Kimmel is Back

As expected, Disney didn’t wait very long before bringing Jimmy Kimmel back.

Jimmy Kimmel’s return to late-night TV is set to be a ratings disaster after 70 ABC affiliate stations said they would not be broadcasting Tuesday’s show.

Nexstar said Tuesday morning it would not be screening Jimmy Kimmel Live! on the 32 ABC stations it owns, Variety reported, joining fellow broadcaster Sinclair who already announced their decision. Sinclair’s stations include KOMO in Seattle and KATU in Portland – two liberal enclaves whose locals are natural Kimmel viewers and likely vital to his success. The company owns a total 38 ABC affiliates.

That means close to a third of ABC’s 230 local-level stations will not run the network’s flagship late-night show, which was pulled off air last Wednesday. Kimmel’s show will also be drained of vital advertiser cash that would have been spent had his show been screened on the affiliates as usual.

The thing is, Kimmel’s show was already a ratings disaster, so that’s clearly not something that concerns Disney. For some reason, 10 years after the publication of SJWS ALWAYS LIE, conservatives still believe that converged corporations care about profit.

But as Kimmel’s restoration proves, again, profit is not their primary concern.

DISCUSS ON SG

OF COURSE IT WAS THE VACCINES

A summary of the autism roundup:

Autism = 1 in 31 (1 in 12 for boys) – Hyperpandemic

Multifactorial Causes:
A. Vaccines
B. Acetaminophen supra-additive interaction
C. Folate deficiency

FDA will notify physicians that

  1. vaccine schedules are too aggressive / excessive / bundled
  2. the use of acetaminophen should be eliminated as a treatment for vaccine reactions
  3. the use of acetaminophen should be eliminated during pregnancy
  4. An end to silencing and demonizing mothers (parents) who cite vaccine injury
  5. “We will perform the studies which should have been done 25 years ago.”

This is not even remotely surprising. Vaccines are one of the worst and most harmful inventions in human history. They never accomplished even one-tenth of what they are popularly believed to have accomplished and they have done an incredible amount of harm to children and adults around the world.

DISCUSS ON SG

Lower Your Expectations

A lot of people were very disappointed with the behavior of doctors during the Covid period. But they shouldn’t have been, because doctors, like a lot of things in Clown World, are still coasting undeserved on the past.

This is what most people imagine doctors vow in taking the Hippocratic Oath.

Those taking the “original” Hippocratic Oath promise to:

  • respect and support their teachers
  • share medical knowledge with others who are interested
  • use their knowledge of medicine and diet to help patients
  • avoid harming patients, including providing no “deadly medicine” even if requested to do so
  • not provide a “remedy” that causes an abortion
  • seek help from other physicians (such as a surgeon) when necessary
  • avoid “mischief,” “injustice,” and “sexual relations” during visits to patients’ homes
  • keep patient information confidential.

In reality, less than 2 percent of doctors take that oath. Many never take any oath at all. So manage your expectations accordingly.

DISCUSS ON SG

Neocons and the Fall of NATO

Robert Kagan, the eminence grise of the neocons, has been steadily ratcheting down his objectives. Now he’s merely hoping to preserve the existence of NATO.

Putin’s primary goal right now is to force Ukraine’s surrender. Aiding Ukraine has already begun to be a controversial subject in Poland; the prospect of Russian attacks in retaliation could drive up opposition, especially if the United States proves unreliable. That in turn will force Ukrainians to contemplate a world without foreign assistance.

But Putin also has his eye on a bigger prize: the collapse of the NATO alliance. For many months Putin has been waging a “shadow war” against NATO member states—one that the Center for European Policy Analysis describes as “a concerted and coordinated campaign of attacks” aimed at raising the costs and risks to those nations aiding Ukraine. These have included sabotage of key infrastructure, arson, and assassination attempts against European defense executives. The Trump administration’s response has been to tell the Europeans they need to defend themselves, because the United States can no longer afford to do so; to hint at substantial withdrawals of American forces from Europe; and, most recently, to cancel a multiyear defense-training program for the Baltic allies.

The “shadow war” was a characteristic Putin probe to see what the United States would tolerate. The Trump administration’s lack of response encouraged Putin to take the next step and bring the “shadow war” out from the shadows. By overtly attacking Poland, Putin has forced the question of America’s security commitment to the fore. For Trump to do nothing in response to the constant strikes against civilian targets in Ukraine was one thing. If he does nothing in response to a Russian attack on Poland, Europeans will have to stop fooling themselves and face the fact that the Americans really aren’t there for them.

Of course, you have to learn how to read between the lines with people like this. While it’s true that Putin would like to see NATO collapse, he’s obviously not trying to accomplish that by sending a few old drones to crash into country houses in Poland or buzzing the Stockholm airport. These are just the pathetic false flags being waved by the Europeans in a futile attempt to talk the US military into defending them in the war against Russia they started.

If Ukraine doesn’t surrender, NATO will be destroyed. NATO will likely fall apart on its own when the USA withdraws from Europe, but contra Kagan’s ahistorical assertions, it never had any ability to defeat Russia at any time since 2022.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Miracle of the Man of Steel

It didn’t take long for the scriptwriters to address one of the issues that was raised immediately here, as well as every other place where anyone had ever gone deer hunting.

The surgeon who operated on Charlie Kirk said the bullet that killed him miraculously did not exit his neck, likely saving others from getting hit. Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet revealed on Saturday night that he had spoken with the surgeon who made the comments directly to him.

In a post on X, Kolvet wrote: ‘I apologize this is somewhat graphic, but in this case, the fact that there wasn’t an exit wound is probably another miracle, and I want people to know.’

The surgeon told Kolvet that the bullet ‘absolutely should have gone through, which is very very normal for a high powered, high velocity round’.

‘I’ve seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two,’ the surgeon told Kolvet.

A .30-06 bolt action rifle, the kind that was discovered hidden in the woods after Kirk was killed, is used to kill deer, elk, moose, bears and other big game animals. Because this rifle can kill animals six times bigger than humans, the fact that Kirk’s neck stopped this bullet was an ‘absolute miracle’, according to the surgeon Kolvet spoke with.

‘His bone was so healthy and the density was so so impressive that he’s like the man of steel. It should have just gone through and through. It likely would have killed those standing behind him too,’ the surgeon said to Kolvet.

They really do assume people are stupid and will simply believe everything they’re told, no matter how nonsensical. Safe and effective indeed!

DISCUSS ON SG

The Theranos Fraud

A former hedge fund venture capitalist observes some of the more peculiar aspects of the Theranos story.

Over the last 20 years, part of my own work has been raising money from wealthy investors. Based on that experience, I find the Elizabeth Holmes story completely impossible to believe. Now, my experience was different in that I wasn’t raising money for a tech startup and I never worked in Silicon Valley. Rather, I sought funding for hedge fund ventures. But in essence, the process is the same: you go to wealthy investors, pitch your project and hope to raise funds. Your counterparts are shopping for investments that can give them a high return on capital.

The experience gave me a good sense of the way wealthy individuals make their investment decisions. For starters, they are not stupid; they are usually quite rigorous and don’t easily fall for cosmetics or charm. It’s true that some investors spray money on startup ventures less discriminately with the rationale that some projects will succeed. Typically they’ll look at your team, business plan, demand some proof of concept, and if they’re half-convinced that you have a shot at succeeding, they might give you some money. But in such cases we’re normally talking about relatively smaller sums – say, a few hundred thousand bucks or something in that ballpark.

But when it comes to large sums of money, investors tend to be very demanding. Venture capital funds tend to specialize in a limited number of industries and they use domain experts to vet prospective investments. Their job is to conduct thorough due diligence on potential investments and distill the most likely future success stories out of many, many applicants. This process is itself costly and time-consuming, and I would expect that in Silicon Valley, which attracts top notch creative talent from all over the world, the process is quick to eliminate candidates that fail to convince that they have a sound concept, competent management team and a compelling business strategy.

The cosmetics alone – the stories, visions, displays of confidence or personal charm – they won’t even get you past the gatekeepers if the stuff behind the façade doesn’t convince. In Elizabeth Holmes’s case, even minimal due diligence should have eliminated her: she set out to revolutionize health care but had no qualifications or experience in medicine and only rudimentary training in biochemistry. In almost all cases, her patents specified design of future solutions but not the functionality. She published no white papers or technical specifications, and could not demonstrate that her supposed inventions even worked. Any specialist in the field of medicine or biochemistry would have easily disqualified her claims and determined that there was no substance to her story.

Holmes’ fakery was obvious from the start

For example, Holmes was twice introduced to Stanford clinical pharmacologist and professor of medicine Dr. Phyllis Gardner with the recommendation that she was brilliant and had a revolutionary investment idea. But professor Gardner saw right through her: “she had no knowledge of medicine and rudimentary knowledge of engineering… And she really didn’t want any expertise, she thought she knew it all!” Another qualified longtime observer of the Theranos saga was also skeptical. Dr. Darren Saunders worked as an associate professor of medicine at the University of New South Wales where he ran the Ubiquitin Signaling Lab. He knew that Holmes could never do what she claimed. In an interview for the 60 minutes Australia program, he said that “it takes years and years to develop any one of those tests and make sure that it’s accurate.”

Indeed, what was glaringly obvious to Dr. Gardner and Dr. Saunders should have been just as obvious to any specialist in the field. In fact, Holmes also failed to convince the US military to adopt Theranos technology. In spite of wholehearted help from General Mattis, she was unable to pass the vetting process at the Pentagon. A few years later, in May 2015, University of Toronto professor Eleftherios Diamandis analyzed Theranos technology and also politely concluded that “most of the company’s claims are exaggerated.” Diamandis expressed that opinion at the time when the hype about Theranos and Holmes were at their peak.

For some reason however, Elizabeth Holmes’ ascent was not obstructed by any scrutiny of her fantastic claims. Early on, not only was she able to get a face-to-face meeting with Don Lucas Sr., one of the most prominent venture capitalists in Silicon Valley, she also managed to persuade him to make a large investment in Theranos. Lucas explained his rationale for that decision in a 2009 interview: “Her great-grandfather was an entrepreneur, very successful. And it turned out later that the hospital [near] where [her family] lives is named after her great-uncle.”

Apparently, her great uncle’s and great-grandfather’s success was enough for Lucas to invest in her project. I wonder if that same qualification was equally convincing to all other investors? Or was it her passion and charm? Whatever the case, big fish investors gave her more than $750 million, unconcerned about her qualifications or the functioning of her technology.

This is all very strange, to put it politely. The media narrative has meanwhile contrived plausible-sounding explanation for this: you see, the big investors gave Holmes a ton of cash because they were just so afraid of missing the next facebook or google. But this explanation is just as unlikely as the rest of the story. Neither do such silly rationalizations explain the massive allocations from a group of top-notch power players, nor the terms of investment that prohibited verification of Theranos technology, nor share prices that valued the fraudulent venture at $9 billion.

Read the whole thing, because it wasn’t just about making money. It appears to have been some sort of dry run for Covid.

DISCUSS ON SG

Draining the Western Brains

High-level thinkers don’t communicate with the masses because we quite literally can’t. The problem with Western civilization is not that its high-level thinkers are unable to communicate with the masses, because high-level thinkers have never been able to effectively communicate with the masses. It’s a little ironic that one of the better popularizers fails to understand the importance of the popularizer’s role in translating and transmitting the original thinker’s ideas to a public that is more than two standard deviations below him.

I deal with it by showing high-level thinkers how to communicate with the masses.

Like Wilber and Spiral Dynamics… they CREATED the models that I apply in my work, but they didn’t communicate them in a way that made the average person care. I did. I was like “ARENT BITCHES CRAZY? HERE’S WHY” and showed them.

High-level thinkers have to use their abilities to appeal to the masses more than everyone else. NO ONE IS COMING TO HELP.

But this isn’t really the issue anyhow. The issue is that the current rulers of Western Civilization hate it and every element of it, and would like nothing better than to destroy it if they could only figure out how to kill the golden goose and yet keep its golden eggs.

Most high-level thinkers are banished and deprived of platforms and popularizers due to their inability to accept the satanic, anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-American Narrative that has been required of any public intellectual for the last fifty years.

As one reader here has noted, China responded to Wang Hunin by promoting him to the Chief Ideologue of the Chinese Communist Party despite the fact that he didn’t even belong to the Party, whereas the USA responded to me by deplatforming me and systematically depriving me of opportunities and resources.

This isn’t a complaint. It’s merely an observation. One of the benefits of being a high-level thinker is far less interest in the prizes and fancy pants with which the status-obsessed midwits are obsessed. But imagine the amount of scientific resources now being wasted across the West on finding useless results “consistent with the theory of evolution by natural selection” that could be more profitably spent on actual science if I had even a fraction of the respect and institutional support that Mr. Hunin enjoys in China. And that’s just one topic…

One of the reasons that China has already far surpassed the West, and that Russia inevitably will as well, is that both societies genuinely value their intellectual elites. The West, despite its pretensions to being “an open society” is in an increasingly fragile state of intellectual sclerosis, where even the most obvious truths must go unspoken, and better yet, unobserved. This is why I anticipate that the most promising young Western intellectuals will be officially incentivized to move to China and to Russia over the next three decades, a policy that will eventually be followed by entrepreneurial and technological booms there.

DISCUSS ON SG

Palestine Existed Before Israel

Larry Johnson addresses the oft-heard lie that Palestine is some sort of modern mythical creation by antisemites, as certain parties would have everyone believe.

I am writing this to inform some friends who believe, wrongly, that there is no such thing as Palestinians and that the people being genocided by the Zionists are nothing more than interlopers.

Prior to 1947, the territory now occupied by Israel and the Gaza Strip was commonly called Palestine. This designation was used during various historical periods, including the Ottoman rule and the British Mandate period (1920–1948). The British Mandate for Palestine was established after World War I and lasted until 1948, during which the region was officially administered under that name. The term Palestine historically referred to the geographic area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and was used in various forms dating back to ancient times, including Roman, Byzantine, and early Islamic periods.

The earliest recorded historical reference to Palestine dates back to around 1150 BCE in ancient Egyptian inscriptions during the reign of Ramesses III. The name Peleset (transliterated as P-r-s-t) was used to describe a group of people, likely the Philistines, who lived along the southern coast of the region.
The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the broader region was by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus in the 5th century BCE. In his work The Histories, he described a district of Syria, called Palaistínē, which included the area between Phoenicia and Egypt, incorporating the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley.

Thus, while the name’s roots trace back to ancient Egyptian references to coastal peoples, the geographical concept of Palestine as a region appears clearly in Greek literature from the 5th century BCE.

I addressed this ahistorical propaganda myself six years ago, with a direct citation from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica.

PALESTINE, a geographical name of rather loose application. Etymological strictness would require it to denote exclusively the narrow strip of coast-land once occupied by the Philistines, from whose name it is derived. It is, however, conventionally used as a name for the territory which, in the Old Testament, is claimed as the inheritance of the pre-exilic Hebrews; thus it may be said generally to denote the southern third of the province of Syria. Except in the west, where the country is bordered by the Mediterranean Sea, the limit of this territory cannot be laid down on the map as a definite line. The modern subdivisions under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Empire are in no sense conterminous with those of antiquity, and hence do not afford a boundary by which Palestine can be separated exactly from the rest of Syria in the north, or from the Sinaitic and Arabian deserts in the south and east; nor are the records of ancient boundaries sufficiently full and definite to make possible the complete demarcation of the country. Even the convention above referred to is inexact: it includes the Philistine territory, claimed but never settled by the Hebrews, and excludes the outlying parts of the large area claimed in Num. xxxiv. as the Hebrew possession (from the “River of Egypt” to Hamath).

This is why the preservation of old books and historical knowledge is necessary, because it so readily disproves the modern lies that are broadcast by those attempting to provide a psychological cloak for their deeds and misdeeds.

The irony is that the Turkish and Italian governments have historical claims on Jerusalem that are probably better than the claims of the European Zionists. Even if one grants the asserted connection between modern Jews and the historical kingdom of Judah, the Kingdom of Judah did not include the land upon which Tel Aviv was built, much less the important port of Haifa.

The Old Testament even makes it clear that Palestine, also known as Philistia, preceded the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel, as many of the battles of King Saul, and subsequently King David, were part of a war of Hebrew independence waged against the five Philistine kingdoms of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron.

Now, obviously Israel holds its current land under the right of conquest, which is a legitimate and recognized right. I certainly don’t expect the USA to return my Indian tribe’s historical lands to me any time soon; it’s much more likely they will eventually return to the control of the descendants of the Spaniards who first conquered them. Demonstrating the falsehood of ahistorical propaganda is not tantamount to denying the legitimacy of current borders or recognizing that there are often multiple historical claims to the same land.

These historical matters are always more complex than the media is capable of rationally and realistically discussing even if it were objective, which it obviously isn’t. Regardless, it is always best to be aware of the truth, even when there is little chance that the mainstream discourse bears any relationship to it.

DISCUSS ON SG

Disney Will Bring Kimmel Back

Hence the “suspension” rather than an outright cancellation:

Walt Disney representatives and talk-show host Jimmy Kimmel raced to find the right words on Wednesday to calm a social media furor that erupted following criticism of his remarks about slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Kimmel’s comments in his monologue on Monday had angered many, and the reaction reached a fever pitch on Wednesday, including death threats that raised concerns for the safety of Kimmel and his staff, the source said. The late-night host prepared to make a statement, but Kimmel and Disney representatives could not find language that they agreed would not further inflame the situation, the source said.

As the show’s 4:30 p.m. taping time approached, Disney CEO Bob Iger and Disney Entertainment co-Chairman Dana Walden agreed that the best approach would be to take the show off the air and later find a way to bring Kimmel back, the source said. Walden informed Kimmel of the decision.

The Left protects its extremists. The Right falls all over itself to disavow its extremists. Which is why there is no cost to walk the broad and easy path, until there is.

DISCUSS ON SG

Next Man Up

It certainly appears that Mr. Fuentes took the offer that his immediate predecessor turned down. Isn’t it fascinating to observe how the self-styled “most-canceled man in America” is suddenly being granted mainstream platforms?

At least we have the answer to who the next major gatekeeper will be. It should be amusing to see Mr. Fuentes doing interviews with Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, and the Weinstein brothers. The conversations about conversations should be informative indeed.

There is an informative commentary on US politics in Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon Boy.

Uncle Henry sat down. “Otto could speak off the cuff as easily as you could spit prune pits. He could talk for a full hour with only one or two thoughts to keep him company, and when people suggested he run for Congress, he said he’d be delighted. He had done well for himself, selling flavored grain alcohol to nondrinkers, but the market was drying up now that Montanans could walk into any pharmacy and purchase all the cocaine they needed.

“Otto campaigned on the back of a manure spreader. He said, ‘This is the first time I have spoken from a Republican platform.’ He made speeches against Wall Street and the railroad barons and their terrible greed at the expense of the honest workingman and tradesman, and he was elected with sixty percent of the vote and went to Washington, where he discovered that his outspoken opposition to the railroads had raised the cash value of his vote on railroad bills considerably. A Republican in favor of free enterprise got chicken feed for his vote compared to the People’s Champion from the High Plains.

“Otto once told my father that bribery was simply a case of the free market at work simplifying the decision-making process. He had a fine time in Congress and did not overexert himself. He met with the Northern Pacific and Great Northern lawyers, who were helpful in advising him on regulatory matters. He passed antitrust laws that had about as much effect as a fart in a cyclone, and every two years he put on his old clothes and came home to roam the state and thunder against the Special Interests and the Malefactors of Wealth, and the Republicans put up some squinty old guy with bad breath, and Otto was elected to four terms.

“He moved to New York City after he got beat, running for a fifth term. There had been a bill that would allow the railroads to trade parts of their original land grant for parts of the Crow Reservation and thus open up forty square miles for copper mining, and Otto was going to vote for it, and then Balestrand started talking to him about the Indians and what a rough deal they got, how they were robbed, and the two of them shared a bottle of O-ho-no-ma-wa-hee, and Otto’s conscience was aroused after years of lying dormant. He voted nay. The bill passed, of course, and in the fall, the Republicans put up a cowboy against him, a Rough Rider in the Spanish War, a husband and a father of six, with a level gaze and a square jaw and a cleft in his chin, and the Republican newspapers accused Otto of wanting to give Montana back to the savages, and he was thrashed in the election.“

DISCUSS ON SG