Sasha Stone: How to Remake America

On a recent podcast, Sasha Stone condemned the Biden administration, offering some words of support for Donald Trump. Unlike Stone, I would never consider voting for Trump. Nor can I in good conscience vote for Biden, as I did three years ago. That said, I very much agree with Stone about the many ways the United States has gone off the rails during the Biden years. An excerpt:

Four words on a red hat. Make America Great Again.

Make America able to take a joke again.

Make America understand basic biology again.

Make America the land of the free and home of the brave again.

Make it okay to be white, a Christian, a male, a Jew, a woman, a mother and American again.

Make Thomas Jefferson a hero again.

Make movies watchable again.

Make America a country where we can still say what we think without fear of banishment, public humiliation or the loss of our jobs.

Make America tolerant again.

Make reality cool again, make it okay to reward merit.

Make it okay to be friends with people you don't agree with.

Lots of the hysteria is happening on both sides. It has to do with algorithms and their effects on our brains and our perception of reality.

Continue ReadingSasha Stone: How to Remake America

Steve Kirsch: “When you Try to Show People the Data, They Run Away

Steve Kirsch discusses the latest safety data regarding the COVID vaccine with Russell Brand at Rumble: Kirsch, inventor of the optical mouse, voluntarily received two COVID vaccinations at during the pandemic. He had minor reactions, but he started hearing from people who claimed that their relatives were dying shortly after getting vaccinated. After finding more than 700 safety signals in the VAERS data obtained as the result of the FOIA request, he approached the CDC, seeking comment or explanation. He received neither. Instead, he encountered willing and/or intentional ignorance regarding the data. The CDC started with the premise that everyone must get vaccinated. Anything conflicting with that must be suppressed. At min 24 of this interview, Kirsch reports recent findings (by Barry Young, a New Zealand whistle-blower who worked for a NZ public health agency, who is currently being prosecuted by NZ) that 1 out of 1,000 people receiving the COVID vaccine was killed by the vaccine. If true, this would project to 650,000 Americans killed by the vaccine. Excerpts from the Interview

Steve Kirsch: Let me start with the punch line, which is that when you analyze the data and you look at overall shots over all ages, what you see is about a increase of one death per 1000 doses on average, is that people that were killed by the vaccine that shouldn't have died. And so that corresponds to 13 million people killed worldwide, it corresponds to about 675,000 people in the United States being killed, and about 150,000 people in the UK being killed.

And so that's what the Barry's data reveals. Now, what's important about Barry's data is that this is the first time in history that we have ever seen record level data for a vaccine. It's always kept hidden from public view. So these are public health records that are always kept hidden from public view. You there's no country in the world that publishes this data that was leaked out. There is no state in the United States that publishes this data. Everyone keeps it hidden from public view. This is public health data, it belongs to the public. And this is the first time in history, this has never happened before. This is a big moment. This is the first time we get to peek behind the curtain and find out if they're what the man looks like behind the curtain. So what Barry did is completely game changing. And for me, it's it's like it this is the the Holy Grail.

This is what I've been searching for. This is what we've been denied all this time is access to the data that would show the truth. And nobody, nobody, nobody who is supporting the pro-vaccine narrative has ever called for any data transparency in the public health data. Nobody. There is not a single person calling for for data transparency. But but you know, there's not a paper that's published in the peer reviewed literature--I've checked that--saying that, "Hey, if you withhold the data from the public, it leads to better health outcomes." So if you want their health outcomes, you need to publish the data. ... He basically he exposed the data... He proved that you could publish the data and nobody's privacy would be violated that but there's still statistical fidelity in the data. So we can obfuscate the data but still have the statistical fidelity so we can do it the analysis without violating anyone's privacy.

This was thought to be impossible. And Barry has proved that it is possible to do and not even the New Zealand Ministry of Health or health New Zealand was able to figure out whose records were published. They know it's their records, but we obfuscated it. So there's no privacy violation, and this frustrates the hell out of them.

Russell Brand: How did Barry get that information, he worked for a New Zealand Health for like a government agency?

Steve Kirsch: He's an Oracle 11 DBA. He's a database administrator. He's a specialist on Oracle. He was tasked with creating the database for this pay per dose system in New Zealand. And there are two there are two systems. And one of them is pay per dose. And it's just the way that that that they do billing. And so he has 4 million, he has over 4 million records of the 12 million records that exist in New Zealand. So it's a sample of all the vaccination records, and it would be great to get everything, but it's only people who've been vaccinated."

In the meantime, the Texas Attorney General has filed a lawsuit against Pfizer for widespread misrepresentations:

The pharmaceutical company's widespread representation that its vaccine possessed 95% efficacy against infection was highly misleading. That metric represented a calculation of the so-called “relative risk reduction” for vaccinated individuals in Pfizer’s initial, two-month clinical trial results. FDA publications indicate “relative risk reduction” is a misleading statistic that “unduly influence[s]” consumer choice. Pfizer was also put on notice at that time that vaccine protection could not accurately be predicted beyond two months. Nevertheless, Pfizer fostered a misleading impression that vaccine protection was durable and withheld from the public information that undermined its claims about the duration of protection. And, despite the fact that its clinical trial failed to measure whether the vaccine protects against transmission, Pfizer embarked on a campaign to intimidate the public into getting the vaccine as a necessary measure to protect their loved ones.

In fact, Pfizer’s product failed to live up to the company’s representations. COVID-19 cases increased after widespread vaccine administration, and some areas saw a greater percentage of deaths from COVID-19 among the vaccinated population than the unvaccinated. When the failure of its product became apparent, Pfizer then pivoted to silencing truth-tellers. The lawsuit notes: “How did Pfizer respond when it became apparent that its vaccine was failing and the viability of its cash cow was threatened? By intimidating those spreading the truth, and by conspiring to censor its critics. Pfizer labeled as ‘criminals’ those who spread facts about the vaccine. It accused them of spreading ‘misinformation.’ And it coerced social media platforms to silence prominent truth-tellers.”

 

Continue ReadingSteve Kirsch: “When you Try to Show People the Data, They Run Away

Excellent Documentary on the Collision of Comedy and Cancel Culture

I just finished watching "Can We Take a Joke: When Outrage and Comedy Collide" (2016). Awesome documentary for those who understand the importance of free speech and who are concerned about the future of comedy.

Continue ReadingExcellent Documentary on the Collision of Comedy and Cancel Culture

CNN Uses Cancel Culture Tactics to Attempt to Prevent Vivek Ramaswamy from Saying Obviously True Things

Why do I have almost no respect for corporate media? Here is a recent example of how they function. CNN is trying to dictate that you are not adult enough to hear Ramaswamy's opinions that conflict its preferred narratives and make up your own mind. This is despite the fact that everything Ramaswamy is working so hard to say is established uncontroverted fact. This is corporate media cancel culture at work, motivated by their obeisance to the federal security state. Such shameful behavior by the CNN host.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1735306093322977484

Continue ReadingCNN Uses Cancel Culture Tactics to Attempt to Prevent Vivek Ramaswamy from Saying Obviously True Things

Andrew Sullivan’s Prescription for Curing our Bad Case of DEI

We've got an enormous problem with DEI. It goes completely against what all of us seek when we need the best surgeon to operate on us, the best engineer to design a new bridge or the best pilot to safely fly us home. Even though we all know this, many of us have been afraid to say this lately. It is entirely rational and humane to seek out the best qualified people to fill jobs. Full stop. Although it is often a challenge to decide who is the best qualified person for the job, there is no close competitor to basing our decisions on merit.

Andrew Sullivan succinctly articulated the way forward:

End DEI in its entirety. Fire all the administrators whose only job is to enforce its toxic orthodoxy. Admit students on academic merit alone. Save standardized testing — which in fact helps minorities, and it’s “the best way to distinguish smart poor kids from stupid rich kids,” as Steven Pinker said this week. Restore grading so that it actually means something again. Expel students who shut or shout down speech or deplatform speakers. Pay no attention to the race or sex or orientation or gender identity of your students, and see them as free human beings with open minds. Treat them equally as individuals seeking to learn, if you can remember such a concept.

I've promoted this idea throughout the Great Awokening, hearing mostly crickets or criticism from intelligent people. Countless people I know have been sitting on their hands--refusing to say what they really think. They worry, often justifiably, that saying out loud what they really think will cost them their jobs and/or their reputations.

Speaking out in favor of merit as the only basis for hiring isn't just a platitude or an emotion. Consider, finally, this excellent article setting for the many reasons for hiring solely on the basis of merit: "In Defense of Merit in Science." Here is the abstract:

Merit is a central pillar of liberal epistemology, humanism, and democracy. The scientific enterprise, built on merit, has proven effective in generating scientific and technological advances, reducing suffering, narrowing social gaps, and improving the quality of life globally. This perspective documents the ongoing attempts to undermine the core principles of liberal epistemology and to replace merit with non­scientific, politically motivated criteria. We explain the philosophical origins of this conflict, document the intrusion of ideology into our scientific institutions, discuss the perils of abandoning merit, and offer an alternative, human­centered approach to address existing social inequalities.

Continue ReadingAndrew Sullivan’s Prescription for Curing our Bad Case of DEI