Quote:

---

The Propaganda Multiplier

A Study by Swiss Propaganda Research

Translated by Terje Maloy

2016 / 2019

“Therefore, you always have to ask yourself: Why do I get this specific information, in this specific form, at this specific moment? Ultimately, these are always questions about power.”
Dr. Konrad Hummler, Swiss banking and media executive

---

Quote:

---

It is one of the most important aspects of our media system, and yet hardly known to the public: most of the international news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based in New York, London and Paris.

The key role played by these agencies means Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording. In addition, governments, military and intelligence services use these global news agencies as multipliers to spread their messages around the world.

A study of the Syria war coverage by nine leading European newspapers clearly illustrates these issues: 78% of all articles were based in whole or in part on agency reports, yet 0% on investigative research. Moreover, 82% of all opinion pieces and interviews were in favor of a US and NATO intervention, while propaganda was attributed exclusively to the opposite side.

---

Quote:

---

“How does the newspaper know what it knows?” The answer to this question is likely to surprise some newspaper readers: “The main source of information is stories from news agencies. The almost anonymously operating news agencies are in a way the key to world events. So what are the names of these agencies, how do they work and who finances them? To judge how well one is informed about events in East and West, one should know the answers to these questions.” (Höhne 1977, p. 11)

A Swiss media researcher points out: “The news agencies are the most important suppliers of material to mass media. No daily media outlet can manage without them. () So the news agencies influence our image of the world; above all, we get to know what they have selected.” (Blum 1995, p. 9)

Even the head of a news agency noted: “There is something strange about news agencies. They are little known to the public. Unlike a newspaper, their activity is not so much in the spotlight, yet they can always be found at the source of the story.” (Segbers 2007, p. 9)

In view of their essential importance, it is all the more astonishing that these agencies are hardly known to the public: “A large part of society is unaware that news agencies exist at all … In fact, they play an enormously important role in the media market. But despite this great importance, little attention has been paid to them in the past.” (Schulten-Jaspers 2013, p. 13)

So what are the names of these agencies that are “always at the source of the story”? There are now only three global news agencies left:

The American Associated Press (AP) with over 4000 employees worldwide. The AP belongs to US media companies and has its main editorial office in New York. AP news is used by around 12,000 international media outlets, reaching more than half of the world’s population every day.

The quasi-governmental French Agence France-Presse (AFP) based in Paris and with around 4000 employees. The AFP sends over 3000 stories and photos every day to media all over the world.

The British agency Reuters in London, which is privately owned and employs just over 3000 people. Reuters was acquired in 2008 by Canadian media entrepreneur Thomson – one of the 25 richest people in the world – and merged into Thomson Reuters, headquartered in New York.

In addition, many countries run their own news agencies. These include, for instance, the German DPA, the Austrian APA, and the Swiss SDA. When it comes to international news, however, national agencies usually rely on the three global agencies and simply copy and translate their reports. ...

However, there is a simple reason why the global agencies, despite their importance, are virtually unknown to the general public. To quote a Swiss media professor: “Radio and television usually do not name their sources, and only specialists can decipher references in magazines.” (Blum 1995, P. 9)

The motive for this discretion, however, should be clear: news outlets are not particularly keen to let readers know that they haven’t researched most of their contributions themselves.

(And) (o)ccasionally, newspapers use agency material but do not label it at all. A study in 2011 from the Swiss Research Institute for the Public Sphere and Society at the University of Zurich came to the following conclusions (FOEG 2011):

“Agency contributions are exploited integrally without labeling them, or they are partially rewritten to make them appear as an editorial contribution. In addition, there is a practice of ‘spicing up’ agency reports with little effort: for example, unpublished agency reports are enriched with images and graphics and presented as comprehensive articles.”

---

Quote:

---

The agencies play a prominent role not only in the press, but also in private and public broadcasting. " The editor working on a news topic only needs to select a few text passages on the screen that he considers essential, rearrange them and glue them together with a few flourishes.”

In fact, not only the text, but also the images, sound and video recordings that we encounter in our media every day, are mostly from the very same agencies. What the uninitiated audience might think of as contributions from their local newspaper or TV station, are actually copied reports from New York, London and Paris.

https://swprs.org/the-propaganda-multiplier/

---

Quote:

---

Wikipedia and a pint of gin

By Justus R. Hope, MD Jul 5, 2021 Updated Jul 6, 2021


I became a Wiki editor a couple of weeks ago. Anyone can edit Wikipedia provided they follow the rules. One should not use primary sources. Instead, secondary sources are preferred. Translated, this means do not use sources that have not been widely read and reported for a long time and DO NOT use recent sources if they are not in the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, this means that published peer-reviewed medical journal articles will sometimes NOT be allowed, which means you, the reader, will likely get inaccurate or ONLY politically correct information.

This also means that someone's Wikipedia page could contain unflattering and untrue information; in someone's opinion it could be downright defamatory, and there is not a darn thing that can be done to correct this.

Allow me to illustrate a case in point. Dr. Pierre Kory has served as the Chief of Critical Care Medicine at a University Medical Center. This fact is accurately reported on his Wikipedia page. In addition, he published a book on Ultrasound and won a British Award for this. Again, this is also accurately portrayed on his page.

He testified at the US Senate about Ivermectin, and this is where the incorrect information gets written. The Wikipedia page reports, “During his (Pierre Kory’s) testimony in December 2020, Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a ‘wonder drug’ with ‘miraculous effectiveness’ against COVID-19.[1]”

In support, Wikipedia cites an AP Fact Check article by a journalist, Ms. Beatrice Dupuy, who is not a medical professional to my knowledge. She has never served as a medical director of Critical Care or Pulmonary Medicine. I believe she has written for StarTribune and TeenVogue Magazine in the past.

However, she is somehow sufficiently competent to call Dr. Kory's testimony “false.”

TrialSite News published an article debunking Beatrice Dupuy's "fact check," and this is what they wrote about her errors in the argument concerning Ivermectin and Dr. Kory: https://trialsitenews.com/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-the-case-of-
ivermectin-for-publicly-subsidized-research/
“The AP, via author Beatrice Dupuy, indulges in both a straw-man argument and bait-and-switch tactic in its key finding; the former by asking whether Ivermectin is ‘miraculous’ (while a doctor may have used such language, common sense dictates that an inquiry more relevant to the public health would be whether ivermectin is ‘effective’), and the later by offering an ‘Assessment’ that answers a different question than the one in the ‘Claim.’

Quoting AP, ‘CLAIM: The antiparasitic drug Ivermectin ‘has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates’ the transmission of COVID-19 and will prevent people from getting sick — AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence Ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.’

The claim is about Ivermectin as a prophylactic to prevent getting COVID-19 illness, but the assessment’s language states that it is not an effective ‘treatment against COVID-19.’ Since prophylactic (prevention) is for the well, and treatment is for the sick, confusing these medical uses appears to be sloppy journalism or worse.”

What is truly troubling is that the Wikipedia editor considers this type of “fact check” by a non-physician a reliable source. What is even more troubling is that Wikipedia DOES NOT CONSIDER the American Journal of Therapeutics a reliable source. Their editors REFUSED to allow even the mention of Dr. Kory's recent publication or Dr. Tess Lawrie's recent publication in the same journal.

When I first saw Dr. Kory's Wiki page, it read as follows:

“During his (Pierre Kory’s) testimony in December 2020, Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a ‘wonder drug’ with ‘miraculous effectiveness’ against COVID-19.[1]”

Since this was written in December 2020, MUCH MORE EVIDENCE has been published beyond Ms. Dupuy’s disputed fact check issued by the AP on December 11, 2020. We now have over 61 studies involving 19,432 patients via 578 authors.

https://ivmmeta.com/

That is more than a mountain of evidence. It is more like an encyclopedia of data comprising volumes and volumes of evidence. Included are 32 randomized controlled trials. Because many cancer drugs are FDA approved without a SINGLE randomized controlled trial, and many drugs are approved with less than 3,000 patients studied, the double standard is laughable.

Therefore, I changed “erroneous” to “controversial,” which is a more accurate adjective. I also added the newly published peer-reviewed medical journal studies by Dr. Kory and Dr. Lawrie. Finally, my edit contained these additional two sentences:

“However, in May of 2021, Dr. Kory published a narrative review in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics entitled, "Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19."[2] Subsequently, on June 17, 2021 Dr. Tess Lawrie published an extensive meta-analysis in the same peer-reviewed journal involving 24 randomized controlled trials and concluded that based upon moderate certainty evidence, Ivermectin was associated with a 62% reduction in COVID-19 mortality.[3]"

Following these changes, the senior editor “reverted” my edits, which is a polite way of saying he undid them. This senior editor describes himself as a retired computer scientist, and there is no indication of any medical training. Let us refer to him ASOP.

I received ASOP’s explanation, attached to my reversion, that the American Journal of Therapeutics was considered NOT RELIABLE, and he considered this medical journal a FRINGE source.

At first, I thought perhaps this was an isolated incident at Wikipedia. Then, I checked another page, the one on Ivermectin.

The Ivermectin Wiki page stated, “claims that Ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19 are not backed by sound evidence.” Once again, they referenced a “fact check” page. Once again, I felt it was necessary to update their information.

I used my ability as a Wikipedia editor to update this article and add the Kory and Lawrie studies recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. I happened to do this during the afternoon on July 4th. Within 5 minutes on July 4th, 2021, an American national holiday, my edit was reverted. When I attempted to appeal, I was referred to the “Talk” page for Ivermectin. Again, I was confronted with previous explanations by the same now-familiar editor, the British computer scientist, ASOP, who argued that the American Journal of Therapeutics was not a “reliable source.”

Wikipedia reports that there are 41 million editor accounts, and some 127,566 are actively editing. Considering this, it is interesting that ASOP is the very same editor who reverted my edit on Pierre Kory and the same editor who recently edited the Ivermectin Wikipedia page. Wow! What are the chances?

I was curious. I checked his other editing activity, which is displayed on Wikipedia.

It turns out that he is also the same editor who manages the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Wiki page, and he is also the very same British retired computer scientist who edits the Big Pharma conspiracy theory Wiki page. He also edits the Spike Protein Wiki page.

Allow me to leave it to your imagination as to where he stands on these issues.

Hint: He is curiously aligned with Big Pharma, Big Vaccines, and Big Regulators in all of his viewpoints. To those who challenge him, he frequently threatens “sanctions” and barring from Wikipedia. One might think this fabled super-editor at Wikipedia, ASOP, has medical training or a degree in the life sciences. But no, he is skilled at computer code, and he, like many political pundits, is a skilled debater and wordsmith, but he has precious few skills when it comes to medicine.

Funny that this non-physician would be “the chosen one” to edit Wiki pages on vaccines, spike protein, and Ivermectin, out of the 41 million other potential editors, but perhaps there is a lot at stake here. For whom? And to undo an edit within 5 minutes on July 4th suggests an early warning monitoring system of nuclear proportions.

When reading the Big Pharma conspiracy theory Wiki page, one gets the impression that the pharmaceutical industry has never been involved in large scandals. One editor objected to the biased reporting,

“The problem I see with this is that the references appear to be rather one-sided on the issue, and particularly ignore the more recent well-documented scandals in the pharmaceutical industry which posit the potential question of whether there is widespread corruption involved in the government regulating bodies, such as the FDA.”

Another editor called ASOP out on his obvious conflict of interest. Let’s call this second editor, SENSE, who wrote, “This article is absolutely disgusting. If you google "Big Pharma", this is the first result that comes up. It's as if all use of "Big Pharma" is somehow suggestive of a conspiracy regarding, of course, a very noble and honorable industry.” SENSE continued, “Your history in this talk page strongly suggests that you might have a WP: COI (Wikipedia Conflict of Interest) regarding your connections to the medical industry.”

As a physician with decades of practice, recent widespread corruption is the rule, and lack thereof is the rare exception. When trying to help my friend survive Glioblastoma, I uncovered far more than I expected, and I felt everyone needed to know this alarming information. So, I wrote a book.

https://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Cancer-COVID-19-Disease-Repurposed/dp
/0998055409

The medical-industrial complex routinely suppresses cheap treatments with repurposed drugs, and ASOP helps prove the very existence of what he is attempting and probably paid to discredit.

The WP: COI policy is stated as follows,

“COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted.”

Wikipedia also has a noble policy of required disclosure, very similar to the medical journals. The problem is that just as in the medical journals, this disclosure relies upon the honor system, and as we have recently seen, often these go unreported,

https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/local/debating-ivermectin-hydroxy
chloroquine-and-colchicine/article_01fbb380-d917-11eb-91c2-73cdf82fa113.html

Suppose you expect to read a Wikipedia article and come away with a comprehensive, scholarly, and exhaustive understanding of a subject. In that case, you may get it with topics about black holes, astronomy, and physics. You may also get it with ancient history. Wikipedia does a good job there. But if you are reading about any topic even vaguely related to cancer, vaccines, or the pandemic, where big money is being made, then forget it.

In particular, if you read any of ASOP’s Wikipedia pages, do not expect to find any encyclopedic reading. Instead, anticipate the party line of the FDA, the NIH, and Big Pharma. When it comes to peer-reviewed medical journals, Wikipedia believes them to be fringe if what they publish infringes upon Big Pharma and their brethren. However, an AP "Fact Check" by a non-physician TeenVogue journalist is considered solid evidence.

My advice is to stand with college professors everywhere, "Wikipedia is NOT reliable, and their information should be taken with a grain of salt and perhaps a pint of gin as well."

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/wikipedia-and-a-pin
t-of-gin/article_22ffa0d8-dde9-11eb-be75-d7b0b1f2ff67.html

---

Quote:

---

The American Journal of Therapeutics is a bimonthly peer-reviewed medical journal covering advances in drug therapy, comparative effectiveness research, and post-marketing surveillance. The journal was established in 1994 by John Somberg MD and is published by Wolters Kluwer. The editor-in-chief since 2015 is Peter Manu MD, Professor of Medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY.[1]

The journal has been part of the Web of Science Core Collection since 2010. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2020 impact factor of 2.688.[2] The journal is included in the Index Medicus (MEDLINE).[3]

---

Quote:

---

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

Predatory open access journals are also questionable, due to lack of effective peer-review.

---

Quote:

---

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:


We used to argue about whether the private sector corporations or the public sector govt agencies were helping people or becoming evil, and this was the cornerstone of left-right debates.

Now all of us are independently coming to a place where corporate-government alliances are becoming evil, and the only remain debate is between those who are aware and those who do not see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Wikipedia is full of a lot of nonsense,

---

Quote:

---

so if there's a decent group of editors managing the page, the pages accuracy is maintained okay. If there is a vested interest, political or profit, in putting misleading information on an entry, it would make sense that accuracy will suffer, as the editors for that topic become filled with interested parties.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

I learned about all of this in the early 90s, or late 80s - from Rush. Maybe you are late to the game.

If you all keep learning and opening your eyes, you are going to eventually wake up centrist - or, as the MSM and other Libtards call it, conservative. There are many jokes on the subject, spanning decades.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Yeah! YEAH!
Right.
OK!
NO!!!! Aaaaargh!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
My problem with Rush is that eerything I knew abut him was from RAPPY, and everything that he transmitted to the board (about Iraq and Saddam's apocryphal WMD) was nonsense. So I didn't have any incentive to learn more about him.

It's not that I reject rightwing people. I used to read Pat Buchanan's stuff and think

Yeah! YEAH!
Right.
OK!
NO!!!! Aaaaargh!

It was interesting to me that I could agree so wholeheartedly with SOME of his opinions and disagree just as strognly with others.

Even people like PN got a listen from me. But I used to use this board as my go-to source for what "the right" was promoting at the time, and since it was nonsense (I recall RAPPY posting that the economy was ON FIRE!! right before the 2008 implosion) it was so clearly wrong I never looked any further.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Yeah! YEAH!
Right.
OK!
NO!!!! Aaaaargh!

---

I kind of agree on Buchanan. I think the problem was a little bit that the Brigade was like a cult, and they just kind of assumed they were right. I knew many of these people personally, including a lot of Brigade leaders, and they were fine as far as they went, but they had that same underlying culty self assuredness that the lefty cults have.

As far as posters here I didn't really have a problem with John other than JEWS! JEWS! JEWS! and I didn't have a problem with Auraptor at all, I thought he was kind of a normal person. I'm sure I disagreed with him on occasion about politics occasionally, his story posts were always pretty insightful. In John's posts, the fact and the fiction didn't seem to have a firm border between them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I learned about all of this in the early 90s, or late 80s - from Rush. Maybe you are late to the game.

If you all keep learning and opening your eyes, you are going to eventually wake up centrist - or, as the MSM and other Libtards call it, conservative. There are many jokes on the subject, spanning decades.

---

I was a loyal liberal at the time who shut out Rush, not just because he was a brash conservative but because he was a fat ugly drug addict who yelled at people. I realize that's not sound political reasoning, but I suspect a lot of people filter on similar bases.

I figure that the right is a scam because I know the left is a scam, and I know how that scam is built, so why wouldn't they just build a right to match it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

What is Brigade?
You people are weird. You've never met somebody who can think for themself?

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:
My problem with Rush is that eerything I knew abut him was from RAPPY, and everything that he transmitted to the board (about Iraq and Saddam's apocryphal WMD) was nonsense. So I didn't have any incentive to learn more about him.

It's not that I reject rightwing people. I used to read Pat Buchanan's stuff and think

Yeah! YEAH!
Right.
OK!
NO!!!! Aaaaargh!

It was interesting to me that I could agree so wholeheartedly with SOME of his opinions and disagree just as strognly with others.

Even people like PN got a listen from me. But I used to use this board as my go-to source for what "the right" was promoting at the time, and since it was nonsense (I recall RAPPY posting that the economy was ON FIRE!! right before the 2008 implosion) it was so clearly wrong I never looked any further.

JSF: SO much wrong in this post.
So. Much. Wrong.
With such a complete and total failure of logic just posted, I have no time to go through all the details.
Let's go to conclusion.
How can you possibly conjure that anybody should ever take you seriously? Really?

For the last 1/3 century you have avoided reality like the plague (and it is contagious, just like democracy/liberty in the global scene, open minds and knowledge is also contagious, no matter how much you have avoided it). You consult your trusted Libtard source like ABC, then check with your opposing Libtard source like NYT, then confer with your discussion Libtard source like CNN, then look at your alternative Libtard source like PBS. All while being too afraid to dip a toe4 into reality. You keep telling all that you have checked your sources, and then, in this thread, you finally realize that ALL OF YOUR SOURCES were the same source - while the rest of the world already knew this, you cuddled in your little Libtard Media Bubble known as SoCal, thinking you didn't have any interest in venturing into the real world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Topic?

Quote:

---

most of the international news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based in New York, London and Paris.

---

this has been the trend for a while. The entirety of the corporate media can be bought by printing infinite cash, so it's all the beast now.

you need completely competing styles of information source that they don't own, can't buy or clone and basically can't be owned

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

We had that for a brief moment on the internet.

But the "Left" started shutting that down and the Leftists cheered it every step of the way.

The backlash will be the eventual near-total control of the "Right" for a time and then the Dittohead types will cheer on the rest of the censorship and centralized control and there won't be a 2nd internet popping up for any of them to worry about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What is Brigade?
You people are weird. You've never met somebody who can think for themself?

---

I was being completely literal
I worked with a number of these people. Good people. But some of them could argue like an RWEDer

https://buchanan.org/blog/brigade-elist

As for the left right, think about it. The left is a scam because it's a satanic cult trying to establish global domination by playing to people's weakness in the sense of caring and fareness and whatever forms of justice and equality they pretend to stand for.

But if you look into that satanic cult you see they don't just run communism, over the centuries they've created fake judean cults, fake christian cults, fake muslim cults, fake masons, fake monarchies, fake democracies, fake revolutions. So why wouldn't they invent a fake conservatism or to?

The neocons were theirs. Many of the new BLM makeover churches are theirs. So call them what you will, the sabbatean commie satanic cabal that made the new left and critical theory can make other organizations. They're pathological liars to start with. They're not honor bound to create only organizations like planned parenthood (blatant nazi genocide) they can also create fake opposition. They can make terrorist anti-abortionists to discredit the opposing viewpoint. They can make neonazis and zionists both if they want. Lying and deception is what they do. The more politically or religiously loyal the people are, the easier it will be to deceive them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

We had that for a brief moment on the internet.

But the "Left" started shutting that down and the Leftists cheered it every step of the way.

The backlash will be the eventual near-total control of the "Right" for a time and then the Dittohead types will cheer on the rest of the censorship and centralized control and there won't be a 2nd internet popping up for any of them to worry about.

---

I mean, you're right, but it will be different than they're envisioning it

The term the right will cease to exist when the left ceases to exist. We have to figure on that now because the left just all committed mass suicide, they all injected themselves with a bioweapon, and they will continue to do so. The left will be the ones who rush to get in line to get the new special Pfizer Delta Boosters that's coming out in September. Yeah, that's a thing already. Pfizer is saying that they have engineered a special booster that targets Delta, given what, a couple of months? What strange bioweapon is this? the contagious vax?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

So Brigade is a fawning over Pat Buchanan, no other application? I used to think he was just some religious nut.

---

It's complicated. Remember Ross Perot?
Buchanan wanted to create something like United We Stand America, and it just failed to gain broader appeal, so they raided RPUSA instead, and took it over. After that, UWSA and the Brigade became rival factions within the RPUSA, which is where I know them from. I was the head of the NY branch of Reform.

I mean, he was a religious nutter, but he was also a libertarian. I don't have huge problems with them or him, except that it's a cult and kind of difficult to feed new ideas into, like that they might be being manipulated by the democrats into being an unelectable vote splitter.

Quote:

---

You encounter the real world, and are repelled by it. You have spent your entire life in delusion (not uncommon for those stuck in the media bubbles of NY or CA), and so you rationalize that all of the world must be a delusion, just of different flavors.

---

Nope, I don't think that's me. I take everything one issue at a time.

Quote:

---

You seem unable to accept that the real world is, actually, the real world.
The real world is where Libtards die, their delusional beliefs cannot withstand real scrutiny.
This is why, when folk open their eyes to reality, the4y shed their Libtard delusions. Once a member of the real world, M$M and other Libtards will call you conservative. Conservatives are where the critical thinkers reside.

---

Libtars are just people with outsourced brains, largely because of some psychological investment they can't undo. Some woman murders her children in a satanic molech sacrifice (abortion) and she has two worlds she can live in, one where she "expressed her freedom" (gertrudesteinland/margaretsangerland) and the other where she murdered her own children. One day she wakes up too old to have children, and she can never accept the reality that she exterminated her own family line to glorify hitler, so she instead lives in a delusional libtardistan.

So yeah, I have to view that I make mistakes, but I also have to be equally skeptical of countertheories. Being on the dogmatic opposite end of that is not enlightened. What if it turns out that HIV was actually a WHO bioweapon and not a "harmless virus" and then it gets used as a retroviral gene therapy amd everyone dies? Believing the counter to the lie doesn't necessarily mean you're automatically holding the truth.

I mean I agree with most of what trump said, more than most, but he also said he could mobilize the army to vaccinate everyone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm going to need to see proof that Trump said that.

I don't remember ever hearing that, and I've got a better memory than most. Particularly about this subject.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Oh, okay... I remember that.

The way DT said it, it sounded like he was going to make the military force it on everyone, which was not the case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Any soldier who doesn't want it should be allowed to leave without a dishonorable discharge.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Any soldier who doesn't want it should be allowed to leave without a dishonorable discharge.

---

A battalion will only function effectively if the soldiers are far more cohesive than, for examples: American neighborhoods, families, corporations, cities, etc. But there are some battalions that don't function worth a damn and where many things, such as refusing to be vaccinated, might be "over-looked". On the other hand, in a high functioning battalion, a soldier probably won't be getting an honorable discharge unless the soldier has a good lawyer making an extremely convincing argument why this particular soldier should not be vaccinated.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

So Brigade is a fawning over Pat Buchanan, no other application? I used to think he was just some religious nut.

---

It's complicated. Remember Ross Perot?
Buchanan wanted to create something like United We Stand America, and it just failed to gain broader appeal, so they raided RPUSA instead, and took it over. After that, UWSA and the Brigade became rival factions within the RPUSA, which is where I know them from. I was the head of the NY branch of Reform.

I mean, he was a religious nutter, but he was also a libertarian. I don't have huge problems with them or him, except that it's a cult and kind of difficult to feed new ideas into, like that they might be being manipulated by the democrats into being an unelectable vote splitter.

Quote:

---

You encounter the real world, and are repelled by it. You have spent your entire life in delusion (not uncommon for those stuck in the media bubbles of NY or CA), and so you rationalize that all of the world must be a delusion, just of different flavors.

---

Nope, I don't think that's me. I take everything one issue at a time.

Quote:

---

You seem unable to accept that the real world is, actually, the real world.
The real world is where Libtards die, their delusional beliefs cannot withstand real scrutiny.
This is why, when folk open their eyes to reality, the4y shed their Libtard delusions. Once a member of the real world, M$M and other Libtards will call you conservative. Conservatives are where the critical thinkers reside.

---

Libtars are just people with outsourced brains, largely because of some psychological investment they can't undo. Some woman murders her children in a satanic molech sacrifice (abortion) and she has two worlds she can live in, one where she "expressed her freedom" (gertrudesteinland/margaretsangerland) and the other where she murdered her own children. One day she wakes up too old to have children, and she can never accept the reality that she exterminated her own family line to glorify hitler, so she instead lives in a delusional libtardistan.

So yeah, I have to view that I make mistakes, but I also have to be equally skeptical of countertheories. Being on the dogmatic opposite end of that is not enlightened. What if it turns out that HIV was actually a WHO bioweapon and not a "harmless virus" and then it gets used as a retroviral gene therapy amd everyone dies? Believing the counter to the lie doesn't necessarily mean you're automatically holding the truth.

I mean I agree with most of what trump said, more than most, but he also said he could mobilize the army to vaccinate everyone. Each piece of information deserves its own place, and most of the time I'm being very skeptical of all the information.

So, on HIV, my current suspicion is HIV is a bioweapon, and AZT is a chemical weapon. And covid is a bioweapon, and the vax is a bioweapon. I'm going to do my best to avoid everything that is touched by fauci and gate and the who and company and anyone who acts like them. at the moment tho, i appear to be very ill with what i suspect is a bioweapon

---