Comment on Ben Shairo taking over TPUSA by hyokkim

Parent Post: Ben Shairo taking over TPUSA

hyokkim · 9/17/2025, 7:43:27 AM · permalink

It reminds me of 'Godfather'; I have much experience with Jews, including shondas, and many addicts to CJW.    'Godfather' was written by someone with extensive knowledge of CJW.     
  
The biggest mistakes CJW addicts tend to make is that CJW is infallible.   One trick from CJW is that a little after they engaged in negative behavior in secret against their mark, is to behave in a very public way how much they like the person against whom they just behaved in a very negative way in secret, in order to build a false 'moral' alibi (since they just behaved in a very public way how much they like the person against whom they behaved negatively in secret, no one would suspect that they had behaved in a very negative way in secret; yes, CJW addicts think goyim are that dumb)  
  
Charlie had been turning against blind support for Zionism very recently; Ben had never been really that close to Charlie, and now he's acting like he had been Charlie's best friend for years, in a very public way, basically 'bribing' public sympathy, another play straight out of CJW.  
  
I know this is true from many first hand experience dealing with many shondas, and CJW addicts.    They offer you to do favors unasked, the favors they didn't do, all of sudden, acting like they really care about you, right after having acted against you behind your back, in secret.   I know many Jews, shondas, and CJW addicts.  
  
Remember Don's advice to Michael: The first one to approach and broker a peace meeting with Barzini is the traitor.     
  
''\[to Michael\] Barzini will move against you first. He'll set up a meeting with someone that you absolutely trust, guaranteeing your safety. And at that meeting, you'll be assassinated...It's an old habit. I spend my life trying not to be careless. Women and children can afford to be careless, but not men...It could be anyone...I never wanted this for you. I work my whole life, I don't apologize; to take care of my family, and I refused to be a fool, dancing on the string held by all those bigshots. I don't apologize; that's my life, but I thought that, that when it was your time, that you would be the one to hold the strings: Senator Corleone; Governor Corleone. Well, it wasn't enough time, Michael. It wasn't enough time...Now listen, whoever comes to you with this Barzini meeting, he's the traitor. Don't forget that.''  
  
The first 'friend' to approach you and offer you support, in a very public way (CJW addicts are big on PR stunt/public perception) and to do little favors they hadn't done before is the scumbag acting against you behind your back, in secret.  It's straight out of CJW.     
  
  
https://www.helleniscope.com/2025/09/13/the-last-interview-of-charlie-kirk-with-ben-shapiro-one-day-before-his-death/

38 bumps

gracejoy · 9/17/2025, 8:47:04 AM · permalink

33 bumps

hyokkim · 9/17/2025, 9:38:17 AM · permalink

''&amp; Ben's eyebrows danced.''    
  
Yes, CJW addicts are usually very overconfident so that when they are challenged in a truthful way, they panic very easily.  Since they always assume goyim are too stupid to find out the truth.  
  
''I was once fooled by Ben, .....''  
  
I was never fooled by Ben, but then I had had decades of experience dealing with CJW addicts.  
  
''What is "CJW"?''  
  
Conventional Jewish Wisdom, the very opposite of Mensch.  
  
Here is an example of Mensch, the ultimate anti-CJW.  
  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman  
  
''That said, sometimes it's difficult when you have to spend time w/someone, for example real estate agents: They must be well trained in being friendly. You end up spending so much time w/them, they really work to gain your trust; but then they slip up sometimes so you remembe they're salesmen.''  
  
Not all professional salespeople are unethical.   As a general rule, I learned not to trust people who are hip, cheerful, and positive always, even when they don't know you very well.   Some such people are genuinely nice people, but overwhelming majority of them are dishonest, and manipulative.  
  
''I never saw "Godfather," though I've seen clips.''  
  
A long time ago, when I was a naive kid with no real experience, I thought 'GF' was a pretentious bore.   I finally started appreciating 'GF' after watching it after turning 50; I was genuinely struck how real the drama was, and how profound knowledge it had on CJW.  
  
''What he said makes sense, it reminds me of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by the Saudis.''  
  
Jamal was overpraised by some people; he was morally/ethically nothing really that special; hadn't he endorsed Hillary?  
  
''Also of Jared Kusher, Ivanka's husband. Very bad man, he profits from others' tragedies.''  
  
Not really; a lot of people not very bad from others' tragedies as well; ROK for one?!  
  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Oil  
  
https://www.tacticalreport.com/daily/62065-saudi-arabia-fighters-eyeing-south-koreas-kf-21  
  
''April, 2018. "EXCLUSIVE: Saudi crown prince bragged that Jared Kushner gave him CIA intelligence about other Saudis saying 'here are your enemies' days before 'corruption crackdown' which led to torture &amp; death." It's thanks to Jared that MBS is in charge: In return, MBS seeded Jared's Affinity investment group w/$2B.''  
  
Yeah!  POROK had already known MBS was responsible for Jamal killing.  
![video](https://www.youtube.com/embed/H8u2yXFi1OE)
  
Is the POROK a very bad man?

28 bumps

gracejoy · 9/17/2025, 11:03:52 AM · permalink

Grigori Perelman. TY, an opposite often is the best way to explain something.  
  
I knew / know little about Jamal. His "goodness" doesn't matter, he was a journalist betrayed. There was a Ukrainian journalist, a youtuber, who spoke negatively about Zelensky, he was finaly arrested &amp; died in prison. I can't remember his name, I didn't care for him, he was vulgar &amp; obscene. Still journalists should be protected.
![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/4920/1758107032717-034a7491cff80621.png)
.  
"*...a lot of people not very bad from others' tragedies as well; ROK for one?*!"

So, "Saudi Aramco bought a 35% interest in August 1991 . increased . to 65% in 2014;" &amp; "POROK" signed a deal with MBS? Doing business w/MBS isn't the same as Jared (illegally) giving him top secret info so he can murder / imprison his family &amp; take control.  
  
I said Jared profited from others' tragedies; but that's only one bad thing he does. And it's not necessarily bad to profit in such instances. For example, consider the real estate market now, prices are starting to go down; &amp; years of gains will be lost. Anyone buying a house would be foolish to pay top dollar, &amp; shouldn't do so b/c he's sorry for the seller not making a profit, or losing money.  
  
OTOH, setting people up so one can profit is another story (like Jared &amp; MBS). Jared made the Abraham Accord, a business deal that sold out Israelis (allegedly his people) so he can do business w/Middle East princes.  Leslie Wexner who profited from 911; &amp; George Bush (passed the Patriot Act to surveil Americans).  
  
Or hiding profiteering as "support," like all the celebrities who visited Israel after Oct 7 looking for investment opportunities. See [Jared &amp; Ivanka visiting Israel](https://worldisraelnews.com/ivanka-trump-and-jared-kushner-visit-kfar-aza-on-israel-solidarity-trip/), I made a brief comment there, I didn't want to say that openly at the time (wouldn't have helped). Or hypocrisy, Bibi bombing Qatar, while never objecting to [Jared Kushner](https://worldisraelnews.com/to-stop-hamas-confront-qatar-and-iran/#comment-6551199421) (see comments) doing business there. Or Zionists angry at Biden for giving money to "foreign human rights advisors" (pro-Pal); but having no response when I pointed out that [Jared did business w/them](https://worldisraelnews.com/a-2000-soccer-ball-for-hamas-friendly-qatar-and-a-1500-bowl-for-xi-biden-gave-lavish-gifts-to-foreign-human-rights-abusers-congressional-notice-shows/#comment-6614035615). The last two aren't profiting from tragedy; but their special status is still wrong.  
  
"[Trump Gaza](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH8NbKfTMH4)" (:33)
![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/4920/1758107032767-96094d8f09048417.png)

15 bumps

hyokkim · 9/17/2025, 5:10:30 PM · permalink

''I knew / know little about Jamal. His "goodness" doesn't matter, he was a journalist betrayed.''  
  
Betrayed by whom?   Jamal endorsed Hillary, who is ethically/morally/philosophically worse than MBS/Trump.  He was no hero/saint, and not very principled, either.  
  
''There was a Ukrainian journalist, a youtuber, who spoke negatively about Zelensky, he was finaly arrested &amp; died in prison. I can't remember his name, I didn't care for him, he was vulgar &amp; obscene. Still journalists should be protected.''  
  
I am not saying they should be persecuted; I am saying, I don't have to risk my life/money/well-being on behalf of someone not worthy enough.   I believe how a nation should behave is based on OTNI, in the end, not some abstract 'moral' principle, especially when one is not going to be consistent about it anyway.  
  
''So, "Saudi Aramco bought a 35% interest in August 1991 . increased . to 65% in 2014;" &amp; "POROK" signed a deal with MBS? Doing business w/MBS isn't the same as Jared (illegally) giving him top secret info so he can murder / imprison his family &amp; take control.''  
  
Oh, no, ROK did more than that; ROKAF had provided smart bombs to MBS illegally.  It was the Russian media who provided scoop; they were not happy ROK is 'poaching' a good customer from them.   ROK refused to arrest/charge/indict ROKAF generals responsible; it was a matter of OTNI.  
  
MBS used the bombs to kill civilians in Yemen.  
  
''I said Jared profited from others' tragedies; but that's only one bad thing he does. And it's not necessarily bad to profit in such instances. For example, consider the real estate market now, prices are starting to go down; &amp; years of gains will be lost. Anyone buying a house would be foolish to pay top dollar, &amp; shouldn't do so b/c he's sorry for the seller not making a profit, or losing money.

OTOH, setting people up so one can profit is another story (like Jared &amp; MBS). Jared made the Abraham Accord, a business deal that sold out Israelis (allegedly his people) so he can do business w/Middle East princes. Leslie Wexner who profited from 911; &amp; George Bush (passed the Patriot Act to surveil Americans).

Or hiding profiteering as "support," like all the celebrities who visited Israel after Oct 7 looking for investment opportunities. See Jared &amp; Ivanka visiting Israel, I made a brief comment there, I didn't want to say that openly at the time (wouldn't have helped). Or hypocrisy, Bibi bombing Qatar, while never objecting to Jared Kushner (see comments) doing business there. Or Zionists angry at Biden for giving money to "foreign human rights advisors" (pro-Pal); but having no response when I pointed out that Jared did business w/them. The last two aren't profiting from tragedy; but their special status is still wrong.

"Trump Gaza" (:33)''  
  
It's all a matter of OTNI; that's how ROK electorate sees it.  
  
https://soj.ooo/p/freethinkers/post/5b0165965df3d57010c79fcd9cde6f99

13 bumps

gracejoy · 9/18/2025, 12:51:36 PM · permalink

"*Betrayed by whom? Jamal endorsed Hillary . ethically/morally/philosophically worse than MBS/Trump. He was no hero/saint, and not very principled, either*."  
  
Betrayed by Jared &amp; MBS. Note the image in my previous post, the 1st A defends journalists as intrinsic to free speech; &amp; while I can't speak to Saudi Arabian law, from what I understand, Jamal went there under false pretense. I want to say that to debate which of two evils is "*worse*" is an exercise in semantics.  
.

''...*not saying they should be persecuted \[but\] I don't have to risk my life/money/well-being \[for the unworthy\]. ...a nation should behave . based on OTNI . not . abstract 'moral' principle, especially when one is not going to be consistent about it anyway*."  
  
The Constitution isn't an inconsistent "*Abstract* '*moral*' *principle*." I would argue that whatever "*principle*" you prefer is even inconsistent, for example your preference for MBS/Trump over Hillary: Your conclusion would always change depending on the options. I prefer the Constitution.  
.  
"...*ROK . ROKAF . MBS . ROK is 'poaching' a good customer from \[Russia\] . OTNI . Yemen . It's all a matter of OTNI; that's how ROK electorate sees it*."  
  
It's not my job to judge between corrupt politicians (see also my comment about "*semantics*" under your first quote). It's also irrelevant to the 1 A.

I don't know OTNI; but I'm sure I'd prefer the Constitution. I'm not sure relevance of your links to Apocalypse Now, The Heat, &amp; Lü Boshe. Not knowing your premise for posting them in the first place, let alone here, I'll say that the only similarity I noticed is that Cao Cao killing his "Uncle" Lü Boshe to mitigate fallout from killing Lü Boshe is superficially similar to Martin Sheen's character shooting the woman dead, at the end. It's an improper comparison, though, since Martin hadn't joined the panicked slaughter. Another superficial similarity is between Chen Gong &amp; Martin, in that both disapproved the killing of the innocent (Lü Boshe &amp; Vietnamese woman); but Chen Gong had joined the original slaughter of innocents, while Martin didn't.  
  
I'll add that while I understand Chen Gong's premise, when he said it was a "genuine mistake when you killed those people," it would seem that if ever one was going to give the benefit of the doubt to someone, it would be to someone one considers an "Uncle:" Before slaughtering his entire family, he should double checked.  
  
Martin's role is unrelated to the other story: Chen Gong was able to walk away to not be part of murdering Lü Boshe, when he realized he'd helped slaughter Lü Boshe's innocent family on hearsay. Martin, otoh, had no part in the original slaughter, had no option to leave, &amp; killed the obviously innocent woman to end the insanity: It's unlikely the woman would have survived the trip to the hospital, let alone if she got help.

My country has its own Constitution. I don't care how the "*ROK electorate sees it.*"  
  
I don't enjoy philosophical musings trying to find similarities among unlike situations, or never-ending debates over which "evil" is worse. It's all pointless &amp; a waste of time, imo.

12 bumps

hyokkim · 9/18/2025, 8:17:06 PM · permalink

''Betrayed by Jared &amp; MBS.''  
  
Jamal was no friend of either; he was nothing more than a nosy, busybody, party pooper; MBS is at least trying to modernize his country, and improve the living standard; what was Jamal's vision for Saudis in the end?   He wanted it to become just like U.S. under Hillary!   Fuuuck Jamal, fuuuck him!  
  
![video](https://www.youtube.com/embed/pibWI0Vx-aY)
  
''the 1st A defends journalists as intrinsic to free speech''  
  
OTNI should come first; nation exists for the sake of the people, not journalists.   People should come first before the abstract legal principle that a nation does not really believe in the first place.  
  
''while I can't speak to Saudi Arabian law, from what I understand, Jamal went there under false pretense. I want to say that to debate which of two evils is "worse" is an exercise in semantics.''  
  
Not true; whatever promotes OTNI should come first; at least MBS is trying to improve Saudi; what has Hillary done?   MBS is leagues beyond Hillary.  
  
''The Constitution isn't an inconsistent "Abstract 'moral' principle."  
  
U.S. has already abandoned the Constitution a long time ago, without even a shred of good reason, certainly not OTNI.   
  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066  
  
''I would argue that whatever "principle" you prefer is even inconsistent, for example your preference for MBS/Trump over Hillary: Your conclusion would always change depending on the options.''  
  
Yes, my principle is always consistent: OTNI.   I support MBS/Trump over Hillary, based on OTNI.   Yes, my conclusion based on OTNI, will always change whoever/whatever promotes OTNI.  But the end result will always be OTNI.  
  
''It's not my job to judge between corrupt politicians (see also my comment about "semantics" under your first quote). It's also irrelevant to the 1 A.''  
  
Now, you're engaging in pedanticism.   Whoever promotes OTNI, better, whether he's corrupt (within reason) or not is irrelevant.  People do not exist for 1A; 1A exists for people, for OTNI.   If 1A gets in the way of OTNI, OTNI should come first before 1A.  
  
''I don't know OTNI; but I'm sure I'd prefer the Constitution.''  
  
OTNI = Optimal Totalitarian National Interest = True Fascism  
  
Constitution has been dead for a long time.  
  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066  
  
''I'll say that the only similarity I noticed is that Cao Cao killing his "Uncle" Lü Boshe to mitigate fallout from killing Lü Boshe is superficially similar to Martin Sheen's character shooting the woman dead, at the end. It's an improper comparison, though, since Martin hadn't joined the panicked slaughter.''  
  
You're being pedantic again; it would not have made any difference whether Sheen character had joined in the initial massacre or not; he was implicated by the end.   Sheen was the leader of the mission; he was responsible for what his men had done.   What was done was done; it couldn't be undone.   He had to go for the optimal decision for the all parties concerned.  Just like Cao Cao had done.  
  
''Another superficial similarity is between Chen Gong &amp; Martin, in that both disapproved the killing of the innocent (Lü Boshe &amp; Vietnamese woman); but Chen Gong had joined the original slaughter of innocents, while Martin didn't.''  
  
You're being pedantic again; Chen Gong was a 'dead man' just as Martin was implicated.   It would not have mattered whether Chen had joined the slaughter or not.  Chen honestly believed they were under threat, while Martin didn't.     
  
''I'll add that while I understand Chen Gong's premise, when he said it was a "genuine mistake when you killed those people," it would seem that if ever one was going to give the benefit of the doubt to someone, it would be to someone one considers an "Uncle:"  
  
![video](https://www.youtube.com/embed/PaPUD__lrOo)

Along the journey, they passed by the house of Lü Boshe, a sworn brother of Cao Cao's father. There, they killed Lü Boshe's family by mistake, while Cao Cao personally murdered Lü in cold blood later. Chen Gong was shocked by what he witnessed. That night, as Cao Cao slept, Chen Gong considered killing him, but thought it unrighteous to do so. He instead left Cao Cao and travelled to his own hometown in Dong Commandery (東郡; near present-day Puyang, Henan).''  
  
Now, that righteous Chen later on joined a real scumbag, Lü Bu;  
  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BC_Bu  
  
''Martin, otoh, had no part in the original slaughter, had no option to leave, &amp; killed the obviously innocent woman to end the insanity: It's unlikely the woman would have survived the trip to the hospital, let alone if she got help.''  
  
So, there, Martin was Cao!   He had to go for the optimal, in real time, on demand, just like Cao.  
  
''My country has its own Constitution. I don't care how the "ROK electorate sees it."  
  
Why U.S. is going down the toilet; U.S. has abandoned her Constitution a long time ago, without even a shred of good reason, certainly not OTNI.   ROK electorate on the other hand, always go for OTNI, not the legal pretense.  Law should exists to serve OTNI, the people, not vice versa.  Law is merely a rough guide line, a tool, not the master.   You're being a wag the dog.  
  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066  
  
''I don't enjoy philosophical musings trying to find similarities among unlike situations, or never-ending debates over which "evil" is worse. It's all pointless &amp; a waste of time, imo.''  
  
You're being pedantic, hiding behind semantics.   Nations should exist to serve the people, OTNI, not some abstract legal pretense.  People do not exist to serve the Constitution, but vise versa, especially when people already abandoned the Constitution anyway, without even a good reason!

8 bumps

gracejoy · 9/18/2025, 8:30:02 PM · permalink

7 bumps

hyokkim · 9/18/2025, 9:11:14 PM · permalink

5 bumps

gracejoy · 9/19/2025, 12:11:11 PM · permalink

3 bumps

hyokkim · 9/19/2025, 6:48:56 PM · permalink

1 bump

gracejoy · 9/18/2025, 1:47:48 PM · permalink

2 bumps

sacredcow · 9/17/2025, 3:27:31 PM · permalink

11 bumps

hyokkim · 9/17/2025, 3:57:59 PM · permalink

9 bumps

sacredcow · 9/17/2025, 3:58:50 PM · permalink

2 bumps

hyokkim · 9/17/2025, 4:30:24 PM · permalink

1 bump

sacredcow · 9/17/2025, 4:02:25 PM · permalink

4 bumps

gracejoy · 9/17/2025, 4:18:22 PM · permalink

2 bumps

hyokkim · 9/17/2025, 4:25:31 PM · permalink

1 bump

sacredcow · 9/17/2025, 3:24:23 PM · permalink

3 bumps

hyokkim · 9/17/2025, 4:47:27 PM · permalink

2 bumps

Signature