pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 15 replies \ @Signal312 29 Sep \ on: Slander To Debunk (aka STD), The Show - Ep 4: Saifedean, the Gish Galloper Politics_And_Law
Thank you for writing this up. I took a look at it to see what I could double check.
Saifedean wrote in his substack post:
You pointed to your previous post for the rebuttal - #1089932. But in there, all I see about money supply is this
And that page has some stats saying that inflation went down. So...what about the money supply, specifically? Is it increasing, like Saifedean says? The fact that some measures of inflation went down is meaningless. I'm sure inflation numbers in Argentina are just as meaningless and false as they are in the US.
I imagine that the money supply increasing is a metric that is easier to validate.
Also...what's up with Milei being so extremely pro-Israel? Especially after the Charlie Kirk assassination, and revelations about just how completely bought and sold the US government is by Israel, any strong link like is bound to be looked at with suspicion by an increasing number of people.
Especially after the Charlie Kirk assassination
You lost me here, what do you mean?
reply
I mean that there's a lot of evidence that Charlie Kirk, previously very pro-Israel, was changing his views on Israel. And that was causing very serious issues with his biggest donors, who were linked to Israel.
Especially just in the past couple months, he stated to friends and confidants that he was afraid of assassination by the Israeli Secret Service, Mossad.
Max Blumenthal has some great in-depth reporting on this topic. Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4vHODyPZPk.
And here's an article on his news site, The Gray Zone: https://thegrayzone.com/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-netanyahu-israel-assassination/.
reply
I get that there was a conflict of interests. But trying to frame it as "Kirk was assassinated by the jews for making some critics against them" do not makes any sense. Why would you kill the one guy in the right that still stands for you, and make sure only the full blown anti-semites remain? There's plenty of public figures in the US who, contrary to Kirk, devote their time to speak ill of the jews. There's also plenty of high profile public figures that have expressed the exact same points of Kirk. All of them are fine, but Kirk was the problematic one to be eliminated by the jews themselves? It just doesn't add up.
reply
Sure it makes sense. He was one of the few who was extremely reliably very favorable to pro-Israel policy.
AND he had a huge following among the youth - far larger than any other conservative youth influencer.
He had begun to reverse course on Israel. Not anywhere near 100%. But if you look at the links above, he was definitely becoming far more skeptical, and was also very upset at the negative feedback he got from Israeli-linked donors at ANY criticism of Israel, no matter how mild.
Also, he was requested to un-invite Tucker Carlson from his events. But he refused. He had been welcoming people like Tucker Carlson and Dave Smith at his events, for talks and debates. These are people who kept on bringing up inconvenient facts about Gaza.
So yes, I do believe that Israel had a reason to eliminate him.
And they also had a good reason to do it while they still could, while they could still lionize him and make him a martyr. Israel is well known for assassinations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations#2020s
And just last year they killed 42 people and maimed more than a thousand via a pager attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_electronic_device_attacks
reply
This is what isn't adding up. You first state that:
He was one of the few who was extremely reliably very favorable to pro-Israel policy.
But then you state the opposite right below:
There's loads of right wingers that are completely and absolutely pro Israel.
It's either one or the other.
Then, about
But if you look at the links above, he was definitely becoming far more skeptical
I did saw the links and it's not what I saw. In his latest interviews right before his death he was adamant that he stood with Israel in their battle and that he wanted them to win against the terrorists.
I get he had a large youth following but he was nowhere near public figures like Tucker Carlson who has much more blunt views on Israel. It's not like they would have "killed all possibilities of the USA being against Israel once and for all", like if Kirk was key for such a purpose or something. Kirk, the one guy with the most dialogist stand among the right, killed to ensure more dialogue and a closer relationship with Israel. It do not makes any sense. Kirk's assassination what has stupid and pointless as the deranged person who committed it: it was a pure act of folly and fanaticism.
Israel is well known for assassinations.
Your links point toward missions against military targets. In war you, indeed, kill. Should I present you with the list of "assassinations" the US army committed during WWI? WWII? Korea? Vietnam? Irak? soon Venezuela, etc. What you point at makes no sense.
reply
I should have said "He was one of the few who was extremely reliably very favorable to pro-Israel policy AND HAD A HUGE MOSTLY YOUNG FOLLOWING".
That's the main difference. The older conservative crowd is still reliably pro-Israel. The young conservative crowd is starting to not be anywhere near as pro-Israel anymore. If Charlie Kirk - formerly VERY pro Israel, was starting to criticize Israel, that's a big deal, and a big problem for Israel.
Regarding your statement "In his latest interviews right before his death he was adamant that he stood with Israel in their battle and that he wanted them to win against the terrorists"
... I invite people to directly look at the articles and videos I mentioned.
Max Blumenthal has some great in-depth reporting on this topic. Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4vHODyPZPk. And here's an article on his news site, The Gray Zone: https://thegrayzone.com/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-netanyahu-israel-assassination/.
Also here's a link to a previous video I posted that is very relevant:
17 minute interview with Charlie Kirk from about a month ago. Look at his face.
reply
Not only I directly saw the sources you point at but I also saw exactly the video you just posted, in which what I said is repeatedly confirmed, with insistence from both Kirk and Kelly, and with great emphasis every time. Israel killing Kirk for his pro stance not only on their right to defend themselves but, in his own words, for the importance for them to win, simply, do not adds up.
reply
You're lying by omission here.
Here's the video in question (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2qn0mvSCig)
He does talk about his life being changed in Israel, he wants Israel to win, etc.
HOWEVER the critical component of the whole thing is that in the past few months, the Israel lobby started to viciously criticize him about having Tucker Carlson at his event, and also moderating a debate between Josh Hammer (pro Zionist) and Dave Smith (anti Zionist).
He seems pretty rattled by these accusations. And sources have said he was afraid of assassination by Mossad.
Here's some quotes from the transcript:
But then all of a sudden, I host a person, I moderate the debate mind you, and I give equal time to Josh Hammer, equal time to a pro-Israel advocate, and my moral character is being put into question. And so I just think it's a hyper-paranoid, 'we're just going to try to, we're going to just stamp out everything' type of practice. But it goes to the point where, for example, I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government without backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?
And it's offensive. It's offensive to those of us who have been out there defending them in many instances against critics on our own side. And now you have a couple of comments like, 'Well, what about this? Well, has it gone on too long? Like, is it time to wrap it up?' And the thing about Epstein is just so bizarre. I don't know who he was an agent for. It might have been Israel or an asset, or it might have been nobody. But we're allowed to speculate about that. It's like there's some 'you can't go there' when it comes to Israel.
Also saying "Why would you kill the one guy in the right that still stands for you?" Is just pure silliness.
There's loads of right wingers that are completely and absolutely pro Israel. And left wingers as well.
reply
Also...what's up with Milei being so extremely pro-Israel?
There are many reasons to that:
- Milei openly professes judaism, even quotes the Torah in his presidential speeches. He considers Judaism to be the highest form of religion because it's the one that aligns the most with his libertarian tenets, which is true. You can tell that he's very vehement on what he believes in so, as much as he has been vehement on his economical and political tenets, he will be on his religious ones. I'm atheist personally, so I really, really don't care, as much as people in general don't care for as long as he accomplishes his objectives.
- Milei holds as the very basis of the fight for freedom the need for what he calls "the cultural battle", in the sense that no sane governmental or economical scheme is possible in a society that do not aligns in its core principles with those schemes, so society must be first naturally predisposed. To ensure that, society must be educated on the principles of liberty, but at the most fundamental core, it's religion the one that leads the way. If the religion of a society conflicts with the idea of freedom, said society will, even if well versed on the tenets of freedom, naturally drift towards totalitarianism. So, while he personally made that decision, he tries to have an influence on people to induce at least a level of religiosity around the idea of freedom, which has already developed among the youth in the shape of a pseudo religion, what the youth calls "the forces of heaven". I'm an engineer, and the religion of an engineer is engineering, so I really don't care, but I fully understand and, honestly, support, his view.
- Argentina has an extremely dirty past: 3.1 By the end of WWII the nazis planned to revive the Reich in and from Argentina, so it's well documented that numerous submarines brought a lot of gold and high ranking officers to the country and initiated nazi cells that survived decades long after the end of WWII. Even Himmler was found here being part of one. So, while the USA may have retrieved scientists from germany, we here retrieved high ranking officials directly responsible for the mass murders in the concentration camps. Himmler being the most famous case. In the province of Cordoba there are the ruins of an hotel where those high ranking officials famously used to hang out, and there is still today serious suspicion that even Hitler himself might have been one of them. 3.2 During the 90's, muslim terrorist cells commanded directly from Iran infiltrated Argentina under very difficult to justify conditions (specially since the president at the moment, Menem, was muslim himself), and blew up the Israel Embassy, killing 85 people. The Kirchnerist regime later signed a Memorandum with Iran in which it agreed not to keep pursuing legal actions against the terrorists, which where already identified by the time. Cristina Kirchner, the one responsible for it, was about to be sent to court for high treason due to that, but she commanded the assassination of the attorney responsible for the case, Nisman, the night right before. As she did it under his regime, the investigation of Nisman assassination never took off. 3.3 So, Milei has very, very, very good reasons to be willing to have the closest relationship possible with Israel in order to sort all of this mess out. Israel in turn is the only force that can provide him with the intelligence services needed. Results were immediate, as right in the first year of his mandate a local muslim terrorist cell was terminated. And there have to be many, many more things that will remain secret.
reply
Not really sure how Judaism is consistent with libertarian tenets. There are certain rules about when you can and can't work, and rules about the rich leaving some of their produce for the poor, and stuff like that, not to mention strict rules about land designations and the jubilee. Though to be fair, I'm not entirely sure how that's put into practice by the various streams of modern Judaism
reply
To start, they include an economic scheme in the religion, which already says a lot about the (correct) importance they give to economy not merely culturally but right from the very religious texts. The texts contemplate the basic principle of private property and exchange, and they make a crucial distinction on how they approach wealth respect to christianity: while christians thank god for the wealth they have, jews thank god for giving them strength to be able to have wealth. So while in christianity the only way to have wealth is by god's mercy, in judaism it's entirely up to yourself, and having wealth is not a discretional, seldom act of god's mercy, but an actively human act god expects you to do. That is: wealth is a good thing and something you should look after, not a bad thing and something you should refrain from as in christianity. All of those basic principles align fundamentally with libertarianism and, further, with capitalism.
reply
I'm sure inflation numbers in Argentina are just as meaningless and false as they are in the US.
The previous regime was infamous for blatant manipulation of the inflation index and all metrics in general so you are justified on being reserved about it. The final judge is real life experience. I can confirm, from personal and third hand experience, that inflation has faded and some prices tend to remain fixed for months now. You may hear supporters of the previous regime complain that "how can you say inflation is down?? prices remain high!!" in a majestic display of the legendary inability of the left to do math: low or no inflation means prices stop increasing, not that they will "go down". At this point so much time as gone by and the tendency is so undeniable in real life that I'm pleased to say you can look into even opposing media and they openly recognize inflation has effectively faded, so they have now switched to complain on "the way he did it".
reply
Hello Sr!
The section from my previous post on the "monetary expansion" part is this one (links to sources in original post):
The reference is a twit of himself pointing out the monetary expansion. The question should be, how's that possible, if no more money is being emitted, and inflation is currently below 2% and decreasing? how such a brutal increment didn't cause an instant increment in inflation?... oh yes! Debt payoffs! There's indeed no new money nor new debt, the "monetary expansion" simply being the result of operations that cause existing money to be accounted for, as in this case, existing debt monetization. In order to ensure the reintegration of the country into the international credit system (and the finance ecosystem overall), Milei has stated it's paramount to honor the debts and not to incur in new ones, and so far this has been respected strictly.
reply