It's absolutely unreal how they lie to us. The comments underneath are shocking too. Two different realities. I am on the side that knows what men and women are.
Wow, that article contains SO many logical fallacies, lies of omission, HYPOCRISY, outright propaganda, and accusing their opponent of what they themselves are guilty of, I'm embarrassed for Dan Rather and what he and his ilk have devolved into.
It's incredible, isn't it? So utterly, completely detached from reality are these folks that I see no way to reach common ground with them. It's all unraveling.
Thanks to your link, I dropped this in the comments. Going to bed soon, will have to check it in the morning:
"Maybe a year of "mostly peaceful protests" has sured a lot of your fellow americans re: media's reporting and politicians weighing in on such matters?
Playing semantics and telling oneself that changing definitions change anything but perceptions of reality, and not reality itself is backfiring? Since there's no posibility of common cause or ground with people playing semantics. there's no reason to engage in any discourse at all.
Just look at how questioning of election results are ahndled depending on who is questioning what: anyone going to call out Al Gore for being an enemy of democracy anytime soon? Being allowed, even encouraged, to question the legality and conduct of elections and the counting of votes and how to differentiate between valid and invalid votes and voters is democracy - in Saddam's Iraq questioning that the Bath party regularly got more than 100% of the votes and that more than 100% of citizens voted was a crime.
Is Iraq under Saddam Hussein really what US Democrats and Democrat-affiliated media want to emulate?
All China, Saudi, Iran, Russia has to do nowadays to discredit western democracy, western media and western freedom of expression, speech, worship and opinion is point to the US from 2015 onwards."
There is no longer a pretense to unbiased journalism from the MSM nowadays. Everything is spun to support the Democratic Party. This article by Dan Rather (a once-respected TV anchorman) is absolutely absurd, yet judging from the comments, people are more than willing to accept this nonsense.
America is collapsing from within. No common ground can be found with people who reject reason and truth. God help us. It is going to be an extremely interesting decade.
I much prefer openly biased journalism to be truthful - doesn't matter biased pro/contra whom either, as long as they wear their colours on their lapel.
That's why papers here which openly call themselves "nationalist-conservative" or "communist" are more trustworthy: they have no reason to try and spin their reporting, since anything thye care to bring up is already presorted in accordance to their beliefs, whereas papers calling themselves "independent liberal" - well, you don't know what they stand for, what they really want and how their sorting mechanism looks; it's all just "good"-weighted terms for one sid and "evil"-weighted ones for another.
Example is the reporting about artist Lars Vilks who many years ago drew a cartoon with Mohammed as a dog, and artist Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin who many years ago had her breakthrough with the exhibition Ecce Homo where the disciples of Jesus and the man himself were portrayed by leather-clad HIV-infected homosexual men, in various scenes from scripture.
Wallin was and is fêted by the political, medial and cultural elites, while Vilks was universally condemned - both for the same reason. Making provocative art out of religious figures.
To me it draws a distinct line between people actually believing in something, be it communism or other and standing for it; and people not really stading for anything than what's materially and powerwise convenient: backbone vs coat-turners.
The first kind can build and create - sometimes horror and sometimes heaven - but the other kind can only ever corrupt and destroy.
Which, to drag this back to the start, means journalists open about their beliefs and sticking to their guns are more read- and trustworthy than the opportunistic "I support the curent thing"-kind of journalists. Honesty creates respect: deceit creates disgust.
Gas prices will level off. So will inflation. Nothing, nothing, nothing is permanent. My hope and prayer is for a Blue Wave. While I prefer to be optimistic, I see the hate, anger, and readiness for violence in my republican neighbors' eyes and faces. At 79 years, I am fearful for the first time.
Nov 3, 2022·edited Nov 3, 2022Liked by Rudolph Rigger
Counterfactuals have their uses as inspiration too; the "what if X instead of Y" can spawn ideas, and while 9 999 of them are useless for one reason or another, the reamining one can be a game changer.
And from having technical minded people in the family, I now from experience how good it is for them to have someone with a humanist/social sciences background around to ask the - to them - silly questions.
Not to mention how much people from the technical and natural sciences often struggle with economics - since the econ-people use math, logic and rational analysis as tools it must be hard science, right? Nope, it's about as hard as sociology since the logic and rationale is based on trying to model human behaviours, and then reinterpret said behaviours using models based on same.
And then recommending various courses of action based on the models - if you want to find where the plague of calling modelling science instead of doing research and testing hypotheses grew from, look no further than economics
And for a real good time, consider the importance of semantics and semiotics - The Ship of Theses if you excuse the pun isn't just a thought exercise. It has a real meaning and pulls heavy duty in all matters of definition. Sadly, at present our chattering classes have forgotten (chosen to forget evn?) that creating an arbitrary definition of "vaccinated" or "exposed to infection" based on law, economics, acceptable social practices and pure logistical pragmaticism doesn't affect neither the chemical itself nor a virus or how a virus spreads - the power over language is the power to control perceptions of reality only, never actual reality. And as you utilise the redefined perception, the perception also utilises you, to paraphrase a well-known phrase usually used out of context.
And people say postmodernism can't be used for anything good... :)
Nov 3, 2022·edited Nov 3, 2022Liked by Rudolph Rigger
Good analysis. I trust nothing that regime puppets like David French put forth for his bot followers. They've lied to us about everything since the start of covid; all trust is gone. It's to the point that if it was reported that a nuclear bomb was detonated somewhere nearby and I was told to evacuate my home, absent the visual proof of a mushroom cloud, I would probably stay put. Scratch that. I would assume that even the mushroom cloud was fake and definitely stay where I am.
Nov 3, 2022·edited Nov 3, 2022Liked by Rudolph Rigger
How would/could the % of population potentially exposed to the virus over the initial 10 month window potentially affect BoE? Doesn't the initial window start with very small % exposure which grows at some rate? Is this potentially relevant? Asking (proactively) for a friend...
It's a bit more complicated (but not much more) to include natural and acquired immunity. The BoE in the article assumes a worst-case scenario of absolutely no natural or acquired immunity at all in the unvaccinated - and it still doesn't make the vaxx look good.
The time development of that immunity is going to be relevant in the initial periods, but some studies based on seroprevalence data had estimates of quite high number of infections (much higher than percentages based on tests).
We could be cautious and assume that by the time the 2nd 10-month window had arrived we had 50% of the unvaxxed population having already survived covid. We'd then have to look at the death rate in the unvaxxed, not previously infected, population. We could assume, then, that prior infection meant immunity and so the rise in cumulative deaths was coming from the small % of vaxxed who died and the 25% of people who were both unvaxxed and not previously infected.
Doesn't seem likely that covid in its first year (everybody relatively immunologically naive and unvaccinated) had fewer deaths than in the 2nd study period where the 'vulnerable' pool is only about a quarter of the size.
Either way, it's fairly clear looking at the data that the 'vaccines' have not worked in any meaningful sense.
I saw this:
"They are a kind of ‘sniff test’. Does the hair on this idea smell like it’s something worth fondling further?"
Then initially thought that the rest of the article would be about the prez.
David French is a hack. May God have mercy on his soul
Wow. David French is still holding on to the narrative even when the evidence is clear.
Even more depressing are narrative-shifting articles like this: https://steady.substack.com/p/not-a-joke?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
It's absolutely unreal how they lie to us. The comments underneath are shocking too. Two different realities. I am on the side that knows what men and women are.
Wow, that article contains SO many logical fallacies, lies of omission, HYPOCRISY, outright propaganda, and accusing their opponent of what they themselves are guilty of, I'm embarrassed for Dan Rather and what he and his ilk have devolved into.
It's incredible, isn't it? So utterly, completely detached from reality are these folks that I see no way to reach common ground with them. It's all unraveling.
Thanks to your link, I dropped this in the comments. Going to bed soon, will have to check it in the morning:
"Maybe a year of "mostly peaceful protests" has sured a lot of your fellow americans re: media's reporting and politicians weighing in on such matters?
Playing semantics and telling oneself that changing definitions change anything but perceptions of reality, and not reality itself is backfiring? Since there's no posibility of common cause or ground with people playing semantics. there's no reason to engage in any discourse at all.
Just look at how questioning of election results are ahndled depending on who is questioning what: anyone going to call out Al Gore for being an enemy of democracy anytime soon? Being allowed, even encouraged, to question the legality and conduct of elections and the counting of votes and how to differentiate between valid and invalid votes and voters is democracy - in Saddam's Iraq questioning that the Bath party regularly got more than 100% of the votes and that more than 100% of citizens voted was a crime.
Is Iraq under Saddam Hussein really what US Democrats and Democrat-affiliated media want to emulate?
All China, Saudi, Iran, Russia has to do nowadays to discredit western democracy, western media and western freedom of expression, speech, worship and opinion is point to the US from 2015 onwards."
There is no longer a pretense to unbiased journalism from the MSM nowadays. Everything is spun to support the Democratic Party. This article by Dan Rather (a once-respected TV anchorman) is absolutely absurd, yet judging from the comments, people are more than willing to accept this nonsense.
America is collapsing from within. No common ground can be found with people who reject reason and truth. God help us. It is going to be an extremely interesting decade.
I much prefer openly biased journalism to be truthful - doesn't matter biased pro/contra whom either, as long as they wear their colours on their lapel.
That's why papers here which openly call themselves "nationalist-conservative" or "communist" are more trustworthy: they have no reason to try and spin their reporting, since anything thye care to bring up is already presorted in accordance to their beliefs, whereas papers calling themselves "independent liberal" - well, you don't know what they stand for, what they really want and how their sorting mechanism looks; it's all just "good"-weighted terms for one sid and "evil"-weighted ones for another.
Example is the reporting about artist Lars Vilks who many years ago drew a cartoon with Mohammed as a dog, and artist Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin who many years ago had her breakthrough with the exhibition Ecce Homo where the disciples of Jesus and the man himself were portrayed by leather-clad HIV-infected homosexual men, in various scenes from scripture.
Wallin was and is fêted by the political, medial and cultural elites, while Vilks was universally condemned - both for the same reason. Making provocative art out of religious figures.
To me it draws a distinct line between people actually believing in something, be it communism or other and standing for it; and people not really stading for anything than what's materially and powerwise convenient: backbone vs coat-turners.
The first kind can build and create - sometimes horror and sometimes heaven - but the other kind can only ever corrupt and destroy.
Which, to drag this back to the start, means journalists open about their beliefs and sticking to their guns are more read- and trustworthy than the opportunistic "I support the curent thing"-kind of journalists. Honesty creates respect: deceit creates disgust.
It is distressing to see all major media outlets in the US speak with one voice on issues (vaccines, war in Ukraine) truly important to the regime.
The revolution is underway.
They’re unhinged
Gas prices will level off. So will inflation. Nothing, nothing, nothing is permanent. My hope and prayer is for a Blue Wave. While I prefer to be optimistic, I see the hate, anger, and readiness for violence in my republican neighbors' eyes and faces. At 79 years, I am fearful for the first time.
Counterfactuals have their uses as inspiration too; the "what if X instead of Y" can spawn ideas, and while 9 999 of them are useless for one reason or another, the reamining one can be a game changer.
And from having technical minded people in the family, I now from experience how good it is for them to have someone with a humanist/social sciences background around to ask the - to them - silly questions.
Not to mention how much people from the technical and natural sciences often struggle with economics - since the econ-people use math, logic and rational analysis as tools it must be hard science, right? Nope, it's about as hard as sociology since the logic and rationale is based on trying to model human behaviours, and then reinterpret said behaviours using models based on same.
And then recommending various courses of action based on the models - if you want to find where the plague of calling modelling science instead of doing research and testing hypotheses grew from, look no further than economics
And for a real good time, consider the importance of semantics and semiotics - The Ship of Theses if you excuse the pun isn't just a thought exercise. It has a real meaning and pulls heavy duty in all matters of definition. Sadly, at present our chattering classes have forgotten (chosen to forget evn?) that creating an arbitrary definition of "vaccinated" or "exposed to infection" based on law, economics, acceptable social practices and pure logistical pragmaticism doesn't affect neither the chemical itself nor a virus or how a virus spreads - the power over language is the power to control perceptions of reality only, never actual reality. And as you utilise the redefined perception, the perception also utilises you, to paraphrase a well-known phrase usually used out of context.
And people say postmodernism can't be used for anything good... :)
Good analysis. I trust nothing that regime puppets like David French put forth for his bot followers. They've lied to us about everything since the start of covid; all trust is gone. It's to the point that if it was reported that a nuclear bomb was detonated somewhere nearby and I was told to evacuate my home, absent the visual proof of a mushroom cloud, I would probably stay put. Scratch that. I would assume that even the mushroom cloud was fake and definitely stay where I am.
How would/could the % of population potentially exposed to the virus over the initial 10 month window potentially affect BoE? Doesn't the initial window start with very small % exposure which grows at some rate? Is this potentially relevant? Asking (proactively) for a friend...
It's a bit more complicated (but not much more) to include natural and acquired immunity. The BoE in the article assumes a worst-case scenario of absolutely no natural or acquired immunity at all in the unvaccinated - and it still doesn't make the vaxx look good.
The time development of that immunity is going to be relevant in the initial periods, but some studies based on seroprevalence data had estimates of quite high number of infections (much higher than percentages based on tests).
We could be cautious and assume that by the time the 2nd 10-month window had arrived we had 50% of the unvaxxed population having already survived covid. We'd then have to look at the death rate in the unvaxxed, not previously infected, population. We could assume, then, that prior infection meant immunity and so the rise in cumulative deaths was coming from the small % of vaxxed who died and the 25% of people who were both unvaxxed and not previously infected.
Doesn't seem likely that covid in its first year (everybody relatively immunologically naive and unvaccinated) had fewer deaths than in the 2nd study period where the 'vulnerable' pool is only about a quarter of the size.
Either way, it's fairly clear looking at the data that the 'vaccines' have not worked in any meaningful sense.