I almost walk straight into this guy, short, about my age, standing directly outside my door. he has heavy American accent, he explains he is on the way to nearby tax adviser and comes up with pretence to speak to me, we talk about America, and then suddenly we have all of these common interests: fitness running etc. can he have my phone number, maybe he and his girlfriend can go hiking with me and my girlfriend.
So like idiot, I give him number, don’t think much about it. In retrospect the whole incident reminds of a few press stories I’ve read about how the SEK confirm addresses before raiding houses: casual encounters, often they claim they have the wrong address, etc.
I’m non-committal about the hiking double date idea, and for a week nothing. then he keeps ‘randomly’ running into me, also in weird places. It is small village, I have never seen him before and suddenly he’s everywhere. At the bank where I’m withdrawing money, he’s there, at the local recycling centre where I’m throwing away papers, he’s there. He texts me but I ignore. After the like third encounter where I maintain polite but non-committal attitude he disappears and I never see him or his weird van ever again.
When you run into these surveillance agents, always take their picture. Their reaction will reliably confirm your suspicions. And then post the pictures on Twitter or whatever; manpower is finite and one individual is probably being used to stalk dozens of individuals over the course of a year. The fact that they’re using Americans to spy on Germans in Germany tends to indicate that Clown World has fewer operatives than they would like us to believe.
This is one of the many reasons that I have absolutely zero desire for any new friends. Although I have to admit, it would be amusing to see some rando popping up around town attempting to claim that he shares my interests.
“I, too, enjoy sitting alone in the dark listening to Brahms while calculating maximal fixation rates! Give me your phone number and perhaps we can get together and go hiking!”
The Turkish government has suspended all trade with Israel in response to the Gaza war, the Trade Ministry in Ankara said in a statement posted on social media on Thursday.
Türkiye has been one of Israel’s fiercest critics since the conflict with Hamas broke out in October. The suspension of all export and import operations has been introduced in response to the Jewish state’s “aggression against Palestine in violation of international law and human rights,” the statement read.
Ankara will strictly implement the new measures until Israel allows uninterrupted and sufficient flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, the document added.
This is significant, because Turkey is not only a member of NATO, but it has historically been one of the more friendly nations in the Dar al-Islam to Israel. And while we can’t rule out the USA deciding to sanction Turkey, it’s further evidence that US diplomatic efforts are in a serious state of crisis.
Passing anti-speech laws and anti-boycott laws in US states isn’t going to matter much if the greater part of the planet refuses to economically engage with Israel.
The corrupt creatures in Congress are making your choice very clear and unmistakable. Jesus Christ and the First Amendment or Holocaustianity and Hate Speech Laws.
The United States House of Representatives has passed H.R. 6090, a bill that criminalizes basic Biblical Truth. This alarming legislation seeks to weaponize the Civil Rights Act for the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws, thus having a chilling effect on the free speech of Christians across the nation.
The bill adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of “antisemitism” which includes the basic Biblical Truth that the Jews killed Jesus Christ as “classic antisemitism.” The bill has raised serious concerns among Christians who believe that their First Amendment rights are being threatened. For example H.R. 6090 could potentially make it a crime for pastors to preach sermons that adhere to Biblical passages, of which there are many, which explicitly state that the Jews killed Jesus.
As a result, churches may become targets for Civil Rights Act discrimination lawsuits, leading to a wave of anti-Christian sentiment and the stifling of religious expression. This legislation follows just a few weeks after we learned, during Holy Week of all times, that saying “Christ is King” is “antisemitic” from many of the gatekeeping establishment voices on the right. It also follows a slew of similar “hate speech” legislation at the state level that is being passed by Republican governors in red states, including Ron DeSantis who flew to Israel to sign his….
Unfortunately, many pastors have chosen to ignore the implications of bills like H.R. 6090, allowing the bill to pass without raising their voices in opposition. This silence is not only a disservice to their congregations and the Church itself, but also a missed opportunity to defend the Biblical truths that have guided Christians for centuries. Even worse are the pastors who are supporting legislation like this because of their twisted and heretical theology that makes an idol out of the modern antichrist nation state of Israel and the antichrist Jews.
The Devil certainly knows his own. Those who choose to believe the lies will suffer the consequences, even as they stupidly and smugly believe that they are being blessed for “blessing Israel” by participating in the attempted murder of America/Amalek. You would think that when resisting satanry is criminalized and denounced as “anti-semitic”, they would be able to put two and two together to make four.
I say “attempted murder” because I am entirely certain that they will fail. They always do. And they always will.
There is substantial statistical evidence suggesting – suggesting, mind you, not proving – that sufficient vaccines can make you trans and gay:
Here are the odds ratio between the fully vaccinated/fully unvaccinated. Odds ratios >2 are traditionally associated with causality:
Sexual orientation: 4.78
Gender identity: 4.81
Gender dysphoria: 5.54
These effects are huge and consistent.
Also, the odds ratios for partially vaccinated are in line with the fully vaccinated: in general, the greater the number of vaccines someone has, the more likely they are to have a trait that differs from traditional norms. So the vaccines themselves are the elephant in the room here and the driver of the response, not environment, upbringing, social pressure, etc.
Now, I already lean pretty heavily anti-vax, which is why refusing the Covid not-vaxx didn’t even rise to the level of having to think about it for one second. But these results should make even the most mindless pro-vax parent think twice about signing up little Bobby or Jenny for the endless series of foreign substances presently being pushed on the parents of young children. Especially in the aftermath of the global vaxx debacle.
At the very least, more genuine scientific research is required, and no amount of fake ethical special pleading about how it is immoral to have an unvaccinated control group will suffice to avoid it.
UPDATE: Additional information on the subject from a doctor who is very concerned about the adverse effects of standard childhood vaccines.
A curious embargo exists on testing vaccines for safety. As a result, the basic trials we would expect to have been done to assess whether the CDC’s vaccine schedule is safe have never been publicly conducted. Moreover, no independent researcher has ever been given access to the large databases that could easily demonstrate if vaccines were indeed “safe” or “effective.”
It’s not exactly news that the Littlest Chickenhawk is absolutely terrified of anyone who isn’t a college student, and therefore, is capable of unmasking what a mediocre little midwit he is. Lauren Witzke broke the news of the Daily Wire’s secret gag order that Little Benny managed to have imposed on Candace Owens in order to avoid the public debate he claims to have wanted:
“But the debate was never going to happen. That is because the Daily Wire — in secret and unbeknownst to its readers — sought a gag order to be placed on Owens after she had called for a debate. They did this under the cover of secrecy, before a private arbitrator, at exactly the same time that they were claiming in public that they wanted this debate and were even negotiating the terms with her. To this date, the Daily Wire has not informed its readers, seeking to understand why the much-anticipated debate had not yet happened, that they had sought and obtained a gag order against Owens.
When seeking a gag order to be imposed on Owens, the Daily Wire accused her of violating the non-disparagement clause of her agreement with the company. To substantiate this accusation, the company specifically cited Owens’ initial tweet requesting a debate with Shapiro as proof of this disparagement, along with concerns she voiced that Shapiro appeared to be violating the confidentiality agreement between them by publicly maligning Owens’s views to explain her departure from the company. While the company claimed before the arbitrator that it did not object in principle to a “healthy debate,” it urged the imposition of gag order on Owens by claiming that the way she requested the debate constituted disparagement of Shapiro and the site.
To justify the gag order it wanted, the company also cited various criticisms of the Daily Wire and Shapiro on X that Owens had “liked.” This proceeding took place as part of an exchange of legal threats between the parties after the public agreement to debate about Israel was solidified. Those threats arose from the fact that various Daily Wire executives and hosts, in both public and private, were castigating Owens as an anti-Semite. On March 22, Daily Wire host Andrew Klaven published a one-hour video that hurled multiple accusations, including anti-Semitism, at Owens. The Daily Wire cited Owens’ response to that video — her defense of herself from those multiple accusations — as further proof that she needed to be gagged.”
“After the prior restraint hearing sought by the Daily Wire and Shapiro, the arbitrator sided with them and against Owens. The arbitrator agreed with the Daily Wire that Owens’ call to debate Shapiro, and her follow-up negotiations of the debate, constituted “disparagement” of the company and Shapiro. The company argued that any further attempt by Owens to debate, as well her suggesting that the debate would expose the Daily Wire’s real “priorities,” constituted criticisms of the site and of Shapiro, criticisms that the arbitrator concluded Owens was barred from expressing under her contract with the company.
The arbitrator thus imposed a gag order of prior restraint on Owens. Among other things, the order banned Owens from saying or doing anything in the future which could tarnish or harm the reputation of the Daily Wire and/or Ben Shapiro. Given that the Daily Wire had argued, and the arbitrator agreed, that Owens’ offers to debate Shapiro about Israel and anti-semitism were themselves “disparaging,” the Daily Wire has ensured that the debate with Owens that they publicly claimed to want could not, in fact, take place. Any such debate would be in conflict with the gag order they obtained on Owens from expressing any criticisms of the site or of Shapiro.”
The ironic thing is that Shapiro will never understand how much his cowardice and “cleverness” is the cause of all the hatred directed toward him. No one envies his manufactured “success”. He’s a miserable little midwit, eaten up by his certain knowledge that he’s an imposter. I know this, because I was there when he was a young man deciding between making his own way and taking the ticket. And against my advice, he chose the latter.
Now he has learned that there is no amount of money that can compensate a man for selling his soul.
The fundamental problem in dealing with scientists in general and biologists in particular is that they literally do not know how stupid they are. Very, very few, if any, of them are even National Merit-level intelligence, which is to say they are not only sub-geniuses, they are relatively low-level midwits. And this was true of them sixty years ago; imagine how much dumber today’s diversity scientists are, especially given their decidedly-inferior modern educations:
The report of the exchange is fascinating, not just because of the substance of the mathematical challenge, but even more because of the logic of the Darwinist response. For example, the mathematician D.S. Ulam argued that it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear. Sir Peter Medawar and C.H. Waddington responded that Ulam was doing his science backwards; the fact was that the eye had evolved and therefore the mathematical difficulties must only be apparent. Ernst Mayer observed that Ulam’s calculations were based on assumptions that might be unfounded, and concluded that ‘Somehow or other by adjusting these figures we will come out all right. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred.’
“The Darwinists were trying to be reasonable, but it was as if Ulam had presented equations proving that gravity is too weak a force to prevent us all from floating off into space. Darwinism to them was not a theory open to refutation but a fact to be accounted for, at least until the mathematicians could produce an acceptable alternative. The discussion became particularly heated after a French mathematician named Schützenberger concluded that ‘there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.’ C.H. Waddington thought he saw where this reasoning was headed, and retorted that ‘Your argument is simply that life must have come about by special creation.’ Schützenberger (and anonymous voices from the audience) shouted ‘No!,’ but in fact the mathematicians did not present an alternative.”
Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 1991
Now, if it’s not immediately apparent how fundamentally retarded this scientific illogic is, imagine that instead of debating the validity of a scientific theory, these gentlemen were in a court of law, and that Waddington was the prosecutor, Schützenberger the defense attorney, and Sir Peter Medawar the judge.
Schützenberger: Your honor, my client could not have committed the attack on the late victim, which the surveillance cameras confirm took place in Philadelphia at 10 PM on April 15th. We have here an airline ticket from Philadelphia to Miami on April 15th that left Philadelphia at 7 PM and landed in Miami at 9 PM, affadavits from fellow passengers and airline stewardesses testifying to my client’s presence on the flight to Miami, and security camera footage from the Miami Hilton at 10 PM, all of which clearly proves my client is not guilty because he was not in Philadelphia at the time the murder took place.
C.H. Waddington: So your argument is simply that the victim was killed for his money!
Schützenberger: No, that’s not my argument. I am not making any argument about the motivations for the murder and I don’t know who was responsible for it. My argument is that my client did not kill the victim. My client could not have killed the victim. It’s not possible for my client to have killed the victim, because the murder took place in Philadelphia at a time when it has been conclusively demonstrated that he was in Miami!
C.H. Waddington: But if the accused didn’t kill the victim, who did? Who is the culprit? What’s the alternative?
Schützenberger: I have no idea. I don’t have an alternative.
C.H. Waddington: Your honor will note that I’ve asked for an alternative theory and the defense refuses to provide one.
Sir Peter: Noted. Is that the best you can do, counselor? Do you have any alternative to the active theory, any alternative at all? I will remind you that the active theory is a consensus that is widely supported by the scientific community, a consensus based on the assumption that your client did, in fact, kill the victim.
Schützenberger: Finding the actual killer is not my job, your honor. I’m a defense attorney, not a detective.
Sir Peter: The counselor will answer the question.
Schützenberger: No, your honor, I do not have an alternative theory.
Sir Peter: Very well. Since no alternative theories have been presented, I have no choice but to pronounce the accused guilty. Bailiff, take him away!
That would be totally absurd, doesn’t it? An absolute parody of justice, truth, and reason. No prosecutor would even attempt to advance such an obviously stupid argument in front of any judge. And yet, that is absolutely, 100-percent confirmed to have been the actual state of what passes for scientific thinking on the subject of evolution for the last sixty years. Don’t ever give scientists even a modicum of intellectual respect on the basis of their profession. Not only have they not earned it, they have repeatedly and reliably demonstrated that their level of philosophical analysis and their ability to discern truth is considerably below that of trial lawyers and public defenders.
Lest you think I exaggerate, consider the attempt of one true Darwinian believer to defend the science on the basis of criticizing my math, which apparently pains him, even though he admits there is no mathematical error.
I’m no biologist, and I do enjoy math. It pains me to see bad math, which is the only reason I keep on poking at this. Ultimately, it’s not even a math error, the error is in the priors. Asserting that 1600 fixations per generation is the highest possible fixation rate is the root.
The reader will, I hope, note that the actual number concerned is not “1600 fixations per generation” but rather “Generations per fixed mutation: 1600”.
BACTERIA Years: 3,800,000,000 Years per generation: 0.000071347 (37.5 mins per generation) Generations per fixed mutation: 1600 Years per fixed mutation: 0.114 Maximum fixed mutations: 33,288,000,916
Source: Sequencing of 19 whole genomes detected 25 mutations that were fixed in the 40,000 generations of the experiment. NATURE, 2009
Maximal Mutations, Vox Day, February 7, 2019
I’ll admit that I probably use the description “reprehensibly stupid” too liberally, but this sort of multi-level stupidity really is reprehensible.
You can’t make yourself smarter, but you can make yourself more prepared than everyone else. One of the ways I was able to break into the game industry was because I knew more about all of the people involved than anyone except a few of the deepest and most experienced insiders.
How did I do that despite being just out of college, with zero contacts in the industry, and never having attended a single industry event? I studied every single issue of Computer Gaming World like a seminary student performing exegesis on a single Bible verse, putting every single name I could find into a database with their position, company, and associated titles. So, when I finally attended CGDC for the first time, I knew most of the guys there and could speak intelligently with them about their past and present projects.
Not only that, but when they would recognize someone they knew, I’d be able to say something like “Carter… is that the Carter from SSI?” Which, almost inevitably, would lead to a friendly introduction from a trusted source. By my second conference, I was already acquainted with two-thirds of the devs there; by the third one, I was speaking at the conference, regarded by most as one of the old school, and was openly recognized a member of the CGW team, being the only active dev who was permitted to write reviews for the magazine.
I truly loved those days. Epic, Blizzard, Activision… the corporate monsters of today were just guys like everyone else. I’ve never felt a sense of unlimited possibility like that before or since.
Paul Pierce, the NBA champion, clearly knew the power of researching people. He was the Celtics’ longtime play-by-play announcer’s favorite, but there was more to their close relationship than mere mutual affection:
People used to say, ‘Boy, it’s great the relationship you have with Paul Pierce,’ because every time, second time through the layup line, Paul would come and give me a hug no matter where I was. People said that’s great. Well, what was happening was Paul would give me the hug and say, ‘Who we got tonight [officiating the game]?’ And I’d say, ‘It’s Chris, Danny’s the Black guy, and Joe is the white guy. He’s kind of bald.’ And then Paul would go through around the layup line, I’d see him go, ‘Hey, Danny, how are you tonight, Paul? What’s happening over there?’ And I swear it used to buy him one or two whistles every game at least.”
There is really no excuse for not bothering to put in the effort of truly knowing the field you’re in. It takes nothing but persistence and a little time. And yet, not one man in a thousand ever bothers to make even minimal efforts in this direction, despite the fact that it reliably pays off no matter what the industry or field.
Thanks to one of our international men of mystery, I’m able to bring you the opening remarks from the chairman of the 1966 Philadelphia symposium on the mathematical challenges to Neo-Darwinism that long preceded my own conclusive mathematical disproof of evolution by natural selection, regardless of the Dawkinsian “probably” that has recently been appended to what is now more formally known as the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow.
Ladies and gentlemen: I want to make just a few introductory remarks. I think it is the distinguishing mark of all true biologists as opposed to mere sectarian specialists that they are deeply interested in the mechanism of evolution. As Dr. Kaplan has explained, the immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian Theory. This dissatisfaction has been expressed from three quarters and is not only scientific.
First of all, religious: Where once the complaint was that evolution happened at all, now the complaint generally is that it happens without Divine motivation. Many of you will have read with incredulous horror the kind of pious bunk written by Teilhard de Chardin on this subject, if Professor Schultzenberger will excuse my putting it that way.
Then, there are philosophical or methodological objections to evolutionary theory. They have been very well voiced by Professor Karl Popper — that the current neo-Darwinian Theory has the methodological defect of explaining too much. It is too difficult to imagine or envisage an evolutionary episode which could not be explained by the formulae of neo-Darwinism.
Finally — and these are really, I think, the only objections that should concern us — there are objections made by fellow scientists who feel that, in the current theory, something is missing, and we look forward to hearing their formulation of what, precisely, is missing. These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them. The very fact that we having this conference is evidence that we are not making light of them.
Sir Peter Medawar, National Institute for Medical Research, 24 April 1966
It’s rather remarkable that within ten years of these professional biologists publicly declaring that they must, no on account, make light of the mathematical objections to their pet theory, my high school biology teacher was telling me that the science was settled and no intelligent, educated person would even consider doubting the sacred Neo-Darwinian dogma.
How things change! Thanks to developments in genetic science, we now have conclusive mathematical evidence of the absolute impossibility of both Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolutions. The hoary old dragon of Darwin has been slain, once and for all. It may not have stopped twitching yet, and the faithful are still hoping against hope for a revisionist third coming, but any impartial and sufficiently numerate observer will admit that it is clearly pining for the fjords.
