Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 I was sent this offline from my secret weapon. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 Damn... It just keeps coming... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 It’s starting feel like the CCP was played. Did Ecohealth ‘shop’ the labs they thought would go hog wild on juicing bat corona viruses? I wonder what the disposition of European labs was re gain of function research, it seems the research was illegal in the US under Obama. Biontech was a German company, I think ,Pfizer and ModeRNA obviously wanted to ramp up uptake in their platforms and isolating and synthesizing the spike protein happened fairly quickly so at some level they had to be in the loop of the Wuhan research. Use the leaky labs in China , easily scapegoated, and swoop in with the cure after the need was created. Odd how the new craze of delta-8 pot products may have increased the production of hemp plants , right when there is a need for a lot of rope ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: It just keeps coming... Well, that one came and went. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 14, 2023 Share Posted January 14, 2023 Interesting especially since "they knew" that HRC would win Obama's third term. But DJT won that time and the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 Heather McDonald is a semi-famous woke comedian who works with Chelsea Handler. Watch as the smugness gets blown right out of her a couple of days ago. It may seem like I enjoy posting things like this. I don't. (Well... I enjoy watching the smugness go bye-bye. But I prefer people to be healthy. Watching this phase unfold in society and knowing it is manmade saddens me to an extent, I don't know how to express it.) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Heather McDonald is a semi-famous woke comedian who works with Chelsea Handler. Watch as the smugness gets blown right out of her a couple of days ago. It may seem like I enjoy posting things like this. I don't. (Well... I enjoy watching the smugness go bye-bye. But I prefer people to be healthy. Watching this phase unfold in society and knowing it is manmade saddens me to an extent, I don't know how to express it.) Michael Speaking of Chelsea Handler: Seems a little paranoid about her own clotshot...why doesn't she trust the science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 Freedom is the answer. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 Dayamm! Why do the Predator Class people now want UNVACCINATED pilots? Are they becoming reckless? Don't they know they could catch COVID and die from an unvaccinated pilot? Besides, didn't they make it illegal for most pilots to be unvaccinated? Former Commercial Airline Pilot Reveals Wealthy Elites Want UNVACCINATED PILOTS To Fly Their Jets Around The World (VIDEO) Former Commercial Airline Pilot Reveals Wealthy Elites Want UNVACCINATED PILOTS To Fly Their Jets Around The World (VIDEO) WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM Seems ironic that wealthy elitists would choose to avoid pilots who received the COVID shot considering the time they spent promoting how safe and effective the vaccine supposedly is. Yet according to a... So odd... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 From Pfizer's own studies. You know, the ones they did before putting the jab on the market. One part bears repeating about Pfizer and it is based on their own trials and experiments: "... they knew they were gonna kill a lot of people, and they did it anyway." I keep saying, we are livestock to them. We are not human in the way they believe they are human. We are livestock. A source of income. We are to be butchered when they need our bodies. This is exactly how many white slave-owners used to think about black people in times gone by. It's the same shit. Different assholes. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 But wait! There's more! The company that oversaw the jab trials for the CDC is directly affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. Moreover, the testing was done at nine sites in Mainland China and other places. One of those Chinese sites was and is run by the CCP military. The name of the company is WuXi Biologics, signed sealed and delivered by the US government through the CDC with all due authorizations and approvals. How's them apples? Want more apples? WuXi Biologics owns a nice fat chunk of Pfizer. Pfizer. CCP. Think about it. WuXi Biologics under the Chinese Communist Party partially owns one of the companies--Pfizer--that killed and made a killing from this jab. That's what we know so far. I have a feeling there is a whole apple grove out there. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2023 Share Posted January 17, 2023 Drip, drip, drip... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 I can live with this. Scott sometimes says things that are intelligent and interesting, but at other times he's just stroking his vanity while high on weed (or whatever). In this clip he owned up to being wrong. And this is his YT account so I don't think this 3 minute excerpt is taken out of context. I have to admit I was waiting for a bigass BUT eraser to invalidate it all. The BUT never came. The owning up was pure and unambiguous. At least reason is starting to return. The only thing I am not on board with is when he said that people like me won. What in hell did I win? What did we win? I was not competing with anyone. I was just trying to stay alive when I saw unreason raining down all around me. In fact, the people who were competing were people like Scott. Other than that, I'm satisfied that he said this and I hope he, and all others who got the jab, do not get injured by it, or someone finds a way to neutralize the jab's toxicity and all people who took it can be be safe. Michael 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 I didn’t watch the video other than the clip posted and if no significant context was dropped concerning his remarks , I think he may have been throwing at least a little “shade” , but possibly as a defense mechanism (if I’m permitted some pseudo psychoanalysis) , in describing a ‘dichotomy’ via heuristics/analytics. He says the vaccine hesitants began with the heuristic of not trusting big govt/business but he also implies that that is all they did, and that the other ‘side’ used analytics but were somehow failed by that . “Heuristics “ didn’t win the day as much do what heuristics are good at ‘doing’. They are or should be like guide rails in navigating a broad and complex booming and buzzing modern civilization (not that all points throughout the history of civilization weren’t also the high point of modernity at the time they were , but something about the interactions of technology and humanity seem to raise the level of complexity over time in a nonlinear fashion, more change more rapidly). But more complexity only makes heuristics, ones based on principles of rationality, that much more relevant. They aren’t ends in themselves or shouldn’t be , the Oish analogy would be to the way emotions are seen as subconscious shortcuts , but ultimately based on products of reason. The heuristic of not trusting those in authority isn’t to be rebellious for rebelliousness sake or contrarian for contrarian-ness sake , but to verify their actions and dictates do not work against one’s wellbeing ie rights. Proper identification and verification of those actions presuppose looking analytically and all the facts and data concerning specific and discrete actions. Don’t Trust , Just Verify will drive you to facts , starting from a standpoint of neutrality toward authority may at times lead to facts coming out of the analysis but more likely by coincidence than by consequence. This is no Sam Harris video or even Sam-lite , Scott still thinks he was wrong but that he got there by being smarter, even if he doesn’t really realize that. My heuristic trip wire alarm went off when government agencies starting making public statements that went against basic virology, epidemiology and vaccinology and the scientists in those fields let them. Or so the media crafted the appearance that no scientists were speaking against such statements, there were those but one had to look and judge for oneself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 T, Scott's afraid. That's what happened. Don't worry too much about his blah blah blah right now. He's been hit over the head with a two-by-four and is trying to make sense of things. And it's pretty damn terrifying to him... As far as heuristics goes, here's one for you. Liars lie. And when liars (like Big Pharma, etc.) tell you that you have to do something experimental to your body that neither they nor you can undo, but trust them because this will keep you safe, my heuristic response is, "Hell no!" Why? Because liars lie. And because I want more facts--facts I can trust--before I do something to my body I can't undo. And I don't trust the facts that liars present. As to the people who got duped in this mess, even ones who called me names and so on, I am with Joe Rogan. I have nothing but love for them. God knows I have been duped in my life. I've got some doozies to tell. As Joe said, in different circumstances, I would have been with them. So, for me, the path forward is not to remain anchored to the past and feeling resentment about it. The path forward is to solve this damn problem. It's one hell of a mess to clean up, but it won't clean itself. And yelling won't clean it. Letting each person decide what to do will, especially since there are plenty of people who want to clean up the mess. That, by the way, is the American way. George Washington used to take prisoners of war to the enemy line and release them so long as they promised to stop fighting. Granted, he hanged some, too. Context. But his general rule was to err on the side of good will and peace. That may not be too Objectivish, but it is Kellyish. I chose my own values and I like that one. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 I went ahead and watched the full video by Scott. Yeah, his argument is that people who are right--those who did not take the jab--did not analyze or think their way into that position, and those who are wrong--those who did take the jab--thought correctly and have superior thinking skills, but their data was wrong. Notice what is missing from that formulation. If people who think correctly and better than others believe in wrong data, aren't they thinking wrong about how to trust and check data? Where did their superior thinking skills go at that moment? Hmmmmm? Scott also left out the thing I mentioned earlier, liars lie. He hinted at this by saying it's always a good idea to distrust the government and large corporations, but he didn't come out and talk about whether one should trust habitual liars. But I guarantee, people who do not trust habitual liars analyze situations based on that. They think perfectly. If you analyze numbers you don't trust, you are not analyzing anything, especially not with superior thinking skills. You are being duped. And if you say to yourself, "This habitual liar giving me data stands a chance to make a killing, so it's probably skewed," you are not using a heuristic (a mental shortcut). You are analyzing the SOURCE of the data and judging it. If you want to cook steak, why worry about well done or rare if it's not steak, but shit instead? But here's something else. Part of Scott's schtick is to dance with false dichotomies. He does that when he's close to contradicting himself. That's what he did here. In his formulation, either you are a person who thinks correctly and believed in wrong data, or you are a person who acts only on your feelings and mental shortcuts (heuristics) and, by chance, got this one right. Not everyone per se falls into these two categories. Just most people. How about people who wanted to know more but didn't trust the people supplying the data? That's the third category that Scott left out of his false dichotomy. And I believe this is the vast majority of those who did not take the jab. Why? Because it is a good supposition that they all had their measles vax, their polio vax, and so on. They are not against vaccines, nor getting them from the government. They are against being conned in a situation they see with their own eyes. And then there are people who live and die on principle, like freedom of choice. I could go on, but Scott is out to lunch here and dining on his false dichotomy because, even though the nutrition is nonexistent, it tastes good to him. So here is what I believe Scott was doing. He was trying to make himself feel better by feeling superior because that's all he's got right now. When he looks at reality, he wants to shit himself. He did something to himself he can't undo, something potentially dangerous or lethal, and, in my opinion, he did not use his best thinking to get there. What's more, I think he knows it, but will never admit it. Sort of like the "get out of jail free" card they play in Objectivism. When a person acts like a sleaze douche bag, he says he made an error of knowledge, not a moral failing. So he can keep telling himself he's more moral than others. For most of it, I heuristically say, "Yeah, right." Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I went ahead and watched the full video by Scott. Yeah, his argument is that people who are right--those who did not take the jab--did not analyze or think their way into that position, and those who are wrong--those who did take the jab--thought correctly and have superior thinking skills, but their data was wrong. Notice what is missing from that formulation. If people who think correctly and better than others believe in wrong data, aren't they thinking wrong about how to trust and check data? Where did their superior thinking skills go at that moment? Hmmmmm? Scott also left out the thing I mentioned earlier, liars lie. He hinted at this by saying it's always a good idea to distrust the government and large corporations, but he didn't come out and talk about whether one should trust habitual liars. But I guarantee, people who do not trust habitual liars analyze situations based on that. They think perfectly. If you analyze numbers you don't trust, you are not analyzing anything, especially not with superior thinking skills. You are being duped. And if you say to yourself, "This habitual liar giving me data stands a chance to make a killing, so it's probably skewed," you are not using a heuristic (a mental shortcut). You are analyzing the SOURCE of the data and judging it. If you want to cook steak, why worry about well done or rare if it's not steak, but shit instead? But here's something else. Part of Scott's schtick is to dance with false dichotomies. He does that when he's close to contradicting himself. That's what he did here. In his formulation, either you are a person who thinks correctly and believed in wrong data, or you are a person who acts only on your feelings and mental shortcuts (heuristics) and, by chance, got this one right. Not everyone per se falls into these two categories. Just most people. How about people who wanted to know more but didn't trust the people supplying the data? That's the third category that Scott left out of his false dichotomy. And I believe this is the vast majority of those who did not take the jab. Why? Because it is a good supposition that they all had their measles vax, their polio vax, and so on. They are not against vaccines, nor getting them from the government. They are against being conned in a situation they see with their own eyes. And then there are people who live and die on principle, like freedom of choice. I could go on, but Scott is out to lunch here and dining on his false dichotomy because, even though the nutrition is nonexistent, it tastes good to him. So here is what I believe Scott was doing. He was trying to make himself feel better by feeling superior because that's all he's got right now. When he looks at reality, he wants to shit himself. He did something to himself he can't undo, something potentially dangerous or lethal, and, in my opinion, he did not use his best thinking to get there. What's more, I think he knows it, but will never admit it. Sort of like the "get out of jail free" card they play in Objectivism. When a person acts like a sleaze douche bag, he says he made an error of knowledge, not a moral failing. So he can keep telling himself he's more moral than others. For most of it, I heuristically say, "Yeah, right." Michael Reminds me of a quote I see constantly on FB attributed to Robert Heinlein: "Man is not the rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal." (This quote always rankles me from an Objectivist viewpoint, but in contexts like this? I get it...) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 Interesting... Reminds me of a few quotes from Rand's essay "Don't Let It Go" in PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT: "The enormous propaganda effort to make Americans fear fascism but not communism, has failed: Americans hate them both. The terrible hoax of the United Nations has failed. Americans were never enthusiastic about that institution, but they gave it the benefit of the doubt for too long. The current polls, however, indicate that the majority have turned against the U.N. (better late than never)." and "Can this country achieve a peaceful rebirth in the foreseeable future? By all precedents, it is not likely. But America is an unprecedented phenomenon. In the past, American perseverance became, on occasion, too long-bearing a patience. But when Americans turned, they turned. What may happen to the welfare state is what happened to the Prohibition Amendment." She wrote those in 1971; amazing how relevant it is, now. That whole essay has a lot of salient points for today. A few more that jumped out at me, just now: "The custom of addressing a person as “Herr Doktor Doktor Schmidt” would be impossible in America. In England, the freest country of Europe, the achievement of a scientist, a businessman or a movie star is not regarded as fully real until he has been clunked on the head with the State’s sword and declared to be a knight." and "Initiative is an “'instinctive' (i.e., automatized) American characteristic; in an American consciousness, it occupies the place which, in a European one, is occupied by obedience." And "The latest assault on human life—the ecology crusade—will probably end in defeat for its ideological leadership: Americans will enthusiastically clean their streets, their rivers, their backyards, but when it comes to giving up progress, technology, the automobile, and their standard of living, Americans will prove that the man-haters 'ain’t seen nothing yet.'" If this were written today, could you tell the difference? The Deep State's expectation that people would treat Fauci like "Herr Doktor", the "climate change" scam", the contrast of Americans to Europeans in the "obedience" factor of Covid tyranny, etc...sure, the Left had made terrible inroads in education since her time, which brought us even closer to socialist tyranny than it was in her time, and even more so in places like Canada, New Zealand, Europe, and China. But like Rand said, America wa, and is, an unprecedented country. We know that the Klaus Schwab, the WEF , and the left is counting on a "Fourth Turning". Here's hoping for that "American Spirit breaking through", as claimed in the last tweet from the beginning of this post, and that American "turning" that Rand was counting on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 23, 2023 Share Posted January 23, 2023 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 This news highlighted by Michael Flynn is what's going to bring the whole thing down. All the good guys need to do is keep plugging at it. There are US laws in effect that say if a felony was committed in getting emergency authorization, any corporate protections against liability become null. There is a large group of people compiling and prosecuting cases of racketeering, criminal collusion and premeditated murder against Big Pharma companies over the pandemic and their response. Once the felonies are judged as felonies, hell, even one felony--that's all that is needed, I have no doubt the sheer quantity of class action suits for liability against the Big Pharma companies will bankrupt them. It's taking its good old sweet time coming, but that's the way the law works in the US. When the law is unambiguous and people have contradicted it, like what happened with the blacks, the law ends up fixing itself. In the case of the blacks, it took a Civil War and a lot of further efforts, but it worked itself out. Given the context of the world back then, it's almost a miracle that it happened at all. But the law was unambiguous about equal rights and equal protection under the law. So it eventually prevailed against a worldwide culture. In the age of the Internet, the time period for Big Pharma crumbling through suspension of its liability protections due to felonies should only take a few years, especially under a MAGA administration. It's coming and nothing, not even a nuclear WW3, is going to stop it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 On 1/22/2023 at 12:47 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: But here's something else. Part of Scott's schtick is to dance with false dichotomies. He does that when he's close to contradicting himself. And the following tweet shows all you need to know about the fiber of his convictions. Scott is a walking talking false dichotomy. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 As long as I am ragging on Scott Adams. Michael 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: As long as I am ragging on Scott Adams. Jimmy Dore is, too. Jimmy takes issue with the "you won" thing. As his sidekick said (I paraphrase), "You took the jab, got vax injured, so you became skeptical. OK, you anti-vaxxer. You won." As the poet says, if that is winning, what does losing look like? Scott Adams deserves every minute of this video. The funniest part for me is that Jimmy says Scott acts like he (Jimmy) wants to. I'm right and you're wrong you bunch of losers. And when you're right, it's only luck. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 26, 2023 Share Posted January 26, 2023 These two OL posts of mine actually belong in this thread in addition to where I made them as this Pfizer development is the cherry on top of the mess. And what is the Pfizer development in layman's terms? With, say, another cherry, like Pfizer's own words? They are engineering a virus to make people sick, then making products (like jabs) to fix it, and getting governments to pay for most of the new products. 17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Veritas: Pfizer wants to mutate COVID with more gain of function. I don't know about blowing up the Internet, but this blew up my patience. Instead of gain of function, they are now calling it "directed evolution." As if changing the word will alter the reality. Or better, hide the reality. Pfizer needs to be dismantled, regardless of how. And what about rights? Rights presuppose humans. There will be no rights if they kill off the human race. And 16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: btw - The reason Pfizer wants to mutate COVID, according to the dude on video is so they can tailor new vaccines to it and make more money. Wanna bet because of the phrase "make money" there will be dorks right here in O-Land supporting this on moral grounds and individual rights? After all, Pfizer is a private company, right? But I need a heavyweight to weigh in. How about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? I wonder what he thinks of Pfizer right now. In case something ever happens to that tweet, here are Robert F. Kennedy's words quoted: Quote Amazing reporting by James O'Keefe showing us what we already knew: Pfizer is a craven venal homicidal morally bankrupt criminal enterprise that has captured and corrupted its regulators. That needs to be amplified. This reminds me of a dear poster on OL, now deceased. Chris Grieb. When he encountered statements like that, he would always say, "Tell us what you really think." Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 26, 2023 Author Share Posted January 26, 2023 41 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: This reminds me of a dear poster on OL, now deceased. Chris Grieb. When he encountered statements like that, he would always say, "Tell us what you really think." I found a couple of old letters that mention Chris. Peter The Saintly Chris Grieb wrote: Paul Ryan spoke at TAS commemoration of Ayn Rand's 100th birthday. He also has his interns read Atlas Shrugged. Also on the plus side he knows how to pronounce Ayn Rand's first name unlike Ron Paul. On the minus side he describes himself as Roman Catholic. end quote AND Barbara Branden has just posted a reply to a topic that you have subscribed to titled "How could Ayn rand smoke?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Taylor: "Many fans of Ayn Rand may know that she died from smoking related disease." It's not particularly relevant to this discussion, but although Rand had lung cancer in the 70s, it did not recur after her surgery. She died of congestive heart failure. However, as someone who was foolish enough to smoke for many years, I know, as every smoker knows, that we all twisted our brains into pretzels in order to avoid facing the fact that cigarettes might very well kill us. Yes, in the early 60s, when Rand said there was no poof that smoking caused cancer, it was true that there was no final, definitive, absolute, syllogistic, incontrovertible, undeniable, non-statistical, overwhelming proof. But we knew. We all knew, including Ayn Rand. With regard to any other issue, had we had the amount of evidence we had about the danger of smoking, we would have considered it more than enough evidence for us to act upon. Barbara Chris Grieb has just posted a reply to a topic that you have subscribed to titled "How could Ayn rand smoke?". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Since it was Ayn Rand she probably lit the cigarette by snapping her fingers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now