Dglgmut
-
Posts
1,637 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Dglgmut
-
-
Here's the announcement if anyone's interested. A lot of Canadians are excited about this.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
This is a story the mainstream media is trying to kill. But it's hard as hell to ignore all those goddam trucks.
HISTORIC! Over 50,000 Truckers Join Freedom Convoy Through Canada Protesting COVID Mandates - Massive Crowds of Canadians Show Up In Support
WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COMAn estimated 50,000 Canadian truckers are traveling across Canada in a massive caravan protesting the COVID mandates. Conservative...Nobody is talking about this right now in the mainstream media because shortages from truck delivery have not yet hit the stores. But pretty soon it will.
And then the chattering class will start chattering, the mainstream media will try to spin this as Trump's fault or something, Canadians will hate Trudeau even more, and the world will go on.
Except for one thing.
Those trucks ain't going nowhere and it's hard as hell to ignore all those goddam trucks. They're blocking the goddam roads.
Michael
I love this because jobs like trucker are fundamental for a thriving society. Cops, sanitation workers, farmers, construction workers, tradesmen... these jobs are the foundation to an economic structure that can only be built on top if the level below is stable. The foundation of our economy is shifting because it's being treated as if it's ornamental, like a lot of other jobs. The health of a society's economy is derived from those foundational jobs, and so too should its culture be derived from those people. Those people have been decoupled from the system where they were deemed inconvenient... yet still relied on. People need to experience consequences before they can understand that something is wrong.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, ThatGuy said:
"There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw."
- Ayn Rand, “Collectivized ‘Rights", 1963
Fast-forward to 2022:Biden Surgeon General Suggests Joe Rogan Podcast Should Be Censored: Big Tech ‘Has Important Role To Play’ http://dlvr.it/SHs42X
This will backfire, imo. Joe has said several times he invites opposing views to come defend their position on his show. He is being transparent. This is just going to show people even more-so just how corrupt the government is.
-
1
-
-
On 1/25/2022 at 8:33 AM, Marc said:
This is kind of like our PM's Cuban missle crisis moment.
Curious to see his response as it plays out.
Ottawa is a pretty small city too.
Whatever he does, you know it will be bad because it's him.
-
1
-
-
For those who don't know, there is a convoy protesting the vaccine mandates in Canada, particularly for truckers, heading to Ottawa. I have heard it will be around 50,000 trucks and 500,000 people, though I can't find those numbers anywhere now, so who knows.
Canadian truckers against government’s vaccine mandates join ‘Freedom Convoy 2022’ heading to Ottawa
WWW.DIGITALJOURNAL.COMSemi trucks drive along Interstate 70 near Booneville, Missouri on Nov. 1, 2011. KOMUnews/Anna Burkart. CC SA 2.0.Hundreds of B.C...-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, ThatGuy said:
Moderna Stock Crash Intensifies: Losses Top $130 Billion"Battered by a steep broad-market selloff this week, Moderna shares fell for a sixth straight day Friday as experts questioned whether Covid-19 vaccine sales alone will help justify the firm’s meteoric valuation, intensifying a crash that’s wiped out more than 60% of the value in one of last year’s top stocks and turned it into this year’s worst performer.
"Moderna stock fell 4.4% Friday to an eight-month low of $160, pushing shares down more than 20% over the past week amid growing research suggesting Moderna’s Covid-19 booster, while very effective against previous strains, has been less effective against the rapidly spreading omicron variant."
Moderna Stock Crash Intensifies: Losses Top $130 Billion
WWW.FORBES.COMModerna was last year’s third-best-performing stock in the S&P—it’s now this year’s worst.I only pray Nancy Pelosi got out in time!
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, ThatGuy said:
UK plans to scrap all COVID-19 laws and moves to accept the virus like the flu: Report
"British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is reportedly planning to do away with all COVID-19 laws in the United Kingdom as case numbers drop and the country learns to treat the virus like a seasonal flu.
"The government is considering ending all legally enforced policies in England and is instead moving to a guidance-based system, a source told the Daily Mail. Laws that have existed since the beginning of the pandemic, including enforced self-isolation after an infection, could come to a halt, the source said."
read more here
UK plans to scrap all COVID-19 laws and moves to accept the virus like the flu: Report
WWW.WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COMBritish Prime Minister Boris Johnson is reportedly planning to do away with all COVID-19 laws in the United Kingdom as case numbers drop...I've wondered how they would backpedal out of the authoritarian COVID measures all over the world. Easing out is most probable, hoping that everyone forgets all the hard stances taken. I also think changes in policy mean they have been faced with good evidence that the policies were bad, and they cannot keep doubling down... even the people of today could not be fooled for much longer.
So I think this will happen all over the world... a gradual easing up on the restrictions, without any acknowledgement of failure. I hope people do not let it go, because I think a lot of people are on the edge of waking up. If they are allowed to forget what has happened, they will.
-
1 hour ago, anthony said:
But this submits the original - moral - false dichotomy, sometimes called, the "atomistic individual'". A person who considers himself outside of society, boasts he needs nothing from anyone, while predating upon others' values (therefore needing "others" more than anyone). Known by O'ists as a subjective egotist.
Naturally, one can have freedom, be independent-minded and by choice be "part of a group". One gains and increases one's values (knowledge, wealth, enjoyment etc.) that way. While cooperating and combining individual skills with others in an enterprise, this gains them values too. By free will and self-interest on everybody's part.
NOT, that one loses to and derives one's individual identity from the 'herd' which becomes paramount, the tribe that 'you belong to' (by a common, physical identity, often) and follow unthinkingly. i.e essential collectivism.
To clear up an issue, in case you are confusing the two, ethics and individualism - I'd put it that an individualist is not necessarily (and seldom) a rational egoist. An egoist is necessarily an individualist too.
Which indicates for me that numbers of people may be individualistic without hearing of, understanding or concerning themselves over the Objectivist ethics.
N. Branden in Honoring the Self: Individualism and the Free Society - explains individualism:
"A political system is the expression of a code of ethics. [...] Individualism is at once an ethical-psychological concept and an ethical-political one. As an ethical-psychological concept, individualism holds that a human being should think and judge independently, respecting the sovereignty of his or her mind; thus, it is intimately connected with the concept of autonomy.
As an ethical-political concept, individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights, the principle that a human being is an end in himself, and that the proper goal of life is self-realization."
---NB
When realizing that there is no dichotomy between "self-realization" and the high values realized in one's loved ones, friends, trading partners and any others one finds worth associating with ¬ because of acknowledging one's individualism/autonomy ¬ not despite it ¬ one can see that all manner of people could be individualistic, at bare minimum, an "ethical-political" individualist, so firmly individual rights observant.
*A social context* should be stressed.
"A ¬right¬ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context". AR.
This isn't a discussion on ethics, but on human nature. Particularly human nature qua groups. Being separated from the herd is a real worry that people naturally have. You can try to explain it in terms of Rand's epistemology, but that doesn't lead anywhere useful or give you any real understanding of how people function on a social level.
-
9 hours ago, anthony said:
Of course they "fear freedom"! Their own, and more critically, the freedom by individualists who reject them and stand in their way.
Being separated from the herd is not the same as freedom. You can have freedom and still be part of a group. You can have freedom and still have a social safety net (loved ones who will take care of you when you are weak).
They don't even consider the option that they need leadership. They have been convinced that people do not need leadership and that democracy can actually produce good, effective, moral policies.
-
9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
You think checks and balances is a myth? It's one of the fundamental parts that took human nature into account.
No. Constraining power is a myth. You can't block power by some clever system design. If you block power in one area, you leak it into others. That is what happened and that is why areas of society that the Founding Fathers never imagined to have power now do.
And the part about evolving... You are the one arguing for a system over (a) human being(s).
-
43 minutes ago, anthony said:
The elegance of the Objectivist formulation of rights is that anyone of any ethics/etc. participates. All that's required is dealing with others decently and rationally. Live and let live, in a nutshell.
And an individual can live by this code as a subject of North Korea if they want. I am talking about a culture that can become either more healthy or less healthy.
QuoteThere's the rub, because growing numbers all over the world fear freedom more than ever. They need to be told. (That's become clearer to me from this pandemic) Since they have lost basic human self-responsibility and self-reliance. And I return to personal power. One has to be free to fail, and that is proper freedom.
They don't fear freedom. They fear losing power. If they knew for certain they had no power and couldn't get any, now individual ethics would become far more important to them. Leftists don't fear freedom... they fear being disconnected from the group that they believe is going to save the world. They think that we, as a society, can save the world. They imagine themselves as the abolitionists during slavery times, or like Freedom Riders during the Civil Rights Movement.
They don't fear freedom. They fear losing their chance to matter/be part of something that matters.
-
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
D,
The Founding Fathers already did this.
They called it checks and balances.
Rather than concentrate power or pretend it was not a factor, they sliced it up and pitted the parts against each other.
It works, too. At least the USA has stayed together ever since, even through some really rough times and abuses of power.
I, personally, think the checks and balances concept was just as great an intellectual feat as individual rights were.
Michael
What The Constitution says and how things actually work are, obviously, two different things. We can see that the rules are being made by the universities and the media, not the elected officials. Power exists outside of the government, and it has not been sliced up... and it can't be. It will always exist. If you get rid of it in one place, it will pop up somewhere else. That's what happened. And the people can't do anything about it because conservatives continue to spread the myth that you just expressed. People think they can replace leadership with an objective system. It won't happen until we evolve into something else.
-
17 hours ago, anthony said:
If the individualist rationale doesn't appeal to the Right at this time of collectivist insanity, what will?
Any rationale is irrelevant, because what comes first is structure. If you do not even have a structure that can facilitate the process of exploring ethics on a large scale, then that is what should happen first. You cannot have a discussion of ethics with the lowest common denominator of 100s of millions of people.
QuoteWhat's clear as always, the Left-socialists demand the self-contradiction: 'collective rights'. So that any random group du jour, usually made up of some superficial and physical identity gets its own 'rights' - burying individuals and individualism.
The plain objective is dominance by group. Many are fooled by 'equality', employed as a tactical step in the direction of supremacy, attracting sympathizers to their cause from those who feel "equality" sounds like a fine thing (and after all, the fuzzy perception goes, "those people" are, or were once, oppressed victims - by group).
The objective may be dominance, but the purpose of the ideology is not that, and that is not what makes it successful. The individuals may think the way you imagine, but leftism is a social phenomenon. Before you can deal with individuals you have to detatch them from power -- they have to see that the system will never work for them. The ideal of equality is what keeps leftism so healthy in so many societies. When a citizenry has any say in their own system of governance, equality will naturally be extremely popular. The system is actually an illusion, because really we just have people doing things. It's hard to say who has power and how much... but if we were more open about it, and accepted the reality that there is power and there always will be, people could at least make decisions with their brains instead of the emotions that tell them things should be another way. We could actually think about who we want in power instead of trying to figure out a way to make it go away, when that is just not an option.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, ThatGuy said:
Why the window must always move left is that it is essentially moving towards equality. How do you get the public to push back on equality? Well, I think the first thing that has to happen is the right has to stop pretending they are actually pro-equality, just in a different way. You will be familiar with the distinction between equality and 'equity'. Or equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes.
The problem is that if there isn't an unequivocal alternative offered, people don't really know why they shouldn't be pro-equality. After all, the difference is apparently semantical.
The modern right wants unequal outcomes, but a fair system for achieving those outcomes. The fair system is what they argue for, which is still a form of equality. A real alternative would be to focus on the unequal outcomes and why they are essential. Why is it better for human beings to have a hierarchy? A fair system would be nice, but that should be secondary. When people try to achieve equality, as we can see they naturally do by the continual shifting of the Overton Window to the left, they create power vacuums that get filled by the worst types of people. This is why we should forget about equality of outcomes, equality of opportunity, all of it. The alternative to equality is leadership. When people actually think about who they want to lead, and not who they want to help achieve equality (the Justin Trudeau types), we can move the window in the other direction...
-
On 1/12/2022 at 8:18 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
D,
I think you are reading her mind too much (which, I believe, is exactly what she wants you to do). She apparently had no problem with fear mongering for two years (I've never heard this fear is ineffective crap before), then suddenly she does. And she has the answer. Is that because she feels coercion is wrong? Hell, I doubt it. If I had to speculate, I think she found her niche market amidst the noise so now she can stand out. And she is going for it.
But I do know why it is easy to get taken in by her. She used the full array of conman tricks (or in her case, conwoman).
1. She is pretty.
2. She speaks with certainty.
3. She speaks in a tone that conveys she has your best interests at heart.
4. She is likeable.
5. She gives the impression--through a few well-framed facts/assertions--that she is very knowledgeable and skilled at what she is talking about.
6. She is enthusiastic as all get out.
7. She promises you a lavish but unearned future divorced from reality. (In her case, a world where only information matters to people, not fear. A world where you do not need to feel afraid ever again. And a world where she and her fellow predators will keep you from getting a deadly virus forever and ever amen.)
8. She has the plan all set and ready to go.
9. She has her unique selling proposition entangled with her incongruous "secret truth" (which is for her, fear is not a motivator for human decisions or actions).
10. Her call to action is for you to do nothing but blindly obey her with something so easy, you won't even notice, and all will be yours.I could go on and on, and believe me, there is a lot more. Note that these are traits that people generally value among their intimates. They are also traits that lull people into submission by shutting down their defenses and their reason.
Where you see a bit of a dingbat lying to herself, I see a skilled con.
Study cons a bit and I believe you will see it, too.
btw - I suggest you don't feel bad or defensive about being taken in by this stuff. (It stings, but that is only a cognitive bias kicking in.) God knows I have been taken in enough times. The trick is to learn it, not defend the story and image the con paints to you. If you learn it, you will be far more immune.
Even Cialdini came up with his persuasion stuff from being conned too often. He openly says he is not the world's greatest genius, but the world's biggest sucker.
So he set off trying to learn why. The rest is history. And he gave the rest of us some powerful tools to diffuse this crap. (Or even use if you have a heart of larceny. )
Michael
You're right. It does sting... Thank you for showing me the light. I was taken in by her beauty... I am ashamed.
-
On 1/10/2022 at 8:47 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
D,
I fully disagree. Why? Because she doesn't want to inform the public. She wants to manipulate it into doing what she wants it to do (allegedly "make positive changes").
And even in the case of making positive changes, fear happens to be an excellent motivator. It's a great way to "help" people make positive changes.
("If you don't do XXX, I will fire your ass,"--when XXX is something positive that needs to be changed to and the bad habit is ingrained. Or, "If you don't do XXX, I will beat the shit out of you," when XXX is something positive that hasn't been happening but needs to happen. And so on.)
Ask any kid if he hasn't made a "positive change" without fear some of the time, say, to brush his teeth.
I actually found the lady to be perfectly good with words.
So, no, I don't trust her a bit. I don't think she was being honest at all. I could almost see her looking toward her paycheck from her masters as she was talking...
Michael
From her point of view, which is the view she thinks the public holds, is that getting vaccinated is good for people and good for society.
Here's an example of the negative enforcement that this lady is against:
Column: Mocking anti-vaxxers' COVID deaths is ghoulish, yes — but may be necessary
SPORTS.YAHOO.COMHow should we think about anti-vaccine activists who die from COVID?Not fear, in this case, but I'm sure the lady in the video clip we're talking about is as against this as she is against fear mongering.
Yes, she is trying to manipulate people. She's like those women who talk about "training your man." She thinks she's found a way to make both sides happy... Gently convince people to do what you want, and they'll be as happy as you.
So my point is not that I trust her, but that she has half of the picture correct. She at least feels coercion isn't right (though she is arguing for efficacy in the video), even if she doesn't really respect people's autonomy/self-ownership. As you can see from the example above, some people have convinced themselves they are being righteous when they are completely off the spectrum.
-
7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Genius lady doctor Lucy McBride actually said this on air:
Wait, wait, wait.
Did I just hear that right? Doofus lady says fear doesn't affect people's decisions? Fear isn't motivating?
I think what she meant is that fear is not a good way to help people make positive changes. She was being honest, she just isn't good with words. That's what I got from it.
She's obviously not the brightest, but she's better than a lot of the other doctor's they've had on (some of them smart, but deeply intellectually/emotionally programmed).
QuoteThey are trying to point the finger at the CDC and say, "It's all their fault. It's not our fault. It's their fault."
Kinda like one of the comments. I liked this one:
-
18 hours ago, ThatGuy said:
Wait, now CNN's chief potato, Brian Stetler, is calling out the CDC? Have we now crossed over into the upside-down from STRANGER THINGS?
lmao... 80% of Republicans are crazy, but 91% of Democrats are!
-
On 1/9/2022 at 9:24 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Here's a nice visual.
Sweden.
Hmmmmm...
Michael
So, while that does look good, it doesn't take into account the excess deaths from earlier in the pandemic (an older population) that could have died in 2021 instead of 2020. The map should include most of 2020 to be more informative.
However, I definitely agree that all cause mortalities are what we should be looking at, and NOT "COVID deaths". Here is some similar data that focuses on an earlier time frame.
Sweden Has Had *Negative* Excess Mortality Since the Start of 2020 – The Daily Sceptic
DAILYSCEPTIC.ORGNew figures from the ONS show that, between January 2020 and June 2021, Sweden had *negative* excess mortality. This constitutes a...Sweden's total deaths were -2.3% compared to the 5-year average. Norway's was -12.1%. However, a more significant figure, I think, is the death rate among individuals 0-64 years old, where Sweden and Norway are quite similar.
I think ultimately the lockdowns did not make a significant difference in slowing the spread. I think the lives saved may partly have been because a lot of people were on unemployment or the equivalent of, and stress/sleep may have been better for many people. However, to give people free money usually has future economic repercussions, which can contribute to health problems.
-
4 hours ago, ThatGuy said:
Thomas Massie weights in on this, noting the avoidance of blame that Michael mentioned:
Damn. It's like they're watching Joe Rogan's podcast, but they're a year behind...
-
1
-
-
Any studies used for government approval of pharmaceuticals should not just be available for people to read, I don't know why they can't film the entire thing and let anyone view the footage for free online -- including diligent experts who may be curious.
There is a reproducibility crisis in many scientific fields, and the more information about how a study was performed the better.
-
1
-
-
On 11/21/2021 at 12:08 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:
Are the Covid Vaccines Dangerous? Yes, for Some
WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COMJust got some sad news about my great niece. She was compelled to get the Covid jab in order to stay employed. She was pregnant. Within a week of getting the jab she miscarried. Not a coincidence. The New...
In this article Johnson talks about:
Miscarriage rates:The New England Journal of Medicine reported in June that if a woman is vaccinated before the fetus passes the 20 week mark of gestation, there is an 80% chance of a miscarriage:
Well, Ellen already linked this article. The menstrual cycle stuff is well known, but I think most people have written it off as harmless. I think the miscarriages and the shifted cycles are probably connected.
-
4 hours ago, Marc said:
Check out what PM Trudeau said the other day re the non vaxxed.
I looked it up.
Quote“They are extremists who don’t believe in science, they’re often misogynists, also often racists,” said Trudeau. “It’s a small group that muscles in, and we have to make a choice in terms of leaders, in terms of the country. Do we tolerate these people?”
What a psycho. That's the only way to describe the guy at this point. He's a psychopath.
-
1
-
-
On 12/16/2021 at 8:51 PM, Dglgmut said:
Question (not sure if this has been answered here yet): Does anyone know if hospital patience who tested positive for COVID while in hospital, but not being originally admitted for COVID, were counted towards COVID hospitalizations? I have heard many times that hospitalizations are the best metric for measuring the effect of the virus on an area... but I can't believe that people who just happened to test positive while already in the hospital (especially considering there has been a higher chance of contracting the virus while in hospital), would be tracked differently than those who were admitted for COVID.
I don't know for sure, but if my feeling is correct, then even hospitalizations may be way over represented...
Well, here's the definitive answer:
Canadian Politics: Boring beyond Belief, or just Dull and Tedious?
in 4 - Politics
Posted
I'm guessing he did multiple takes, and unless you're an experienced actor, or have been a subject on a reality show, you're not going to be very natural in front of a camera. The people criticizing the video don't seem to have a reference point for Canadian politics. It is as phony as it gets. Nobody answers a question, but this guy asks the questions that make that the most obvious (like asking the Finance Minister three times in a row how much money the government had borrowed from our central bank to pay for the COVID spending).
The other thing is that the people criticizing seem to think some revolution is going to happen, and that the other option is to get rid of all the politicians on both sides... The truth is the Conservative party got the most votes last election (just a few months ago), losing because of the system and how votes are weighted, but this was with an extremely unpopular leader--Erin O'Toole, who was basically a watered-down version of Trudeau with no charisma or charm.