Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/05/2020 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    Lo and behold, just days after Berman's being taken out, SDNY's case against Jeffrey Epstein's child victim procurer Ghislaine Maxwell finally proceeds after having been sat on for years. https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/02/epstein-confidante-maxwell-arrested-in-new-hampshire/
  2. 2 points
    Jon, Just for the reader, here is a bolded headline to that link and some excerpts: Epstein Confidante Maxwell Arrested In New Hampshire [Updated] Here is the indictment if anyone is interested. Also, a video right out of the oven of the official press conference about Maxwell's arrest. This case shows AG Bill Barr's method of working. Re investigations, he's a plodder and keeps a tight ship on leaks. When the time comes he and his staff believe they have an air-tight case, they clean the path (like getting rid of Berman through political channels), then swoop in and arrest bad guys who have no idea what hit them. I bet there are a lot of Deep Staters who are observing this very process and, suddenly as their arrogance turns into bile and goes down their throats with a big-ass gulp, are contemplating a move to another country that has no extradition treaty. And, as you keep reminding readers, the people who disparaged as a conspiracy theory and a sign of warped non-Objectivist epistemology the idea that elites controlled other elites through pedophilia-connected blackmail are silent about this. Reality doesn't fit the story they keep telling themselves where they are the superior good guys. From their words and deeds, they are protectors of science and reason and defenders of decent people of prominence who don't deserve to be smeared. That's the story they tell themselves. In reality, as the investigations are now proving and later prosecutions and jail will prove, many of their public heroes are pedophiles and have been blackmailed for years because of it. Some way to do philosophy and epistemology if it blinds people that much, huh? Let's just say I'm enjoying the show. Michael
  3. 2 points
    The WHO has outdone itself in corruption. They recently started a trial of the drug hydroxychloroquine, intentionally giving patients a near lethal dose so as to – obviously – make the drug look dangerous. Meryl Nass and others saw what they were doing and exposed it. Only then did WHO stop the trial. The following articles are by Dr. Meryl Nass. Even worse than 'Recovery,' potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine study in patients near death WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose--according to WHO consultant 1. In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose. 2. HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2. 3. Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse drug effects, including death. 4. It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on the hydroxychloroquine doses used in its Solidarity trial. Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials. 5. The conclusions to be drawn ... ... a) WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development, which have been heavily supported by Solidarity and Recovery trial sponsors and WHO sponsors. ... b) In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials. ... c) In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic. This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths. How a false hydroxychloroquine narrative was created, and more
  4. 2 points
    Cockroaches rolled over by cop car ...
  5. 2 points
    I don't know where to put the following so here is as good as any place. To me it's hilarious. I'm still laughing as I post this... LOL... Michael
  6. 2 points
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-tweets-conspiracy-theory-buffalo-protester-police-officers/story?id=71150154 OANN did a piece, as far as I know, taking apart the innocence of the 75 yr old demonstrator in Buffalo. Leaving aside the feint push. He was filmed talking with the photographer who later filmed his fall. He was waving his phone near the holstered gun of the leo. He tweeted F the police. He was on an anarchist website. His name is Martin Gugina. Heres a piece echoing OANN news. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/06/06/buffalo-officials-duped-by-professional-antifa-provocateur-arrest- In other news......OANN filed a defamation suit against R Madcow. An Obama appointed judge found her comment saying OANN is a communist network news, to be a personal opinion, she's not a journalist an entertainer.
  7. 2 points
    Michael, I quoted the start of your post to draw quick attention to the post. The post's length might turn people away from reading it. I VERY MUCH RECOMMEND that people do read the whole thing. Please, readers, pay extra careful attention to the central part which describes in specifics how the leftist radicals took over college education . The description is spot on, including the part about non-radical faculty members finding meetings boring, often not attending them, saying, oh, well, if you want that hire so much, ok, etc. Capitulation through ho-humness to an attrition process they didn't realize was happening. The result has been a mind-ruined generation who are now old enough to start running things. Ellen
  8. 2 points
    A ray of light in the mainstream news. Tucker has balls. Thank God. This is one hell of a nice rant. And 100% true. Also, it comes on the tail of the left trying to take him off the air. As Tucker said, if we don't push back and exercise our birthright of freedom of speech, the left will push America into becoming like North Korea. I, and many who think like I do, will not take a knee. Shame on those who do. To you who kneel before the current leftist tyranny, we will take care of the problem and carry your sorry asses so you can have the freedom to bitch about us. Why? Because we love freedom and we have to for freedom to exist. But when we look at the likes of you, it's a dirty job. It doesn't have to be, but it is. So fuck you while we're at it. Michael
  9. 2 points
    From Joshua Lawson at The Federalist: Be Courageous And Stand Firm, America—We Do Not Kneel Americans didn't kneel to British tyranny, Nazi fascism, or Soviet communism. We won't kneel for a collective guilt movement that's gone off the rails. My people. Michael
  10. 2 points
    Q said years ago we would reach the day when they cannot safely appear in public. Welcome to that day.
  11. 2 points
    A visual homage, yes exactly, and yes, they know it. His murder was a ritual and the knee now is a replaying of the ritual. They believe their god rewards them for ritualized murder and for creating mayhem, chaos, pain, death and suffering. These people really are, not metaphorically, but really, seriously sick and evil.
  12. 2 points
  13. 2 points
    So beautiful. Know what a U.S. Marshall is? U.S. Marshalls operate independently of mayors, cops, sheriffs, councilmen, governors, etc., and they serve federal, United States Justice Department indictments and they make federal arrests not subject to any local interference. No fraudulent Russian interference investigation, no amateur impeachment shitshow, no Scamdemic and no engineered race war will stop what is coming. Nothing can stop what is coming.
  14. 2 points
    Just for the record. Michael
  15. 2 points
    Mayor Bowser is attempting to evict the National Guard that’s protecting Washington, DC, from the hotels they stay in at night. Trump says if she keeps up with her shit then they will be replaced by police of the various Executive Branch agencies such as the Justice and State Departments and military, under his direct command. The fascists are planning to overrun the White House. Don’t get too upset if it happens. It is not real. If it happens it will only be because he allowed it to happen — they can’t really overrun him or anything of his, but they may be allowed to. Such an event would wake up more people to the danger we are in. A necessary scare event, like if it were to say, burn down. It would sharpen focus and help people understand why President Trump is going to have use all the powers of the Executive to protect the People and the Republic.
  16. 2 points
    This country is in a state of fulmination. --Brant I expect to see beautiful things before I die--the secondary death of the now zombie left that left is intellectually and morally dead RIGHT NOW Ayn Rand didn't know half of what she was up against, but she still had the left by the balls
  17. 1 point
    Small correction, Forbes, every business leader should be very concerned. Jul 3, 2020,01:55pm EDT QAnon Is Disrupting America — Every Business Leader Should Be Concerned https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/07/03/qanon-is-disrupting-america/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
  18. 1 point
    Q posted a nice Tweet from Goodable and then Goodable immediately changed its pedo symbology, which symbology all the left liberal progressive globalist DemocRat scum "know" can't be pedo symbology. But if it isn't bad symobology, then why did they change it so fast when they were spotlighted?
  19. 1 point
    Here is a pic of Ghislaine and a victim with Prince Andrew: Here is a pic of Ghislaine at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.
  20. 1 point
    Pedo Schiff was soooo upset when pedo-protector Berman was taken out: Then Pedo Ghislaine Maxwell got arrested today, just days after Berman was taken out — funny how all of that worked out. https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/02/epstein-confidante-maxwell-arrested-in-new-hampshire/
  21. 1 point
    On the near eve of the Fourth of July, here's a wonderful find - a book called True History of the American Revolution which is quoted from in Chapter V of Yarvin's "An Open Letter": https://books.google.com/books?id=SZccAAAAMAAJ&printsec=toc&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false The link is to a Google books search screen. The book was published in 1902 by none other than the J. B. Lippincott Compsny, the company where I was an editor in the 1970s. Here's some of Yarvin's discussion. The Shortest-Way, which he references, was a "black propaganda" pamphlet by Daniel Defoe, full title The Shortest-Way with the Dissenters. Ellen
  22. 1 point
    When Tucker rocks, he rocks hard. In this video he came for business, not bullshit. I agree with 100% of everything he said just now. Michael
  23. 1 point
    No one. Emotions are not things. They may be electrical / chemical / and psychic? in a good way. I was thinking about that "independence." What if you were a human or a lower animal for that matter, and you got bit by an ant? What would that entity experience? Pain . . . OUCH~ but then something emotional attached to the sensation of pain, which requires a consciousness to respond, in ANY way.
  24. 1 point
    I suspect a Gates connection. Hunch, so far, maybe wrong. A tidbit I found: https://medium.com/@jonathanferguson_72851/i-didnt-know-you-were-on-medium-curtis-yarvin-eab1266ae581 Here's a link to a Feb 2017 Verge piece about Yarvin's internet project "Urbin": https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-mencius-moldbug-urbit-curtis-yarvin-tlon Ellen
  25. 1 point
    She knows to remove the strings ... by instinct?
  26. 1 point
    I am glad some will be made fighting mad, but personally, I love this. Losers getting caught acting like losers because they are such fucking Losers. Losers: We can hardly wait for your Nov 3rd tears and thank you for all the clown act entertainment between now and then, you fall on your faces so adorably.
  27. 1 point
    But you have the right to dig up a thread disconnected from this, and pose it as an example? Hey, don't fool yourself, that's saying I'm wrong there and now. You don't fool me. And I identified the wheel well enough to make all those games superfluous. No, you all had to "fix" the unfixable. And that didn't work.
  28. 1 point
  29. 1 point
    Wow. This is the most I have learned about AG Barr from his own mouth. The Deep State really is going down under his execution of his job. And Social Media giants will start feeling some real pain in about 3 or 4 weeks or so. Michael
  30. 1 point
    Yesterday in Arizona President Trump spoke about Space Force and said they have new missiles that travel many times faster than existing missiles. How many times faster? He said "seventeen times faster."
  31. 1 point
    Voila , now it seems silly that god gave us brain chemicals , I mean sure nonrational animals need them, but for us they just seem redundant. Emotions come from pure thought , a reasoned response. Why experience the chemically induced sensation/ perception at all ? Emoting , algebra same same !
  32. 1 point
    You might also want to check out Harlow's monkeys: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow Ellen
  33. 1 point
    Folks here will likely remember something of the plight of those in Romania's "child gulags." A new Atlantic article offers a deep dive, which some might find useful to discussion: 30 Years Ago, Romania Deprived Thousands of Babies of Human Contact | Here’s what’s become of them
  34. 1 point
    I just donated fifty bucks to the one, the only . . .
  35. 1 point
    Yeah Michael, I did fall for the “story line” that he wanted to kick them out, so thanks for setting me straight. In the following he is pushing some buttons. I really don’t think he is goading the lowlifes to disrupt, but that may be the effect of the message. President Trump: Any protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters or lowlifes who are going to Oklahoma please understand, you will not be treated like you have been in New York, Seattle, or Minneapolis. It will be a much different scene! end quote If there are violent protesters, I hope they are arrested quickly, but does Oklahoma have the capacity to “store” hundreds of rioters? It sure does! Perhaps the hottest, driest, and most remote Indian reservations will be available for storage? Hmmm? How much will they charge per “scalp?” Peter Notes. Oklahoma Indian tribes: Cherokee, Arapaho, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Wyandot Kickapoo, Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, Osage, Pawnee, Seminole, Wichita, Shawnee, etc. From Wikipedia. Department of Defense Indian Incentive The Department of Defense (DoD) Indian Incentive Program, part of the Office of Small Business, provides a 5% rebate to a prime contractor, based on the total amount subcontracted to an Indian-Owned Economic Enterprise or Indian Organization To qualify, the organization must be at least 51% owned by an entity (or tribal member) of a federally recognized tribe. end quote
  36. 1 point
    Did someone say Branden? I hope nothing got double clicked, and repeated. I saw it happened once. Oh, and Nathaniel Branden stopped typing in capitals when someone told him it seemed he was yelling, Anthony. Peter From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: "R. Christian Ross" < CC: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Reason Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 07:21:38 -0800 I would say, and I am confident Rand would agree, that what is inherent in our nature is the capacity to reason, assuming we go through normal stages of development (an infant can't reason, obviously). The great student of cognitive development, Jean Piaget, maintained that if, during teen-age years, a person does not develop high level of cognitive abilities ("formal operations"), it is virtually impossible to develop them later in life. If this is true, then the world is full of people whose reasoning ability is not absent but severely limited. Reason as a process is, of course, epistemological, but as a capacity, inherent as a potential in our nature, it is, if you wish "metaphysical." I put the word in quotes because, strictly speaking, metaphysics addresses only the fundamental nature of reality, not such things as the attributes of man or lower animals. And, finally, in calling man "a rational animal," Rand meant (a) that we humans have a capacity to reason that differentiates us from lower animals (genus and differentia), but also (b) that that capacity explains more about our behavior than any other trait or attribute. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: RogerEBissell CC: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Reason Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:18:50 -0800. THE REASON WHY THERE IS SOME CONFUSION ON THIS POINT, I SUSPECT, IS THAT RAND SOMETIMES USED "METAPHYSICAL" TO MEAN "PERTAINING TO REALITY (USUALLY EXTERNAL REALITY), AS CONTRASTED WITH PERTAINING TO CONSCIOUSNESS, AND YOU WILL SEE THIS USAGE AMONG SOME HER FOLLOWERS. HOWEVER, PHILOSOPHICALLY, IT IS NOT PRECISE BECAUSE "MAN'S NATURE" IS AN EMPIRICAL, SCIENTIFIC ISSUE NOT A PHILOSOPHICAL ONE, ALTHOUGH IT OBVIOUSLY HAS PROFOUND PHILOSOPHICAL RAMIFICATIONS. NATHANIEL BRANDEN From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: atlantisSubject: ATL: Objectivist metaphysics Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 13:55:08 -0800. In response to my earlier post in which I explained that the definition of human nature is not part of metaphysics, I have been asked to elaborate on what is included in the domain of metaphysics. It's an important question because it touches on one of the most important and distinctive features of Objectivism. Rand rightly dismissed "cosmology" as not part of philosophy, insisting instead that it was the province of science. She argued that metaphysics deals only with the most fundamental features of existence as such. She set forth what has been called correctly "a minimalist metaphysics"--fundamental truths that no scientific discovery could disprove and that all scientific discoveries presupposed. This came down to Aristotle's laws of logic, which (as she and others have observed) are also laws of reality (Brand Blanshard's "Reason and Analysis" is great on this point), and also the law of causality. In other words, metaphysics is concerned with that which is true "of being qua being." By this definition, the particular attributes of man or other animals are in the domain of science, meaning they are not "metaphysical." However, as I observed in a previous note, Rand sometimes used the term "metaphysical" more broadly to mean "pertaining to reality" as contrasted with "pertaining to consciousness"--, on other occasions, as meaning "pertaining to that which is given in nature" as contrasted with the "man-made." I hope this clarification is helpful. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: Michael Hardy <hardy CC: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Objectivist metaphysics Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:29:38 -0800 Michael Hardy wrote: >Nathaniel Branden <brandenn@pacbell.net> wrote that Ayn Rand set forth what has been called correctly "a minimalist metaphysics" --fundamental truths that no scientific discovery could disprove and that all scientific discoveries presupposed. This came down to Aristotle's laws of logic, which (as she and others have observed) are also laws of reality (Brand Blanshard's "Reason and Analysis" is great on this point), and also the law of causality. >I for one would have said the laws of logic belong to epistemology rather than metaphysics. Can anyone explain this classification? Shouldn't the nature of free will also belong to metaphysics? Mike Hardy THE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE, QUA LAWS OF THOUGHT, EPISTEMOLOGICAL, AND, QUA LAWS OF REALITY, METAPHYSICAL. NATHANIEL BRANDEN From: Nathaniel Branden To: ATLANTIS Subject: ATL: ONE MORE THOUGHT Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:33:38 -0800/ If one accepts that metaphysics is concerned only with being qua being, then one sees that volition is not "metaphysical." Such at any rate was Rand's position, which I share. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: Michael Hardy <hardy CC: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: free will & epistemology Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 15:51:10 -0800 Michael Hardy wrote: > Nathaniel Branden <brandenn@pacbell.net> wrote: > If volition does not belong in metaphysics, where does it belong among the branches of philosophy? Good question. I would venture to say...epistemology. >The argument you wrote that appeared in _The_Objectivist_, and which was also put forth by miscellaneous philosophers before that, and by me when I was in 12th grade, could be summarized by saying "epistemology presupposes free will", and Leonard Peikoff did put it in those words in his 12-lecture course he delivered under Ayn Rand's supervision in 1976. It has also been observed, by a much larger number of philosophers and others, that *ethics* also presupposes free will. To say that ethics presupposes free will does not mean that ethics is the branch of philosophy in which the nature of free will belongs, and the same is true of epistemology. > Nathaniel, in your 20-lecture basic course at NBI you said philosophy is the attempt to answer three questions: (1) What exists? (2) How do you know? (3) So what? Epistemology deals with the second question. Why is free will a part of the answer to the second question? Saying only that epistemology presupposes free will fails to answer this unless you also want to say epistemology is a part of ethics. -- Mike Hardy IF SOMEONE WANTS TO EXPAND THE MEANING OF METAPHYSICS TO INCLUDE "THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF MAN," SO BE IT, NO ONE IS GOING TO ARREST HIM (OR HER); NO ONE IS EVEN LIKELY TO GET EXCITED ABOUT THE QUESTION, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I SUGGESTED THAT VOLITION BELONGS AS PART OF THE FOUNDATION OF EPISTEMOLOGY, IN THE OBJECTIVIST SYSTEM, BECAUSE THAT FOUNDATION HAS ALWAYS STRESSED THE NON-INFALLIBLE, NON-OMNISCIENT NATURE OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VOLITION IN THIS CONTEXT. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE MY VIEWPOINT ANY CLEARER, SO I AM GOING TO STOP AT THIS POINT. GO IN PEACE, EVERYONE. NATHANIEL BRANDEN From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: "R. Christian Ross" atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Reason Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 07:21:38 -0800. I would say, and I am confident Rand would agree, that what is inherent in our nature is the capacity to reason, assuming we go through normal stages of development (an infant can't reason, obviously). The great student of cognitive development, Jean Piaget, maintained that if, during teen-age years, a person does not develop high level of cognitive abilities ("formal operations"), it is virtually impossible to develop them later in life. If this is true, then the world is full of people whose reasoning ability is not absent but severely limited. Reason as a process is, of course, epistemological, but as a capacity, inherent as a potential in our nature, it is, if you wish "metaphysical." I put the word in quotes because, strictly speaking, metaphysics addresses only the fundamental nature of reality, not such things as the attributes of man or lower animals. And, finally, in calling man "a rational animal," Rand meant (a) that we humans have a capacity to reason that differentiates us from lower animals (genus and differentia), but also (b) that that capacity explains more about our behavior than any other trait or attribute. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden Reply-To: brandenn To: ATLANTIS Subject: ATL: ONE MORE THOUGHT Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:33:38 -0800 If one accepts that metaphysics is concerned only with being qua being, then one sees that volition is not "metaphysical." Such at any rate was Rand's position, which I share. Nathaniel Branden From: Nathaniel Branden To: atlantis Subject: ATL: one more Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:27:05 -0800 Oh, yes, one more. Anyone who thinks AR provided rational grounds for her assertion that no rational woman would want to be President of the U.S.--doesn't understand Objectivist epistemology. Nathaniel Branden From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Man-woman relationships Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 19:11:10 EST I once read something that still has me laughing helplessly whenever I think of it. It was a book written by a raging feminist, and nowhere was there a hint of the possibility that any woman might react differently than she did -- except once. One turned a page to see another page that was blank except for one bold-faced line: EVERY WOMAN LOVES A FASCIST. There was no explanation and no reference to the line in the rest of the book. I thought it hysterically funny, and I knew exactly what she meant. Barbara
  37. 1 point
    Her name is Diana, Drebin, not Shirley, and I am confident she is serious.
  38. 1 point
    Peter, The worst of what was said about Jane Fonda is an urban legend, it isn’t true. And what little was true she came to realize was a huge mistake on her part, and she admitted it publicly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda#Visit_to_Hanoi Contrast Fonda with John McCain. He wholeheartedly collaborated with the Vietcong throughout his captivity then later pretended he was a hero. That was news to me until I read about it in an article by well known investigative journalist Sydney Schanberg: John McCain and the POW Cover-Up
  39. 1 point
    Here is some advice from Polly on not taking a knee in everyday life. Her advice is to stand up to bullies in the moment they are bullying. Even in small places like supermarkets. The left's army of bullies are trying to win the culture war using death by a thousand small cuts. Polly (who does not use this metaphor) says do not tolerate even one small cut from a bully. Appeasers follow strength, so be stronger than the bullies and show this as the bullying is happening. Bullies always back down when confronted with strength. Then the appeasers will follow you. Michael
  40. 1 point
    I keep looking out over society through the lens of the fake news mainstream press and the alt media places I visit. I see everyone talking about riots and takeovers and whatnot. Then I see that everyone President Trump has endorsed recently has been elected. It's at 73 to 0 right now. I've also seen raging riots (if the fake news mainstream news is to be believed) go dark from one day to the next. The difference? National Guard. The only image that keeps coming to my mind with regularity is nothing fear-based like burning buildings or chanting crowds. Or nothing persuasion-based like pampered celebrities and politicians mouthing off about Black Lives Matters or taking a knee or apologizing for white privilege or whatever. It's Baghdad Bob. Don't these idiots see what's coming? They are creating such a ruckus, they are making themselves easy targets. Michael
  41. 1 point
    We might could reach a consensus that this will be used as an example of Trading Up The Chain, even if the example is arguably illustrating no such thing/not quite the same thing. I left out that an initial spark of information content on Twitter led to the next level of contagion at the Conservative Treehouse, before being incorporated in OANN reporting, before the reporting based on a tweet was amplified back on Twitter to the timelines of 82,000,000 followers. I also left out the raging manic reaction of those who believe a former/current Sputnik employee might work in ways inimicable to the US project. Who cares about possible motives? Consensus. Tap tap tap.
  42. 1 point
    Ick - What is Wrong with these People? Good Guy Larry Sanger is one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, but since parted ways with that organization, citing their lack of integrity. Larry is far more on O-Land's side than Jimmy Wales, the globalist, ever was. He has a Twitter thread on cannibalism--mostly modern day cannibalism. It is hard to go through it. Give it a try. You can see the entire thread on Twitter by clicking on "9:40 PM - Sep 8, 2019" or "[number] people are talking about this". That will take you to the tweet on Twitter. Then you click "Show this thread". Some of the items on the thread: Aborted and stillborn fetuses are eaten for health reasons in China and Korea. People who drink human blood--consensually, of course. An article on Vox covering 7 surprising facts about cannibalism you probably got wrong. Rich people (including Peter Thiel) who infuse themselves with the blood of young people for health benefits and living longer. There is also a story on how this can become a good source of income for the young. Richard Dawkins touting the glories of lab-grown human flesh as food. He calls it "clean meat" and says we have to get over our "yuck" absolutism. Here's a quote: "Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett get "penis facials," using the foreskin of Korean newborns..." Psychologists and philosophers who claim the taboo against human cannibalism is irrational, that feasting on human flesh is far more rational. Scientists who claim that eating corpses will help combat climate change. Mexican cartel members who eat the hearts of those they kill. Feeling a little queasy? I sure am. And there is even more stuff in that thread along with a crapload of Twitter links that don't appear because they come from suspended accounts. It looks like Twitter has not been amused over time by some of this information. But if cannibalism as a topic is so gross, why discuss it at all? Don't forget that almost all of these items are about current cannibalism, not cannibalism in the distant past or among isolated savage jungle tribes. This crap is happening right now among us and among our elites. So we have to look at it. In the words of Larry Sanger, "You can’t fight against an evil if you don’t know that it exists." Michael
  43. 1 point
    Here's another curve ball, one that I find hilarious. Awhile back, James O'Keefe through Project Veritas invaded the Bernie campaign. He got several hardcore communist Bernie people to admit that if Bernie did not win the nomination, they would burn cities down and, if I remember correctly, they would start with Minneapolis. They literally said they were going to do this. They said it several times through several different people. Helloooooo... (Hat tip to Styxhexenhammer666 for this. If you want to see his video, go here. I highly recommend it.) In other words, these race riots might not be Stage 2, but instead two power-hungry authoritarian factions (the Big Vaccine globalists and the communists) getting in each others way. The more I think about it, the more I think this is true, at least partly. The protests and race riots blew the pandemic scare (social distancing, etc.) out of the water. Now the globalist reaction is going to happen and I think Big Vax is not amused. But I also think the other things I talked about is true, including the Obama race riot machine. So if I'm right, it looks like all the bad guys started scrambling for a piece of the American Pie once the shutdown happened and now they're playing demolition derby with each other. This is turning out to be one big fat mess instead of one big-ass deadly attack--all with the fake news mainstream media yapping and barking like junk yard dogs and chasing their tails in public. Outside of keeping damage to a minimum, I think President Trump may be looking at all this, letting it run and laughing. These idiots are all self-destructing when they are not destroying each other. They are doing President Trump's job for him and putting themselves on camera to boot so the clean up for law enforcement will be easy. btw - That silly Defund the Police crap is reality TV posturing as news and nothing more. If a local government gets stupid enough to try it for real, we will get quite a show as they get run over by gangs and the only thing that will spread across the country is the sound of people laughing their asses off. Michael
  44. 1 point
    Bush and Romney are drug cartel owners.
  45. 1 point
    My wife had a conversation yesterday with a woman who has been living with TDS for the last three years. Both of her sons are state troopers, both have desk jobs but are now assigned to protester looter control and she was terrified for them. One of them had to come to her house to calm her down and reassure her that police departments and law enforcement were not about to be defunded. Part of what he told her was that they knew the President has their best interest at heart and all this will be over soon. After he left, she and her husband did what they never do and turned on Fox and she could not believe they were for the police and sanity, I'm not sure what she expected to see and hear, but since she reflexively refused to ever watch their content prior to that, she must not have either . And although she says she still hates the President , the person, she now sees his administration as the only choice and hope for civility and a push back against the violence and lunacy of the far left. And that it was obvious to her now that CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the MSM are aiding and abetting the far left. Obviously an anecdotal one off, and it should be pointed out this story should be taken with a grain salt, considering it may, hypothetically , have occurred between two criminals , as it may have occurred in a salon that is currently illegal to operate. Now I doubt you will be seeing Jean Doe at a rally, but I guarantee in the privacy of a voting booth there will be only one lever she'll be looking for.
  46. 1 point
    It’s Gaia, SCLU, spontaneous carbon lock up, last time it happened was in some desert, big triangle piles.
  47. 1 point
    Ellen, This is a grievance a lot of Trump supporters have. I, too, was getting ticked off. Then Rush Limbaugh come out with an explanation--not a super satisfying one, but one that made sense. He said Fauci's credentials and image built up over the years since AIDS that were so pristine with the public, had President Trump fought him, the press would have had teeth (with the public) in their criticisms of him, giving some ammunition for real for the coup. So rather than go on the attack, President Trump publicly accepted his credentials at face value, thus taking the teeth out of the argument that he would not listen to health specialists, and put Fauci (and Brix) front and center on the world stage, day after day. Fauci was enough of a doctor he wasn't going to cross certain lines, but this constant exposure brought out of the shadows (to the general public) the vaccine mess, the gobs of money involved, the role of Bill Gates, and all the rest. The principle in this case was to keep your enemies close. I think the pressure backstage for a shutdown was enormous, so President Trump went one further. Rather than make it partial, he went whole hog and this got everyone's attention. Everyone. After all, if the pandemic was as bad as Fauci, WHO & Co. ended up saying it was, Trump was doing the right thing, right? But since the pandemic was based on a partial bluff by Big Vaccine and the globalists, now that people in general are seeing the bluff for what it was, they are pissed. The globalists fucked up by unleashing the race riots too soon. Serendipity? I don't think so. Two-bit criminals, black, white, gay, Asian, Latino, illegal alien, you name it, are killed everyday in America. Lots of 'em. There is no lack of cases. I think the Floyd case was handpicked from a whole slew of candidates (by some people high up on the dark side but hidden) because it had just enough ambiguity and the appearance of cold-blooded murder through abuse of cop power, it could spark outrage. But make no mistake, had it not been Floyd, it would have been someone else. The Democrats are in a panic about losing the blacks through their open borders policies. They needed a race riot to get the blacks back on board. The criteria for the triggering event was the same as the criteria used in the race riots during the Obama years. (Ferguson, Trayvon Martin, the "Hands up don't shoot" guy, etc.) Here in Chicago, especially on the South Side, we have scores of armed clashes with the police every weekend. There is plenty to choose from. The powers that be don't want to use this area, though, because they need to blame white folks. So they comb the country for cases that fit a certain story criteria. Notice that there are even race riots going on in Europe over Floyd. Doesn't that spell organized to you? It does to me. Michael
  48. 1 point
    Jon, Here. I did a screenshot. Michael
  49. 1 point
    MSK is psychologizing again. After stating a mortality rate without saying what the denominator is! Oh, my.
  50. 1 point
    Robert, I've left the battlefield where people fight over the split. Ever since then, I've been able to see clearly that it generally boils down to money, sex and power with humans, including Objectivists. On another thread, Neil Parille just stated that ARI lost a major donor: Ayn Rand Institute Having Financial Problems. In the past, major donors have migrated from ARI to TAS, so maybe this is what is happening. Maybe Brook is pissed ARI lost a lot of money to TAS. So there's the money angle. TAS has hired a new set of faces for the organization and, from what I've seen so far, they are far more media-savvy than the ARI folks. The fact that some are pretty women like Alexandra York and Jennifer Grossman helps, too. It's not PC to say things like that anymore, but I don't care. Adding pretty faces to a message has enhanced its marketing appeal since the dawn of capitalism. That's a fact that is, was and always will be. I imagine the success of TAS galls the ARI folks, who consider themselves to be a superior life form. More elitism. which is the power angle. TAS has its own issues with elitism (snobs are everywhere and TAS is no exception), too, but they are not nearly as severe as those of ARI. There's also a toxic personal vanity thing re relationships. The entire ARI-TAS kerfuffle stems from Rand excommunicating the Brandens for feeling they rejected her. So she rejected them. Peikoff never knew of Rand's affair with NB while she was alive. When he discovered proof in her papers after she passed away (he was her legal heir), he had a heart attack. Literally. It almost killed him for real. Although he has never said so, this is a form of rejection and I imagine it screwed with his emotions bigtime. Like or dislike Peikoff, a brush with death is an impactful event in the life of anyone. Also, both Barbara and Nathaniel never hid their low opinion of him--they always called him some variation of crazy, so with the discovery of the affair and the terror of almost dying over it, I think his hatred of them went into white-hot mode and has burned steadily ever since. Notice that almost all major sins of the principals in O-Land in this split boil down to people refusing to hate the Brandens. In other words, the issue is not ideological. They all say it is, but it isn't. It's about relationships and rejection at root. If it were ideas only, the disagreements would be more civil and rational. You don't see a deep level of hatred of communism in their demeanor, for example, even though all self-respecting Randians consider communism to be evil. But notice how people involved in this inter-subcommunity fight get overly-emotional, mischaracterize the work of each other, etc. That comes from something other than ideas. From the way I figure, it comes from rejection by a loved one, and for the followers of that person, feelings of protection of someone who has suffered such rejection. People fight and the seed produces its toxic fruit. Thus, taking sides has become a precondition to making friends and this has nothing to do with the issues dealt with in Objectivist thought. Also, there are variations on this theme shot all through O-Land. For example, there's a site, Solo Passion, that bashes the crap out of Brook, but blames everything wrong in the world on the Brandens. See this post as an example. Why would that be? Well, I was part of the history of this one, so I know from seeing it up close. Perigo and Barbara Branden used to be tight. And Perigo always dreamed of being an Objectivist leader. With her endorsement, he was part way there. They ended up falling out (mostly vanity issues) and she ultimately rejected him. When a book critical of the Brandens came out, he embraced it and has been on a crusade against the Brandens ever since. Oddly enough, this guy supports Trump like I do. But I don't want President Trump to wipe every last vestige of the Brandens off the face of the earth and I imagine he does. (That's a quip and I make that qualification for the idiots reading this. ) Also, Brook agreed to debate Perigo recently about immigration. Brook bowed out when it became clear Perigo would insult him to his face in public. So Brook rejected him and he has been on a nonstop rant against Brook ever since. From what I have read (and I don't read a lot of this stuff), some of the reasoning is justified. (I could go into it, but that's not the point of this post.) But much of it is just emotional hate-baiting based on being rejected. In the end, all this rejection stuff is about power. Public rejection and waging war over it is a power-play. War is all about power, right? I wish there were some intellectual depth to all this, but there is very little, mostly none. The ARI folks demand that Objectism be only what Rand wrote and, I agree, it is reasonable to make a classification of what she wrote as being what it is. But they want to erect an establishment out of this where they can control the speech and thought of others. They feel threatened when someone who doesn't think like they do calls himself or herself an Objectivist. Ultimately, they don't trust individuals to do good thinking on their own. That's the main reasoning behind ARI's current hostility. (Although I believe the driver is money, sex and power, but not all that much sex. They need to get laid more. ) People who disagree with this think they have the right to absorb Rand's vision and do things with it filtered through their own life, their experiences, reading and thinking. They claim the right to call themselves Objectivists and still have disagreements with Rand, ARI, whoever. Should they be able to do this? Let's look at it. The intellectual part of the issue boils down to a dictionary, believe it or not. Open any dictionary and you will see that almost every word in it has more than one meaning. When ARI folks use the word "Objectivism," them mean only what Rand wrote and don't want there to be a second definition. They claim they have the right to demand this. When others use the word "Objectivism," they mean using what Rand wrote as a starting point for their thinking as they go off in their individual directions. (So, yes, Virginia, there can be two meanings for the same word and people have a right to use words .) I belong to this second group, although I rarely refer to myself as an Objectivist these days. It's not because I want to avoid unpleasantness with the fundies (fundamentalists ). And they do ladle on unpleasantness if you get close to them. But I'm not competing with them so we generally stay distant. It's because I don't want the general public to confuse me with the fundies. I think it's embarrassing to demand other people use the language in one meaning only. Human language constantly morphs. It morphs slowly, but has done so since humans began to speak. Also, I disagree with the worshipful rigidity of the fundies and, ultimately, don't think a society of people like that was what Rand was after at all. I know I don't want to be that--I don't want to be a fanatic or disciple within a closed-off tribe. I'm my own man. However, my philosophical foundation was formed by reading Rand's works over a lifetime. I can't undo that even if I wanted to. Nowadays I disagree with Rand on some things (mostly scope), but that doesn't mean I disavow what I do agree with. And it doesn't mean that what I do agree with isn't foundational in my thinking. It is. Like all humans during all of human history, I need a label for something important, a label others can understand that doesn't require long explanations everytime I use it. This is just simple communication. Outside of the fundies, most people get what I mean when I say I follow Rand's thinking without being a fanatic. In that sense, I'm an Objectivist. Michael