Dglgmut

The metaphor is to illustrate the difference in moving left vs moving right: moving towards chaos vs moving towards order. Moving towards chaos is pushing the bolder back down the hill... While moving toward order takes a lot more thought and controlled effort. The people who want order do not want to focus all of their energy on creating that order... because the whole purpose of order is to be a stable baseline for growth. It's the actual growth that people want, vs the stagnation of chaos. So my point is that there needs to be a structure put in place to stop things from devolving into chaos once again after those on the right inevitably run out of political energy. Unfortunately most people on the right do not understand this, and actually have a lot of leftists ideas that have been smuggled into American conservatism.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but the idea of putting things back to how they were is as scary as pushing a boulder back up a hill another 10 or 20 feet. The constitution of the citizenry has changed drastically, and at least as much as the change in the structure of government. People do not have the political energy or courage that they once did. While people are galvanized now, that will only be temporary. If the boulder can be pushed back up the hill, there needs to be some restructuring in a way that does not require that energy from the average person, and gives both power and accountability to some intelligent and courageous individuals to do the work that the normal citizen does not have the time or expertise to do. The main difference between that and what we have now is accountability. Trusting the science, for example, has been about pushing accountability to the scientists, who don't actually need to accept it... since they can always say, "Hey, it's Science! We're always learning new things..." which is what they have said a couple times already.

Vaccines have always had toxins in them, part of the function of vaccines is to trigger an inflammatory/immune response and get your body to react to dead/fragmented virus particles as if they were live. This is not the case for the mRNA vaccines, since live cells will trigger the response when they express the spike proteins. But with all vaccines, including the mRNA vaccine, there is obviously the issue of keeping the important components stable until they do what they are supposed to do. In the case of the mRNA vaccines, the mRNA has to stay stable until it seeds the tissue... If you don't think there are toxins involved in that, that's very optimistic of you. However, Snopes says graphene oxide is NOT an ingredient in the mRNA vaccines, so there's about a 95% chance that it is.

I think your supposition is a wild assumption. And just because it's an assumption that a lot of people--even "educated" ones--make doesn't make it any less wild. When did our idea of health become hand sanitizer and injecting toxins into ourselves? Isn't the concept of health directly connected to the concept of an animal's nature?? Do you really believe staying isolated and breathing in your own carbon dioxide/stagnant lung vapours has made you healthier? The answer is simple, and it's out there. The PCR "tests" will detect the same genetic sequences in people with the flu as people with COVID (or without either, since we are talking diseases here). Every positive PCR was labelled evidence of COVID... Also, the idea of challenging your immune system is another assumption. It's like saying drinking alcohol regularly is healthy because you are less likely to get alcohol poisoning than someone else bingeing.

This analogy sucks. People keep making it. The difference between something like a seat belt, or an airbag, and the vaccine is that anyone can observer or deduce the risks/benefits of seat belts and airbags. With the vaccine all of the data is third-hand at best. Which expert's interpretation of the data do you trust? For most people it's the 'experts' that happen to agree with their politics.

Then there's this: England vaccine passport plans ditched, Sajid Javid says WWW.BBC.COM The health secretary rules out the scheme for nightclubs and large events, following much criticism.

One thing that brings me some comfort during all of this authoritarian policy is that the leftist darling demographic is not on their side for a change. If this was already posted somewhere I apologize, but it's so good.

The funny thing is how leftists reconcile their hate for corporations, including big pharma, with their total embracing of the vaccines. They will say that this is not about the corporations, but rather it's about science and trusting the experts. And somehow that pesky legal immunity of the manufacturers is water off a duck's back.

I think this video really highlights the psychology of some experts in fields with the capacity to be politicized.

Do you know any people who've had negative reactions? I know several... which makes me question the 1 in tens-of-thousands claims. Someone in my family got Bell's palsy. My father still has kidney pain, four months later, which started with hematuria... He has more tests scheduled, but he has already gone through a few looking for traces of kidney stones, which have all turned up negative. A friend of a friend had their knees swell up and was bed ridden for two months. A lady I know had half her body go numb right after, and still has neck pain months later--she had to get a MRI. But the other thing is, even though I was skeptical of the vaccines from the beginning, I didn't even connect these side effects to the vaccine until quite a while after the fact. Most doctors certainly wouldn't! (And didn't... even in the case of Bell's palsy.) So it's not just the rare cases of bad reactions, it's the fact that I know most people are not really considering the connection between their health conditions and the vaccine. Everyone who got jabbed should have had regular follow ups from their doctors... it's crazy to me that virtually everyone was just sent on their way without any monitoring, while a significant percentage of the few who questioned what happened to them were sent to get invasive, unrelated tests by their doctors.

What's the most anti-science thing you can do? Hijack the term and use it to denote specious and/or convoluted circular reasoning. Like anything the public respects, science has been targeted by those hungry for power.

Dr. Malone endorsed Dr. Byram Bridle during a podcast interview of his I was listening to. I did a search and it looks like Dr. Bridle has not been mentioned on these forums, but he is an excellent source by my judgment and in comparison to everything I have read and listened to so far. He has been on Fox twice to explain how bad the vaccine misinformation is, and a moderately analytical mind would have no problem following him. It's shocking that such blatant contradictions are able to stay credible for so long... This is a video with both of his Fox appearances, which provide a succinct summary of the issues he's been voicing concerning the mRNA vaccines. Dr. Byram Bridle about spike proteins on Fox News ODYSEE.COM This is the same that Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi explains about Spike Proteins Since then, though, I have started to question how deep the misinformation goes. If doctors and scientists have been manipulated in the case of "COVID-19", could the foundation of the lies go back farther than just the research lab in Wuhan? Here is a New Zealand doctor who makes excellent videos covering the systemic problems in modern scientific practices. This one, specifically about the novel coronavirus, like most of her others, is pretty densely informative. She discusses the discovery of the "virus", testing method, and some of the conflicts of interest between scientific authorities and test kit/vaccine manufacturers. Her videos have made me more skeptical of germ theory and I now think environmental factors could be the real cause of diseases attributed to viruses. Once Upon A Time in Wuhan.... ODYSEE.COM Dr Sam will take you back to December 2019 and highlight some of the key concepts that have been used to FUEL this crisis. Please support...

The argument that I have heard from Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai is that some of the mRNA will inevitably remain outside of the cells, and we do not know what effects that can have. We also do not know how mRNA interacts with other RNA in the cell. Apparently little is known about the genome except its role in protein production (creating mRNA), which accounts for 2% of what it does. If you think the virus could be a serious problem for you, then a vaccine is probably a good idea. But if you are healthy I feel the vaccine is more of a risk with how little we currently know.

I like the comparison Stephen makes between experience and memory of experience, because that is what I focus on when thinking of the basis of knowledge. You know you're experiencing in the moment, but how do you know your experience from just two minutes ago is accurate? But before considering the validity of the memory we must consider why the knowledge of our experience in the moment is true. We are experiencing, but how do we know we are experiencing? Those are different things. To know means to conceive of consciously what is real. To know we are experiencing means more than just experiencing, it also means to have some concept of experience. The concept of experience implies a subject and an object. Do our senses tell us we exist? No, that is our mind. Therefore even our knowledge of our own experience, or own existence, depends on abstraction. This abstraction contextualizes our experience and gives us a new dimension to measure truth vs falseness in the form of contradictions. How do we know our memories are accurate? We cannot measure their accuracy perfectly. We cannot measure anything perfectly (infinite precision). But obviously we can measure them. A memory of me sitting down in my office chain is measurably more true than a memory of me teleporting into the chair. Again, the measurement is based on congruity vs contradiction. It is because we live in a conceptual world and not just a world of sensory data that we can compare the validity of these two memories; and this is true for interpretations, stories, and abstractions of all kinds.

What does truth even mean in the context of your last sentence? If you say we cannot know if an abstraction is true, for example, while the truth itself is an abstraction, you're going in circles. The 'truth' depends on consciousness, and the accordance of the contents of which with reality. Your question is basically: We can know, but how can we know we know? This is a contradiction. If we can't know we know, then we can't know. And though we can think we know something we do not, that doesn't mean that everything we think we know is false.

What is the difference between the Universe and nature? How does the premise of a benevolent Universe coincide with the premise of a cruel nature? I find it hard to answer this without inferring different intentions behind the terms. Perhaps in the context Rand would say that nature is cruel, 'nature' would not include the individual, but only the individual's natural environment. While presuming a benevolent Universe includes man's mind and spirit, and thus includes the tools to deal with and overcome a cruel nature. That feels like rationalizing, though.

I think there's a lot more roadblocks than Trump, he's just the most prominent. Ted Cruz is definitely someone fight the technocrats, and I'm sure there's a good number of republicans who are also contributing. The election was a success for republicans other than the presidency, that's why I say I don't think Biden and Kamala will get much done. It doesn't really matter though, the right will not accept Biden as president so we will not really see what it would be like--not for the USA as it is now.

Those compilations have been being put together for about 15 years now (I've seen 4 or 5 different ones, myself). I don't understand how it doesn't make a difference. How do people still watch News???

I don't know about a major shift in control if Biden were President; I feel like he would be largely ineffective at doing anything, and Kamala even more-so, being unelected. However the idea of a President blatantly stealing the election sets an unacceptable precedent. I see this being the main reason he cannot be elected if there is substantial legal evidence.

There is going to be a conflict either way. If Trump is sworn in the far left will be violent, of course, and the right will not, except in some self-defensish situations. If Biden is officially selected, there will not be violence from the right, except perhaps a terror attack. Either way I see a legal resolution being sought. I think the country will have to break up. It is too easy to do that when compared to the alternative.

You misspelled covfefe.

That Liz Sly woman sounds wonderful... These people are psychotic. I feel like they take "he was lied to by officials" and turn it into "He doesn't know what the hell is going on!"

I don't know where to post this, but this is an amazing meeting of minds (live now): EDIT from MSK: The YouTube Gods are having trouble coping with dissent, so they removed the video. Didn't those assholes realize I had not finished watching it? No problem: TIMCAST IRL - ALEX JONES TALKS LOCKDOWNS, THE ELECTION WITH TIM POOL AND MICHAEL MALICE

Uh... wtf?? Does anyone say her name in the video? I only found a part where someone calls her "Miss Secretary of State." That lady doesn't look, sound, or speak like Hillary. Weird video.