Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/02/2020 in Posts

  1. 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...
  2. 2 points
    Peter, People don't do conspiracies out in the open (except in America where certain conspirators have a complicit press and this still leaves me with jaw dropping ). One characteristic of a conspiracy is that it is meant to be hidden until the right moment. That's by definition. So how can one demand observed fact about something hidden? One has to dig and expose. The idea that a suspicion is loopy just because you can't see who is doing the bad stuff is a very dangerous one. You can't see a cancer cell inside you with your eyes alone. Not even doctors can. And if you ignore it, it will kill you. I don't know if you ever read some posts I made about a professor in Florida--I forget his name right now. He's a leftie. He tracked down where the term "conspiracy theory" came from. And he holds conferences at the university level where "peer reviewed" material is presented about the different conspiracies that have turned out to be true. The term "conspiracy theory" came from the CIA to quell the unrest that happened, both in America and abroad, after Kennedy got shot and the Warren commission issued it's lame report. People were having a fit in public--the press, radio, TV, speeches, and so on. There are copies of a memo by the CIA at the time. It is available to anyone who wants to see it. The CIA circulated it to the press offices and the Embassies explaining how to discredit public doubters of the Warren Report or the public version of the Kennedy assassination by smearing them as loopy conspiracy nuts. Before that time, "conspiracy theory" was a phrase used to describe serious musings on events. I can't think of an example from that time off the top of my head, but the later economic term "trickle down theory" has the kind of emotional load "conspiracy theory" used to have. Nobody today thinks a person espousing the "trickle down theory" is a flaming kook. Instead, they think the person is serious even when they disagree. Before the CIA did that little masterpiece of persuasion engineering to shut down discussion of speculations, people going overboard on a conspiracy were generally linked to the theory they espoused. For example, "red baiters" or "McCarthyites." Not even the John Birch Society people back then were called "conspiracy theorists." Lance deHaven-Smith Here... I just looked and found where I wrote about my man. The professor's name is Lance deHaven-Smith, Professor Emeritus at Florida State University. Here's a great start of a reading list if you ever get interested in historical conspiracies that were not believed at the time, but ended up being true: Also, here is a little more on Lance deHaven-Smith. First a post by William (with the snark against those who think differently than him, mostly meaning Trump supporters, removed). He posted a very good video of Lance deHaven-Smith in a 2013 talk. Then a response by me that gives some more nutshell information on Lance deHaven-Smith: I know I can dig up a lot more if I get going. 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. ) Asymmetrical Warfare Now that the military has openly embraced what it calls asymmetrical warfare, you can find paper after paper published by the military on conspiracy theories in the original meaning of the term. QAnon is a phenomenon that has all the marks of such asymmetrical warfare. It is intentionally designed to attract the fringe and nonfringe alike, that is, the way this project has unfolded, it is a way to inject narratives into the mainstream that are different than the ones offered but the fake news media, narratives that discredit the elitist mainstream culture. It's been a resounding success in that regard. Just think of how this has led to Epstein's fall--before, nobody believed he was trafficking in pedophilia among the superpowerful, but now everyone says he was. And he got dead and croaked and suicided as part of the show. Not even a fifty million dollar special counsel investigation into the idea that Russians elected Donald Trump through covert means worked. Nor an impeachment. Don't forget, the mainstream press deployed everything they had to support the narratives behind that investigation and impeachment, both during the leading up phase and after both fizzled. The fake news mainstream culture did this for over three years, day in and day out. Part of the reason these efforts didn't take is that the narratives pushed by the mainstream culture were not accepted by the general population. One of the reasons this happened was QAnon's skillful injection of counternarratives and doubt into the general population at places the mainstream fake news culture did not control. Back when you and I were young, this would not have been possible since there were only three nationwide TV stations, radio was mostly pop tunes and religion, and the printed press carried the day. The Internet ended that monopoly on controlling the narrative by the few. One day, after all this blows over, it will be very interesting to look at and study all the different techniques deployed on both sides. I have already identified a few, but it's still too early to write anything definitive about it. (That goes for me and others.) I'm still--we're still--observing--still gathering conceptual referents so to speak--since important history is unfolding right in front of us and hasn't wound up. Michael
  3. 2 points
    Something else: go to Google Earth, and look up the Administrative and Court Facility at Guantanamo Bay. I tried it..."the results are will shock you..."
  4. 2 points
    Indeed. I may be skeptical about aspects of the story, but not the story itself.
  5. 2 points
    Pizaagate is proven true by the Epstein story alone with it’s tentacles into Harvard, MIT, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, Princes and princesses worldwide. Nothing, no list of additional disclosures of any length will bring a person away from their precious yeah buts if the Epstein story does not.
  6. 2 points
    I think I stumbled across one of the main reasons for the intense Trump hatred among the elitists, all the way from the beginning. Relevance. From Breitbart: Nolte: We Now Know Truckers and Stock Boys Are Vital, Hollywood Is Not Nolte then gives these two example of our Hollywood royalty. And Madonna below, purposely made up ugly (at least it looks like that), and butchering fried fish, of all the goddam things to sing about. I'm gonna push the fair use thing and give the rest of the article. So what does this have to do with Trump Derangement Syndrome? I'm reminded of an observation Nathaniel Branden used to say about everybody knowing the truth about themselves when they wake up alone at two o'clock in the morning. They don't use a mask at that time, not even to fool themselves. The truth is, underneath, everybody knows what John Nolte just wrote. They know it deep in their gut. Even Hollywood royalty. Dreams are for the future, but without the present, dreams are nothing. There can be no future without the present. But look at how pathetic our dream-keepers are without their dream-enhancing trappings. Their present is worse than many of our next-door neighbors singing in the shower. They are not striving to make their dreams real. They are wallowing in mediocrity. Now think of this. Who sold the biggest dream of them all out in Hollywood and among the elites? Donald Trump did. He said go for it. And go for it, people did. They went for keeping that dream alive in their hearts. They read his books and made bestsellers out of them. The consumed the image of a big money show-off he injected into the mainstream. They put his TV show at No. 1 for years. And did Donald Trump become a dream-keeper just like everyone else? Nope. He took his own advice and went for it out in reality. He made his dream come true. And he did not need them to do it. Something none of them have the capacity to pull off. Oh, they have the reputation of being able to make dreams come true. But it's unearned. When push comes to shove, they know they are peddling a dream future without having earned a real present where that makes any kind of sense. They don't strive in their personal lives to become competent and better at real things. One can build a dream by striving for it by living on the pathway to it. Instead, they strive to be pampered and shielded from real things. I'm not talking about words or stories. I'm talking about reality. Reality-wise, these people are spiritual impostors. They crave to be worshiped for a metaphysical standing they have not earned and do not deserve. They can present a good story, but their reality sucks. Well, President Trump emerged from enormous personal striving and became President of the United States against all odds--while keeping the dream all along. He didn't sell out his dream, but instead, transmuted into reality on a foundation of merit. And by extension, he made these impostors look at themselves in the daylight, not just at two o'clock in the morning when they are by themselves. He made them realize--in full awareness--how insignificant they really are. They never forgave him for it. This applies to all elitists who hate Trump, too. Especially conservative never-Trumpers who made their careers out of selling a conservative dream but not earning a conservative present of productivity and competence in dealing with reality. They could never do what President Trump did and it galls them to no end anyone could. They know what that makes them look like--to everyone and to themselves. And now, for some goddam psychological reason I can't grok right now, these Hollyweird idiots are hell-bent on showing their public just how ugly, untalented, and insignificant they really are when they have to live the life their fans do. I can grok this much, though. They have a subconscious drive to put their hands on reality when all they've ever known is a dream. But they're not going for the gold out there in reality. They're going for the shit. That's what they want their fans to see them right now: themselves as shit. And they want this right at the time when their fans are under attack by reality. They will never forgive President Trump for making them do this, even though he didn't. Their hatred of him is projected hatred of themselves. Why do they hate themselves? Because they can't measure up and Trump can? No. Not at root. It's because they don't want to measure up and they know how wrong that is as a human being--at least they know it at two o'clock in the morning. Michael
  7. 2 points
    Jon, What accounts for the appearance of the COVID-19 virus just now in your narrative? Are you claiming that Xi had the virus bioengineered or some other way managed to get it unleashed on the world and that Donald Trump is such an inhumane bastard that he doesn't care about the deaths and misery and financial dislocation so long as he has a cover for declaring martial law and arresting his enemies list? Ellen
  8. 2 points
    Polly's terrific. She at least asks the right questions as Michael says; and if a tenth of what she interconnects is valid, it's enough. It's your minds they want. AR Never let a good crisis go to waste. R. Emanuel If you can keep your head when all about you...RK When all the cattle are stampeding in one direction, look for the men on horses. AJG There's something very strange going on, things which didn't transpire with the last serious virus.
  9. 2 points
    The ~main~ thing to be fearful of is others' paranoia, and ongoing curtailment on our freedoms. Do not accept the leftist narrative driving panic for power.
  10. 2 points
    Rand had good things to say about the American "common man." Nonetheless, her expressed views about the large majority of humankind were dismissive. Google the word "ballast" in Rand's work. Here's an example from the title essay of For the New Intellectual. This isn't early Rand. It was written after Atlas Shrugged. Ellen
  11. 2 points
    Jonathan, Do you see this as either-or? Does one negate the other? In other words, will the part of human nature that likes celebrities stop existing--in level-headed people and idiots alike--just because pro-Rand people ignore it? Fun fact. I'm too lazy to look the following up right now, so I'll go on memory. If need be, we can look it up later. In the book by Sally Hogshead, Fascinate: Your 7 Triggers to Persuasion and Captivation (which is quite a good book despite the cheesy title), she mentioned an experiment with chimpanzees (or bonobos, I don't recall which off the top of my head). After researchers were able to determine which were higher in the social organization, they took pictures of them. And they took pictures of the other chimps. Then they scattered the pictures around at random. None of the chimps looked at the pictures of the lower chimps, but the lower chimps spent lot of time staring at the pictures of the celebrity chimps. This trait comes from evolution, not from any moral failing. (Apropos, if you have ever heard the saying that the modern attention span is about 8 seconds, in other words, that of a goldfish, that saying comes from Sally Hogshead.) One of the characteristics of Rand's approach has been to ignore (and sometimes even deny) this underbelly part of human nature that determines certain values. That doesn't mean it stops existing. It just means there is constant friction over it whenever Rand is discussed. And why is the friction constant? Because this trait will not go away by decree. It stays around no matter how much it is ignored and condemned. And it stays around in everyone, including the people who try to ignore it. So I see no problem in letting all different kinds of approaches to persuasion fly. The best ones will work. The poor ones will fail on their own. We don't have to take the extra time and effort to go around stomping out approaches that we dislike. Leave that to the Shiite Objectivists who seek obedience and conformity out of others. btw - President Trump understands the hell out of this celebrity interest trait in humans. Rather than fight it, he uses it as a tool in an Aristotelian kind of way, that is, he uses it with the right people, to the right degrees, at the right times, for the right purposes, and in the right ways. He even built a top TV show out of it. And the theme of the show? Was it gaining prizes for spinning a wheel? Guessing at words? Sleeping with this person or that? No. The theme was getting a job building things. And celebrity interest was embedded to the hilt in it. At the end, there was even a version called The Celebrity Apprentice. This interest in celebrities is not a Peter Keating thing. This is a reality of human nature thing. The choice is not between abolishing it like Roark or succumbing to it like Keating. That was fiction to illustrate the theme about what drives human productive creativity--and this theme was its limitation for showing human nature. Within that frame of limitation, it worked, too. But the choice reality provides real human beings living within the richness of everyday life is to use it for sleazy ends or good ends, and in both cases, to be competent at it or incompetent. I'm curious, though. What is so wrong about letting someone like Jennifer Grossman role play Rand on college campuses or in videos? Is she impeding Charlie Kirk or Ben Shapiro? Of course she isn't. Antifa impedes them, but Jennifer? This feels like a blasphemy thing even though I doubt it is. But there is hatred and contempt present from what I am reading. When I look on that, I know it exists because it's winding people up and getting them pissed. But just like with envy, I feel nothing inside myself--no resonance whatsoever. It's a big nothing, not good or bad. Just nothing. Jennifer is not the bad guy to me. Soros is a bad guy. Bernie Sanders is a bad guy. The pedos are bad guys. Antifa and so on on. But a lady who wants to role play Rand in public? I don't get it. If I don't want to see her do that, I won't look. Done. And that is so easy. It takes no effort. So I don't get the hatred and contempt and desire to make her behave differently than she wants to. Nor even why the call to eschew a fundamental part of the brain in persuasion as something good. If people want to do that in their own efforts, fine. Their choice. But why prohibit others from trying persuasion in that manner if they so wish? Any failure will be theirs, not Rand's. I want to make a zinger using the word cult against cult of personality, but I think I will just leave that thought right there unformed. Michael
  12. 2 points
    Ellen, LOL... You definitely are not the target audience for this TAS project. But think about presenting Rand to social justice snowflakes. Like it or not, these people vote and will soon be the ones in power. The hardass no nonsense battle ax figure is not going to get a hearing with snowflakes. It's not that they will disagree. They will not even get near that. Would you prefer to see the world ruled by them after they had some positive contact with Rand to prompt their curiosity, or with them believing the caricature sold by the progressives? That caricature is their starting point, not ours. So I, for one, don't mind an image of Rand that will draw them near enough to get curious about her rather than comfortable with the default stereotype in their minds. And just to be a pain in the ass, here is something for your viewing pleasure. I even followed a like by William just now to be reminded of this. Michael
  13. 2 points
    What I'd expect to see is "soft, pretty, make-believe Rand" and the thought of seeing that after seeing multiple times the real "hard, deadly serious Rand" makes me react like the thought of eating cotton candy - which I hate. GAAACK! My reaction is stomach-turned visceral - nothing to do with storytelling techniques, multimedia techniques, whatever. Ellen
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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? )
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 1 point
    Oddly enough, Bob Dylan just released a 17-minute song today about the JFK assassination, "Murder Most Foul". Odd timing, since neither he nor JFK are really on anyone's minds, at the moment... from the article: The surprise track, which Dylan said only was recorded "a while back," comes eight years after his last album of original material. Little information was given about the surprise track, except for a brief statement from Dylan himself: “Greetings to my fans and followers with gratitude for all your support and loyalty over the years. “This is an unreleased song we recorded a while back that you might find interesting. “Stay safe, stay observant and may God be with you. “Bob Dylan” A Dylan representative said the statement was all the information they would be releasing about the song, so whether “a while back” means a matter of months or many years remains a mystery. https://variety.com/2020/music/news/bob-dylan-releases-17-minute-song-jfk-kennedy-assassination-murder-most-foul-1203546713/
  21. 1 point
    Oh, thank you, Great Oz! You are the genius behind the curtain. Maybe Jon La Cockroach can start his own thread. Just sayin'.
  22. 1 point
    Jon, there are some new Q drops today, regarding Habeus Corpus, that you may want to check out...
  23. 1 point
    Your objection is noted, Peter.
  24. 1 point
    Sorry, Peter, I don't always follow your stream-of-consciousness style of posting...
  25. 1 point
    No, no, it’s no trick. And, you didn’t notice while trying to find the Tweet that he talks like a full and perfect piece of shit now? He does, look again. He hates Mitch for seating so many hundreds of new Trump judges, replacing the compromised and controlled Obuttma judges. He can’t stand the fact that a system of real justice is coming thanks to Trump and Mitch’s rapid efforts. Here it is: Here is another:
  26. 1 point
    Larimer County Colorado just announced stay at home restrictions in effect until April Q, I mean 17th.
  27. 1 point
    The mayor of Denver said today that new restrictions go into effect tomorrow. The new restrictions are staying indoors except for named essential needs. He said they will be in effect until April 10th. Is it strange to name the date of lifting the new restrictions before they even go into effect? Have we seen that date before, 4-10-20?
  28. 1 point
    Ha, my middle name is John. I was slightly embarrassed to put that among such exalted company as Rand and Kipling.
  29. 1 point
    UBI is a life destroyer. It would do to a huge swath of middle class what welfare has done to inner city blacks. No hope. UBI. But no hope. It would start with; why finish high school when I have UBI? Then; why finish middle school when I can get pregnant and that UBI*2? The elites wanted UBI for its inevitable rendering of whole swaths of people into zombies ready to spend all their UBI booty with their corporations. They don’t give a flying fuck about devastation to human populations. Trump will never go in that direction. Trump also will never concern himself with ideological purity in an emergency. The People will be kept comfortable and safe during challenging and dangerous times, no matter what, as a national priority. That is what the talk about passing out money is about. A beautiful world of freedom, fairness, healing and rebuilding is coming, after the cleansing Storm.
  30. 1 point
  31. 1 point
    "I found at least 4 Q drops that have the date of 4-10-20." DEFCON 1 4-20-20 FIRE & FURY (9) states of CLAS-ready go-live. (34) commands LIVE. CODES command ACTION. [non-nuclear]. [1] OWL [1] Q" https://twitter.com/MARILOVEUSA/status/1238211225390993408?s=20
  32. 1 point
    What happens to the letters O at about 0:22 — 0:23 ? Are you enjoying the show?
  33. 1 point
    The impending disaster was we were going to become fully and irretrievably enslaved by the elites. Not a left-caused collapse and tears for all. An elite-engineered collapse followed by total technotronic control of the masses by a extremely tiny generational elite. The Trump Train stopped them. This is the takedown. No collapse. Beautiful world coming.
  34. 1 point
    I joined the Church of Scientology when it was a beneficial enterprise and left when it got loony. — that’s Carl Barney’s story and he’s sticking to it ! New on ARIwatch: Barney’s Big Lie
  35. 1 point
    Besides, I'm not the poo-poo head. You're the poo-poo head.
  36. 1 point
    It was a quip. It was a quip. Not this horseshit that you do. Anyway, I'm not the poo-poo head. You're the poo-poo head. (As long as we're talking ideas... ) Michael
  37. 1 point
    I don’t recall where she said that, do you? I can’t say I think I know what she means and I don’t recall any context.
  38. 1 point
    If Mises did not misunderstand Rand then the author who said Clinton’s winning GDP-vote comments were Rand-like did not misunderstand Rand, either.
  39. 1 point
    To get this thread back on target, which is to present weird versions and misrepresentations of Rand in the mainstream, I found this beauty from March 2018 in The Washington Examiner by one Ethan Epstein: How Hillary Clinton Is Like Ayn Rand It's a short article, so here it is in the most part. It's so muddled, it's hard to take an excerpt and make it stand alone. I've seen Rand misrepresented a lot and in a lot of ways. But this... But this... I stand in awe. Michael
  40. 1 point
    Jon, It is not just you. Their memes are lame. Take the one you just posted. Where is the emotion? Any emotion? A meme needs a gut-level emotion to work (and thus spread), but if that is not present, any emotion will do to keep from being skimmed over. What the hell is emotional about an office wall, desk, laptop, lamp and potted plant? Dayaamm! Talk about clueless. (It's like listening to Germans trying to play Samba. ) Showing is better then explaining. Let me use the same text the TAS people did and keep the laptop theme. This is a meme: It's not a great meme, but it's a meme made by a human, not by corporate-babble. It touches the viewer emotionally to pursue one's dream (and that's the point of inspiration, right?) rather than tries to impress the office boss. Your mileage may vary, but I know for sure this is a decent meme. I have no doubt it would get shared around on Instagram or Pinterest. On another point: OK, I will. The following is what I'm talking about if you are interested in spreading Rand's ideas and striking out at the bad guys. I just posted it. Especially see the second post in that thread. The 2020 Election - Capitalism vs Collectivism Rand Style Rather than focus your fire and the precious unrepeatable minutes and hours of your valuable life on attacking people who are spreading Rand's ideas and not doing a great job of it, find people who are. I was going to post that thread here, but RazorFist is not attacking Rand and this thread we are on right now is for weird interpretations of her. RazorFist uses Rand in a way she should be used. And he's got audience. And he's getting the job done by bringing massive value to an audience that doesn't even know Rand that much. Hell, I believe he will provide value even to the elites in O-Land--about Rand--if they will get off their high horses and look. That kind of approach excites me. This other stuff is, well, other stuff... Michael
  41. 1 point
    They do a lot of “motivational” and “inspiration.” The tone is always to stop complaining. Just stop bitching and for once do something productive with your life. This morning’s posting is typical of this genre they like. I guess this is some motivational speaker/writer, but why does it sound like the last warning before being fired? It doesn’t ring motivational to me at all. But it fits their operational tone, so they love it. ”Doing the bare minimum?” Why do they presume that their 30k+ little Atlases are doing the bare minimum? ”Expect there bare minimum.” This must mean to expect “their minimum,” as in no raises, no more free Friday morning coffees. Cute that the superior clowns at Atlas can’t get there/their right. ”Get off your throne, princess, and GRIND IT OUT. #youdoyou” Maybe it’s just me and my lousy attitude, but the whole thing makes me want to answer: “#youdoyou alright, Go Fuck Your Self, Princess, you “work” off charity at a small non-profit.” Motivation to do better is the last thing on my mind when I consume their motivational memes. Is it just me?
  42. 1 point
    They reposted, it’s fixed now. They used months instead, and got it right: “A BILLION (their all-caps, they do it a lot) months ago, the dinosaurs still roamed.” Eighty something million years ago, they still roamed, that’s correct.
  43. 1 point
    Jonathan, Tell that to the fan clubs. In fact, that's kinda where I put Jennifer's shindig. A fan club approach. And I don't mean that in a derogatory manner. It's a perspective. (And there are fan clubs galore in schools, including in institutions of higher education.) Kat is a huge Beatles fan. I've always been on the artist side of the stage during a huge chunk of my professional life, so I had to learn the fan perspective over time. Observing Kat do her Beatles thing among her Beatles friends has helped me understand it. (She's quite active where her Beatles are concerned. ) The fan perspective is not a great fit for me, so I'm kind of a buzzkill with she and her friends want me to participate. I'm even that way with Rand stuff (remember all that play-acting at activism over on RoR?--I never resonated with it because, to me, this was the wrong side of the stage although I didn't have the words for it back then.). But at least now I can see what is going on when I'm with a fan of someone and we talk past each other. And, of course, there is quite a lot of bands that role play the Beatles in their shows. This corresponds nicely with what Jennifer is doing. Groking this perspective is probably why I am not down on Jennifer. I see where she is coming from. At least, based on her actions, I think I do. (I bet she's a good person, too, but that's another issue.) I'm more than fine with that. Cool. It's all good. Michael
  44. 1 point
    I don’t believe they are working for what they say they are working for. A handful of big donors are dictating direction and methods.
  45. 1 point
    Get past that, exactly. What does scatter-brain do, instead? She attempts to literally resurrect the personality. They do zero talking Jonathan, on Instagram. At most Jennifer will pop in to like all the comments by the retarded collectivists their postings have attracted. She’ll comment, “I know, right?” to the stupider comments. Nothing intelligent or corrective ever issues from her or the account manager. You have to see it to believe it.
  46. 1 point
    My view: Don't present Rand to them, or to anyone. Present ideas instead, and in a real-time context in regard to real-world current events. Argue your point, make your case, and destroy the opposition's case. Do what Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk do. Stop following Rand's muddle-headed, vanity-driven notion that people must be taught her philosophy from bottom to top, and convinced to accept it as a perfectly integrated whole, etc., etc. Get past the remaining traces of cult of personality. J
  47. 1 point
    Ellen, As it should be. I even share your reaction in part and I think I know one component of it (the uncanny valley thing above). I like to think out loud at times when something grabs my attention. This was an instance. Also, I wanted readers who might like Jennifer's shindig to know they will not be tarred and feathered should they ever say that here. I agree with this. As to my own thoughts, Jennifer is trying something different and I like people who do things. Even at 30k, she's generating a small audience. To paraphrase an old sentiment, if, among that number there is just one snowflake, and that one becomes a world leader, and a seed of Randian reason gets planted in that snowflake's mind through her efforts, she will have helped make the world a better place. I don't predict much success for her Rand "coplay" project (precisely because of storytelling issues, that is, lack of story, much less one relevant to college audiences), but who knows? It might grow. So I wish her well. Michael
  48. 1 point
    Disrespectful and bizarre - as if she could imitate the real Rand (and is she going to attempt to imitate some of the famous Rand explosions?). People would come from distant places and line up for many hours to get into a real Rand Ford Hall Forum appearance. The performance was worth the travel and the wait. I wouldn't go to see Jennifer Grossman try to imitate Rand if she were doing it next door. Ellen
  49. 1 point
    This actually started tonight, at George Mason. Tomorrow at George Washington is also scheduled. A comment posted just now by Alex Mironov on Atlas’ Instagram: ”Ms Grossman gets the Toohey award for single-handedly killing any interest in Objectivism any George Mason student might have had tonight. Her crazy, erratic behavior was characterized as whacky by the students.”
  50. 1 point
    Here is one from this morning. See, socialists are dumb, just like a square sponge who lives under the sea and burns the constitution for warmth. But not a word on the entire feed about the constitution being shredded right now, in the impeachment hearings of a duly-elected President who has committed no offenses. Schiff is shredding the Constitution. Pelosi is shredding the Constitution. But good luck finding those names in the Atlas feed. No, the impression you get is that SpongeBob, who represents “socialists” is shredding the Constitution.