Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/2009 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    There's an overwhelming over-abundance of more than enough information. And that's just in any single frame of the video. Consider all of the content of all of the frames, and there are multiple, layered, redundant means of determining whether or not any entity, attribute, action or effect seen in any frame conforms to reality. The space, the objects within it, and the motions are all precisely measurable. Then add all of the visual information from other cameras at other vantage points... Each participant on this thread who has commented on the visual evidence is right about some things, yet wrong about others. The issue is not that the visual evidence is insufficient, but that none of you has the technical knowledge to be making any conclusions, or to be dismissing anyone else's observations or concerns, or to be throwing accusations of kookiness or conspiracy theorizing at anyone who thinks that something in a photo looks a bit odd. J
  2. 3 points
    https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-milkyway-over-beaverhill-county-jestephotography-ltd.html Something a lil different than my Wildlife photography. Nikon Z7 mirrorless with a Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Art series lens for Astrophotography.
  3. 3 points
    I hope my posts get a lot of sads (from the anti-Trump bitches!)
  4. 2 points
    Last July Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard published “Regarding Carl Barney and Scientology” in defense of Barney. That didn’t satisfy some of his readers so a few days ago he published a Part Two, same webpage as what is now called Part One. I review it at: Barney Continues Telling His Story
  5. 2 points
    They're being softened up for committing ritual suicide. Ellen
  6. 2 points
    By Ron Unz, the latest in his American Pravda series: John McCain, Jeffrey Epstein, and Pizzagate “Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings” It’s long but the lucid style makes it easy to read.
  7. 2 points
    I'm not here to defend the morality of most self-proclaimed secularists (I should add, secularism is merely one political position, not a whole ideology in and of itself. Objectivism is a secular philosophy that promotes secularism, after all). I think you're going off topic. The reality is that "being good without god" is a significant question that many theists ponder. Natural Law provided an answer to that question. And Christians/Evangelicals never appealed to the state to enshrine their values? Evangelical Christianity in particular has been resolutely illiberal. They only defend classical liberalism when convenient for them, or when they're losing a culture war. When they're in power, they have shown a consistent tendency towards using the state to enforce their beliefs on others. Not that most members of the secular left are any better. But again, that isn't the point.
  8. 2 points
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  9. 2 points
    Many of them sincerely believe, it’s just that they want you to die, first. They want your home burned down and turned back to prairie. Then they can enjoy earth with a smaller, sustainable population. How many who oppose pipelines have turned off their pipeline? None. That would be suicide.
  10. 2 points
    One of the general differences between those on the left and right is that the right understands the left's views... You can see this with their parody and satire. Leftist characters are portrayed accurately, and sometimes, right-wing media creators can even explain the left's views better than actual leftists. The parody and satire created by leftists, though, is consistently egregious--like the description of Jussie Smollett's attackers, for example (pretty much every right leaning person knew it was bullshit immediately). Again, it's a generalization. Obviously not all right-wingers understand the left's talking points, but for the most part, they get it... while for the left, the opposite is true. They can't even conceive of what they are arguing against. So what you end up with is ignorant, and possibly stupid, people who the right is gently trying to point out as ignorant and stupid... which reaffirms the leftist's belief that people on the right are immoral (mean). Obviously accusing someone of being immoral is worse than accusing someone of being stupid... so it's insane. This is pretty much just venting... but it's really annoying that this is the case. Politics has become a chore where people with good ideas have to hold the hands of their attackers to help them see what they're missing.
  11. 2 points
  12. 2 points
    You are saying either A always causes B, or A never causes B. It can't be A caused B in this particular case. Causes have contexts. The elderly woman in my example probably had weak bones. The weak bones would be a context. It is not necessary to say vaccination always causes autism in order to say vaccination caused autism in this case.
  13. 2 points
    The suicide note left by Fidel Castro’s eldest son has rocked the Cuban nation this week, with the most astonishing revelation being the claim that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was his half-brother and the son of the late Fidel Castro. http://whatsupic.com/index/cuba-justin-trudeau-fidel-castros-son/
  14. 2 points
  15. 2 points
    So today I had an interesting post on my twitter feed. A person looking to purchase a rights managed image for an add campaign. So I sent her my personal email via Message in order to get more details. i sent her a link to the image she wanted and ten minutes later BAM! https://fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=9becce4a0811b1bc99e633e17bff67ee Kinda cool eh?
  16. 2 points
    Alex Jones is a fighter. He will kick their asses so hard that they will have to clear their throat to fart. They will wish to God they never tangled with Alex Jones.
  17. 2 points
    The perjury trap ...
  18. 2 points
  19. 2 points
    Heh. Why pick on InfoWars? Sure, it's often goofy, but it's really no more goofy than anything else. CNN, New York Times, Time. It's equal to or possibly a little less goofy that The View, Dan Rather and any of the former Democrat politicians and operatives who are now calling themselves "journalists" (like George Stephanopoulos, for example). Why single out InfoWars? MSK is supposed to be embarrassed by his goof balls while the other side reveres theirs and pretends that they're not good balls?
  20. 2 points
    Can a person really be economically coerced, or is it simply a choice? Was Cohen using the tapes for insurance or a way to blackmail President Trump? Can he be disbarred? In Maryland I don’t think you can record someone unless they know what your are doing. Peter From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:29:41 -0500 a.d. smith wrote: "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force. I was wondering how my fellow Atlanteans would reply to this argument I think I did a fairly good job in elucidating the differences between physical force and "economic coercion," but I could have done better. What would you guys have said in this situation?” I find that well-constructed examples and counter-examples can sometimes communicate the distinction better than abstract arguments, or at least serve as an introduction to them. Many years ago, during a college seminar on Marxism, my professor gave the following popular example: Suppose I am stranded in the middle of the desert, and I run across the only oasis in my vicinity. It is privately owned, and the owner tells me that I must (a) work for him at fifty cents per hour, or (b) stay off his property. And since he is charging $5,000 for the food and water that are required to sustain my life during the remainder of my journey, this means that I am being economically coerced -- indeed, enslaved -- since I must either accept the offer or face certain death. I responded by changing one condition of the example. The same oasis owner has more money than he knows what to do with, so (as before) he tells me that I must take a job to earn my supplies, but he now offers me $10,000 per hour instead of fifty cents. So now I can earn what I need in 30 minutes (during which the owner, who is starved for intellectual companionship, only requests that I talk to him about philosophy) and even walk away with a handsome surplus. The professor then protested, "But that's not a realistic example." "Neither is your example," I replied, "but that's not the point. The purpose of the example is to isolate the key elements that generate what you call economic coercion. If your example, in which I am economically coerced to work for 50 cents an hour is valid, then so is my example where I am economically coerced to work for $10,000 per hour by discussing philosophy. I didn't change anything essential in the hypothetical; all I did was change some details, which should be irrelevant to the point you are making. So if you claim that my example doesn't qualify as economic coercion, then why doesn't it? I will die just as surely if I turn down the offer for $10,000 as if I refuse to work for fifty cents. What's the difference? According to your definition, I am being coerced in either case -- but it sounds a little strange to say that I am being 'forced' to work at the higher wage. You are loading the example in your favor by including very low wages, but the amount of the wage is immaterial to the point you wish to make. Surely the validity of your argument should not depend solely on its emotional appeal, so it should make equal sense to take about a wage-slave who is forced to discuss philosophy at $10,000 per hour." I don't remember my exact words, of course, but the preceding is a fair representation of my argument. It took the discussion in some interesting directions that might otherwise have been overlooked – such as whether the CEO of a multinational corporation is also economically "coerced" to accept his multi-million dollar salary -- and the discussion ended when the Marxist professor said, "Well, I'll have to give some additional thought to your example." That's about as close to an unconditional surrender as a student is ever likely to get from a professor. Ghs From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 04:40:33 EDT A. D. Smith wrote "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force.” There is no such thing as "economic coercion." We owe it to people not to use force against them; we do not owe it to them to supply them with employment nor to keep them employed if we do not choose to. People have a right to seek jobs; they do not have a right to *have* jobs if the employer finds them unsuitable. So to threaten an employee with firing is in no sense of the term "coercion." The job is not his by right, but only by the decision of the owner of the business. Barbara From: "a.d. smith" To: "George H. Smith" Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:06:07 -0400 (EDT) On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, George H. Smith wrote: The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it.(I pointed that historically most examples of land speculation of this type were made possible by the state, but his point was that even in a stateless society, this type of engrossing could be possible. My reply was that under a system of competing governments, a protection agency that enforced an obviously illegitimate claim to unimproved natural resources would likely arose the anger of the community at large). From: "William Dwyer" To: Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:34:02 -0700 a.d. smith wrote, >The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it. > I fail to see how this is an argument against capitalism, since capitalism doesn't sanction this kind of unearned appropriation. In order to acquire property under capitalism, you need to mix your labor with a previously unowned resource, or acquire the property from its previous owner by mutual consent. Obviously, there are issues with regard to the specifics of acquiring previously unowned land, but these cannot form the basis of any serious argument against capitalism. I n any case, the Coase Theorem in economics (for which Ronald Coase was given the Nobel Prize) states that if property rights are clearly defined and transaction costs are low, resources will tend to flow towards their highest valued uses, regardless of who owns them. In other words, even assuming that people could appropriate land without mixing their labor with it, in a free-market economy, the land could be bid away in exchange for money. The highest bid would tend to reflect its most profitable uses, by reflecting what consumers would be most willing to spend their money on. Thus, under capitalism, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference how the property is initially acquired. It will eventually be allocated toward its most popular and desired uses. If laissez-faire capitalism existed in Latin America, for example, the large landed aristocracies would not last, because they would either be induced to sell their land at an exorbitant price, or to use it in ways that are the most profitable and consumer-friendly. Bill
  21. 2 points
    Folks , Trump did not win an election but orchestrate a coup d’etat against the establishment . This ain’t left and right , nor liberals and conservatives . It’s We The People v The Establushment Bullets are not the weapon of choice in this Revolution , it’s memes . I called this a Revolution near the beginning of the thread . I thought that the establishment would win , hence I called for Rubio to win the nomination . Trump won , he is digging in and personally , I would love to see The Constitution to be amended to give him three terms , but that cannot happen so hopefully President Ivanka will continue what we have started in 2024 . Who is Donald Trump ? Reread Atlas Shrugged
  22. 1 point
    MSK’s claim: “One of the most devastating effects of pedophilia on the culture at large is when people who practice it gain power and influence among the elites.” How would you say that is going, Korben? I ask sincerely. It has been a year and three months since you asked for proof and a lot of evidence has since come in about the elites and how abuse of children ties them together. You have followed postings here about Epstein, Bill Gates, Council on Foreign Relations, Harvard, MIT, etc., etc.? Are you as skeptical as the first time you heard the assertion? How would you rate the plausibility or the truth-status of the assertion today?
  23. 1 point
    That is indeed the Dem, Progressive, elite fear. Which is why they expend so many resources on pumping class, gender, race, income, Party, age, etc. divisions. They keep us at each other’s throats so we don’t notice we are being bled by slavemasters we could easily dispatch before breakfast.
  24. 1 point
    "Former Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates may not be able to escape Epstein-gate after all, after it was revealed last week that the billionaire traveled with Jeffrey Epstein on his infamous 'Lolita Express' Boeing 727 in 2013 - four years after Epstein served time for pedophilia. "In addition to Gates - other famous figures who flew aboard the Lolita Express include legendary newsman Walter Cronkite, architect Peter Marino, and of course Bill Clinton, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Prince Andrew. " https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-22/why-did-bill-gates-fly-epsteins-lolita-express-after-pedophiles-prison-stint
  25. 1 point
    Bump: C'mon, O-vish necromancers, give it a jolt. J
  26. 1 point
    Jon, We disagree on this. But, once again, that's what we're here for. Humans disagree. I'm fine with disagreeing. (Most of the time. ) Michael
  27. 1 point
    Fight Barry? Team members don't fight.
  28. 1 point
    Jon, The new message on the "Site down" page doesn't sound much like him, either. And if it is him, it sounds coerced or dictated by someone else. I don't think anyone is holding him in a room or something like that, but I do think there are government people telling him he will not be allowed to keep his site online, and I believe they might be threatening him with jail time. This is speculation, but it sounds about right to me. btw - There never used to be any such drivel as a Solo pledge like the one above. Not that I remember. Here are the two texts that he Perigo used for this kind of message (I got them off older copies of the site.) And this: I can't believe I am defending Lindsay fucking Perigo, but life is weird at times. And this is a time for principle. Michael
  29. 1 point
    See how deceptive the left is? Totally. I apologize for not including a link to Media Matters ... I was unusually lazy.
  30. 1 point
    I'm just going to restate Aristotle's Wheel Paradox for people who don't seem to understand it because of the mechanical aspects of the problem. Forget about wheels. Instead, consider the function f(x) = 2x defined on the interval [0, 1]. Then, if y = f(x), y is defined on the interval [0, 2]. The function f(x) has an inverse, so that x = f-1(y). Specifically, x = y/2. Now, let yi be any point in [0, 2]. Then there is a corresponding point, xi = yi/2 in [0, 1]. Similarly, let xj be any point in [0, 1]. Then there is a corresponding point, yj = 2xj in [0, 2]. Now, assume that the interval, [0, 2] contains N points. Then the interval [0, 1] also contains at least N points because for every point in [0, 2] there is a corresponding point in [0, 1]. Similarly, if [0, 1] contains M points, then [0, 2] also contains at least M points. Therefore, M must equal N. But, the length of the interval [0, 1] is 1 and the length of the interval [0, 2] is 2, a paradox. I might not quite be doing the paradox justice, but consider the following: If there are N points in the intervals [0, 1] and [0, 2], then the density of points in the first interval is N/1 or just N, while the density of points in the second interval is N/2. So, the density of points in the interval [0, 1] is twice the density of points in the interval [0, 2]. Now, if I double the number of points in the interval [0, 2], then the number of points in the interval [0, 1] must also double and the converse is also true. But, the density of points in the interval [0, 1] is still twice that of the points in [0, 2]. So, if I keep doubling the number of points in the intervals indefinitely, the density of points in the shorter interval will always be twice that of longer interval. And, in the limit of infinitely many points, the limit of the ratio of the densities will equal 2: A (seeming) paradox. I'll return to the mechanical problem later. Darrell
  31. 1 point
    Strange, "choose files" works fine for me (apart from upload limits...), I just put the cursor on the desired file, hit <enter> and the picture is uploaded (apart from...) Total Commander is one of those Norton Commander type file manipulation programs for Windows, I use it because I then can avoid that horrible dragging... In general such a limit is the amount of data you can upload in a certain period (1 day, 1 week, etc.), at the end of that period the limit is reset. At the moment my limit is only 0.02 MB. You can find it at the bottom of your edit window, under "choose files": "total size 0.02 MB" in my case.
  32. 1 point
    You have it reversed, Merlin. Your cycloid exposition merely restates or reconfirms the paradox - you merely demonstrate that the small wheel indeed accomplishes a traversing of road length in excess of its circumference, a fact already understood, indeed the very fact that the paradox is all about. Your cycloids confirm the problem, they don’t resolve it. The small wheel’s skidding on its road and the precise calculation of that skidding resolves and explains the paradox.
  33. 1 point
    Max, So, is it to you more advisable to trust the establishment people who run endless war for profit, support an enormous fake news propaganda media, and have been caught time and time again using unsuspecting people as guinea pigs? Let me be devil's advocate for a second. As I understand your post, you only got your information about this guy from other people. Is that correct? I mean, you didn't look at anything he had to say. Am I right in that supposition (based on the tenor of your post), or have you actually looked to see if he has anything interesting to present? If you only got your info from other people, then your advice to not trust him comes from information your gleaned second-hand and some suppositions you probably added on your own. Correct? Is that rational? Don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating for Russell Blaylock. I don't know his work. I'm advocating for a more open view of looking at things, especially if brainstorming the causes of an epidemic. I agree that many times there are "conspiracy nuts." But I have also seen "conspiracy nuts" turn out to be correct. I used to do like you do. Just dismiss something out of hand based on second hand information. I lost my certainty in that when I began checking the facts of everyone, not just the respectable people. I highly recommend first hand looking at everything. But it's your mind, your time, your values... Michael
  34. 1 point
    You are doubtless correct about it being intentional. The precious idiots are helping spread Q and his message, it is working exactly as you describe. They can't help themselves, so, by their stupidity and lack of self control, they help us. Regarding "Fake News Media is Fake, Fake, Fake!" That is commentary from the hosting site https://qmap.pub in the form of their own invented post "title" it is not part of Q's post #2639. Q has several authors. There are distinct voices, for sure. "Fake, fake, fake" and "fight, fight, fight" are common. "These people are sick," "These people are stupid." also common. Not all of them are wordsmiths. Fake News Media is Fake, Fake, Fake! 2639 Q!!mG7VJxZNCI21 Dec 2018 - 8:42:54 AM FAKE NEWS.jpeg Why do people trust the FAKE NEWS media? Anons can play this game all day long. Compare & Contrast. FAKE! FAKE! FAKE! Q
  35. 1 point
    You stopped following or saying anything to do with Rand long ago. Ps: your keyboard warrior bravery is pathetic. You can’t even defend an idea against a “leftist”. You just call them a cunt or a pedo or a retard. Yup it is his site.
  36. 1 point
    Sure, soon as Jon learns to stfu.
  37. 1 point
    Or, in terms of the original statement of the paradox, it is impossible to have: X2 - X1 = R * (T2 - T1) x2 - x1 = r * (t1 - t1) X2 - X1 = x2 - x1 T2 - T1 = t2 - t1 and R > r where X2 - X1 and x2 - x1 are the distances traveled by the big and small wheels, respectively, T2 - T1 and t2 - t1 are the angles (theta) that both wheels rotate (e.g. 2pi radians) and R and r are the radii. That is a mathematical statement of Aristotle's paradox. Darrell
  38. 1 point
    I’m curious Billy, if you really mean to dispute the reality of the historical activities by the CIA with regard to the media that they themselves named Operation Mockingbird? It seems to be a point over which you like to make some fun - do you think it is funny? You realize that it’s not a conspiracy theory, right? It is funny to believe it didn’t end, but kept going? Is that It? Since the CIA announced they stopped that shit, so then we thereby know they stopped that shit - is that approximately your view? And believing anything else is only for crazies? Do I have it right?
  39. 1 point
    "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution"; "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution". Read carefully. See? "Wheels"; without slipping? You have missed the premise of the exercise, you are not alone. If "slipping" were admissible, this would be elementary to 'fix', mechanically. But it goes deeper than that. Here is the premise of the 'paradox': Solve, explain, resolve, justify, or whatever - the phenomenon that the travel of an inner wheel, without slipping, will be extended beyond its circumference. That's all. On the face of it, the inner wheel's extension appears counter-intuitive. And too, we have the dimensions/circumference/distance of the outer wheel, to support this theory for the inner wheel. But it's a wrong conflation. I show that this behavior is normal and inherent to a wheel inside a wheel. You can visibly see it in many ways. The large wheel is the determining factor. End of paradox.
  40. 1 point
    Oh, now you reply to me! Too funny. Look Tony, whenever I go too fast on my motorcycle, the inner circles go slower than the rest of the wheels. When I slow down, they catch up. Reality. Try it and you’ll see.
  41. 1 point
    LOL... Perfect: Michael
  42. 1 point
    Lawrrd tunderin jeezus bai! Ware ya tuuuu? I’ll comes ware yur at! Newfie to English translation? Where the fuck are you? I’ll be right there.
  43. 1 point
    Lindsay Lohan meets reality, what a metaphor for the US One of the problems when you live-stream stuff is that others record it. Look what happens when a famous true-believer social justice warrior goes out into reality to demand that the world obey her because of her feelings. She gets smacked, smacked hard, and it scares her. Mother of two punches Lindsay Lohan over 'child abduction' bid As I understand the story, Lohan was in Moscow and met a Syrian refugee family out on the streets (they appear to be homeless). She offered to take them to a hotel and house them so they could watch movies and other cool stuff. The parents did not want to accept her hospitality, especially for their kids, and walked away from her, taking the kids with them. Lohan followed recording live and did what any self-respecting social justice warrior does. She accused the people who didn't agree with her (the parents) of being evil. She said they were subjecting their kids to human trafficking and ruining the Arab culture. When she tried to grab the hand of one of the kids, the mother hauled off and whopped her a good one. This is kinda like what the elitist lefties have done to the American education system. Except they actually did get their nasty mitts on the kids. But the parents woke up and the elitist lefties are stunned that the parents are whopping them a good one, especially in politics right now. But not just politics. The cultural backlash is in overdrive, too. The elitist ring-leaders know what they are doing, so they expect this, but I hope their true-believing useful idiot progeny are as scared as Lindsay Lohan was. It's a great wake-up call to meet reality for the first time, get whopped hard, and survive it. It's the start of growing up into adulthood. Michael
  44. 1 point
    Thats right. With one correction. No hacking. They paid, and they got the keys.
  45. 1 point
    You asked Jon a legitimate question? What was it? If you're willing to have a grown up discussion, I'd be interested, even if Jon's not? Please, repeat the question. Oh, wait, was it the snicker snicker tee hee about Trump's comment about 62 percent of Hispanic people believing that they're doing better under Trump, 42 percent of all respondents believing the same, 30% feel that they're doing the same, and 26% feel that they're doing worse? Was that your big "legitimate question"? J
  46. 1 point
    The left ate my homework.
  47. 1 point
    Korben. In the spirit of full transparency, I quote your hidden message and I fixed the title... Michael
  48. 1 point
    Carol, I'll try to go slow. Nobody had ever heard of Incels until quite recently except for a very tiny number of fringe people. Now, suddenly, the media is hollering their heads off about Incels as if this were a widely known thing for a long time like ISIS. Whether you agree that this is strange or not (but it is as strange as all get out ), there is a fact of complex societies like the one we live in. When power is involved, powerful people who are threatened with change and about to lose their power do bad things to try to keep it. Also, people who don't have power and want it often do bad things to get it. One of the favorite dark side tactics is to create chaos in order to create the need to impose order. The public clamors for order if the chaos is bad or has strong media impact. The ones who can supply that order are the ones the public will follow. One of the favorite covert ways of creating such chaos is to take unstable people and goose them until they do something atrocious like a killing spree. The unpredictability of this method allows for a great deal of deniability by the goosers. (btw - This technique is actually taught.) I don't know the personal history of the guy who committed the killing in Toronto, but I would bet a lot of money (and win) that a "close friend" or "confident" came into his life not too long ago saying just the right things to bond with him--strongly bond with him from feeling his pain--and I would further bet that person is no longer around. If anyone starts looking, the Toronto killer will not be the only disturbed individual, either, who suddenly got a new friend. He was simply the one who crossed the line from the prompting. He wasn't the only one being pressured, but he was the one who popped. Nobody could predict the chaos and that is the reason this tactic is so effective. ISIS and other Islamist groups recruit much the same way, except, instead of inducing their targets to go on a killing spree, they get their subjects to leave their country and families and join these organization to kill nonbelievers and establish a Caliphate. This tactic works and works well. All anyone has to do is look and they can see it. There is a psychological profile of people who are susceptible to outside suggestion on this level. Predatory organizations (like ISIS, dark side assholes, etc.) seek out Internet users with this profile based on their online activity. They are usually young males with deep insecurity issues, full of resentment and who feel powerless. The predators bond by validating their insecurities and bad feelings, then mold them by suggesting things to do to cure it all. This tactic may be targeted to a specific profile of young insecure males, but underneath it is garden variety pacing and leading taught in any persuasion system. The fact that there has been such a strong increase in media activity (along with things like the bots on the Incel forum) leads me to believe the recent chaos in Toronto was orchestrated by some Very Nasty People either within government or within groups that want to take power in government. Since the Incels the media are bashing have a male profile (despite Heavy pointing out that it was females on the fringe who came up with the term and formalized it), I imagine the hard-left wing of the feminist movement is somehow involved. This wing has gotten a lot of power recently in Canadian politics, so much so you guys now have double-digit genders written into law. As a final note, the dude who shot up a lot of girls in California because he couldn't get a date was not all that recent, however, he is being used as an example of Incel violence as if he were. I don't think that loser was triggered by a "sudden friend," though. I think he was just a spoiled asshole who flipped out. From a different angle, there is a lot of talk about the sheer number of mass murderers who took psychotropic medicines like serotonin uptake inhibitors for a time before they went berserk and started killing. This would not explain the media propaganda campaigns, but I believe side effects from psychotropic medicine could be a contributing factor. When gobs of money and gobs of power can be seen near tragic lethal events in society, and coincidentally, there are hamhanded propaganda efforts pumping right along beside them, I have a real hard time believing in the propaganda. I have a much easier time looking at who is to gain from the the gobs of money and gobs of power and think they might be interested helping that outcome along. I think this way re endless war for profit, too. I despise people who get their wealth and power from the killing humans market, even more so when unsuspecting innocent humans are the ones killed. This goes for those who engineer the killing humans processes that comprise this market. They are the moral scum of our species. Good people don't like to believe they exist or actually manage to do bad things, but they exist and they do bad things. Michael
  49. 1 point
    “Law Day recognizes that we govern ourselves in accordance with the rule of law rather according to the whims of an elite few or the dictates of collective will.” President Rand, er, Trump, today. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-proclaims-may-1-2018-law-day-u-s/
  50. 1 point
    Not. Gonna. Stop. Former President George H.W. Bush in intensive care https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/george-hw-bush/index.html