The Mandela Affect is Real

This sort of supernatural gaslighting should not surprise anyone who can still recall the warnings about the extent to which people will be deceived.

The Bible has changed, this is not false memories or hundredth monkey syndrome. This is real, many people have the correct passage memorized, as we would expect from dedicated Christians. “The lion shall lay down with the lamb” is not, nor ever has been, the wolf. There is no mention of wolf in any of the lion and lamb passages in the bible except for in this incorrect reality in which we find ourselves.

I have asked my Christian family members very specifically; what animal lays down with the lamb? My born again Christian brother in law who is an avid bible reader answered correctly, the Lion. He did not say wolf, wolf didn’t even cross his mind, wolf was the farthest animal from his mind and he was as surprised as us all that wolf is in place of lion. Lion is/was and always will be the correct answer.

I then asked him, which books in the bible do you recall the lion laying down with the lamb in? To which, once again collaborating my own recall, he replied Revelation, Isaiah and possibly Daniel.

I asked the same question to my mum, my brother and my sister. All of whom immediately said lion without hesitation. A Christian couple who my mum was staying with remember it being lion too.

I even asked a random taxi driver this morning. He said lion. He had no recollection of a wolf. If wolf had ever been a thing (especially the primary symbol), then this layman taxi driver would have said wolf not lion. Wolf isn’t a thing, never has been. Not in the reality that you, me and the vast majority of people are actually from.

Then this evening, on the way home, I asked another taxi driver, a Christian, she replied Lion, then she hesitated and said bear. She was confused when I told her that it was now a wolf. She said let me check my Arabic bible, she opened her glove box and pulled out her Arabic bible, it also reads wolf now in place of lion. She was shocked.

What troubles me about that bible change is that the lion has been replaced with a wolf. The wolf represents the devil. So, the bibles in this reality now essentially say the devil will dwell with Jesus (the wolf will dwell with the lamb). You can see why that is disturbing?

However, it’s important to remember that while their demonic power is great, it is not all-encompassing, and while their cunning is formidable, they are not all-knowing nor are they beyond making obvious mistakes that reveal their deception.

For example, there is absolutely no chance that the Lion ever lay down with the Wolf. Not only do our memories of Scripture prove otherwise, but there are many examples to be found in the texts that they neglected to alter or of which they never knew. Consider, for example, this old text from a Jerry Pournelle collection which cites an older essay by the late, great science fiction editor John W. Campbell.

When the Lion shall lie down with the Lamb—the Lion is going to be in serious trouble. The Lamb, of course, can baaaaah happily as it goes gamboling of through its breakfast, lunch, and dinner supply—but the Lion’s in a different spot. He can’t live on grass. His digestive system is intrinsically incapable of extracting nourishment from herbal food supplies. It’s no good trying to persuade him to learn a new way of life, and be happy eating grass, fruits, and twigs; he can’t.

The Barbarians From Within, John W. Campbell

Now, there is absolutely no chance that Campbell, who was a very well-read individual, could possibly have gotten the Biblical reference wrong, especially in light of the fact that he was actively thinking about the implications of what would happen if a lion actually adapted the lifestyle and habits of a lamb. But if you’re not convinced that an atheist wouldn’t have gotten it wrong, perhaps an even more intellectually formidable Catholic didn’t.

It is constantly assured, especially in our Tolstoyan tendencies, that when the lion lies down with the lamb the lion becomes lamb-like. But that is brutal annexation and imperialism on the part of the lamb. That is simply the lamb absorbing the lion instead of the lion eating the lamb. The real problem is— Can the lion lie down with the lamb and still retain his royal ferocity? That is the problem the Church attempted; that is the miracle she achieved.

Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton

Where, one wonders, are the proverbial wolves? These examples of truthful residue is no different than my confidence that the renaming of The Berenstain Bears is the same sort of intentional gaslighting, since I always thought that the correct pronunciation was berenSTEEN rather than berenSTINE. That’s the sort of issue that could only have arisen if the pre-Mandela Effect title was The Berenstein Bears.

The lies and deception surrounding Covid and the vaxxes is just the beginning of the Grand Deception. More changes, and more lies, are coming. Keep your eyes open and always remember that inversion is a reliable sign of evil and falsehood. I don’t know why they are lying. I don’t know how they are attempting to deceive us. But I know – I am absolutely, 100-percent certain – that they are doing so.

DISCUSS ON SG

UATV Service Notice

Unauthorized is getting some big updates to its backend and content servers tonight so the site will be down for a while. A notice about the update has been posted on the homepage; even if the site remains accessible, as long as that notice is posted videos should not be expected to play normally. The interruption is not expected to last more than two hours, and it will not begin until Owen has finished his stream today.

DISCUSS ON SG

ESG Will Break Corporations

The use of Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance loans is almost certainly guaranteed to backfire on the corporations that are taking advantage of them.

The term “ESG” was originally coined by the United Nations Environment Program Initiative in 2005, but the methodology was not fully applied to the corporate world until the past six years when ESG investment skyrocketed.

ESG is about money; loans given out by top banks and foundations to companies that meet the guidelines of “stakeholder capitalism.” Companies must show that they are actively pursuing a business environment that prioritizes woke virtues and climate change restrictions. These loans are not an all prevailing income source, but ESG loans are highly targeted, they are growing in size (for now) and they are very easy to get as long as a company is willing to preach the social justice gospel as loudly as possible.

Deloitte’s Insights studies show that ESG assets compounded at 16% p.a. between 2014 and 2018, now account for 25% of total market assets, and they believe that ESG could account for 50% of market share globally by 2024.

These loans become a form of leverage over the business world – Once they get a taste of that easy money they keep coming back. Many of the loan targets attached to ESG are rarely enforced and penalties are few and far between. Primarily, an ESG funded company must propagandize, that is all. They must propagandize their employees and they must propagandize their customers. As long as they do this, that sweet loan capital keeps flowing.

It’s enough to keep corporations addicted, but not enough to keep them satiated. Diversity hiring quotas based on skin color and sexual orientation rather than merit help make the overlords happy. Pushing critical race theory smooths the way for more cash. Carbon controls and climate change narratives really makes them happy. And, promoting trans-trenders and gender fluidity makes them ecstatic. Each participating company gets it’s own ESG rating and the more woke they go, the higher their rating climbs and the more money they can get.

However, this sort of loan for something that is guaranteed to reduce a corporation’s actual business revenue is also guaranteed to harm the corporation over time. Look at Marvel, for example. Money flowing in from ESG loans might pay for blackwashing and transgendering its heroes, but it can only replace the sales revenues being lost for a limited time.

And unlike sales revenues, loans eventually have to be repaid. Even if the converged banks write off the initial loans, eventually they will want to collect their pound of flesh, the cost of which can only increase as interest rates rise from their historic lows.

ESG is the sort of thing that requires free money to implement, and it is a particularly pernicious form of corporate cancer. It’s only a hypothesis at this point, but one might well build a successful investment strategy around the knowledge that the more ESG money a corporation takes, the more likely it is that the corporation’s sales are falling.

DISCUSS ON SG

It’s Not MY Fault!

Rape Rape attempts to avoid taking the blame for the disastrous end of Game of Thrones.

The legendary HBO saga ended back in summer 2019, and there’s no doubt most fans were disappointed by the dud of an ending we got.

Well, Martin wants people to know he was pushed “out of the loop” as the show progressed by showrunners D.B. Weiss and David Benioff.

“By season 5 and 6, and certainly 7 and 8, I was pretty much out of the loop,” Martin told The New York Times. When asked by The NYT why Benioff and Weiss iced out the man responsible for creating “GoT,” he responded with, “I don’t know — you have to ask Dan and David.”

A rep for the two men didn’t give a comment to the Times.

For those of you who might not remember, there was serious outrage about the ending of “Game of Thrones.” Fans had invested nearly a decade of time into the series expecting some kind of epic conclusion. Instead, we got a mini-UN meeting, Bran became king, Arya became Dora the Explorer, Jon went north and Sansa became queen in the north. The only part of the conclusion that made sense was Sansa’s storyline.

The rest of it was laughably bad, and the backlash was immediate and brutal.

Strange. He wasn’t so hot on giving all the credit to Dan and David back when the show was well-regarded. If he didn’t like the ending – which he reportedly gave them – perhaps he should have just, you know, finished writing the books.

DISCUSS ON SG

Medical Science is Faked

Around 70 percent of all medical science trials are faked.

As he described in a webinar last week, Ian Roberts, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, began to have doubts about the honest reporting of trials after a colleague asked if he knew that his systematic review showing the mannitol halved death from head injury was based on trials that had never happened. He didn’t, but he set about investigating the trials and confirmed that they hadn’t ever happened. They all had a lead author who purported to come from an institution that didn’t exist and who killed himself a few years later. The trials were all published in prestigious neurosurgery journals and had multiple co-authors. None of the co-authors had contributed patients to the trials, and some didn’t know that they were co-authors until after the trials were published. When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.” Why, Roberts wondered, did he publish the trial? None of the trials have been retracted.

Later Roberts, who headed one of the Cochrane groups, did a systematic review of colloids versus crystalloids only to discover again that many of the trials that were included in the review could not be trusted…

Mol, like Roberts, has conducted systematic reviews only to realise that most of the trials included either were zombie trials that were fatally flawed or were untrustworthy. What, he asked, is the scale of the problem? Although retractions are increasing, only about 0.04% of biomedical studies have been retracted, suggesting the problem is small. But the anaesthetist John Carlisle analysed 526 trials submitted to Anaesthesia and found that 73 (14%) had false data, and 43 (8%) he categorised as zombie. When he was able to examine individual patient data in 153 studies, 67 (44%) had untrustworthy data and 40 (26%) were zombie trials.

So much for the “studies show” rhetoric. Karl Denninger is, as you might expect, taking a calm and measured approach to the news.

Our government has run a scam shop for the last couple of decades. Everyone seems to consider this is just a “cost of doing business” and that somehow, this is a monetary thing mostly or even only. No its not — not even in the main. Oh sure, you get screwed out of thousands per-person every year in the medical field through their monopolistic and other price-fixing practices, all of which under 15 USC Chapter 1 are felonies, but the monetary harm to your wallet is trivial in comparison to years of life lost or even your immediate disability or death.

Should we consider all medical advice and “studies” to be frauds until proved otherwise?

Yes.

We should have decades ago.

The convergence of science and medicine is rending both completely unfit for purpose and unable to perform their primary functions.

DISCUSS ON SG

You’re Not Neutral When You Choose a Side

Switzerland belatedly discovers that it can’t redefine the concept of neutrality.

Russia has turned down a Swiss offer to represent Ukrainian interests in Russia and Moscow’s interests in Ukraine because it no longer considers Switzerland a neutral country.

Switzerland has a long diplomatic tradition of acting as an intermediary between countries whose relations have broken down, but Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Ivan Nechayev said on Thursday this was not possible in the current situation.

“The Swiss were indeed interested in our opinion on the possible representation of Ukraine’s interests in Russia and Russia’s in Ukraine,” Nechayev said. “We very clearly answered that Switzerland had unfortunately lost its status of a neutral state and could not act either as an intermediary or a representative. Bern has joined illegal Western sanctions against Russia.”

Switzerland has mirrored nearly all the sanctions that the European Union imposed on Russia over its military intervention in Ukraine.

No independent sovereign nation is going to trust the Swiss any longer or permit them to act as a neutral intermediary now that their federal government has not only taken sides in the NATO-Russian war, but foolishly chosen the losing side. If the current Federal Council had been in charge when WWII started, it would have taken the side of the Axis and gotten the country occupied by 1944.

This really isn’t that surprising. If the federal government ever decides to redefine chocolate to mean “something that isn’t chocolate”, the demand for Swiss chocolate will collapse too.

If you are as others see you, then the recent statement by a Russian foreign ministry spokesperson that “Switzerland had unfortunately lost its status of a neutral state” could be a tipping point in any understanding of what neutrality and Swiss neutrality mean. It is one thing for the 200-year-old Swiss “perpetual neutrality” recognised at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to be questioned internally, but for a major power, a member of the United Nations Security Council, to make such a declaration adds a new dimension to the ongoing domestic and global discussions of what neutrality means.

Neutrality means not taking sides. If you take a side, if you engage in economic sanctions or military conflict, then you obviously are not neutral. It’s not just the Russians who recognize that Switzerland is no longer a neutral state, but China and the rest of the BRICSIA coalition too. And what is the significance of “international law” that 80 percent of the global population does not recognize or respect?

DISCUSS ON SG

Reflections on a Gamma Icon

A Gamma wonders if perhaps he might have done better to avoid patterning his behavior on an iconic Hollywood Gamma.

A generation of American male teenagers, me included, saw themselves in Duckie—charming, quirky and overlooked. Duckie belonged an elite gang of best friends “Pretty in Pink” screenwriter John Hughes made the beating heart of his ’80s teen filmography—Cameron Frye in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” Farmer Ted in “Sixteen Candles” and Watts in “Some Kind of Wonderful”—characters who embodied the pain of being young and not yet able to be honest about your own desires.

Beyond Hughes’ other sidekicks, “Duckie” has become synonymous with “weird friend thrown over for safe, popular choice,” adolescent canon reinforced by a generation of boys who mimicked Duckie—in dress, manner and seduction—to joke and serenade their way into the hearts of their dream girls.

Disciples of Duckie, we had it all wrong.

No, you don’t get to be with the girl of your dreams just because you want to. No, you don’t get to avoid telling her how you feel and then resent her for showing interest in another guy. No, it’s not romantic, but rather a little sad that you can only express how you feel to her father and in charming but empty gestures like lip-synching Otis Redding’s “Try a Little Tenderness.” And no, you aren’t an unsung hero because your dream girl doesn’t dream of you. You’re a bad best friend for not respecting her decisions and thinking that means her love for you isn’t worth anything.

Re-watch “Pretty in Pink” and Duckie comes off not as a role model but as a cautionary tale about what we can destroy while growing up: The movie may end happily for everyone — even Duckie, who doesn’t win Andie’s heart but nobly tells her to forgive Blane for canceling on taking her to the prom. Before all that, Duckie comes dangerously close to losing Andie forever: Not 30 seconds after the Otis Redding serenade, Blane shows up to take Andie on their first date. Duckie, not knowing about the date, accuses Andie of disrespecting herself by going out with a rich guy, and then threatens to not be there (i.e., not be her friend) if she gets her heart broken.

Never mind that Duckie doesn’t know Blane and has no claim on Andie, and, since Andie is a smart, self-possessed, attractive young woman, she has probably received this kind of attention before. Since Andie and Duckie have been friends since childhood, Duckie having his world rocked when Andie goes on a date feels less like unfairness and more like Duckie ignoring an entire adolescence’s worth of evidence that Andie isn’t just his pal or his valentine, but a woman and a person in her own right.

“But Duckie’s pain was real!,” I just heard a squad of ex-Duckies cry. I used this excuse to not grieve my own teenage heartbreak but instead make it the heartbreaker’s fault. I wish had known better than to think my high school best friend/crush would fall for me after months of not letting on, and then getting mad when she fell for someone else, and in between trying to woo her with a lip-synch performance (mine was Mötley Crüe’s “Home Sweet Home.” Laugh all you want.).

It strikes me that the primary challenge of the Gamma is overcoming his intrinsic narcissism. Again and again, in fiction and in real life, we observe the Gamma’s total inability to grasp that everything is not about him.

The Alpha jock doesn’t hate you. He doesn’t think about you at all when you’re not actively annoying him or one of the women in his orbit. The hot cheerleader doesn’t despise you. In fact, she would be offended by the very idea that she had any opinion about you at all. The normal people don’t particularly dislike you, they just want you to shut up and leave them alone. The Girl of Your Dreams is not, and will never be, attracted by the strength of your desire for and/or your devotion to her.

And literally no one thinks you’re charming or roguish. Snark and sarcasm are not wit. Neither are movie quotes, however apt. Just stop it already.

The world isn’t out to get the Duckies of the world. It simply doesn’t like them very much because they’re weird and reliably annoying narcissists.

In sum, the Gamma’s emotional pain is no one else’s fault and no one else’s problem.

DISCUSS ON SG