling against it. ‘I wrestled with it at first,’ he says, ‘but you get affected by how you grow up….’”[32] Cronenberg, whether he likes it or not, should be called a Satanist precisely because he is anti-Logos.[33] But there is a bigger picture here. Cronenberg’s ideology has been transported to places like Japan as well. For example, one of Japan’s most controversial filmmakers is none other than Takashi Miike. Miike says that he is a fervent admirer of directors like David Lynch (Lost Highway), Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct), and of course David Cronenberg. These people are what one should call cultural subverters. Verhoeven meant it when he said: “As a director, my goal is to be completely open. Just look at how I portray sex in my films. They’re considered shocking and obscene because I like to carefully examine human sexuality. It has to be realistic.”[34] Verhoeven also declares that he has been “fascinated by the occult: black magic, UFOs, and kinetic energy. I also experimented with hypnotism, trying to get my friends to remember former lives.”[35] It was a natural step for Verhoeven to move from an interest in the occult to bringing his viewpoint to life in films. Turning from the unknown and unknowable, Verhoeven replaced his own ideology with reality: “My films became my anchor to reality, and I began to make extremely realistic movies. I felt compelled to show things as explicitly as possible—a tendency which many film critics have dismissed as banal.”[36] Verhoeven applied this tendency most often to the area of sexuality, explicitly portraying sex in movies like Showgirls, Basic Instinct, Turkish Delight, and The Fourth Man. Yet even in RoboCop, which in comparison has little sexuality, Verhoeven’s worldview is clear—this time he is substituting Logos incarnate with his own imagination: “It’s pure resurrection. For me, RoboCop is a Cytale. First, Murphy is gunned down in the most horrific way: that is Crucifixion. And it has to be so violent because the audience has to remember him. “Before that, he has not done anything in the film. He comes to the police station to put on his uniform, then he goes after the villains with his partner, and bang! he is dead. That shooting is the only thing about him—I did that deliberately. “Next, the film makes a steep descent into the finite, after which he experiences his Resurrection, in a modern-day…RoboCop is a Jesus figure—an American Jesus…Americans want to be humane, but if they think it takes too long, Christian morality is pushed aside for the moment and they go for their weapons—just like Robocop.”[37] Biographer Rob van Scheers writes, “Both in his films and in his personal life, Paul Verhoeven has always practiced a free sexual morality of which he makes no secret…Verhoeven would add in the gay magazine The Advocate: ‘Sex is a form of play—doing what you did when you were four or five years old and were playing in the street with your friends. Once you are grown up, it is difficult to be playful, but one of the ways you can is with sex. It is a way of showing yourself: That’s how I’m made. This is what I like.”[38] Takashi Miike and Eli roth Takashi Miike and Eli roth In short, Verhoeven and Takashi Miike are on the same subversive boat. Both individuals want to overthrow the moral order. Eli Roth and Takashi Miike are also in the same boat, working to “fu$k an entire generation.” Of course, Roth himself admitted that he admires Miike’s work. In fact, Roth would have loved to make Ichi the Killer 2. Keep in mind that Ichi the Killer is one of Miike’s “most controversial films,” an “ultra-violent” film that portrays “sadomasochistic” scenes. Miike admits in an interview with the BBC that he is a “feminist,” so it was inevitable that he would pull this ideology out of his film. “Miike has garnered international notoriety for depicting shocking scenes of extreme violence and sexual perversions…” Of course, this is exactly what Eli Roth and David Cronenberg have been doing for years. What we are seeing here is that Hollywood stirred the subversive pot, and other nations such as Japan and South Korea followed suit. Even the new South Korean movie, Train to Busan, “borrows heavily from World War Z in its depiction of the fast-moving undead masses while also boasting an emotional core the Brad Pitt-starring extravaganza often lacked.”[39] If no social progress is possible outside the moral order, then Satanists in Hollywood are contributing to the demise of social docility and cultural harmony around the world. The solution? A return to practical reason and metaphysical Logos, the essence of true creativity and beauty. Movies such as The Lord of the Rings were written under those premises. As Israel Shamir rightly points out, Logos is “the main fountain of creativity.” Shamir also argues that true visual art or poetry simply cannot exist outside of Logos.[40] If Satanists in Hollywood reject “the main fountain of creativity,” then they can only produce degradation, ugliness, meaninglessness, despair, and ultimate chaos and confusion. It was only a matter of time before the art world was used as a weapon against Logos: “A photograph of a crucifix in a container of urine, entitled Piss Christ, was exhibited in the Whitney Museum, which is headed by a great friend of [former Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon, a member of Mega, Leonard Lauder.”[41] This is one reason why people like Carolee Schneemann use nothing but blatant sadistic/ sadomasochistic sexual imagery in their “art.” First published in October 2016. Citations [1] Quoted in Stuart Dredge, “Netflix series Hemlock Grove: ‘People want their horror horrific,’ says Eli Roth,” Guardian, April 10, 2013. [2] See E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 1054-1056. [3] See Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2014). [4] Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012), 72. [5] Nathan Abrams, “Triple-exthnics,” Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2004. [6] Josh Lambert, “‘Dirty Jews’ and the Christian Right,” Haaretz, February 3, 2014. [7] David Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70. [8] It is almost the same thing with relativism. I have been listening to an interview E. Michael Jones did with Alex Fontana during which Fontana declared that he doesn’t know if he agrees with “objective reality.” He then lays out his position by saying, “I guess I am a relativist.” I was completely stunned because during the entire interview Fontana was basically dissecting some ideas in the culture and implicitly arguing that they were wrong! Fontana could not see that there is no way to adjudicate two fundamentally opposite ideas if relativism is true. I was also shocked because relativism has been abandoned by serious thinkers years ago precisely because it is devoid of coherency and rigor. This is why Jones told him that relativism “is incoherent. It makes no sense ultimately.” I have discussed the incoherency of relativism in numerous articles. An example can be found here. [9] Michael Ruse, “God is dead. Long live morality,” Guardian, March 15, 2010. [10] E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2012), 15. [11] Plato, The Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 116. [12] See for example William Beard, The Artist as Monster: The Cinema of David Cronenberg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006). [13] Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70. [14] William Beard, The Artist as Monster: The Cinema of David Cronenberg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 434. [15] Ibid., 443. [16] Ibid., 434 [17] Ibid., 429. [18] Ibid., 430. [19] Ibid., 430-431. [20] Ibid., 431. [21] Ibid. [22] Ibid., 433. [23] Ibid., 430. [24] Ibid., 446. [25] Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70. [26] Beard, Artist as Monster, 452. [27] Beard goes into great detail of this. See pages 452-453, 455-456. [28] Beard, Artist as Monster, 433. [29] Ibid., 434. [30] Bruce Kirkland, “Brandon Cronenberg brings first feature film ‘Antiviral’ home,” Toronto Sun, September 9, 2012. [31] Logan Hill, “’Antiviral’ Explores Sickness of Celebrity Culture,” Rolling Stone, April 10, 2013. [32] Ibid. [33] For a dissertation on this, see E. Michael Jones, “The Great Satan and Me: Reflections on Iran and Postmodernism’s Faustian Pact,” Culture Wars, July/August 2015. [34] Rob van Scheers, Paul Verhoeven (London: Faber & Faber, 1997), 159-161. [35] Paul Verhoeven, Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2010), xi, 5. [36] Ibid., 6. [37] Van Scheers, Paul Verhoeven, 195. [38] Ibid., 258. [39] Clark Collis, “Train to Busan: EW review,” Entertainment Weekly, July 22, 2016. [40] Israel Shamir, Cabbala of Power (Charleston, SC: BookSurge, 2007), 153. [41] Ibid., 150. ATTENTION READERS We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion. About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. https://veteranstoday.com/2022/10/25/the-khazarian-mafia-in-hollywood/
    Like
    1
    0 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε 26290 Views
  • Wrongful Conviction - #444 Jason Flom with Rafael Martinez:

    https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-enurv-1e449406

    #RafaelMartinez #WarOnDrugs #CooperatingWitness #Witness #WitnessCoercion #Coercion #PleaBargain #PleaDeal #ConfidentialInformant #Misidentification #FalseNarrative #EyewitnessTestimony #Testimony #Lies #CourtroomProcedure #KangarooCourt #ExculpatoryEvidence #EvidenceSuppression #Evidence #Undead #PrisonBreak #WrongfulConviction #CriminalJustice #Law
    Wrongful Conviction - #444 Jason Flom with Rafael Martinez: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-enurv-1e449406 #RafaelMartinez #WarOnDrugs #CooperatingWitness #Witness #WitnessCoercion #Coercion #PleaBargain #PleaDeal #ConfidentialInformant #Misidentification #FalseNarrative #EyewitnessTestimony #Testimony #Lies #CourtroomProcedure #KangarooCourt #ExculpatoryEvidence #EvidenceSuppression #Evidence #Undead #PrisonBreak #WrongfulConviction #CriminalJustice #Law
    0 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε 10174 Views
  • Reveal Undead Genesis #1975
    #SoMee
    #reveal
    #someeofficial
    #upvote
    #crypto
    #AweSME
    #solana
    Reveal Undead Genesis #1975 #SoMee #reveal #someeofficial #upvote #crypto #AweSME #solana
    Like
    5
    0 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε 1288 Views
  • Undead Genesis #1975

    #SoMee
    #revealsoon
    #someeofficial
    #upvote
    #crypto
    #AweSME
    #solana
    Undead Genesis #1975 #SoMee #revealsoon #someeofficial #upvote #crypto #AweSME #solana
    Like
    3
    0 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε 2162 Views
  • Exciting in the gaming world. https://cryptometaversealert.com/ex-goldman-sachs-analyst-launches-undead-blocks/ #gamefi #gaming #somee #nft #cent #thgaming #battle #dec
    Exciting in the gaming world. https://cryptometaversealert.com/ex-goldman-sachs-analyst-launches-undead-blocks/ #gamefi #gaming #somee #nft #cent #thgaming #battle #dec
    CRYPTOMETAVERSEALERT.COM
    Ex-Goldman Sachs Analyst Launches 'Undead Blocks' on Immutable X: A Fun and Addictive Blockchain-based Game
    Play 'Undead Blocks,' the new social game launched by ex-Goldman Sachs analyst on Immutable X. Kill zombies, earn ZBUX tokens, and redeem them for Ethereum or IMX tokens.
    Like
    3
    0 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε 4682 Views
  • Back from one week fighting the undead with the hole family.









    Back from one week fighting the undead with the hole family.
    0 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε 348 Views
  • Good night friends I am testing the PVP game of plant vs undead. Since I only have cloned 2 plants, I won't be able to win anything. But in view of all the bad decisions of the devs I don't want to invest either. Definitely my best option is in the PVE. So far I have been working on farming and I have 5 plants already. So I have more chances in the PVE.
    Good night friends I am testing the PVP game of plant vs undead. Since I only have cloned 2 plants, I won't be able to win anything. But in view of all the bad decisions of the devs I don't want to invest either. Definitely my best option is in the PVE. So far I have been working on farming and I have 5 plants already. So I have more chances in the PVE.
    0 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε 462 Views
  • Boys boys boys ???????? I must tell you that the app of plant vs undead the NFT game in which I invested a few months ago hoping they would fix somee of course, it is ready ???????? The truth is I thought they had already scammed me but not yet hahaha It is a bummer but I managed to log into the new game app and it doesn't look bad at all. I don't know what the new updates will be, but the game is expected to be 100% operational in December. At the moment it can only be farming but I still have hope that the token will revive since at this moment it remains at 0.03$ : / Well everything is in the hands of the creators of PVU hopefully they make good decisions that allow the game to resurface again.
    Boys boys boys ???????? I must tell you that the app of plant vs undead the NFT game in which I invested a few months ago hoping they would fix somee of course, it is ready ???????? The truth is I thought they had already scammed me but not yet hahaha It is a bummer but I managed to log into the new game app and it doesn't look bad at all. I don't know what the new updates will be, but the game is expected to be 100% operational in December. At the moment it can only be farming but I still have hope that the token will revive since at this moment it remains at 0.03$ : / Well everything is in the hands of the creators of PVU hopefully they make good decisions that allow the game to resurface again.
    0 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε 450 Views
  • Good night friends. What's new? I have been sick and a little absent ... Any of you are in the game plant vs undead, tell me if they already scammed us?
    Good night friends. What's new? I have been sick and a little absent ... Any of you are in the game plant vs undead, tell me if they already scammed us?
    0 Σχόλια 0 Μοιράστηκε 443 Views