In case you missed this post recently - this is what lead me to Mises.org booklist
https://greatawakening.win/p/17shvo1FoW/not-all-academics-are-marxists-h/c/
I listen every morning to see what they are afraid of and how biased ABC Australia is. Look at the balanced opinion here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/donald-trump
What are they afraid of that causes them not to provide an objective view of Orange Man Bad 😂
Check out the photo of Mary in the original link and the search for an image yourself - same same or different?
NCSWIC
US President Joe Biden has rescinded the national emergency order used to fund Donald Trump's border wall.
In a letter to Congress on Thursday, Mr Biden wrote that the order was "unwarranted" and said that no further tax dollars will be spent on the wall.
Mr Trump declared a state of emergency over the southern border in 2019, which allowed him to bypass Congress and use military funds for its construction.
When Mr Trump left office, about $15bn (£11bn) had been spent on the project.
11 FEB 2021 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56031481 (or pick your sauce Romney)
Telegraph UK said - The international plan for a global minimum tax on multinational firms – under the OECD’s so-called Pillar 2 – is destructive for both the US and the UK. We have been among the most outspoken members of our respective legislatures on this flawed policy, but the OECD and many countries continue to pursue a global minimum tax in an effort to pad their coffers with US and UK tax revenues.
ANAGRAM STOLLEN = TOLLENS
In propositional logic, modus tollens (/ˈmoʊdəs ˈtɒlɛnz/) (MT), also known as modus tollendo tollens (Latin for "method of removing by taking away")[2] and denying the consequent,[3] is a deductive argument form and a rule of inference. Modus tollens is a mixed hypothetical syllogism that takes the form of "If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P." It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contrapositive. The form shows that inference from P implies Q to the negation of Q implies the negation of P is a valid argument.
TO REITERATE:
If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.
🧐
Mebendazole papers also:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-88433-y
That's ABC America not Australia but Sky and others have since covered. The original piece has all the red flags we would expect where there is no credible evidence:
Months after leaving the White House, former President Donald Trump ALLEGEDLY discussed POTENTIALLY sensitive information about U.S. nuclear submarines with a member of his Mar-a-Lago Club -- an Australian billionaire who then ALLEGEDLY shared the information with scores of others, including more than a dozen foreign officials, several of his own employees, and a handful of journalists, ACCORDING TO SOURCES FAMILIAR WITH THE MATTER.
The POTENTIAL disclosure was reported to special counsel Jack Smith's team as they investigated Trump's ALLEGED hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, the sources told ABC News. The information COULD shed further light on Trump's handling of sensitive government secrets
However =# Special counsel Smith did not include any information about Trump's alleged April 2021 conversation with Pratt in his June indictment against Trump, which charged the former president with 40 counts of unlawful retention of national defense information and obstruction-related offenses.
And Smith would have if the was any credible evidence
Excerpt =
With this new information, I now wonder how many of the ‘chosen’ 11,000 were doctors, and if so, why these doctors didn’t raise their voices against the program of coercive inoculation? Had a fraction of them done so, the entire lawlessly intrusive governmental program would have been stopped in its tracks.
I wonder who decided that these 11,000 workers could get off jab-free while my friends and many others suffered the consequences of their conscientious choice? Why were some people deemed ‘essential’ and others not?
Now one can see very clearly and without the shred of a doubt the deeply ingrained hypocrisy of New Zealand’s governing institutions.
And we can see furthermore the sick and depraved immorality that is an integral part of all totalitarian systems, wherein some are ‘chosen’ and some are not.
United Australia Party Senator for Victoria Ralph Babet says the news today that Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is resigning from his position (effective 5pm Wednesday) is huge relief for the state of Victoria.
Senator Babet spoke of his “overwhelming joy” upon hearing the news as Victorians continue to ponder the perilous condition of their state.
“I haven’t felt so much joy since I was a five-year-old waking up on Christmas Day,” Senator Babet said.
“When I think of Dan and his governance of our state, I have not one positive word to say. His resignation is nine years too late. He has left a trail of economic and social destruction that we may never overcome. We’re flat broke because of him.
“Victorians will never forget the sadistic brutality of Labor Premier Dan Andrews and Victoria will immediately be a better place without him at the helm. May this be the end of the woke socialist regime in our state of Victoria.
“He locked us down for longer than any other people in the world. In my opinion, he acted like a tyrant who trampled on basic human rights. We will ensure that he is ultimately held to account for his actions.
“This megalomaniac locked down our state for a shocking 262 days and yet excess mortality in Victoria was the second highest in Australia, topped only by Tasmania.
“School closures in Victoria had a devastating effect on children. More than 50 per cent suffered a decline in mental health, almost twice the national average.
“Andrews bullied and demonised unvaccinated Victorians. He resigns two days before the second anniversary of Victorian police shooting rubber bullets at peaceful protesters, even as they fled in terror.
“For everyone who is suffering from post-tyranny stress disorder, please reach out for help. This man has caused immeasurable pain which many of us are still suffering today,” Senator Babet said.
Summary = we are all mad data poor deluded fuckwits. That's made us all reconsider..NOT
By Damien Stewart MAPS 🧐
Personal observations about conspiracy theorist clients
In addition to the research behind conspiracy theory belief, I would also like to add the following observations about people I have encountered, both within and outside of therapy, who espouse conspiracy theories.
Evidence for their theories is usually wafer thin or does not meet the usual standard for evidence or proof - the evidence is often as implausible as the theory itself. Generally, believers point to online videos or websites that are populated by people and articles that support the believer’s beliefs. These articles and videos similarly lack any evidence other than to refer to vague notions of “I’ve heard”, or “people have told me”.
Explanations tend to be couched in terms of questions, rather than answers. People won’t be able to point to evidence but will instead make their argument by bringing into question an idea or notion, such as “don’t you think”, or “isn’t it strange that”, or “I’m just asking questions”
People must convince you of their way of thinking, they need to be validated. A denial of their thinking is therefore not a rejection of their thoughts, beliefs, and opinions, but a rejection of their very being.
Once evidence or argument is discredited, you are explained away as “one of them”, the “other”, placing you not in the position of someone who can make an argument about the issue at hand, but placed into the other ideological group. Therefore, your opinion is explained away because of the group you belong to, the enemy, not because you possess a rational argument.
Once a conspiratorial argument is discredited, an interesting dynamic ensues. The issue that was being discussed slowly disappears, and you the person become the subject of attack. The conspiracy theorist cannot win the argument based on the facts, so they attempt to win the argument by discrediting you the individual. If the person can discredit you, their belief in their argument can be maintained, because the discussion has left the original point and is now about something else completely, you as a person.
The argument is like a slippery fish 🐟, it moves and bends and is hard to hang on to as the point shifts into something you can’t argue, or both agree on. Once again, the original ideology can be maintained because it is no longer the point of discussion.
Ironic https://d3con.de/Speaker/1097-claire-atkin/
Coinkydink or planned?
As a brand safety advocate, she holds the surveillance adtech industry accountable for abuses against advertisers and consumers in the popular newsletter BRANDED
Gold. Mods should sticky