Category: Uncategorized

Hundreds of Troops

The script writers are getting lazy. Or, as is more likely the case, desperate. When hundreds of police on the Mexican border can’t stop poor and huddled masses of Africans and South Americans yearning to breathe free, are we really supposed to believe that hundreds of British soldiers are even going to slow down the Russian Army? They wouldn’t even qualify as a speed bump.

Hundreds of British special force troops are ready to deploy to the Ukranian border at a moment’s notice, amid rising tensions and fears of a possible Russian invasion in the region, according to reports.

The UK’s Special Air Service and Parachute Regiment are prepared to enter the region with medics, engineers, signalers, and hundred of paratroopers, The Mirror reported.

“The high readiness element of the brigade was told it may need to deploy at very short notice, a source told The Mirror.

“Between 400 and 600 troops are ready. Their equipment is packed and they are ready to fly to Ukraine and either land or parachute in. They have trained for both eventualities.”

The military move comes after the European Union accused Belarus, which borders both the Ukraine and Poland, of manufacturing a humanitarian crisis by urging migrants to illegally cross into the EU via Poland.

The age of carrier diplomacy is over. So is the short-lived era of the color revolution. If the neocons are successful in starting a war on or near the Russian border, it’s not going to be limited to the region. China and Iran will also take action, because they know that one of them will be next. And the new Axis of Nations is more powerful in every way than the Arsenal of Globohomo, with more population, more soldiers, more nukes, and more industrial capacity.

And isn’t it remarkable how Belarus is being accused of manufacturing the very humanitarian crisis that Angela Merkel caused six years ago? On the basis of this justification, the British should be sending troops to the US southern border and threatening Joe Biden for offering $450,000 in incentives for migrants to illegally cross into the USA.

But it proves once more that Martin van Creveld was right: immigration is war.

DISCUSS ON SG

Why I Insist on Written Debates

If you ever wondered why I no longer do video debates, this is precisely why.

Viewer 1: JD won the debate. I remember watching it. Vox had a formidable opponent and made sure his arguments were well delineated. JD breezed by all of it, and Vox knew it. So what?

Viewer 2: No, he never understood it. If he had, he would have addressed it. Instead, he assiduously avoided it.

Viewer 3: Having read the transcript, I do not see anything which would be described as a technical rebuttal to Vox’s technical points. Just blanket dismissal and repeated references to large numbers.

Viewer 1: Did you watch the debate, live, as I did? The transcript does not show the context between two human beings in debate.

No, what the transcript lacks is not the “context”, but rather, the irrelevant rhetorical posturing. And this isn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened. It’s not just morons interested in evolution who respond to rhetoric and posturing in lieu of facts and reason; we saw exactly the same reaction in morons who favor free trade in the Murphy-Day debate as well as by the alt-retards in the Anglin-Day debate.

In all three cases, neither Gariepy nor Murphy nor Anglin ever even BEGAN to address the primary issue of substance that had been raised. It wasn’t merely three cases of unsuccessful refutations as none of them even tried to refute the core argument that had been presented to them. It was quite clear to me that of the three, only Anglin actually understood what I was saying; he simply elected to punt rather than to engage on an issue he knew he was going to lose. That being said, by virtue of their rhetorical posturing, they managed to convince at least some of the viewers who understood even less of the issues at hand than they did that their erroneous positions were correct.

JFG, for example, never even grasped that he had accomplished nothing more than falling directly into the dilemma which I explicitly laid out for him at the start. He merely chose, on the basis of literally nothing but handwaving and an ontological argument, to disqualify the hammer, and completely failed to realize that in doing so, he had fallen victim to the anvil.

I pointed this out, of course, but JFG was “too tired” to follow my explanation, and there is reason to believe that he could not have managed it even if he’d tried. After all, it took me three attempts to explain the concept of a “mathematical average” to him before he was able to grasp it.

This is why I now insist on written debates, because the written format eliminates the ability of the charlatan to posture his way through a debate in which he is over his head, and permits the audience to review and re-review the material until they fully understand what both sides are saying. And this is probably why I engage in considerably fewer debates these days, because the charlatans are terrified of risking the methodical exposure of their ignorance.

DISCUSS ON SG

Not At This Rate

A logical citation of the massive statistical evidence demonstrating the extreme danger presented by the Covid vaccines:

You’ll see people say that “these events happen all the time.” True, they do. For example, this death of Piermario Morosini that happened in 2012.

But they don’t happen at this rate. No way. That’s the thing nobody can explain. The vaccine advocates find this super-irritating. They have no rational excuse on this. They can’t use ad hominem attacks. They can’t use goofball hand waving arguments. Nothing.

All of these cases have been properly reported and are documented. No mentions (except one case) of vaccinations since the press doesn’t want to create vaccine hesitancy. But the numbers speak for themselves.

It shows that there have been more “events” over a recent 4-month period than in over 20 years, which is more than a 60-fold increase in event rate.

All of these are in full public view so there is no “reporting bias” involved. And the numbers are big enough that nobody can say “oh, that’s just statistical noise.” Not a chance.

We have a very clear mechanism of action and we have overwhelming confirmation from the VAERS data that these vaccines are super dangerous and cause cardiovascular and neurological severe adverse events at a very high rate. Nothing else can compare to the vaccines when we talk about heart damage. So if you believe these events really did happen (they are in plain sight after all), then you must ascribe them to the vaccine since there is nothing else all these people have in common that could causes such an extreme elevation of events.

Midwits love to say “correlation is not causation” because they think it makes them sound smart. But correlation is the first indication of causation. And a 6,428 percent increase in something after a specific input is a very, very, very strong indicator of a causal connection, especially in the absence of any other rational explanation for the increase. It isn’t conclusive proof, but it is very highly reliable evidence that the conclusive proof will be there when the matter is scrutinized.

It is also evidence that the truth is in the process of breaking through the media barrier to the public. This is why the parties responsible are desperate to start a war, any war, with pretty much anyone willing to fight the militaries under their influence, in order to change the subject.

DISCUSS ON SG

We’re Not Locked Out By You

You’re locked out by us:

A majority of vaccinated Americans do not want unvaccinated relatives attending their holiday parties, and almost half have cut off family members over their vaccination status, according to a new poll. According to a survey of 2,000 Americans conducted by OnePoll this month, 63% of those vaccinated against Covid-19 “don’t feel comfortable” allowing their unvaccinated relatives to attend their holiday parties, while 58% have completely broken contact with family members who refuse the jab.

Around two-thirds of Americans said they felt unwelcome at family parties unless they got vaccinated first, however only 22% of unvaxxed reported being excluded from an event so far.

Almost a half of unvaccinated respondents had cut off communication with their vaccinated relatives for not respecting their decision not to get jabbed. Despite the risks of perpetual family alienation, 14% of those polled said they would never get a Covid-19 vaccine.

First, let me point out that this is ridiculous. I have no problem with any guest in my home being either vaccinated or unvaccinated, although I’d prefer to not be in too close contact with the vaccinated in the first week after their vaccination due to the known issue of shedding. While I haven’t personally experienced that particular problem, I do know one individual who has; it is a genuine problem and one that is best avoided if possible.

That being said, if a vaccinated family member cuts you off or disinvites you because you refused to sacrifice your health to the vaccine regime, don’t permit them to reestablish contact once their absurdity of their position finally becomes apparent to them. They have demonstrated what their priorities are and the true nature of their character… and you are much better off without people like that in your life.

I have never had any cause to regret cutting contact with former friends and family members after they revealed themselves to possess unacceptably flawed characters. To the contrary, life is considerably more enjoyable when one no longer feels obliged to endure the constant stream of nonsense that inevitably flows from the deceitful, the depthless, and the deranged.

DISCUSS ON SG

Redefinitions

“Democracy” now means “Globo-satanry“, just as “America” now means “an identity with which anyone can identify”:

Tucker kept asking him why Americans should go fight and die for democracy in the Ukraine, and he just kept saying that it’s our duty to defend democracy. He also said that Joe Biden isn’t doing global democracy hard enough, and that the failure to establish democracy in Afghanistan is proof that we need to go to war with Russia.

He further said that he is not actually talking about going to war with Russia, he just wants to send troops to the Ukraine to stop a war with Russia.

It’s all just such bullshit. As any long-time reader of this site is aware, the democratically-elected president of the Ukraine was overthrown in a coup organized by the US State Department and the EU in 2014. These people were literally paying Ukrainian thugs and neo-Nazis 50 euros a day to riot and attack the cops. Then there was a conspiracy involving the shooting of ZOG-backed rioters by a secret assassin who was never arrested. The people organizing the protests said that the government had ordered the assassinations, and the rioters rushed the government buildings and overthrew the elected government. Then a new entirely Jewish government was established by the West.

Everyone knows this happened. Everyone knows that the current government of the Ukraine was not put in power by elections. But they just lie about it.

This word-witchery is how the globo-satanists can declare, with a straight face, that the US military must defend the borders of a) Taiwan, b) Ukraine, and c) Poland while simultaneously being prevented from defending the borders of the United States.

The Barbarossa Question

I tend to agree with the historical revisionists concerning the planned Soviet invasion of Germany, but I disagree that the burden of proof is on them any more than it is on the traditionalists. The fact that one is the first to reach a conclusion does not indicate that the conclusion is the most accurate one.

In the years 1939-1941, Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with the idea that war would be inevitable. Stalin had been preparing for that inevitability both before and during those years: This is evidenced from many developments, from the economy, to propaganda, to Red Army deployments at the border. With his poker game conception, the only question that remained is who would become Stalin’s main adversary? After the fall of France – which happened so swiftly that it baffled and enraged Stalin – it became more and more obvious that the main adversary would be Hitler. Rather than picking up the scraps of two foes who had battled each-other to exhaustion, he would now have to face Hitler alone on the European continent

There were good reasons for Stalin to fear encirclement, but even the Soviet defensive strategy contained fundamentally offensive operations which included defeating and conquering the enemy on his own territory. The neglect of defensive lines, the offensive posture of Soviet divisions, Stalin lambasting the Maginot defense strategy of the French, the brutal imposition of the Stalinist system on the conquered territories in the years 1939-1940 all point to Stalin not being afraid of the Germans. Instead it points that he was confident enough to fend them off and counter-strike in case of an attack.

There have been many Soviet war plans, many of which can be regarded to be contingency plans in case of an attack. Germans had these too even before Operation Barbarossa was decided upon. The May war plan was the plan that contained proposals for the Soviets to strike first. To date, the revisionists, especially Ewan Mawdsley, have mostly compared the May war plan with other Soviet war plans, while I attempted to compare the May war plan with the mobilization plan of 1941 and saw many similarities. MP-41 predates German deployments to the Soviet border. The completion of MP-41 would have enabled the Soviets to carry out the May war plan. The biggest issue as I have already highlighted was the date at which the Soviets would launch their preemptive strike.

Stalin’s rhetoric and behavior in the months February-May cannot possibly be construed as him waging a campaign of appeasement against the Germans. Soviet deployments, along with aggressive propaganda campaigns that intended to fuel hatred against Germans, interrogation reports of captured soviet soldiers saying that they were expected to attack soon and the stepping-up of military production all point to Stalin intending to strike against Hitler. Stalin may have become concerned in June when Germans completed their deployments, probably a lot faster than he expected. But at that point, it was too late to shift all his armies from an offensive to a defensive posture. Alternatively, Stalin may have remained confident for his armies abilities to hold off the Germans at the border in order to launch a counter-attack. Zhukov’s and Timoshenko’s directives on 25 June to counter-strike and capture Poland and East-Prussia certainly points in that direction.

So did Stalin intend to invade Germany? Yes I think that he did. But it needs to be stated that both traditionalists as well as revisionists operate on circumstantial evidence alone, granted the burden of proof is on the revisionists. I hope to have convinced the reader that the evidence points into the direction of Stalin preparing to invade Germany.

Frankly, I think the author gives too much credence to the “see no logic” traditional crowd. Anyone who pays any serious attention to history knows that the Soviets were determined to avoid the situation they faced in 1917; the Bolsheviks were – and remain – experts in the strategy of “let’s you and him fight”.

The obvious reason that Stalin wasn’t ready, and therefore the reason Hitler was able to strike first, was because Germany defeated France at least one year sooner than anyone had any reason to believe possible. And the scale of the Soviet preparations, which were considerably larger than those of Operation Barbarossa, was both why it took Stalin longer and why he didn’t expect the Germans to consider themselves ready to attack him when they did.

DISCUSS ON SG

What is So Hard to Understand?

What part of “don’t talk to the media” is so hard to understand? When even experienced and highly successful members of the media regularly find themselves publicly impaled by their colleagues, how do you think that you, a totally inexperienced member of the public who has never, ever even spoken with a member of the mainstream media before, are going to fare?

On Thursday, Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy broadcasted a livestream presser to pick apart Business Insider‘s recent report on him.

Last week, Insider released a report — behind its paywall — that describes purported violent sexual encounters between Portnoy, 44, and two women in their early 20s. In essence, Insider accuses Portnoy of raping women, which Portnoy has denied.

Portnoy begins the broadcast by showing a screenshot of the initial email Julia Black, the author of the Insider story, sent him eight months ago. In it, Black claims the original story idea didn’t have an angle or agenda, that the outlet simply planned to focus on Portnoy’s career.

Here’s a look at the email Black sent Portnoy:

Portnoy says that Black and Business Insider then quickly shifted away from a look into Portnoy’s career to another, more explosive story idea that would incite reader interest and still protect the publication itself in court since Portnoy could win a lawsuit only if he could prove malice. The new idea? That Portnoy had raped young women. Portnoy says the outlet purposely implies rape throughout the story without using the exact term so as to avoid libel charges.

“As I’ve come to learn, this was Julia covering her tracks to write a hit piece,” Portnoy says. “They knew what [they were] writing from the beginning. But if I could prove that [they were] always out to make me look like a sexual monster deviant, then I can sue [them]. This is like ‘No, no, we had good intentions.’ Yeah, right.”

Portnoy also says immediately following the release of the article, an Insider staffer contacted Barstool’s advertisers asking whether they stand by Portnoy. According to Portnoy, Insider was not seeking comment about the story but rather reactions from sponsors after the story was already published, presumably to pressure them into parting ways with Barstool.

I can’t tell you how many times the morons who are practically wetting their pants over the fact that the media actually wants to talk to them for the first time in their otherwise-unremarkable lives tell me the same thing in order to justify their attention-seeking desire to see their name in print:

  • No, it’s okay, they just want to hear my side of the story.
  • No, it’s okay, it’s just a story about X.
  • No, it’s okay, the reporter was really friendly.
  • No, it’s okay, the reporter was really nice.
  • No, it’s okay, I think the reporter is really on our side.
  • No, it’s okay, the reporter promised it wouldn’t be a hit piece.
  • No, it’s okay, I’m going to record the interview myself.

It never works. It NEVER works. FFS, look at how Portnoy, who has a very large media megaphone himself and is now attempting to use it in self-defense, got completely hornswoggled by thinking the story was about his career – which wasn’t at all implausible – when the reporter was actually setting him up for a hit piece alleging that he is a rapist intended to serve as the basis for a deplatforming campaign targeting his organization’s advertisers.

Never, ever talk to the media. Just don’t do it. You’re not too smart for them. You’re not too clever for them. They know what they are doing. They are very experienced at using people just like you. They’ve done it HUNDREDS of times to people who thought exactly the same thing as you and learned to regret it. There is no point whatsoever, because if you somehow manage to avoid giving them what they want to support the hit piece, they simply won’t run the story.

Now it is true that I do, very occasionally, talk to personal acquaintances, authors that we publish, and organizations that sell our products. If you are a three-time nationally syndicated columnist who has been on the board of a news organization and runs a publishing operation, then perhaps you can justify the occasional exception when you actually know the individuals involved well enough to accurately discern their true intentions. But note that even with that caveat, I still never talk to anyone in the mainstream media, not even to individuals I have known for decades.

As a side note, the Portnoy situation is why we never seek advertisers or accept advertising offers. We rely solely upon sales and subscriptions, because doing so eliminates an entire line of attack against us.

DISCUSS ON SG

Pfizer Faked the Trials Too

It wasn’t just Moderna faking the clinical trials. A group of Swedish scientists points out that the Pfizer clinical trials did not produce reliable results concerning the genetic therapy’s safety.

A Pfizer subcontractor is being accused of falsifying data, unblinding patients, hiring inadequately trained vaccinators, and failing to follow up on reported adverse reactions during the company’s Covid-19 vaccine trials.

These shocking revelations were reported in a paper published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), revealing that the company, called Ventavia Research Group, heavily manipulated the phase III study for Pfizer’s covid vaccine during the autumn of 2020, just months before it was rushed into production and distribution.

This incriminating information was sent to the BMJ by a company whistle-blower, which in turn prompted a group of 16 Swedish doctors and researchers to circulate a petition calling on the Pfizer vaccine to no longer be administered in the Nordic country.

Sputnik News reported: “The staff who performed quality checks were reportedly overwhelmed by the amount of problems they discovered. The BMJ (study) concluded that the trial raised questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight.”

The 16 signatories of the petition called the revelations “extremely serious,” adding that the adverse reactions associated with Pfizer’s jabs are “gigantic.”

“For instance, in Sweden alone during the ten months that vaccination has taken place wholly 83,744 suspected side effects have been reported – which is more than ten times more than all side effects reported for all drugs and vaccines per year in the immediately preceding years, for a total of about 25,000 substances, the authors emphasised,” Sputnik explained.

The 16 Swedish researchers say that it is clear that Pfizer’s phase III clinical trial was “not performed in a scientifically acceptable manner.” This also means that its results “cannot be considered reliable:

We knew from the very start that the safety data would be faked and that the unsafe, ineffective gene therapies would be approved by complicit government agencies. But now the hard data is coming in to conclusively prove that was exactly what happened.

The so-called “Covid vaccines” are the biggest fraud since global warming carbon credits were invented. And isn’t it fascinating, and entirely predictable, to see how the “trust the science” crowd refuses to believe anything actual scientists doing actual science say about the gene therapies these days?

And speaking of the Swedes and trusting science, a large scientific study there has determined AZ and Pfizer !vaxxes lose their effectiveness after 2 months and have none at all after 4 months (AZ) and 7 months (Pf).

DISCUSS ON SG