When a big wave election comes along usually a midterm against an unpopular incumbent president (2006, 2010, 2018, 2022 are recent examples), you always have a lot of politicians decide to not run again. They take a look at the polls, and decide it ain't worth it. Why take their re-election funds and spend it on a losing battle. They take their large re-election campaign war chests and wash the money through a non-profit and get the money back in speaking fees or being overpaid for a no show job.

Example: Paul Ryan in 2018, as Speaker of the House had a $5.8 million dollar war chest.https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/paul-ryan/summary?cid=N00004357

Ryan couldn't take the war chest as personal funds (though you used to be able to), he had to wash it first. Initially, he makes a large tax deductible donation to a non-profit with that money, which paid him a large salary. Later, he starts his own nonprofit with that money, which pays him handsomely. He uses his connections with lobbyists next. Want to get a meeting with X person still in office, pay Ryan $XXX and he can arrange it.

So, it's about them getting their money, not some "they see the covid conspiracy is going to blow wide open and they will go to prison" or some "two more weeks" type of thing.

Lastly, there are only about 30-40 "swing districts" in the House. These are non-gerrymandered districts where there is no inner city County Clerk cheating on the behalf of the democrats. Typically, this is suburbia somewhere. Most everybody is in a safe seat, so you're not going to have more than 30-40 members of the House go from Dem to GOP.

Just a thought, but advertising agencies and governments have been perfecting fear porn tactics for decades now with the propaganda campaigns against smoking, drunk driving, and the war on drugs. Those cheesy ads? All they did was change the topic, but it's the same techniques. Same thing goes for seeding stories in the media. Instead of a story where drunk driver kills X, they just swapped out drunk driver for covid.

I was not a regular viewer of Don Draper and Mad Men, but to that show's credit, it did show how easily we are manipulated. All three anti-vice campaigns have been pretty successful.

This is not to say that I support drunk driving, drug use, or smoking. Frankly, all three are pretty dumb. But once an elite consensus formed that it was acceptable to manipulate the public on these issues, you didn't think it would stop there, did you?

There is a legal principle that if a statement is wrong in part, it is wrong in the whole. That is, logically speaking, a good maxim for single arguments. For example if I say 2+1 = 4, then you can know that my equation of (2+1)x(3+4)=28 was solved incorrectly.

However, this maxim of “wrong in part, wrong in whole” does not apply for separate arguments. If in separate debate I say 3x3=9, you can’t use as proof that 3*3 =/= 9 because I had said 2+1=4. Doing so is called the “genetic fallacy”.

Now, that I have made clear the issue with simple examples, let us expand the topic to conspiracy theories. And there are a lot of them, aren’t there?

Bigfoot and cryptids; Freemasonry; Rothschilds and Jew banking stuff; Holocaust; Alien abductions; Election theft; Hitler escaped to Argentina; Weather control; Covid; Fluoride; Various shades of 9/11 from inside job to controlled demo; moon landing was fake; Flat earth; Kennedy was killed by the CIA; Etc. etc. etc.

If someone on the board thinks that 9/11 was an inside job, but say, NOT a controlled demolition, one should debate 9/11 data with the person. Here is where if you can show someone’s theory is wrong in part, then more likely than not it is wrong in whole.

But what happens if someone agrees with you that 9/11 was a controlled demo, but thinks that the moon landing was not faked? Here, because they are separate topics, using someone’s belief that the moon landing happened has zero weight on if 9/11 was a controlled demo.

In fact, you look like a fucking moron for saying to someone who thinks that aliens abductions occur (when you don’t) that their take on covid as a depopulation scheme is wrong only because of their take on aliens. Whinny soy boy faggots will disregard Joe Rogan saying the sky is blue because it came from Joe Rogan. How about skeptically looking up at the sky after hearing such, or at a minimum, not engaging if you aren’t sure. If you are not well informed on a topic, nothing prevents you from not debating it.

You should take each topic INDIVIDUALLY. I know people who are the “right side” of things on most issues (at least to me) but who think Freemasonry is just a club for guys to get together, with nothing sinister at all. While Freemasonry is evil, I am not going to throw out data the guy presents on covid because he says his uncle is a Freemason and that it just a social club; I take his data on covid and evaluate it as it relates to covid. Likewise I have a friend who thinks that 6 million Jews were gassed and that covid tyranny is a lead up to this happening again. Avoid bullshit purity tests and take the guy’s support fighting covid tyranny and debate the Holocaust separate. Ya dig?

There is, perhaps, one exception to this rule about weighing evidence for each topic separate...if you are making the case that the conspiracies are linked. Then you debate the linkage: is it the FBI, the Deep State, or your own take that Obama is pulling the strings. But that is not what is happening on this board. Instead you get bullshit purity tests. Let me tell you, mon ami, nobody on earth will align with ALL your views unless that person is in the mirror.

So, in sum, debate each topic separately, don’t assume because they disagree with you in X that their opinion is invalid on Y.

Monoclonal antibodies - the stuff they gave Trump and Rogan and which FL is giving out to people, saving lives: this was developed by Operation Warp Speed. I didn't know this until the now viral David McC./Rogan interview.

How does this fit into the narrative?

The segment on them starts at 1 hour and 59 minutes in this interview.

https://files.catbox.moe/ron86i.mp3

Any yea, somebody here is going to say he deserves it. Whatever. The relative has been there for me when I needed help, and it would be nice to keep him around a while longer.

p.s. 13 year old unvaxxed relative in the same household got covid at the same time. Has the sniffles and is fine.

I keep seeing this topic pop up after Florida is resurrecting its state militia. I want to give some background.

Most people don't this, but a second purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the federal government's hands off control of the state militias. State militias were to be a bulwark against federal tyranny, to act against the feds if they had too. Essentially the Founders were comfortable setting up conditions where states had their own military forces, although there was a national army and navy. There is a lot of record of this in Founding Era writings. However, militias proved inadequate in the War of 1812, so the move towards centralization started.

Still, even during the Civil War, units were composed of troops and officers all from within states. But by WWI this system proved inadequate for the massive nationwide mobilization that had to occur, so it was reformed and centralized. People at the time pointed out that this was not supposed to occur, but alas, their voices were not heeded. By WWII and thereafter, a dual system was set up where, national guards were nominally under control of the governor of a state, but they were really just federal Reserve units, federalized at will.

An example of this federalization, is when Ike took control of the state national guard units, federalizing them, to implement desegregation. The governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, had indicated he would use the state National Guard to PREVENT the implementation of SCOTUS's Brown decision that required integration of the schools. So for the first time since the Civil War, troops didn't have to decide who remain loyal to, their state, or the feds.

Still, the ghosts of the original system remains, which is why Oklahoma is allowing its National Guard troops to avoid the mandatory jab....so long as the troops are not activated and put under federal control.

So, in summary, FL, in bringing back its state guard, disbanded in 1947, is bringing back a Founding Era understanding of state sovereignty.

(p.s.: No court is ever going to rule the current National Guard system unconstitutional)

.....when we are giving out poisonous covid jabs across society. We've not advanced as far as you might think.

I was listening to the Delingpole Podcast yesterday, his recent interview with Bret Weinstein and his wife, Heather. While understandably not everyone is a fan of the pair, Bret mentioned something that stunned me because I wish I had thought of it. Prior to COVID, no how many facts and statistics and science you threw at some people, usually leftists, their trump card to ignore it was their own "lived experience."

"Lived experience" allowed them to look past data showing America wasn't systematically racist, or that women weren't oppressed. He also pointed out that, today, just as then, you throw facts, statistics, historical comparisons, and "see I told you so" stuff (mycarditis and endless boosters) about the covid shot and it bounces off their armor of cognitive dissonance.

But what's REALLY telling, is that when you use your own, or others, "lived experience" about the covid vax, now the covid cultists are telling us "lived experience" doesn't count for anything. Witness what happened to Eric Clapton, a man who makes a living using his hands...and he almost lost the use of them due to the coof vax. His story is real, undeniable, powerful, and personal. It was also heartbreaking, both in what happened to him but how people denied his "lived experience" as not valid evidence.

Still, I use the fact that I have two close relatives that took the shot and suffered for it. There may be more, but only two are willing to speak about it. One has severe joint pain now, first time in his life, and the other, she has necropathy in her extremities. She's now on SS disability. This is real, "lived experience" that I have shared with others when the subject of the vax comes up.

https://delingpole.podbean.com/

I saw it somewhere on a .win, and I can't come up with the right search term to find it again.

Thanks in advance!

Some months back, someone asked the board what was the most outlandish theory that they researched, and/or came to believe; answers varied, but included things like simulation theory and multiverse theories such. I enjoyed reading that thread.

I want to ask the reverse. Where you do think that the "official narrative" or "conventional wisdom" is correct?

I'll go first.

1. Jet fuel may burn hot not melt steel beams, but the fires did weaken them enough to lose their structural integrity.

2. Space is not fake and gay.

Oklahoma City worked actually worked as a deterrence for federal overreach. McVeigh is a martyr, not in the religious sense, but the patriotic sense.

TLDR: OK city bombing led the Feds to limit law enforcement excesses, Bush's reforms of the intelligence agencies after 9/11 removed that check, now they are turning War on Terror tactics against enemies of the Biden regime.

I was listening to a podcast yesterday, Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World, about 9/11 conspiracies. He made an orthogonal point when at the very end of the 2nd hour long episode he was discussing the "Bush knew about it and let it happen" theories.

You see, much was made in the aftermath of the OK city attack, and in 9/11 commission report, about the "wall between intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies". Egypt, Israel, and others had informed American intelligence about the hijackers. This wasn't passed on to law enforcement agencies, who had their own limited information about the hijackers. They weren't able to "connect the dots" as the saying went at the time. Lawyers involved also warned against getting the national security intelligence apparatus involved with what was a law enforcement situation. In fact, that's how the Clinton Admin and initially, the Bush admin, handled terrorism, they were all LE investigations which limited their scope. The law to an extent prevented this intel/LE communication. The lawyers were very wary, Jimmy Akin said, of making mistakes like the ones that happened to Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians ranch (among other situations) by "overzealous law enforcement" all of which lead to the Oklahoma City bombing as a retaliation.

Those of us who were paying attention at the time, may recall, that after the OK city bombing that it was as serious then with the Feds going after the militia movement and 3%ers and such as today with the Feds going after MAGA patriots and 1/6 "insurrectionists". The only difference is the words "white supremacy" thrown into the mix. The Feds were telling cops to pull over cars with NRA stickers as a pretext to search the car, as members were all potential violent extremists. President Clinton attacked Rush Limbaugh and said he provoked the OK city bombing, something he later retracted. "Jack booted Nazi thug" was a common epithet against Feds, who, of course, infiltrated the militia movement then like they did the Civil Rights movement with COINTELPRO and pretty much destroyed the 90/00s incarnation of it the militia movement.

So after 9/11, this "wall of separation" between the intelligence agencies and law enforcement was removed and they jointly went after the terrorists during the "war on terror". The intelligence agencies grew under Obama to be a real "deep state" and by the Biden regime, you see that the same methods of the war on terror, without the deterrence from the OK city bombing, turned against the supposed threat of "white supremacy". Tucker Carlson makes this point, that the "war on terror" is now being directed at American patriots and not jihadists.

TLDR: OK city bombing led the Feds to limit law enforcement excesses, Bush's reforms of the intelligence agencies after 9/11 removed that check, now they are turning War on Terror tactics against enemies of the Biden regime.

So, the GOP won big last night, across the board. Reason? They couldn't stop the count at 3 a.m. and pump in the mail in ballots. Expect similar results in the mid term elections. It's hard to fix 435 House races and 33 Senate races, though they might pick off a couple close races with mail in ballots. That's what gave us Simena in AZ and that stupid Saturday Night Live comedian in MN a few years ago.

This is not to say that election fraud isn't a problem, and this is not to say "vote harder" or whatever straw man you want.

This post is to say, that when Trump wins in 2024 without COVID as cover to pump in the mail in ballots at 3am after kicking out the election observers, then, and only then, will we really be in danger of a 2nd civil war over an election.

Further, if I was Trump, I'd be buying some insurance. I'd be working with rural County Clerks in blue states to do the same thing that the inner city County Clerks do, which is pump in the fake ballots.

"He was fully vaccinated, but was also living with a blood cancer called multiple myeloma, in which the cancer infects the white blood cells. Those of course are critical in fighting infection."

I think the shot done killed him, as we know it destroys immune systems.

I saw this bit on the Ace of Spades blog. It's worth a jaunt there from time to time.
http://ace.mu.nu/

If you're here to say crypto is fake and gay, or a honeypot, please restrict yourself to commenting to the theory at hand. I wouldn't start talking about Moby Dick if the book club was reading Ivanhoe, ya dig?

Background: Crypto is one of the biggest expansion of the money supply in history. It actually rivals the fed making the money printer go brrrr. QE 1-3 totaled about $8 trillion.

Total cryptocurrency market cap - $2.3 trillion in 2021. This is up from about $20 million in 2017. So, crypto is akin at least to QE1. Moreover, it keeps going upward, bubbles none-withstanding.

Thesis: Part of the reason that crypto is being accepted by major financial institutions (debate the honeypot aspect elsewhere, I acknowledge it), and western governments are no longer trying to shut it down, but instead regulate and "tame" it, such that it is on its way to being part of the range of financial options like 401ks and such, is because it allows for the fed to keep inflating the currency, without actually printing more money or doing QE4.

[edit - link to The Conversable Economist article on the state of crypto, which got me thinking on the topic: https://conversableeconomist.wpcomstaging.com/2021/10/04/cryptocurrencies-an-update-and-overview/ ]

The chief problem which arises when we apply our theories to any particular situation in the real world. A theory of essentially complex phenomena must refer to a large number of particular facts; and to derive a prediction from it, or to test it, we have to ascertain all these particular facts. Once we succeeded in this there should be no particular difficulty about deriving testable predictions. But there are way to many unknowable facts, and further the real danger consists in the ascertainment of the particular facts after the events have happened to comport to our theories beforehand.

Example: "OF COURSE Biden's vax mandate was all a ploy, never meant to be implemented."

You don't know that, what you're doing is taking information after events have happened and reinterpreting them to comport to your theories afterwards. You backwash your reasoning to fit current events. This way lies charlatanism and worse. Make your testable theories up PRIOR to events, or, at the very least, stick to analyzing events as they happen or after they have happened to try to ascertain what is the most objective truth.

Ask yourself a question, with generals like Milley and VPs like Pence, how many would have followed his lawful orders? Remember, Trump in his last days also had to fire a general who wanted to stay in Afghanistan. In his last year he also had to fire a Navy Admiral who wanted to go after that Navy Seal (Gallager I belive his name was) that Trump had specifically told him not to prosecute and whom he later pardoned.

The military brass wanted him gone. Like in every coup, both sides calculate who is on their side and who is against him. Trump knew he couldn't pull it off.

Before anyone says I'm some Q supporter or TDW fan club member on hopium, I'm not. And if you're coming here to say Trump was all an elaborate ploy or ruse by the deep state, you're brain dead.

Larry Elder is a pretty sharp guy, one of the top normie conservatives out there, especially for a black guy.

Now, everyone is saying "the fix is in" on CA due to these voter fraud allegations, such as people showing up and finding their ballot was already cast, or that case where the guy with a gun/drugs/300+ mail in ballots in his car was arrested passed out in a convenience store parking lot.

But I could see, Larry Elder, with the backing of Peter Thiel or some such, laying the bribes on thick to fight fire with fire. Then, if he wins, they can say "look, the system isn't rigged, a conservative won CA".