Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/28/2020 in all areas

  1. 2 points
  2. 2 points
    Ayn Rand's 1957 novel, ATLAS SHRUGGED, contained a counter-conspiracy involving a radio speech given by a man who vowed "to stop the motor of the world." On March 28, 2020, we have this speech dropped by the counter-conspiracy known as "Q", via the internet... "The entire world is watching. Patriots from around the world are praying for AMERICA. We are all bound by a feeling deep inside, a feeling that cannot be publicly expressed for fear of ridicule, a feeling that challenges the mainstream (narrative), against that which we are told to accept and dare not question, put simply, that people are being abused by those in power and time is running out. " Read the entire drop here: https://qmap.pub/ https://twitter.com/StormIsUponUs/status/1243987443533205504?s=20 Many have criticized Rand for Galt's speech being too long to hold people's attention, and too unfilmable for a movie. But whatever else one may think about "Q", you gotta admit, they figured a way around all that...
  3. 1 point
    It looks like I'm not the only one complaining about this. Citizen journalism to the rescue. Michael
  4. 1 point
    Another screenshot from Facebook. That's Robin Williams, so it doesn't have anything to do with the coronavirus. Unless one thinks of Robin Williams being a man ahead of his times. Michael
  5. 1 point
    At first, Rachel Maddow was saying those ships wouldn't get there in time...now, they're crowing about the lack of patients? I can't, with these people...just can't.
  6. 1 point
    Maybe the ships are intended for other victims? Trump and military announced total war on [Mitt’s] Mexican drug and human trafficking operations. Many previously trafficked victims currently held inside US? Commander in Chief empowered to destroy domestic enemies? Total war coming with some near death to be freed, protected, and healed?
  7. 1 point
    I don't know if there is anything else behind this, but if true... Are you friggin' kidding me?!!! BROKEN MODELS: The CDC Doctors Screwed Up Bigly! USNS Comfort in NY Harbor Sits Idle with 3 Patients -- USNS Mercy in LA has Only 15 Patients These are big-ass ships. Ask yourself the following if you are in a panic: If I allow evil people to destroy the society around me, will that help my panic? Get rational, people. There are things--effective things--that can be done about COVID-19, but they start with correctly identifying reality. If Objectivism means anything, it means identifying reality to the best of one's ability. And one big honking part of reality is that the media sucks right now. It promotes panic on purpose with lies--with INCORRECTLY identifying reality. There is a widespread medical situation that requires diligence, but panic is making people do all the wrong things. Michael
  8. 1 point
    That ring again. Mount Sinai’s “first patient” in Central Park wears one.
  9. 1 point
    Feds are charging him with intentionally attempting to destroy Mercy. What possible motive? Is that ship for something other than what you are being told? https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/train-operator-port-los-angeles-charged-derailing-locomotive-near-us-navy-s-hospital
  10. 1 point
    Here is Polly just trashing the "trusted voices" in the mainstream for being so contradictory. Her thesis is that when people keep getting a barrage of contradictory stories from the same people all the time--people they've trusted before--this throws them off balance. And they know full well that people off-balance are properly prepared for being led to places they may not otherwise want to go. These off-balance people want to restore some sense of balance so much, they make the tradeoff and go where they are led. Especially to places where crony elitists stand to make a killing by offering solutions to their fear. This means Silicon Valley related companies that offer home medical treatment through proprietary apps, to those involved in vaccines, home entertainment, even to those who offer work at home opportunities on a mass scale. Everything. Imagine how much money can be made by cronies with plenty of cash flow during a time when the entire country resets economically to the citizens staying at home more. There's a lot to be gained by bad guys from this virus. Not to mention the left and the items on the leftie agenda. Abortion. Gun control. Universal basic income. Single-payer medical system. And on and on and on. Fortunately, citizen journalists are too numerous right now to let all this go without challenge. As Polly shows, some of the "trusted voices" propped up by the media who tell people to stay home, etc., have financial ties to companies who stand to rake in the moolah from this situation. In other words, in the end, scaring people to death is great for their pockets. And, of course, they try to hide their monetary connections and interests. Polly's facts, as usual, are devastating. From what she said, she only scratched the surface in this video. At least you get a sense of clarity when she talks and puts things side by side. At least I do. I think her perspective here is so important in the current context, I'm giving the BitChute version in addition to the YouTube one since I believe it entirely possible the YouTube video gets banned. Here's the YouTube video: As Polly said near the end (my bold--and the big names she referred to were the "trusted voices" the media prop up): Michael
  11. 1 point
    Not One April Fool's Joke This Year? Wow. Nobody is making an April Fool's joke on OL this year. Why? Does anyone think it's because people are insecure? Maybe because they do not resonate with practical jokes when they feel like society is going upside down all around them? Something to think about. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm going to close down OL. I have to. I've had it. Frankly it will be a relief. April Fool! Michael
  12. 1 point
    Prepare for some rip-righteous spin on death numbers in the press. President Trump said the peak is coming, so they are gearing up with stories about the corpse wagons and mass graves. But before you start quaking in your books and bury your head in the sand, let Candace set the table about how the press operates with death numbers. Since we are talking about Candace, she's looking into what is really happening in hospitals in NY. Be a little scared. That's OK with outbreaks of disease. And be prepared. It's wise to do the common sense things like washing your hands, covering your sneezes and so on. But do not trust anything coming out of the press. Fear and panic increase their ratings. That's all they care about. They don't care about you. They don't even care about you if your eyeballs increase their ratings. They only care about their ratings. Fear works for that, so they sell fear. I never thought I would quote FDR, but he was right on this: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Michael
  13. 1 point
    Jules, Peter is always welcome here and always will be. That's unconditional. He may come and go as he pleases. I would never try to tell him what to do. But, as you, I miss him when he takes off. Michael
  14. 1 point
    Take care Peter. I for one will miss your posts. (Back to whatever I was doing now.)
  15. 1 point
  16. 1 point
    And as good as I've read so far too. --Brant
  17. 1 point
    The "Long Ranger"? Oh, the porno film!. --Brant
  18. 1 point
    Gracias! Mucho gracias! --Brant same for you
  19. 1 point
    Let me further add MSNBC. Michael
  20. 1 point
    TG, Friends for life. btw - I got the nicest email about that post from a person who reads OL but doesn't participate in public. I copied my post to a file I am making of my best stuff from OL. Maybe see where that goes. Damn, there's a lot of stuff here... Michael
  21. 1 point
    Merlin, I would have to look it up, but I think I first heard about this on Tucker Carlson. He said at the time that the US division runs completely at a loss. This deficit is compensated by overseas, including ad hikes from CNN's airport monopoly. That didn't make any sense to me at the time, how can airport viewing prop up ad prices? But I have seen other people in the news talk about this. I smell a smokescreen. Comments in the news about CNN running at a deficit come up in the sporadic news stories that AT&T is thinking of spinning it off due to losses. This was discussed more during the recent AT&T and Time Warner merger, but it still comes up. On the Wikipedia page for CNN, you even get this comment: That is sourced to The Guardian. I'm surprised the hack political Wikipedia trolls let that one alone because there is certainly a lot more about CNN's losses that could be mentioned and sourced but isn't (meaning the trolls have been busy). For more details, I would have to do some digging if I ever get around to it. But the minutia of CNN's financials is not high on my priority list right now. I'm more interested in things like why and how a whole string of disgraced and/or retired intelligence officers keep getting pundit positions over at CNN and what kind of payoffs this entails. It seems like the ties between CNN and the CIA in particular are quite deep. So for now, just treat all this as my opinion. You'll probably sleep better at night. And add this. CNN is a cancer in our society. Michael
  22. 1 point
    As good as I've read so far: https://merionwest.com/2020/03/24/balance-is-needed-in-the-fight-against-the-coronavirus/
  23. 1 point
    No conspiracy, here: "CBS News Caught Using Footage from an Italian Hospital to Describe Conditions in NYC" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/cbs-news-caught-using-footage-from-an-italian-hospital-to-describe-conditions-in-new-york-city-video/
  24. 1 point
    This has a nice CANTERBURY TALES ring to it. And if not the place for epics, at least a few stories to tell around the fire... And my condolences to Peter. And understood.
  25. 1 point
    Brant, Peter is hurting from a death in his family that looked like the coronavirus, but was not tested. And his pain is deep. I feel it in between the lines in everything he writes right now. I have learned a lot about running an online forum, but I have not yet learned what to do when other people refuse to take things like that into account and bicker with him as if he were the enemy. He's not and never will be. A man in his kind of pain acts differently than he does normally. But it's hard to detect this online and even harder to get others to see it. What to do and what to do? Hell and damnation. How does one keep the fire burning in people's souls, call for exceptions due to context at the same time, and not piss off everybody? It's not either-or. Both the fire and the exceptions are what make for a healthy environment that will not die, but keeping that balance is a bitch. From what I've seen, an imbalance in this is what killed Atlantis--that is, Wales tried to impose the exceptions from the top and mold people into his vision. The passionate fire people simply left. I bet many thought, "Fuck you," as they left, too. As I've said several times, when I was in the underworld in São Paulo, they used to have a saying. When one bandit fights with another, you always know who wins: the police win. This is the same on a forum of ideas. When members bicker to the point of driving each other off, the bad guys targeted by the forum win. On a parallel note, I agree with you that technology will play a key role in the spread of Objectivism and libertarianism. But I don't think they will be as sub rosa as you do. I see these systems of ideas more as tempering agents that will keep the world from turning into a dictatorship by technocrats or a bunch of warring countries that erupt into world wars like last century. I honestly don't think President Trump could have happened without Objectivism and libertarianism. The penetration of leftism in education and the media was so deep in America, and the thirst for power so acute among the elitists, without a strong ideological wall in the hearts and minds of the people forgotten by the power-mongers, the average people who try to be good and strive on their own for improvement, the US would have gone the way of Russia, China and several other countries around the world. But it didn't. They fell and the US didn't. Why? There was too much moral individualism in the US, whereas in Russia, China, etc., there wasn't. The bad guys couldn't pull it off in the US especially because the families and friends of the young people they indoctrinated, and the ruling class people they corrupted even more than normal, held ideas that would not go away--ideas like do whatever you want so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others, like every person's life belongs to himself or herself and not to a state or a mob, like wealth can be created and not just confiscated, like how important independent thinking is to one's happiness and self-esteem as opposed to groupthink, like any individual can rise as far as his or her ability and effort can take them, and so on. These ideas come from Objectivism and libertarianism, including the historical and intellectual roots of these systems. These ideas are kept alive in the culture by stories (especially film, video, novels, songs and so on), but also by public places like OL where ideas can be discussed, examined, bickered about, and used as a draw for gathering people to interact idea-wise with each other. No indoctrination on earth can fight the individual mind when so many opportunities to cultivate it exist in our culture. And no system of ideology, religion, philosophy, politics, etc., can stifle the individual mind when other systems that prize the individual mind--like Objectivism and libertarianism--keep the flame of liberty burning in the souls of individual hearts and minds. That flame of individual independence is our job--at least as I see it. Keeping it alive is what we do. That's what we are supposed to do. We are custodians of the flame in our part of the world, whether virtual or physical. That means we don't need to be an epic tale where we impose a philosophy on the whole world and transform it into a utopia according to the vision of Rand or Jesus or the Founding Fathers or anyone else. We don't need to be a world-changing movement in order to keep the world right. Hell, even President Trump's rise was not a movement to forge the planet into a utopia. His rise was a reaction to a deadly attack on a massive number of peaceful individuals by the ruling class. His rise was made by individuals who said, "Enough!" And he said, "You're right!" Don't think he doesn't know it. If no one believes that, imagine what would happen if President Trump turned into a typical ruling class asshole. Imagine what would happen to him personally. Not good... So I say we don't need to be molders of a new world. Not on a discussion forum. Leave that for the stories and storytellers. Epic stories are like the horizon, anyway. You use them as guides, but you never reach the horizon. You can only reach specific destinations and you can only experience that as an individual. That's just the way the world exists. It's a reality thing. But we can strive and there is great virtue in the striving. That's organic and it's growth. What's more, the transmutation of epic stories into reality where individual freedom is a core value can only be done by individuals to the extent they are able to. I am not John Galt. I am Michael Stuart Kelly. Ditto for you. You are Brant Gaede, not Galt. Even Ayn Rand was not Galt. She was Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum, maker supreme of epic stories and horizon painter. Maker of Galt, for that matter. But she was still an individual, not a collective, and not a god. We don't create epic stories on OL, although I hope we can at some point. Our job at present is different by its nature. As individuals and as a discussion forum, all we need to do out here in reality is be a warm tavern on a stormy night for any traveler who wants to get out of the rain. We can do that because that fits our size. Just knowing taverns like this exist keeps many travelers going on their individual journeys or stopping to stay awhile--and that, more than anything else on earth, thwarts the authoritarians. OL can grow bigger or smaller, but keeping a flame alive in a warm fireplace for individuals when it's cold outside is one of the things we can do in practice. It's what we should do. It's our importance. We--and people like us--matter more than anyone in the mainstream ever talks about. We are the keepers of the flame, not just in story, but in reality. But there is one other thing we have to do. We have to keep from burning down the goddam tavern. Michael
  26. 1 point
    There is a particularly American quality that Rand identified (some speech to cadets at a military academy): "earnestness". I like seeing that in Polly (and in General Flynn, who she linked to). I seem to recall in younger days that me and many others raised in the Brit tradition rather laughed at the quality, but admiringly, some tacitly recognizing that it stood for resolve, courage and values-held. Somewhere along the line, its my belief, earnestness began disappearing in the US, replaced by "cool". Largely the second handedness of a concern of one's appearance and acts to others' eyes. With cool, followed - likely, was caused by - cynicism (about holding values, altogether). Not altogether disappeared, earnestness is even having a comeback in America, I'm pleased to see.
  27. 1 point
    Michael wrote: "TG, I didn't understand this. Too cryptic and I didn't feel in a "Where is Wally?" mood." Understandable, Michael. Some of this stuff is "some assembly required". Admittedly, a screen shot would have helped, and I'd have posted a screen shot, but I'm out of image space here. A picture may say a thousand words, but at the risk of 'ruining the joke" by explaining it, or sounding pedantic, I'll explain this one, anyway, for the benefit of those who, like me, may also be new to this, because it's a good example of how Q works. If you did't see it, well, I don't know if you missed a lot...it's not the biggest piece in the puzzle, but it IS interesting, to say the least. Basically, Trump emphasized "Ready Reserves." When you google that phrase, the sidebar shows a map location for Google Maps for a gun store in Texas called "Ready Reserves" on 4639 Corona Dr #64, Corpus Christi, TX 78411. READY RESERVES. CORONA Drive. The picture of the store that's featured on Google Maps is a close-up on the door, emphasizing #64. Taking that number as significant, people are going to the QMap site and searching for 64 in the posts, etc. to look for relevance. And so on...(In some ways, this reminds me of THE BIBLE CODE phenomenon of some years ago...) Maybe it's importance is as a clue for the doubters, or more intended as a secret comm, or it's nothing. But this example, in itself, is a good demonstration of how Q works, and/or how the people following Q work. (Pattern recongition, connecting the dots, etc.) Listen to the code words, think outside the box, take nothing at face-value or surface level. Look for the ambiguities, the paradoxes, the contradictions. (This latter part must be not only frustrating, but MADDENING, for Objectivists and those dedicated to scientific reasoning, who cannot deal with ambiguity. Yes, O'ism says that by the laws of physical reality, contradictions cannot exist, but this is the "man-made", and the imagination can concoct all sorts of puzzles and mind-games. And lest it seem too conspiratorial for some, an easy answer would be to point out the secrets codes used in war throughout history, and the code-breakers employed to figure them out. ENIGMA, anyone? )
  28. 1 point
    Atlantis was from the bottom up. The posters. Jimmy came along and tried to be the top. He asked me and maybe some others to help run the place. We mostly departed for Yahoo Groups Atlantis 2. Nathaniel Branden had his own site there. They both lasted several years then petered out. Last fall Yahoo destroyed all those archives. Libertarian(?) Tim Star set up his pro-Iraqi war site on Yahoo at about that time (2003). I was against that war. Because of that war I became much more libertarian oriented while he went the other way. But I was and am grounded in basic Objectivist philosophical principles. I still consider libertarianism to be without lasting philosophical roots and Rand to be the proper successor to Lockean individual rights which this country is built on. Rand refused to sanction libertarianism but was so ham-fisted about it she hurt Objectivism more than libertarianism. This was also on and about the split with Branden. She (and Branden) had made Objectivism (off Galt's speech) a top downer while libertarianism was essentially a bottom upper. I say "was" because both Objectivism and libertarianism have gone sub rosa. How strongly they will re-manifest themselves consequent to this virus scare, which is going to change the world for good or evil, remains to be seen. The key will be the role of technology. --Brant Atlantis was a libertarian site even though it had its Objectivists including the execrable Ellen Moore because dogmatists, like Ellen, had a hard time there, but nobody, as I imperfectly recall, ever asked for "civility" but that was okay with Ellen when Jimmy took over
  29. 1 point
    TG, I didn't understand this. Too cryptic and I didn't feel in a "Where is Wally?" mood. But I did go to your link and it linked to one hell of an article by Praying Medic (from the comments, his name is Dave). How President Trump Uses Concealment In the Silent War Just a few quotes: The whole article is worth reading. Michael
  30. 1 point
    Peter, I wish I knew--for you--how to preserve the way the mainstream media used to be, but I can't. They disgraced themselves. They discredited themselves. They didn't tell one too many lies. They told tons too many. Day after day over years. It's like when war breaks out. There's no going back to the way things used to be. The mainstream media are liars and I don't trust them--not even to give the date correctly. What's worse, they show no signs of wanting to change or to rehabilitate their reputation. They want to be taken on faith and daring people to say they are wrong. So I have no respect for them. None. Sometimes I watch a few mainstream news people. Tucker's OK. Judge Janine. Lou Dobbs. Some people like that. But I still don't trust them. That was creepy for me at first, too. I know how hard it is to look at an entire institution like the mainstream news and think, they can't be that corrupt. They never were that way before. Why can't things be the way they were before? Imagine what a person feels like when he is going about his day to day and his country gets invaded right in front of him. Then his own house gets taken from him. Ayn Rand knew that feeling when she was young. She watched it up close and personal. Until 9/11, most Americans never had an inkling of what that felt like. And even then, most of the country watched the 9/11 attack over the news, not in front of their very eyes. A feeling of invasion taking something away from me in my own home is what I felt when the truth of the mainstream media finally hit me in the "they are purposely practicing evil, they are a clear and present threat, and there's no turning back from that" way. The final straw for me was the plethora of unnamed sources the mainstream media used in attacking Trump with made up claims, the information from those alleged sources being debunked over and over, and the mainstream media's insistence on continuing one round after another as if nothing happened. It sucked and any adult knows doing that is wrong, but the mainstream media is still doing it. So they suck. I can no longer get news from people like that and accept it as credible. Not even about the coronavirus. And it bothers me that I can't. So I empathize strongly with your resistance to entertain this notion. It's not the way life is supposed to be. I know it made me feel insecure as all hell at first. But they did that. I didn't. Nor did you. And they did it because they wanted to do it. They knew what they were doing and they loved--and still love--crapping all over all of us. I wish there were words of serenity I could include with this situation so I could say them to you. Maybe they exist, but I don't have them. I'm finding my way to deal with this situation just like others are. But I wish serenity for you. May you walk in deep peace. I mean that all the way down. Michael
  31. 1 point
    Peter, The virus is not a conspiracy and I doubt anyone posting here on OL (or reading OL for that matter) thinks the virus is a conspiracy. It may have been created artificially, or it may have emerged. We're in fog of war communications situation so nobody really knows. But the virus exists. Nobody is saying it doesn't exist. However, the mainstream media coverage and power grabs by sundry factions are conspiracies. Technically, one can say QAnon is a counterconspiracy. There's a power struggle going on and all factions are using the emergency to bolster their power and take down their enemies when they can get away with it. As for people like Polly, well, I can't dismiss the proven genocides and things like that she talks about as conspiracy theories. That's why I watch her. She's certainly more credible fact-wise than the The L.A. Times and CNN. And Fox, for that matter. If Polly ever got communications power, I just don't see her firing Trish Regan over a difference of political opinion. Michael
  32. 1 point
    More JFK Jr stuff coming up, today: JFK Jr vs. Joe Biden, 1994: "'Dear Senator Biden, You are a traitor."'Bearing the signature John F. Kennedy, Jr." https://vault.fbi.gov/John F. Kennedy Jr./John F. Kennedy Jr. Part 1 of 1 JFK Jr on the LENO show, reading a poem from a 9-year old Monica Lewinsky, where she descibes herself as a pizza (think "Pizzagate"). It's disturbing, in retrospect, how she describes herself. https://twitter.com/intheMatrixxx/status/1243920138321244163?s=20
  33. 1 point
    Re: Q's line about doubting Thomas's and mocking "conspiracy theorists": ---------- "The entire world is watching. Patriots from around the world are praying for AMERICA. We are all bound by a feeling deep inside, a feeling that cannot be publicly expressed for fear of ridicule, a feeling that challenges the mainstream (narrative), against that which we are told to accept and dare not question, put simply, that people are being abused by those in power and time is running out. " ---------- Makes me think of a passage from Rand's THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO, regarding the mocking of Romanticism in children, and how it might relate to those who rush to judge those looking into conspiracies: “His rationality is turned against him by means of a similar dichotomy: reason versus emotion. His Romantic sense of life is only a sense, an incoherent emotion which he can neither communicate nor explain nor defend. It is an intense, yet fragile emotion, painfully vulnerable to any sarcastic allegation, since he is unable to identify its real meaning. It is easy to convince a child, and particularly an adolescent, that his desire to emulate Buck Rogers is ridiculous: he knows that it isn’t exactly Buck Rogers he has in mind and yet, simultaneously, it is—he feels caught in an inner contradiction—and this confirms his desolately embarrassing feeling that he is being ridiculous. “They arrest his value-development on a primitively literal, concrete-bound level: they convince him that to be like Buck Rogers means to wear a space helmet and blast armies of Martians with a disintegrator-gun, and that he’d better give up such notions if he ever expects to make a respectable living. And they finish him off with such gems of argumentation as: ‘Buck Rogers—ha-ha!—never gets any colds in the head. Do you know any real people who never get them? Why, you had one last week. So don’t you go on imagining that you’re better than the rest of us!’” And then, Rand says something about their motives that makes me think something similar is motivating those who rush to mock and dismiss “conspiracy theorists”: “Their motive is obvious. If they actually regarded Romanticism as an “impractical fantasy,” they would feel nothing but a friendly or indifferent amusement—not the passionate resentment and uncontrollable rage which they do feel and exhibit.” Ayn Rand. The Romantic Manifesto (Kindle Locations 2190-2191). Signet. Kindle Edition This could apply both to the attitudes towards both the real and the "woo" conspiracies. With stuff like aliens or time-travel, as Rand says of "impractical fantasies", they might "feel nothing but a friendly or indifferent amusement". But with the plausible policial conspiracies, one is more likely to get "the passionate resentment and uncontrollable rage which they do feel and exhibit."
  34. 1 point
  35. 1 point
    Trump just said "ready reserves" "those are two big words" and then repeated it "ready reserves". Go google "Ready Reserves". Look at Google Maps. Look at the address. #64 https://twitter.com/JemeleWilliams/status/1244012286882336769?s=20
  36. 1 point
    Ayn Rand's 1957 novel, ATLAS SHRUGGED, contained a counter-conspiracy involving a radio speech given by a man who vowed "to stop the motor of the world." On March 28, 2020, we have this speech dropped by the counter-conspiracy known as "Q", via the internet... "The entire world is watching. Patriots from around the world are praying for AMERICA. We are all bound by a feeling deep inside, a feeling that cannot be publicly expressed for fear of ridicule, a feeling that challenges the mainstream (narrative), against that which we are told to accept and dare not question, put simply, that people are being abused by those in power and time is running out. " Read the entire drop here: https://qmap.pub/ https://twitter.com/StormIsUponUs/status/1243987443533205504?s=20 Many have criticized Rand for Galt's speech being too long to hold people's attention, and too unfilmable for a movie. But whatever else one may think about "Q", you gotta admit, they figured a way around all that...
  37. 1 point
    On the "Donald Trump" thread, Brant posted the comment (link below) about WSS's recent diarrhea of images on his Member Album. "William S has decided to use OL as a toilet. --Brant" Quite. However, I want to mention one of the images William posted, the one of "Dr. Oz" saying on Fox News that the recent coronavirus is actually common. NO, IT ISN'T. "Dr. Oz" appears not to be aware that there are multiple kinds of coronaviruses. Some of them have been common for years in humans and generally produce mild symptoms. COVID-19 is a new virus in humans, "novel." Ellen https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/15329-donald-trump/page/570/?tab=comments#comment-292537
  38. 1 point
    From Rolllng Stone. Coronavirus Is Spreading — And So Are the Hoaxes and Conspiracy Theories Around It The government introduced the coronavirus in 2018, and Bill Gates was also somehow responsible. There is a vaccine or cure for coronavirus that the government won’t release Coronavirus originated with Chinese people eating bats When it comes to major world events, it’s not uncommon for enterprising sleuths to dig deep into fictional sources to find a premonition, however tenuous it may be. (Remember when people thought that Back to the Future II predicted the Cubs’ big World Series win? Or Trump?) In that same vein, last month a screengrab of a passage from author Dean Koontz’s 1981 novel The Eyes of Darkness went viral on Twitter, as the passage appears to allude to the creation of a deadly virus known as Wuhan-400, named after the city from which it originated. Aside from the reference to Wuhan, however (which didn’t even appear in the first edition of Koontz’s book), there are no similarities between Wuhan-400 and COVID-19. Unlike COVID-19, which has about a 2% fatality rate, Wuhan-400 kills 100% of its victims, mostly by creating a “toxin that literally eats away brain tissue,” rendering victims without a pulse. So while it may be tempting for proponents of the COVID-19 as bioweapon theory to point to Koontz’s book as a harbinger of events to come, it appears the parallels between the two are tenuous at best. Still, there’s no shortage of other works of fiction for armchair COVID-19 detectives to point to, up to and including… The Simpsons predicted the coronavirus Because The Simpsons has been on the air for more than 30 years, there’s been no shortage of elaborate plotlines for internet sleuths to point to as harbingers for various world events, to the degree that “The Simpsons predicted it” is now more of a meme than anything else. Case in point: screengrabs allegedly from the 1993 episode “Marge in Chains” about an outbreak of a mysterious illness, with one appearing to show a newscaster delivering a report about a “corona virus.” Although the episode in question is legit, it focuses on an illness called “Osaka flu” (with Osaka obviously being in Japan, not in China), and the screengrab, which is from another episode entirely, actually reads “Apocalypse Meow,” not “coronavirus.” So chalk this up to Photoshopping and morbidly wishful thinking on internet commenters’ parts. A “miracle” bleach product can cure coronavirus. In one of the most sickening examples of conspiracy theorists taking advantage of the panic surrounding coronavirus to sell a product, supporters of the elaborate far-right conspiracy theory QAnon have been telling people to drink Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS), a bleach-based product that has been touted by anti-vaxxers for years, as an effective means of warding off coronavirus. The product contains toxic chemicals and can result in vomiting, diarrhea, and acute liver failure if ingested in large amounts. (Horrifyingly, in the past some mothers of children with autism spectrum disorder have been known to administer it to them as a “cure.”) Although YouTube instituted a ban on videos promoting MMS last year, as Rolling Stone reported in January, it was not difficult to find such content on the platform, illustrating the immense difficulties platforms have faced in attempting to curb the spread of COVID-19-related misinformation. The country will be placed in a nationwide quarantine effective immediately. If you can’t hold your breath for 10 seconds without coughing, then you have coronavirus. Vitamin C can help you ward off coronavirus Coronavirus will go away by summertime.
  39. 1 point
    What Happened to Amelia Earhart? The disappearance of Amelia Earhart is, perhaps, aviation’s greatest mystery. Unsurprisingly, it has led to the appearance of numerous theories and notions regarding her fate following her doomed 1937 flight around the world. Typically, the most accepted view is that Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, died after crashing their Lockheed Model 10 Electra. Whether this happened somewhere over the Pacific Ocean or on an island is unknown. Some believe that Amelia Earhart perished at the hands of the Japanese because she was, actually, an American spy enlisted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Japanese military either killed her when they downed her airplane or captured Earhart and held her prisoner on the island of Saipan for the rest of her days. There was even a notion that the aviatrix was forced to become a Tokyo Rose – an English-speaking woman who spread Japanese propaganda to the Allies during World War II. Her husband, George Putnam, investigated this claim. He listened to numerous such recordings but never recognized his wife’s voice. There have also been several notions that Earhart survived the crash and lived under a new identity. One book alleged that she became Irene Bolam from New Jersey. Bolam sued the publisher, settled out of court and got the book withdrawn. The Phantom Time Hypothesis. Without a doubt, one of the strangest historical conspiracy theories is the phantom time hypothesis. It asserts that part of the Middle Ages never actually happened and was manufactured in order to advance time a few centuries and place the reign of Holy Roman Emperor Otto III in the year 1000. According to this hypothesis, the time period between AD 614 and 911 never took place. Charlemagne never existed and neither did the Carolingian Dynasty. The year is actually 1722. As far as motivation goes, it is usually presented as a conspiracy plot masterminded by King Otto III and Pope Sylvester II. However, some believers assert that those extra centuries could have been added by mistake or by misinterpretation of documents. If this was all an accident, it likely happened during the Gregorian reform when Pope Gregory XIII enabled the switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar. There are many ways to debunk this idea, but astronomy seems to work just fine. We have historical observations of cosmic events such as solar eclipses and the passing of Halley’s Comet. Astronomers can calculate with certainty when they have taken place and would notice if they were off by a few centuries. The Lost Dauphin. King Louis XVI of France and his wife, Marie Antoinette, were sent to the guillotine in 1793. Although the French Revolution brought about the fall of the monarchy, there were still loyalists in the country who considered the young Dauphin of France, Louis-Charles, to be the rightful ruler. Therefore, the heir apparent was imprisoned where he seemingly died of scrofula in 1795, aged 10. Not everyone was convinced that this actually happened. Rumors soon sprouted that crown sympathizers successfully broke Louis out of prison and that somebody else was buried in his place. This idea became particularly commonplace two decades later when the monarchy was briefly restored. Dozens of men came forward claiming to be the “Lost Dauphin.” Their descendants continued their claims for centuries that they were part of the House of Bourbon. Modern technology invalidated those claims. Philippe-Jean Pelletan was the surgeon who performed the autopsy on the young body purported to be that of Louis-Charles. He smuggled and preserved the heart of the boy in the hopes that it would be given a royal burial later. The relic has been in the same crystal urn for almost 200 years. DNA tests in the early 2000s showed that it really belonged to Louis and the “Lost Dauphin” was nothing more than a legend.
  40. 1 point
    Mnuchin was with Goldman for how many years? Bill Barr was kinda SES and deep state, too. I can’t tell from here who was and is sincere deep state but is complying and cooperating with white hats now to stay alive, versus who was always a white hat and was simply faking and infiltrating.
  41. 1 point
    Michael quoted, “No matter how bad you think something is, when you look into it, it's always worse." That sounds like a “deep” generalization but taken by itself it is twaddle. For that to make sense you would need to explain what “something” is. Michael wrote: But that's enough to make my point--that taking seriously a potential conspiracy is not the same thing as being batshit crazy. (Besides, this is getting so long, I'm not sure you will read it all. ) end quote I skimmed it. But I will skim it again, Kemo Sabe. I saw that Rhode Island is considering a ban on New Yorkers crossing into their state. How would Ayn Rand view that? Peter Notes. “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 96. . . . . Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others. end quote And in her article, "The Left: Old and New" in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, [p. 89] Ayn Rand wrote: In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is *proved*, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and *objective* laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved -- as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc." end quote Tonto called the Lone Ranger "quien no sabe" (he who knows nothing) and the Lone Ranger called his sidekick "tonto" (fool). NOTE: Tonto called the Lone Ranger "Kemo Sabe" which was actually a bastardization of the spanish "Quien no sabe". The writers were trying to come up with a phrase that meant "he who no one knows".
  42. 1 point
    Brant! I can't decide for you, laddy.
  43. 1 point
    0 + 0 = 0 --Brant
  44. 1 point
    Michael wrote on the Coronavirus thread: Peter has a treasure trove of archives from the old Atlantis forum. I block John La Cockroach but I read his message without logging in (since he is blocked and a block head.) I looked up the word Mason (and Free Mason) used on another OL thread and found this oldie. I seem to remember a picture of PinkCrash and she was pretty, with dark hair. Peter From: "Erik Herbertson" To: "Atlantis" Subject: ATL: American Civil War Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:14:20 +0200. Here is an interesting article by a libertarian (Timothy Sandefeur) who have a different view on the American Civil War than the quite common among libertarians: www.zolatimes.com/V4.22/civil_war.html On www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo5.html there is the opposing view. The reason I pick this one up is partly because it deals with David Boaz (Cato Institute) article about the recent Mississippi flag controversy, partly because the very James McPherson mentioned in DiLorenzo´s article wrote a review on three books about the Civil War in the April 12 issue of The New York Review of Books. In the review McPherson writes that there are many facts (statements, articles, speeches, declarations etc.) supporting the view that the main goal of the leaders of the Confederacy in 1861 was the preservation of slavery. But after the war, many of them changed their motives in establishing a Confederacy to the issue of States rights instead. McPherson points out the fact that during the forty-nine of the seventy-two years from 1789 to 1861 the presidents of the United States were slaveholding Southerners. At all times before 1861 a majority of Supreme Court justices were Southerners. In the Congress, the Southerners were often in majority. In the House of Representatives Southerners had a disproportionate strength because of the electoral system "which stipulated that three fifths of the slaves were to be counted as part of a state’s population for purposes of determining the number of seats each state would have in the House. This provision gave slave states an average of twenty more congressmen after each census than they would have had on the basis of the free population above. The combined effect of these two constitutional provisions also gave the slave states about thirty more electoral votes than their share of the voting population would have entitled them to have."(McPherson). Anti-slavery Republicans called this situation the "Slave Power" and sometimes the "Slave Power Conspiracy". This political dominance of Southerners speaks against the claim that the antebellum South was concerned with states´ rights. As long as their pro-slavery interests were secured by a pro-slavery president and a pro-slavery majority in the Supreme Court and the Congress, they did not really care about states´ rights. McPherson: "In 1850 Southerners in Congress, plus a handful of Northern allies, enacted a Fugitive Slave Law that was the strongest manifestation of *national* power thus far in American history. In the name of protecting the rights of slave owners, it extended the long arm of federal law, enforced by marshals and the army, into Northern states to recover escaped slaves and return them to their owners. Senator Jefferson Davis, who later insisted that the Confederacy fought for the principle of state sovereignty, voted with enthusiasm for the Fugitive Slave Law. When Northern state legislatures invoked states´ rights and individual liberties against this federal law, the Supreme Court with its majority of Southern justices reaffirmed the supremacy of national law to protect slavery (Ableman v. Booth, 1859). Many observers in the 1850s would have predicted that if a rebellion in the name of states´ rights were to occur, it would be the North that would rebel. The presidential election of 1860 changed the equation. Without a single electoral vote from the South, Lincoln won the presidency on a platform of containing the future expansion of slavery. Southerners saw the consequences that would likely follow. The Union now consisted of eighteen free states and fifteen slave states. Northern Republicans would soon control Congress, if not after this election then surely after the next. Loss of the Supreme Court would follow. Gone or going was the South´s national power to protect slavery; now was the time to invoke state sovereignty to leave the Union." The issue I´m concerned with here is not really the right of secession as such, but the *motive(s)* for the South to secede. I would have wanted "pro-Confederates" using much more comments like the above in assessing secession. All too often I have read texts where libertarians elevate the Confederacy to the status of freedom fighters like the revolutionaries of 1776. I don´t think this is a reasonable position for the very reasons pointed out in Sandefeur´s article. Also, the Confederacy established in their Constitution the explicit right to own slaves. Many of the original Founding fathers had doubts about slavery, as most of us know, and wanted an end to it. George Mason called slavery "diabolical in itself and disgraceful to mankind". After nearly one hundred years of agitation against slavery as a violation of the American principles of self-determination, the CSA gives slavery constitutional protection. Some freedom! CSA was not more noble than the USA. Habeas corpus was suspended in the CSA as well, draft was introduced and civilian property was stolen. CSA had rotten elements just like USA had (and has). You don´t need to inform me about Lincoln´s actions. The libertarian historian Jeffrey Hummel has written a book, "Emancipating slaves, enslaving free men", where he supports the right of CSA to secede, but he seems to have substantial information in his book, like criticism of CSA, for example. I haven´t read the book, just looked at some pages. It seems very interesting. I´m a Swedish citizen, and no expert on U.S. constitutional law, but it would be nice if some of you could comment this and perhaps bring me even more material on the subject. I would also like to know if Ayn Rand had any discussions about this subject. Erik Herbertson Opposing viewpoint Libertarians and the Confederate Battle Flag by Thomas J. DiLorenzo The Cato Institute recently joined with the NAACP and the financial scandal-ridden left-wing hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, in denouncing the Confederate battle flag and calling for its eradication from public spaces. In an April 16 article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal Cato’s executive vice president David Boaz argued that the last state to include the battle flag in its state emblem, Mississippi, should scrap it. Comparing the flag to posters of the communist terrorist Che Guevara or "vulgar bumper stickers," Boaz makes the untenable (and insulting) argument that the hundreds of thousands of Mississippians who favor keeping the emblem do so because they want to commemorate slavery. Anyone who disagrees with this theory, says Boaz, is a "spin doctor of the South," in other words, a liar. That would have to include nearly every serious historian. In The Causes of the Civil War, edited by the noted "Civil War" historian Kenneth Stampp, the issues of states rights versus centralized governmental power, the political plundering of the southern states with protectionist tariffs, tyranny of the majority, a conflict of cultures, and political blundering are all cited as contributing causes of the war. Only a small band of Marxist historians claims that the war was caused by slavery alone. And David Boaz too, apparently. Boaz buttresses his hypothesis with a quotation by University of Chicago philosophy professor Jacob Levy, who believes that "when the state speaks . . . it claims to speak on behalf of all its members." So, since not everyone approves of the Confederate battle flag, it should be taken down. That’s right, Cato’s executive vice president apparently believes that when Bill Clinton, the former chief spokesman of the American state, said that our taxes were too low, that criticizing government policy was tantamount to instigating terrorism, that he did not have sex with "that woman," and thousands of other lies and deceptions, he was speaking for all of us. Rubbish. Only in totalitarian societies does the state purport to express the views of every last citizen. Indeed, the history of totalitarianism is a history of snuffing out all dissenting views with tactics ranging from censorship to mass murder. To this list should be added the rewriting of history, which is really what the battle flag opponents are up to. In his book What They Fought For, 1861-1865, historian James McPherson reported on his reading of more than 25,000 letters and more than 100 diaries of soldiers who fought on both sides of the War for Southern Independence and concluded that Confederate soldiers (very few of whom owned slaves) "fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government." The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers "bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government," writes McPherson, and spoke of a fear of being "subjugated" and "enslaved" by a tyrannical federal government. Sound familiar? Many Confederate soldiers thought of the war as "the Second war for American Independence." A Texas cavalryman told his sister in a letter that just as earlier Americans had "rebelled against King George to establish Liberty and freedom in this western world . . . so we dissolved our alliance with this oppressive foe and are now enlisted in The Holy Cause of Liberty and Independence again." An Alabama infantryman wrote his mother, "If the mere imposition of a tax [in 1776] could raise such tumult what should be the result of the terrible system of oppression instituted by the Yankees?" Another theme in these letters was that many Confederates believed (and rightly so) that they were fighting to defend their property and families from a hostile invading army. "We are fighting for matters real and tangible . . . our property and our homes," wrote a Texas private in 1864. Union soldiers did not believe they were fighting to end slavery but to "preserve the union." "We are fighting for the Union . . . a high and noble sentiment, but after all a sentiment," wrote an Illinois officer, "They are fighting for independence and are animated by passion and hatred against invaders." Other Confederate soldiers sought revenge for the burning of southern cities and the murder of civilians, including women and children, while others voiced a desire to "protect the fair daughters of [the South] . . . from Yankee outrage and atrocity." When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863, which freed no slaves because it exempted all territories under Union control, there was a massive desertion crisis in the Union army. Union soldiers ‘were willing to risk their lives for Union," McPherson writes, "but not for black freedom." Boaz belittles the fact that tariffs and states’ rights were also motivations from the war, but the fact is, as soon as Lincoln took office the Republican Party, which virtually monopolized the federal government for the next seventy years, enacted tariff rates of nearly 50 percent, which remained at those levels for decades, and set in motion the great centralizing forces of federal power by adopting an internal revenue bureaucracy, central banking, corporate welfare, income and excise taxation, and the demolition of the system of decentralized government that was established by the founding fathers. Perhaps Boaz believes this was all just a coincidence. By calling for the eradication of the Confederate battle flag from public places the Cato Institute, the NAACP, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are saying that we should destroy the most enduring symbol of opposition to centralized governmental power and tyranny, a symbol that to this day is a part of secession movements around the world, from Quebec to Northern Italy. No one was a more articulate and outspoken abolitionist than the great libertarian legal philosopher Lysander Spooner of Massachusetts. But in 1870 Spooner wrote that "all these cries of having ‘abolished slavery,’ of having ‘saved the country,’ of having ‘preserved the union,’ of establishing a ‘government of consent,’ and of ‘maintaining the national honor’ are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one." The great historian of liberty, Lord Acton, wrote to Robert E. Lee on November 4, 1866, that "I saw in States Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of he sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. . . . I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo." Disavowing the views of these great libertarian scholars, Boaz apparently prefers the interpretations of history given by Kwesi Mfume, Al Sharpton, and Morris Dees. Some 620,000 Americans died in Lincoln’s war, at a time when the population of the U.S. was about 30 million. Standardized for today’s population, that would be roughly the equivalent of 5 million American deaths in a four-year war – 100 times the number of Americans who died in the ten-year Vietnam conflict. On the other hand, dozens of other countries during the nineteenth century ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. The death of some 300,000 Southerners, most of whom believed they were giving their lives for the causes of liberty, independence, and self government, is apparently of no concern to Boaz. He is only concerned about the purported sensitivities of American blacks, but shows no concern whatsoever for the descendants of hundreds of thousands of brave men who had nothing to do with slavery and who gave their lives for what Professor McPherson characterized as "deeply felt convictions." In war, the victors always get to write the history. A century of federal government propaganda about the causes and effects of the War for Southern Independence has been so effective that even the Cato Institute has apparently fallen victim to it. April 19, 2001 Thomas J. DiLorenzo is Professor of Economics at Loyola College in Maryland. From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Re: American Civil War Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:01:31 -0500 Erik Herbertson wrote: "The issue I´m concerned with here is not really the right of secession as such, but the *motive(s)* for the South to secede. I would have wanted "pro-Confederates" using much more comments like the above in assessing secession. All too often I have read texts where libertarians elevate the Confederacy to the status of freedom fighters like the revolutionaries of 1776. I don´t think this is a reasonable position for the very reasons pointed out in Sandefeur´s article. Also, the Confederacy established in their Constitution the explicit right to own slaves. Many of the original Founding fathers had doubts about slavery, as most of us know, and wanted an end to it. George Mason called slavery "diabolical in itself and disgraceful to mankind". After nearly one hundred years of agitation against slavery as a violation of the American principles of self-determination, the CSA gives slavery constitutional protection. Some freedom! CSA was not more noble than the USA. Habeas corpus was suspended in the CSA as well, draft was introduced and civilian property was stolen. CSA had rotten elements just like USA had (and has). You don´t need to inform me about Lincoln´s actions." It is misleading to say that most of America's founding fathers wanted to end slavery. Many supported it, and virtually all of those who opposed it were gradualists who took a position akin to that of St. Augustine's prayer, "Lord, give me chastity, but not yet." There was a widespread belief that slavery was economically inefficient compared to free labor, so the South would eventually be forced to abandon slavery out of self-interested motives. As far as political measures to end slavery were concerned, the original strategy (embodied in the Constitution) was to prohibit the slave trade (not slavery itself) 20 years after ratification, in the hope that a purely domestic supply of slaves would be unable to maintain the "peculiar institution." Eric is right to point out that many founding father at least had serious "doubts" about slavery. Eric, for example, quotes George Mason's polemic against slavery, but he fails to mention that Mason himself was a slaveowner who said he would never free his slaves. He also conceded this was a contradiction which he would not attempt to rationalize or justify. As for the Southern "motive" for secession, this can be a difficult thing to get a handle on, because "motives" pertain only to individuals, not to collective entities, such as states. Although most southerners did not own slaves (and many commoners resented the slave owning aristocracy), it is clear that for many southerners the issue of slavery lit the fuse that would eventually ignite the struggle for independence. Nevertheless, the official southern rationale was independence. Likewise, the official northern rationale was the argument that secession is illegitimate. Lincoln was very clear about this: "My paramount object in this struggle *is* to save the Union, and is *not* either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing *any* slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing *all* the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union....." (Lincoln went on to note that this was his *official* position; personally, he would like to see all slaves set free.) Two other things should be kept in mind. First, the Union itself contained four slave states. Second, the Emancipation Proclamation "liberated" only those slaves in rebellious states; it did not free the slaves in the four Union border states, nor in those southern territories that had been conquered by Union armies. It is was simply and solely a war measure designed to weaken the South. (For more on this, see Jeff Hummel's excellent book, *Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men,* which Eric also mentioned.) Eric correctly notes that slavery was explicitly sanctioned by the Confederate Constitution, But slavery had long been legally sanctioned in the Union, not only by provisions in the Constitution (such as the fugitive slave clause and the notorious three-fifths provision), but by federal and Supreme Court decisions as well. Slavery aside, southerners had a number of legitimate grievances, such as the propensity of northerners to impose high tariffs that benefited northern manufacturing at the expense of southern agriculture. But we should have no illusions about the fact that the slavery controversy did play an important role in how some southerners thought about independence. But whatever the motives of some southerners may have been (and they were complex, sometimes having as much to do with cultural as with political reasons), both sides agreed that the Civil War was being fought over the right of secession. There are some parallels here with the American Revolution. The physician Benjamin Rush (the guy who convinced Thomas Paine to write "Common Sense") estimated that the motives of around one-third of the American revolutionaries were less than noble. (Some, for example, wished to escape the responsibility of paying their debts to British merchants, whereas others did not like the restraints imposed upon them to protect Indians.) Moreover, the British (for military reasons similar to those later invoked by Lincoln) offered to free any slaves that fought on the British side, and it is scarcely coincidental that most Indian tribes sided with the British as well. Thus, in the American Revolution as in the Southern Revolution, the motives of individuals were often varied and mixed. Lysander Spooner dealt with this troublesome issue by clearly distinguishing the right of secession from the motives that may impel some people to demand secession. Thus, although Spooner had long been a vehement abolitionist, he defended the southern cause, claiming it was as legitimate as the American revolution had been. I agree with him on this. Slavery was sanctioned and flourished much longer under the Union flag that it did under the Confederate flag. We should therefore take them both down, everywhere and permanently. If we must have a national symbol, then let us salute the old revolutionary flag with a coiled snake and the motto, "Don't tread on me." This would be a clear indication that Americans oppose all forms of slavery, both chattel and political, and regardless of whether the tyrant prefers to be called "Master" or "Mister President." Ghs From: "Erik Herbertson" To: "Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Re: American Civil War Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 01:07:14 +0200 Thank you George, for your response. When I asked about the motives for secession, I was more interested in the views held by the leaders of the Confederacy, rather than the various inhabitants of the South, who obviously held different views. In Sandefeur´s article there is a quote by CSA:s vice president Alexander Stephens, which underscores the claim that preservation of slavery was the main purpose for the leaders of the Confederacy. But yes, not even among "leaders" was this a unifying belief. General Robert Lee was against slavery. And certainly did many hold free trade arguments against Northern tariffs. But the British Manchester liberals and free traders Richard Cobden and John Bright supported the North. Among Republicans, such as Lincoln, Union seemed to be more important than the abolition of slavery, yes. But the Republicans at least had an ambition to do something about it, by forbidding its expansion to new territories and states. They could not abolish it altogether, because of the federal structure. The Emancipation Proclamation only liberated slaves in CSA territory because Lincoln only had military authority to decide about it there, but not in the rest of the Union. At least that is what I have read. But I don´t want to be Lincoln´s advocate. He did a lot of damage. I´m just assessing who is "better" in this conflict, if that´s possible at all. I don´t think it´s possible. The old revolutionary flag George mentioned seems to be a good symbol for real freedom fighters. Erik Herbertson From: PinkCrash7 To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: American Civil War Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:25:05 EDT George Smith wrote: >Eric correctly notes that slavery was explicitly sanctioned by the Confederate Constitution, But slavery had long been legally sanctioned in the Union, not only by provisions in the Constitution (such as the fugitive slave clause and the notorious three-fifths provision), but by federal and Supreme Court decisions as well. According to Steven Yates, author of "When is Political Divorce Justified?" in the book, _Secession, State and Liberty_, edited by David Gordon (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ 1998), "the Confederate Constitution explicitly forbade importing any more African slaves, and [Jefferson Davis] once vetoed a bill which he deemed in conflict with this: 'Gentlemen of Congress: With sincere deference to the judgment of Congress, I have carefully considered the bill in relation to the slave trade, and to punish persons offending therein, but have not been able to approve it, and therefore do return it with a statement of my objections. The Constitution (Art. I, Section 7) provides that the importation of African Negroes from any foreign country other than slave-holding states of the United States is hereby forbidden, and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same... This provisions seems to me to be in opposition to the policy declared in the Constitution - the prohibition of the importation of African Negroes - and in derogation of its mandate to legislate for the effectuation of that object.' "In other words, Davis knew the institution would gradually die out as more and more slaves were able to buy their freedom or die and not be replaced. "The reason the southern states gave for secession was their desire for a self-determination they saw themselves losing in the face of both government intrusions and broken agreements - in short, to escape a federal government which had already stepped outside its bounds...." The book, _Secession, State and Liberty_ is a fascinating book containing a collection of essays about secession -- including one by Murray Rothbard ("Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State") and another by Bruce Benson ("How to Secede in Business Without Really Leaving: Evidence of the Substitution of Arbitration for Litigation"). The one that I found the most interesting is by James Ostowski, "Was the Union Army's Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act? An Analysis of President's Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession". I would highly recommend this book to Erik and to anyone who is interested in the subject of secession. Debbie From: Michael Hardy To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: American Civil War -- answer to George Smith Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 16:09:27 -0400 (EDT) I am surprised that George Smith doubts that the desire to maintain slavery was the major motive for secessions of the southern states. The conventions that decided to secede published their reasons. The official "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" states that "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world," and goes on to enumerate various threats to that institution. The official "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" complains at length about the refusal of northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the harboring of slaves charge with murder or with inciting servile insurrection, etc. It states over and over and over and over that it was from the "non-slave-holding states" that the state of South Carolina wished to be separated. Why just those ones? Why not all of the other states? George, how do you answer that? Did South Carolina have various separate grievances, unrelated to slavery, against precisely those states that, by some strange coincidence, also happened to be non- slave-holding states? And did they then refer to them by means of that coincidence without suspecting that they were setting themselves up to be misunderstood as acting for the purpose of preserving slavery? The "Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union" makes much of the ""beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery." Below I quote from the official Declaration of Causes of Secession of the state of Georgia. These documents are at <http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html>. Mike Hardy << A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. C ongress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensable for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious reviling’s and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands today a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their covenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. >> From: "George H. Smith" Reply-To: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: American Civil War -- answer to George Smith Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:30:07 -0500 Mike Hardy wrote: "I am surprised that George Smith doubts that the desire to maintain slavery was the major motive for secessions of the southern states. The conventions that decided to secede published their reasons." Mike then quotes from the Declaration of Immediate Causes from Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Georgia, all of which refer to slavery in some fashion. I never denied that slavery played a significant role in secession -- indeed, I specifically stated that "we should have no illusions about the fact that the slavery controversy did play an important role in how some southerners thought about independence." But the issue is more complex that Mike has indicated. Secession occurred in two waves. Seven slave states seceded within three months of Lincoln's election, even though, apart from his opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories, Lincoln had pledged not to tamper with the peculiar institution. The second wave occurred after the Fort Sumter incident, when Lincoln had refused to evacuate Union troops from Charleston Harbor. This was the spark that caused four additional states -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to join the rebellion. The Governor of Virginia (who had previously been critical of South Carolina's actions) flatly refused Lincoln's order to muster militia for to the purpose of forcing the rebellious states back into the Union, and he accused Lincoln of starting a civil war for the purpose of subjugating the South. As Jeff Hummel puts it: "Previously unwilling to secede over the issue of slavery, these four states were now ready to fight for the ideal of a voluntary union." (*Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men,* p. 141.) This is what I meant in saying that the motives for secession were varied and complex. But it would be silly to say that slavery was the fundamental issue that was contested during in the Civil War (even if it was the motive that caused *some* southerners to demand independence), since neither side was calling for its abolition. (As I pointed out before, slavery was legal in four border states within the Union itself.) Rather, the fundamental issue had to do with the right of secession. This is an issue that had been debated in the United States for many years. Btw, I have no sympathy with either side in that bloody and senseless war. Ghs
  45. 1 point
    Swine Flu vs COVID-19 I'll park this post on this thread where it has a better chance of being noticed than on the "Coronavirus" thread. Some people are saying - including, I gather, Rush Limbaugh: But look at the swine flu, 60 million 1st-year US cases and no national emergency declared. What makes this COVID-19 worth declaring an emergency? Here's what: The swine flu had a very high incidence - a great many people got it. The incidence in the US for the swine flu's first year was about 60 million. The swine flu had a low death rate (about 0.02), an exceptionally low death rate for a seasonal flu-type disease. In the US for the first year, there was about 1 death in 5 thousand cases. --- If the COVID-19 virus achieved the same first-year US incidence as the swine flu - about 60 million - and if the death rate continues at the current about 1 in 50 cases - the number of US deaths would be about 1.2 million. (The rate might go higher than 1 in 50 cases. Of the to-date 4,744 US cases, 93 have died and 12 are in serious/critical condition. Only 74 have recovered.) Ellen
  46. 0 points
    These data are suspect. Especially comparative data. Italy does have a lot of old people and Italians love to get up close and personal. The big problem is all the Chinese who live there who went to China for the holiday and came back by the tens of thousands. --Brant
  47. 0 points
    I think I will say so long for now.
  48. 0 points
    William, What goes on between you and others on OL does not go on with me. Them's the rules. So please tone it down when we interact. Our dueling thing is--and always has been--banter. Let's keep it that way. Thanks. Everybody figured that out. Everybodys know it. I'm surprised you don't realize it. You have been spoofing and looking down your nose at OL people for so many years, maybe you've convinced yourself that OL people are so retarded, they don't see the obvious. But people see and have seen for ages... Some OL people got real sick of it and now it is what it is. So I'm letting it play out. Some things kill by going boom and others kill by cancer stealth. There are no sinless saints in this kerfuffle, especially not you (your style of killing is by cancer), but all involved are good people underneath, so I think things will work out on their own. (Granted, that wasn't banter just now, but I want you to know I see it all, not just what you want me to see, or not what you think my limits of retarded mental abilities let me see. I see it all. Frankly, it's boring, but all are OL regulars and, to me, that means flexibility, so I let it run. Now back to our regularly scheduled program ...) Michael