Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/26/2021 in all areas

  1. What a refreshing find, this journal, TG. I recommend this essay by (wow!) a Leftist (I gather, of the old school, British Trade Union - Up the Worker - sort). Nearly all I agree with and saw, covering the background of lockdowns in the UK and the US, and how the (New/Woke/hypocritical/virtue-signaling/elitist) "Lockdown Left" screwed up by seizing on lockdowns for socio-political gain, which heavily disfavored the blue collar, working class and poor. By his arguments he'd certainly be against mandated vaccines today. He doesn't pull his punches, Leftist or Unionist, one can relate to the intellectual candor and anti-authoritarianism. Why the Left Should Oppose Lockdown – The Daily Sceptic DAILYSCEPTIC.ORG by Phil Shannon Preamble The contemporary left’s support for an economically devastating, authoritarian lockdown, which doesn’t even...
    1 point
  2. Dwight Eisenhower 1961 — “There May Come A Day Our Public Policy Is Held Captive By Scientific Elite” "The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever-present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." Lesson from America, 1961 – The Daily Sceptic DAILYSCEPTIC.ORG by Cephas Alain As interest has increased in the lab leak hypothesis for the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic it has cast the spotlight upon...
    1 point
  3. Typo, presumably - irrational, not rational. Brook demonstrates not a shred of evidence of comprehending the dangerous mechanism of the accursed "jabs." Why indeed would someone not want the risk? Doesn’t need any political considerations. Some biological knowledge is plenty. Ellen
    1 point
  4. tmj, Thanks for posting the link to the video about the 19 year old woman. At the very end the young woman said she couldn’t talk about something personal because she was still trying to face “what has been taken from me” (quoting from memory). This could refer to a neurological deficit because earlier she spoke of having had tremors and a severe headache, symptoms of a neurological assault. But another, I imagine more likely, possibility is that the shot-induced blood clots rendered her infertile. I added the video to this list of horrors, mainly focusing on the neurological: Vaccine Horrors At the end there is a link to an interview with a physician’s aid: Deborah Conrad Mark
    1 point
  5. I haven’t looked at the videos or interfacing for reading the maps, but my first thought was how are earthquakes measured ? Are there arrays of sensors ? At first glance my thought was, what is the topography / population density of the area? Could the readings be from sensor arrays layer out in a grid pattern that are part of a study for a suitable location for a ground based large dish like telescope site ?( I think the largest one just ‘broke’ and I think they want to build another one) Second thought was those bastards figured out how to use Tesla vibration science to take out the opposition to the Great Reset.
    1 point
  6. S, This always comes around in different forms because it is not clear. Lots and lots of cognitive dissonance. Why? Well, Rand took an idea--Tabula Rasa--from John Locke (which she probably got from Isabel Paterson) and threw it into a couple of essays without going anywhere with it except to make certainty-sounding propositions. Such is true and cannot be otherwise. Period. (In my more frustrated moments, I call it reasoning by decree.) Check out the quotes at the Ayn Rand Lexicon to see what I mean: Tabula Rasa. Rand's proposition is that an internal mechanism to process cognition and emotions comes with the newborn, but no content is in the mechanism. By content she means knowledge of the external world. Here are her exact words when describing this in a newborn: "He knows nothing of the external world." I presume nothing means nothing when she says it. So her divide is the internal functions are innate, but they can only process stuff coming in from the exterior, which can only happen through experience. Interior and exterior. For her, a baby has no pre-knowledge of what is good or bad for it out in the external world because he doesn't know what is out there at all. Ever since Rand came up with this stuff, people have been arguing about what she "really" meant since it is obvious a newborn baby has values starting with crying when being whopped and sucking for food. I put this Tabula Rasa idea in the same category with Rand as her opinion that a woman who would seek the presidency is psychologically damaged. People don't like it when I say this because their Get Out of Jail Free card with some of Rand's weaker moments is The Great Divide between what she published in her life and what she did not. And Rand published this Tabula Rasa stuff, so there is no wiggling out of it using that card. Also, for more mentally lazy people, Tabula Rasa is a nice and tidy concept--a newborn is an empty vessel at birth and has no knowledge of the outside world. See how simple reality is? Done. You don't have to wonder about newborns anymore. You can turn you brain off on that point. But if that were true, a newborn would not be attracted to sweet and reject bitter. Does it already know that, in general, sweet stuff is good for it and bitter bad? Apparently. (I can come up with a ton load of examples.) Either the baby comes prewired for this knowledge of the outside, or the Tabula Rasa empty vessel mechanism does, which is nothing but a fudge on the argument. Also, Rand said (talking about an infant): "To focus his eyes (which is not an innate, but an acquired skill)..." This implies that the infant has a choice about whether to focus his eyes or not. To use my tree example from above, it's like saying a tree acquires leaves because it learns how to acquires leave, not because this is innate and the leaves will come regardless. With seeing, it's even deeper. A child not only can't choose whether to learn how to focus his eyes, he can't choose to not learn how to focus his eyes. The child is going to focus his eyes so long as he is healthy and in reasonably normal circumstances where light is present. Growth patterns exist. They are innate. Tabula rasa as stated by Rand denies this. Oddly enough, she later wrote an essay called “The Comprachicos,” where she talked about what happens when one interferes with the innate growth patterns of the mind. She started with what happens with the body where interfering with its innate growth pattern when a person is very young--it results in a person in the form of a pot. This (and more stuff from talking about it for years) makes me believe Rand did not think this Tabula Rasa idea through. The notion sounded good and in line with her thinking about individualism and volition when she came across it, and it came from an illustrious thinker who inspired and instructed the Founding Fathers of the country she loved, so she ran with it. Later, in us against them mode, she probably treated any criticism of it as an attack on her, on freedom, on human consciousness and on reason without mulling over why. A serious problem happens to discussions when people believe the Tabula Rasa concept all the way down. They turn themselves into pretzels trying to justify it. But then it essentially becomes a matter of faith, not knowledge. That's why discussions about it always flop all over the place without getting anywhere and people repeating themselves ad nauseam without probing the idea. I once read a forum where a Communist talked about a Jehovah's Witness. He said you can win the argument with a JW, but you will still not convince him. The irony for that particular poster is that the comment works for him, also. Anyway, Tabula Rasa is like that in O-Land. There is a continuum of how people treat Rand on this point. At one end, there are those who start their metaphysics with the proposition that Rand was perfect in her published works (whether they accept this explicitly or implicitly). At the other end, there are those who look at things and try to figure out what they see, and only then worry about Rand. And there are all gradations in between. I used to be of the first type. I am now of the second. Michael
    1 point