Open Thread

Open Thread #182

The Open Thread is a place for open discussion among my readers. Post anything you feel like sharing! From now on, the Open Thread will no longer be monthly. Instead, there will be a new Open Thread whenever it is adequate. The stage is yours. Go ahead!

The latest Open Thread is made ‘sticky’ to improve access.

Please consider throwing a few coins into the tip jar, and buy my books! They are great. Your support is greatly appreciated.

98 thoughts on “Open Thread #182

  1. TikTok has knocked Google off the top of the Internet totem pole:
    This is rather significant. Of course, this does not mean that Google is now irrelevant but it shows that those giant Big Tech companies are not ensured perpetual dominance. Similarly, Facebook has really unpopular in the sub-25 demographic.

  2. American Krogan has a new video out. He is discussing FarCry 6:
    I expect Ubisoft to go hard on the “white man bad, brown man good” theme. Just like with a typical Hollywood movie, you expect wokeness to the hilt. You just do not know how bad it is. I would not bother playing that game, but I certainly do not mind watching one of our bros tearing Ubi a new one.

    On related news, there has apparently been an exodus of employees at Ubi. Obviously, there is no way that this has anything to with the woke garbage they have been releasing for years, just like it cannot have anything to do with the quality of their employees getting worse. After all, if we know one thing then it is that gender-fluid and morbidly obese Bryanna Tron Krystall Meooowaaaa (xhe/xer) who did not know what a computer was until six months ago can write code just as well as the autistic Whites and Asians who moved on to greener pastures and who have been coding for 16 hours per day all their life.

    1. I have a friend who streamed far cry 6 for me and he went around hacking up black woman with a machete…

      Never before you could you target and kill mass amounts of black woman with a machete until far cry 6.

    2. Judging from the video by Amerian Krogan, it seems that you can kill brown female NPCs, not black ones, and on the totem pole of oppression, blacks are apparently seen as being more oppressed than brown people. It also seems that brown women rank below black men. After all, years ago there was quite an outcry over Resident Evil 5 as some of the zombies you kill are of the black persuasion. Thus, the game was branded “racist”. It probably did not help that the protagonist in RE5 is white whereas in FarCry 6 you apparently play as a mestizo.

    3. “Go woke, go broke” is real. Now in the case of huge corporations and brands it might take same time due to momentum. They will all go broke with due time.

    1. Ok Aaron, how about we bet some money on this.

      You predict there is an ongoing genocide. I say there isn’t.

      So let’s say we both bet X amount.

      If the population of Austria in the year 2023 is >= it was in 2019. I win the bet, otherwise you win the bet.

      I would be willing to bet up to 1000€

      We can both give the money to an escrow, (the user Manual S seems to eh quite neutral, or Tamara) in case you fear I will die and don’t pay you.

      We can also change the conditions of the bet if you want. Just suggest which conditions you would like.

      If you don’t accept any bet, I say you are full of shit and don’t even believe your own bullshit.

    2. Did you have a quick session with your Soros buddies to come up with this moronic suggestion? You engage in your usual old bizarre rhetoric again. No, I do not think that the goal of the vaxx is to kill people quickly. Quite the contrary. In my view, the goal of the vaxx was to make people chronically ill and also shave off years of their life expectancy. In fact, I just wrote a post on that on my other blog:

      Also, how do you explain all those people collapsing on camera? Maybe you want to opine on that for a bit. Surely, someone with a galaxy brain like you must realize that you cannot just ignore this increase of people who die “suddenly and after short illness” by saying that this is nothing because there is no way that this will lead to a big drop of the number of inhabitants of a city. Besides, the premise of your bet is downright bizarre. Are you even aware how many dindus the West is importing? Just ask around among your colleagues. Surely, your office buddies can tell you the KPIs they are aiming for. I do not know the figures of Austria, but Germany is bringing in so many “doctors and engineers” that the total population is still growing despite record emigration of ethnic Germans, overall excess mortality, and a dropping birth rate.

      EDIT: Here is a recent article behind paywall on the issue of the population size of Germany. I know that you are very fond of mainstream sources, so this will probably be sufficient for you. You can read the intro of the article for free, which addresses the point I made.

    3. Or let’s say we do it like this.

      Both you and me give a bitcoin address here

      We agree on a binary prediction for 1.1.2023 (or some other date you would like)

      On the given date, whoever got his prediction right will pay the other (and it will be visible to all the readers of this blog if this payment happened)

      Bow of course you could say, I just could refuse to pay in case I lose, or I could be dead.

      True, but at least one of was would be exposed to all readers of this blog as a moron.


    4. Look Aaron, that’s why I said, you can suggest any condition you want. (of course it must be related to your conspiracy mongering)

      Make an actual prediction, which can be quantified, about the future.

      If you cannot do that, then your world model is a stinking pile of garbage.

    5. Alright, we have esteemed scientists telling us now for the fourth or fifth time that we need to be very, very afraid of Covid (take those shots, goy!), or of global warming, or global cooling, or whatever else, which is based on fraudulent models (remember Ferguson from Imperial College? [1]), and somehow it is on me to not criticize those academic frauds but produce a precise model? This is yet another Soros shill technique, i.e. telling critics that they cannot just criticize. Oh no, that would be too easy. They also need to solve the problem. I first noticed this technique from the Left during the Great Invasion of 2015 and the aftermath. They threw their hands up, refused to accept any blame for rapefugees running rampant and blamed their critics for not having any solutions for the mess they themselves created.

      Buddy, you may think that you are smart, but what you are doing is incredibly transparent to people like Alek Novy and me. Also, may I remind you that I have made posts already in early 2020 about Covid being bullshit. I also remember you repeatedly coming to the defense of the mainstream on that matter. How has this been working out for you? I have a hunch that my track record is a lot better than yours.


    6. As expected, you refuse to make any prediction that could be quantified.

      This is always the result when I call out conspiracy mongers.

      You don’t want to put your money or reputation where your mouth is.

      So if people aren’t dying in 1 year. You will say it will take 2 years. If people aren’t dying in 2 years, it will be 5 years.

    7. People are already dying. Have you looked into VAERS or the European equivalent? Have you looked at the recently released data of the Pfizer vaxx trial, which I linked to? There is also excess mortality, as I pointed out previously as well. Oh, and you also lazily ignore my objections to your moronic suggestion.

      EDIT: Here is a mainstream article on a suspicious spike in stillbirths:
      I am sure that this has nothing to do with the vaxx either.

    8. Again aaron. I gave you the freedom to decide. Pick any metric you want. Predict a value it will have on 1.1
      2023, or another date.
      Excess morality, cancer cases, whatever you want. If your prediction is bad enough, I am willing to bet against you

      You make grandiose claims what will happen in the next 50 years, but now you say you can’t even predict what is going to happen next year.

      You are just looking very silly here.
      The opposite of a climate change fear monger

    9. You are not arguing in good faith. We are already seeing (non-Covid related) excess mortality. Also, it is well established that adverse effects of vaccines are grossly underreported [1, 2]. In [1], the key sentence is “fewer than 1 in 200 (…) cases were reported to VAERS”. Also, it seems that it is your lucky day, or not, as the German Paul Ehrlich Institute just released a report on reported adverse effects [3], related to Germany. Their figures are 200,000 suspected cases, of which 26,000 ones are serious. Now you only have to multiply this number with a plausible factor for underreporting, which may be far higher than 400, and the resulting picture is indeed dire.


    10. “of which 26,000 ones are serious”

      According to the German federal office of statistics, in 2020 there have been 2179 deaths from car accidents. So, there is a 10x higher chance of getting a serious (probably life-long
      lasting) side effect from the vaxx (notabene, we’re looking at the reported numbers only, ignoring any sort of under-reporting) then dying from a car accident in a country with no speed limits on the highway.

      Just to put things into perspective a little bit…;jsessionid=8C6ADCABD9F1BE5ADFF77D44AF13B29C.live731

    11. @Neutral, all good points and such, but remember, they are all invalidated if you can’t predict exactly how many people will get what side-effect on what day to a decimal. And if Uber’s cousin’s sister’s neighbour’s dad says he knows a person who knows a person who was filed as having a side-effect, but really lied… well then all of this is invalid. Make sense?


      In October the European Parliament discussed starting a compensation fund for victims of the covid vaccines. At that time there were already a million adverse-reactions recorded.

      @Uber = what are your soros-funded fact-checker buddies gonna do? Are they going to call the european parlament a “euro blog” like they did with the BMJ, the motherfucking most-prestigious medical journal in the world? They called it a “blog” for fucks sake. Like how brazen can you get.

    13. Seriously, 90% of anti-vaxx content is crap as it usually involves taking things out of context, cherrypicking data or contains logical fallacies. Mainstream news sources have a field day with debunking that shit. Some non-mainstream news sources rely on doomporn and clickbaits to stay relevant but that is not helping the cause if they blot out legit content such as research papers showing vaccine spike protein toxicity or lack of transparency behind vaccine authorization.

      It’s alike to a debate where a guy makes a good point but then proceeds to talk too much and gives his opponents easy targets to shoot down and conveniently ignore the main talking point. Among the protesters in my country nobody is talking about spike protein cytotoxicity, lack of independent research or the fact that it will take FDA decades to release all the documentation. Instead they speak about Bill Gates wanting to chip everyone, that 5G will interact with the vaccine nanites and turn everyone into zombies and similar regurgitated nonsense that existed long before COVID.

    14. Seriously, 90% of anti-vaxx content is crap as it usually involves taking things out of context, cherrypicking data or contains logical fallacies

      As opposed to pro-vax, pro-lockdown, pro-fear mongering which is not exactly as you described?

      – Seriously, 90% of pro-vaxx content is crap as it usually involves taking things out of context, cherrypicking data or contains logical fallacies

      – Seriously, 90% of pro-lockdowns content is crap as it usually involves taking things out of context, cherrypicking data or contains logical fallacies

      – Seriously, 90% of pro-restriction content is crap as it usually involves taking things out of context, cherrypicking data or contains logical fallacies

    15. “predict exactly how many people will get what side-effect on what day to a decimal.”

      Alek again strawmanning me hard to defend his daddy Aaron.

      I didn’t ask Aaron to make a super precise prediction to a few decimals at all.

      On his other blog:

      Aaron makes grandiose predictions that there is a genocide in process, and in the next 20 or 30 years there will be a huge rise in infertility, cancer, and other sickness.
      (all caused by the vaccines)

      So, a prediction like “there will be a 10% OR higher rise in cancer” is not me requiring extreme precision from him at all.

      If Aaron actually thinks what he writes on his other blog, there will be much higher rise than just 10%. So a binary bet on 10% or higher would be EASY money for him (if he was actually right)

      It also seems that Aaron trusts data that comes from the mainstream public health agencies (which he already posted here) as long as it confirms his narrative, so we could use that as a quantitative source.

      I just want him to put his money where his mouth is. But as I expected, he refuses to make any specific predictions that someone could call him out with, in a few years down the line.

      This is the same tactic all conspiracy mongers use to shield their predictions from disconfirmation.

      “the vaccine is a bioweapon, 80% of peopel will die!”

      2 years later, no one has died…

      “oh what we really mean is, the vaccine will lead to a rise in cancer… in a few years people will die”

      a few years later, no one has died still….

      “oh we really mean, the vaccine will cause problem in the long term, just wait a few more years”

      My real suspicion here is that this is all some kind of doom porn for Aaron, and he actually wants this to happen, so that he finally gets his race war.
      I strongly doubt that he really believes that 6 billion people will die in the next 20 years.

    16. Dude, there already is excess non-Covid related mortality, kids and teens are having heart attacks, strokes are on the rise. I never said that x % of people die, or that we will all get wiped out within a few years, and you know very well why I do not. Obviously, I cannot make that kind of prediction and largely this is due to the information asymmetry between me and the elites. (I am sure that the elites also do not know how many are going to die, but they are well aware that the vaxx is wreaking havoc.) I find it baffling that I need to spell this out to you. However, I think that there is something else going on. You pretend that you have a good argument while you know that it would be dishonest to make precise numerical predictions. I would not at all be surprised if this is a technique that is mentioned in your fact-checker handbooks.

      Furthermore, you are straw-manning my position as a lot of people have died already. The genocide is already unfolding. You only need to open your eyes. Yet, even when I bring data, like in one of my recent responses to you, you just ignore it and pretend that my position is that we are all going to die, and that I am wrong because nobody has died yet. I really cannot take you seriously in this discussion.

    17. Ok Aaron so it boils down to, you cannot make ANY prediction which can be quantified.
      Do you know how you call a model in science that doesn’t make any valid predictions: garbage.
      All of this is mere mental masturbation if it doesn’t allow you to make any predictions.

      Just try it as an exercise for yourself, you don’t even need to post it here. Make some actual quantitative predictions for the next 10 years.
      Maybe you won’t be making such grandiose claims again when you see how often you are wrong.

      So far you are much worse than the climate change fear mongers, because at least they make some actual predictions which can be verified.

    18. Do I have a lab with 20 people and generous funding from Fauci available? Are you even aware that it is sufficient to show a claim if false if you present counter evidence? For instance, the claim of the mainstream is that the vaxx is “safe and effective”, and we can counter this because a) there are now countless people who have suffered short-term consequences and b) we simply know nothing about long-term effects because no such studied exist. Consequently, the original claim has been disproven both by evidence as well as by formally.

      I am grateful that you are bringing up climate change hoaxers. In that context, you would argue that anybody questioning climate hoaxers cannot just present counter arguments. No, instead they need to present a more elaborate and more precise model to be entitled to criticism. Cleary, you are not arguing in good faith.

    19. “Furthermore, you are straw-manning my position as a lot of people have died already. The genocide is already unfolding.”

      What kind of nonsensical argument is this? Some people dying from vaccine side effects doesn’t prove your genocide narrative at all.
      Much more people have died from covid than from vaccine side effects.

      NO ONE has argued that the vaccine will be without side effects.

      To prove your genocide narrative you don’t merely need to show that some people die from vaccine side effects. You need to show that much more people die from the vaccine, than would die from covid.

      So far you have 0 evidence provided for this.

    20. More people have died from the vaxx than from all other vaccines in the history of vaccines combined. The swine flu vaccination was culled after 25 had died. The Covid vaxx death toll is much higher, yet nothing is happening.

      By the way, have you started reading RFK Jr.’s book on Fauci yet?

    21. Again Aaron, you are just talking in circles to dodge making any claim that someone could check a few years later down the line.

      You are having some model in mind how the future will unfold

      There must be some quantitative observations someone can make, in the future, that you will be able to make, to verify if you were right or wrong.

      I already gave you a lot of leeway to bet on ANY such possible observations.

      If you don’t specify ANY observations you will (or not) make in the future, you are merely mentally masturbating here.

      And this is also to predict your future self from having to admit that you were wrong and that you believed in some insane nonsense.

      For example, I make the prediction: in the year 2030, the world population will still be >= 8 billion. (because no genocide happened)

      So in the year 2030, someone can look at this, and verify that I was right or wrong.

      I can even predict now how you will shield yourself, in the future, from admitting that you were wrong. You will come up with something like this: “because of the massive demonstrations and pressure from the plebs, the elites gave up on their genocide plan”

    22. Basically, all you are doing is making unfalsifiable claims about the future, by not making any predictions which can be verfied

      if the world population in 2030:

      is = 8 billion: the elites gave up on their plan, there was too much resistance.

      This is the same tactic all conspiracy mongers use to shield their narrative.

    23. You raise an important point: reality is not fixed, and the elites are certainly adapting their plan. Do you think the non-Coviv-related excess deaths mean anything, or this all just statistical noise for you? Similarly, is there anything odd about kids having heart attacks, in your opinion?

    24. My last post got botched, but I’m making now a prediction about the future behavior of Aaron:

      if in the year 2030 the world population is still around the same as now, Aaron will argue the elites probably gave up on their genocide plan, because there was too much resistance. (they swaped out the cancer-causing vaccines against some harmful vaccines because they got scared of the pleb fury)

      if in the year 2030 the world population is actually lower, Aaron will use that as argument that he was right with his genocide narrative.

      But what I’m 100% sure will not happen is: Aaron won’t admit that he was wrong.

    25. Are you aware that vaccine side effects have been traced to certain batches? This could of course be just a coincidence, or it could mean that the elites run some A/B tests to see how they can kill people quicker. We also know that some batches contained saline, which Big Pharma explained as a mix-up. It seems that a lot of strange things are happening. We even have vaxx factories accidentally producing saline vials.

    26. Also, I have already been proven right; my genocide hypothesis is only an extrapolation based on existing data. During the pandemic white birthrates declined even further (yes, secondary effects of the vaxx tyranny are also part of the genocide), and people are already dying. How many kids need to die of a stroke for you to change your mind? What number do you have in mind?

    27. How come your post got botched? Don’t tell me you have been brainstorming with your Soros colleagues. From the looks of it, you forgot to paste part of the text, which seems to be a bit clumsy. Surely, it would be inefficient to write comments in a separate editor and then paste them as opposed to composing your reply, copying it elsewhere as a safety measure in case there is some issue, and then posting it.

    28. “You raise an important point: reality is not fixed, and the elites are certainly adapting their plan. Do you think the non-Coviv-related excess deaths mean anything, or this all just statistical noise for you? Similarly, is there anything odd about kids having heart attacks, in your opinion?”

      Aaron, to repeat it the 1000x time now:

      The excess deaths don’t prove your genocide narrative.

      And yeah maybe it’s not a good idea to vaccinate children. This still doesn’t prove your genocide narrative. In many countries they actually don’t vaccinate children.

      It’s certainly possible that the vaccine has more side effects than they would like to admit. This still doesn’t prove your genocide narrative.

      To prove your genocide narrative. YOU need to provide strong evidence that the vaccine was designed with the intention to actually kill people.

      you still refuse to make any predictions which can be falsified. This is just how you shield yourself from possibly being wrong.

    29. Oh, now I need to prove intent. Funnily enough, intent is notoriously difficult to prove, even in the presence of overwhelming evidence. Also, joker, how would I even prove that? I am in no position to launch a lawsuit against Big Pharma, which would give access to evidence such as emails via the discovery process, and even if there were incriminating emails, it apparently does not prove anything. As a case in point, consider Hilary Clinton’s private email server, which was a serious breach of laws. Furthermore, the elites could still hide behind claiming that they wanted to protect humanity, er, peoplekind from a a new plague. Or do your really think that I believe the Pfizer CEO has written emails to his staff in which he orders them to come up with a concoction that kills all the goyim?

    30. “We even have vaxx factories accidentally producing saline vials.”

      You are so deep in the confirmation bias, it’s kind of mind boggling.

      You know what a double blind study is Aaron?

      you give someone the real thing, and someone a placebo, to account for the placebo effect.

      Now in case of a vaccine, a placebo is a vial containing saline.

      So yeah, they will need to produce some saline vials, which look like the real vaccines, in order to do a double-blind study.

    31. Oh, and then the saline vials accidentally got shipped all around the world to people who were not enrolled in any trial. Makes sense, dude. Besides, there is no longer any double-blind study going on as they have all been terminated.

    32. Yeah Aaron, that’s actually how a double-blind study works.
      Neither the doctor nor the patient will know if the vial contains saline or the real vaccine.
      So obviously you cannot tell it to people, or it would not be a double-blind study anymore.

    33. I think you are deliberately being obtuse. I am referring to people who wanted to get vaxxed by their doctor and it was later on discovered that they got a saline shot. It seems that you assume that there is a new kind of medical trail where people do not even know that they are enrolled in a medical trial. Considering that Big Pharma pays volunteers a lot of money, I can certainly see the appeal for vaxx manufacturers.

    34. “Oh, now I need to prove intent. Funnily enough, intent is notoriously difficult to prove,”

      Yes. If you make a claim about intent. You DO need to prove intent.

      You know Aaron, it’s like when you convict someone of murder (and not just manslaughter), you actually need to prove that he had the intent to kill

    35. For my argument, it does not make any difference if we are talking about involuntary genocide. If we see Nuremberg 2.0 trials, this will surely be the argument of the defense, though (“You see, your honor, we only wanted to protect the goyim from this deadly pandemic!”)

    36. “Furthermore, the elites could still hide behind claiming that they wanted to protect humanity, er, peoplekind from a a new plague. Or do your really think that I believe the Pfizer CEO has written emails to his staff in which he orders them to come up with a concoction that kills all the goyim?”

      All you are doing here, and keep going, is to shield your narrative from ANY possible disconfirmation.

      Aaron: “a genocide of epic proportions is in process, here I tell you what will happen in the next 20 years”

      Also Aaron: “we cannot really get any possible evidence of the genocidal intent of the elites”


    37. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. This is good enough for me. Sure, get your vaxx and a gorillion booster shots, and when you get knocked out by ADE, it will surely provide a lot of comfort for you that Big Pharma did not want to wreck your health willingly. You were just a casualty.

    38. This is like how they argued in the dark ages, that the black plague is obviously caused by Jews poisoning the wells. Because obviously the Jews have evil intent. But that no one ever caught a Jew poisoning a well is not a problem, you should not expect to get direct evidence for their evil intent, they are so good at hiding it.

      So in any case, the conclusion is: Jews are evil

    39. We established earlier that your historical knowledge is rather weak. Remember when you made some ludicrous claims about the “total war”. With regards to well poisoning and “anti-semitis” in the oh-so-dark Middle Ages that produced architecture we could not even dream of replicating nowadays, I would suggest that you spend a bit more time reading up on actual eye witness accounts. You will learn that plenty of Jews really were caught poisoning wells. It almost seems to be a time-honored tradition of the Jews. In fact, they wanted to kill millions of Germans after WWII the same way:
      Your fact-checker friends will be quick to point out that this was not an example of well-poisoning because those Jews only wanted to kill six million Germanys (yes, really) by poisoning water mains and not actual wells.

  3. Pro-vax, pro-lockdown doesn’t try to convince you with facts or data. Their argumentation mostly relies on arguments from authority (i.e. what notable doctors and scientists think). Anti-vax is much more reliant on data-based argumentation because healthcare professionals are censored.

    1. You mean, what bought-for “experts” think. A lot of highly decorated doctors have found themselves out of a job after questioning the Covid orthodoxy. Also, the pro-lockdown camp manipulates data at liberty. Look up the manipulations in the Pfizer trial, for starters, or consider that people dying with Covid are counted as Covid deaths, or that people who die within two weeks of the vaxx are counted as Covid deaths, or that the proclaimed “pandemic of the unvaccinated” is a complete fabrication, and so on, and so forth. It is a rather sad state of affairs.

    2. Aaron when public agencies release data that the vaccines have a lot of side effects: we can 100% trust those agencies.
      Aaron when public agencies release data that vaccines & lockdowns are effective: obviously manipulated, only a moron would trust those public agencies.

    3. You wanted mainstream data, so I gave you mainstream data. Also, I do fully not trust the data but instead, as I clarified, viewed the PEI numbers as a lower bound. As you undoubtedly understand, any claims of lockdowns being beneficial (there is now plenty of official data that they are ineffective) are an example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. It is also dishonest of you to set up a false equivalency between statistical data and politically convenient inferences. Surely, I do not need to spell out to you why this does not make sense.

    4. “false equivalency between statistical data and politically convenient inferences”

      so the mainstream makes somse convenient inferences from the data. Yeah ok I will grant you that.

      but how would we call your nutty genocide narrative, if not a “inference from the data” ?

    5. I would say that my “nutty genocide narrative” is an extrapolation from existing data.

    6. “Pro-vax, pro-lockdown doesn’t try to convince you with facts or data.”

      Some people discover an asteroid on collision course with the earth.

      So based on an extrapolation of data, a lot of work is done, and the asteroid is diverted from a collision with the earth.

      Now some people could argue, that all of the effort was a waste, the asteroid would not have hit earth.

      Preventing some future harm will always be based on extrapolations and inferences of data. You can’t avoid that.

    7. In this thread: Ubermensch telling us that future states of complex social systems can be predicted as simply as the future position of celestial bodies. Quite frankly, the more you write, the dumber you look.

    8. “In this thread: Ubermensch telling us that complex social systems can be predicted as simply as the movement of celestial bodies. Quite frankly, the more you write, the dumber you look.”

      Ok so your suggested solution is when we discover a new virus, to do nothing, because “complex soical systems cannot be predicted”

      And also, you are predicting the behavior of complex social systems here all the time, even 20 years into the future 😀

      I’m atually not making any predictions which go 20 years into the future, YOU are doing that.

      So did you just make yourself look very dumb?

      How can you say Aaron that mass immigration is a problem, if we cannot predict complex social problems?

      How can you say that feminism is bad, if you cannot predict complex social problems?

      We should just do nothing about any of those issues, they are way too complex for us to predict!

    9. You are moving the goal post again, considering that you want me to make a precise prediction of what the world will look like at some particular date in the future, without even being able to remove external factors, i.e. increased immigration can more than make up for the increased rate of mortality, as it is the case for Germany already. Remember that I even provided a mainstream source claiming that this is already happening.

    10. Yes I know Aaron, you believe they want to kill whites with the vaccine and replace them with low IQ Africans, because populating the entire world with low IQ savages will help the elites a lot.
      Bill Gates will hide in his secret mansion on his private island with an evil grin on his face to rule over the African savages.

    11. It is funny that you wrote that because Coudenhove-Kalergi, one of the pioneers behind the European Union, which he called “Pan-Europa”, was thinking along rather similar lines. He wrote that the “mongrel race” (his words, not mine) is easier to control than those uppity whites and due to technological advances you do not need many high-IQ people anymore anyway. The elites have been writing the same kind of fan fiction for centuries.

      EDIT: I had a typo in this text, originally writing “similiar”. This is quite fitting as Kalergi, Gates, and all the others are liars of a rather similar kind.

    12. “Ok so your suggested solution is when we discover a new virus, to do nothing, because “complex soical systems cannot be predicted””

      On a side note and unrelated to this little bitch fight:

      Doing nothing would have certainly been my suggestion. Kindly note that pharmacies here in Switzerland were sold out on disinfectant roughly two weeks before any government restrictions of any kind were even publicly discussed. People seem to be quite good at being cautious in the face of unknown risk. And absent any government sponsored media panic, people would’ve recognized pretty quickly that nobody is really dying from the 2019 flu in any meaningfully different way compared to last year.

      So yeah, shocking, I know… but doing nothing in a situation like this is the right thing to do.

      Oh and before somebody argues with “but muhh what if it was as deadly as the Spanish Flu”, please don’t.

    13. “It is funny that you wrote that because Coudenhove-Kalergi, one of the pioneers behind the European Union, which he called “Pan-Europa”, was thinking along rather similar lines.”

      You are writing this like I’m not aware of all the theories which float around in far-right circles.

      It’s not like you are such a creative genius Aaron that you discovered this narrative of the elites on your own. You are mostly just regurgitating far right talking points. It’s your religion.

    14. This is not some kind of “theory”. You can get the books online and probably even in your local library, if it has not been purged. Here in Sweden, supposedly controversial books have a tendency to disappear when you ask for them. Also, you act as if you are indeed unaware of a lot of things. It did not escape my attention that you do not engage in constructive conversation but simply ignore conversational threads when I point out alternative points of views that do not jive with your limited world view, such as evidence of Jewish well poisoning.

      By the way, bro, why do you bother coming to this blog when I only regurgitate what other people write? I also wonder if you have a masochistic streak because from where I am standing, it looks as if you are getting bitch-slapped left and right, yet you keep coming back for more. We can keep playing this game.

    15. Well the reason I come here is easily explained Aaron.

      Unlike you, I actually try to disconfirm and challenge my own beliefs.

      So if I don’t believe there is a grand conspiracy going on, I still want to listen to the actual arguments that there is a conspiracy. Because I might be wrong, and maybe some good arguments could actually make me change my mind.

      You know, if I only talk to people who agree with me, I won’t learn anything new.

      But judging by the media and books you read, you are not trying that, and so you just go deeper and deeper in your confirmation bias. Not that I blame you, almost all people are like that.

    16. So far, I have not seen you engage in any of my points. Let us start over with a simple argument, broken down to make it easier for you to follow. Here are two premises:
      1) Children are not at risk for getting Covid.
      2) The vaxx has serious side effects for this group, such as myocarditis and pericarditis.
      From the first premise alone, it should follow that the vaxx is not necessary for them. From premises 1) and 2) together, it follows that the vaxx is harmful for kids and therefore, we should not vaxx them. Yet, government concludes that we need to vaxx children. Does this imply that they want children to suffer from serious side effects or even die? If not that, how do you explain this decision? Try to argue without your favorite “appeal to incompetence” fallacy.

    17. I mean, would you prefer it if all the people who come here just sheepishly agree with you? You might as well stop blogging then and write a diary.

      And also, even though I think you are wrong, I still have to admit that you are not banning me and actually engage in the argument, so I have to give you that.

    18. Ubermensch, how about you elaborate a bit on why this is not suspicious at all?

      That’s easy.

      I’ve been watching this whole Uber fiasco here, but it reminded of the overall trick that’s been played in the pandemic. They’ve been doing it the whole time.

      If the elites want to implement lockdowns, they don’t super-duper-precise science. In fact, even if the model is wrong by 10,000% that’s ok, because after all who’s perfect.

      But if scientists come out against the lockdowns by proving lockdowns cause more damages and harm than benefit, well…. you know they can’t prove with billion percent certainty exactly how much harm (to a decimal) will be done on exactly what day, therefore the science showing the harm of lockdowns is to be ignored.

      Same with everything else, from the vaccine onwards. Perfection is required from one side, but if the other side completely fucks up and messes up everything, well… it’s ok.

      Fact-checkers silence one side on invented technicalities like a comma in the wrong place. They do not fact-check the pro-tyranny claims even if they include outrageous unproven claims.

      The burden of proof is completely different. Since uber is trained by the same people, he’s using the same trick.

    19. 1) Children are not at risk for getting Covid.
      2) The vaxx has serious side effects for this group, such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

      On this point I actually do agree with you Aaron.
      I agree with those premises.

      But I have a different explanation for it:

      On the pro-vaccine side, you also have MANY fanatics. (my own dad, for example)
      Those people think the vaccine is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and we absolutely must vaccinate everyone to beat this evil virus.

      And given our current care-based morality, we obviously have to save everyone.
      It’s also driven by fear of death, which is amplified by our materialistic/nihilistic ZeitGeist.
      Many people are deeply anxious and very irrational.

      There is also the strong tendency for people to virtue signaling, and so you need to vaccinate to show everyone what a “good” person you are.

      So the end result is a mass hysteria.

      I have never argued that the corona hysterics are rational or that I agree with what they are doing. But I don’t agree with you that there is some master of plan of genocide behind it.

    20. In other words, the elites are enthusiastically risking the lives of children by vaxxing them but because you assume no ill-intent, this cannot be construed as a mosaic in a possible plot to genocide the world’s population? Also, people are pro-vaxx due to having been poorly informed. There is nothing “safe and effective” about the vaxx, yet the media has been brainwashing the herd 24/7 nonstop ever since the vaxx was announced. At least it is progress that we can agree that the elite’s plan to vaxx children does not make any rational sense, if the goal is to save lives.

    21. “”

      Probably because it would reveal that they don’t know what they are doing, and whatever model they are using is bullshit. (or the model constantly makes wrong predictions)

      And also sunken cost bias. They cannot admit now that the lockdowns caused a lot of damage, for not much benefit.
      This is just typical politics. If a politican admits that they made a mistake, the plep sheep won’t vote for them anymore.

      This is the behavior from people in power who are in fear of losing it.

      Or maybe, there is really a deep plan behind all of this.

      But my bet is still on the mass-hysteria combined with incompetence.

  4. JFL man, aaron and Alek won’t believe me this (because I am obviously a fed) , but I just had a long debate with my dad who is a corona hysteric.

    And also on this side, trying to get any sense into people is hopeless.

    The same tactics to shield the narrative from dusconfirmation employed on the other side.

    It’s really beyond hopeless and would not surprise me if we get into an actual civil war over this bullshit. That’s probably whatany people want anyways.

    Wish you a merry Christmas everyone

    1. What I wish for Christmas is for this Covid bullshit to stop in a few so-called “first world” countries so that mine, which is used to copy the trends of the USA in everything (we’re supposed to be fully I.S. but we still use inches and pounds for a lot of shit, FFS), follows suit. How relieved will I be if I manage to beat the vaxx by delaying the fuck out of it…

    2. @Manual S:
      you made a good point with mentioning religion in your other post.

      Many atheists actually do hold religious convictions. You have the woke crowd, and then you have people like Aaron who believe that a certain group wants to exterminate the white race.

      This whole covid thing has reached proprortions of a religious fight of good against evil.

      The covid hysterics believe that we need to “beat” this virus (= the evil) and save everyone (= fight for the good cause).
      The conspiracy monders believe that there is a genocide in process, because (((they))) (= the evil) wants to exterminate the white race (= the good).

      So this all ends up as a fight of good against evil.

    1. It looks like a good game from what I’ve seen, it’s just that the protagonist is very uninspiring. It Takes Two won game of the year at the Game Awards, and I still don’t know anything about it.

  5. We all thought we were being veeery rational when we became atheists, right (well, not me, it was just a sudden realization, I have wished my faith back)?

    Just like all those leftists who sacrifice to the Woke altar and to Science!(TM). But now we realize that without religion to unite people, and to shame them into behaving as well, the results are not pretty. Who’ll have the last laugh?

    Merry Christmas to those of you who still celebrate it!

    1. I personally wouldn’t mind a break from the Abrahamic religions. The Gnostics were arguably much saner in their attempt to reconcile the contradictions and alleviate some of the cognitive dissonance that came with Christianity through revisions, but around the time the Romans branded them heretics and destroyed most of the knowledge stored away in the Library of Alexandria is a period when the West was significantly stunted. Many scholars and intellectuals etc. then fled to Persia to continue to pursue their respective disciplines, and within another century or so Islam came around and put an end to that.

      I’ve touched on the Satan/Promethean archetype a bit before. The demons in Christian folklore were akin to the Titans in Greek Paganism, and the Elohim or angels were comparable to the lesser gods below Zeus. There’s this theme of rebellion against the strict moral code and repressive nature of the Father (Yahweh/Zeus), and we usually see that the paternalistic figure rules through fear and tyranny. Read the Old Testament and compare Yahweh’s kill count to Satan’s, for example. Yahweh nuked cities, led the Israelites into decisive one-sided battles, flooded the entire earth, and was allowed to be trolled by Satan into punishing one of his most devout followers just to prove a point.

      Jesus is a demigod and the Son of Yahweh. He is also a subversive figure used to dupe Westerner’s imo. On the other hand Buddhism seems to take a more nihilistic approach to spirituality, opting to instead lay down and take things as they come as there is no use in resisting. I’m not saying we’re better off worshipping Prometheus or proposing a better alternative here. I’m just outlining that sometimes models of understanding the world or for enforcing a code of ethics become outdated and perhaps need to be deconstructed and then reconstructed into something more feasible. Science! is certainly not it.

    2. You certainly seem more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am (though of course that Christianity borrowed from different sources is no secret). But you’re just proving my point: it seems rational to rebel against Christianity, right? The triumph of the human intellect over “oppression” passed down through our fathers. Western Civilization thrived just fine for about one and a half millennia by waving the Church’s flag and, as I said a while back, there’s no “Western White Man’s Civilization” without the Christian Civilization, they’re one and the same.

      You reminded me about Ubermensch’s comments some months ago about Roman values, and how great they were compared to Christian “shame-based” values that compel the guilt-ridden white man of today to import the enemy into its own territory. That’s missing the causation entirely, because traditional Church doctrine (as opposed to Liberation Theology bullshit and the like, promoted by enemies from within) didn’t make the Roman Empire decadent and precipitate its collapse, nor did it promote indiscriminate mass immigration.

      We should think twice about heeding the guidelines laid out by those same guys who gave us communism, feminism and all these things which are what’s wrong with the modern world.

    3. “We all thought we were being veeery rational when we became atheists”

      In hindsight it was the most irrational thing I could’ve ever done.

    4. @NRT: worst thing is, there seems to be no way back, though some people have made it. I didn’t even consciously reached it, it just kind of happened.

    5. “worst thing is, there seems to be no way back”

      There’s always a way back. The trigger event can take many different forms. Mine was very convincing.
      It’s very hard to live without believing in God. Think of one of the many wonderful lines in John Prine’s “Angel from Montgomery”:

      Just give me one thing that I can hold on to
      To believe in this living is just a hard way to go

    6. And that worries me too, that I will start believing again only after some traumatic event in my life. Hopefully it won’t come to that.

  6. “We should think twice about heeding the guidelines laid out by those same guys who gave us communism, feminism and all these things which are what’s wrong with the modern world.”

    Honestly, what do any of these subversions have to do with traditionalism vs. futurism. This statement refers more to construction vs destruction. If we were able to adopt a true futurist mindset, we could simply bypass silly feminist nonsense and put the means of reproduction in the hands of men by way of VR/AR sex bots (or however it manifests optimally) and artificial wombs/designer babies. Who honestly wants to give up modern conveniences for a more traditional life of milking cows and churning butter? It’s not ideal and is merely a backup plan for when your options become so limited that you must rely solely on yourself, your immediate family and a tight knit community.

    1. It was Aaron who made the appeal to an exceedingly traditional society a while ago, without the comforts of technology and all that. I was only focusing on the religious aspect, so I’m having a hard time figuring out in which way this comment functions as a response to mine. LOL

      What I’ll say though, is that the kind of fututistic utopia you imagine… I don’t know, the common, average IQ man might never be ready. There was already something that worked to make him feel like contributing to society and fulfill him in some way despite all the negative stuff, and it worked for thousands of years…

      Never mind, Merry Christmas!

    2. I was just driving at the fact that the Abrahamic triad i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are ultimately imo regressive. I certainly don’t mean to allude to a futurist “utopia” arising by way of abandoning these outdated models (again, just my opinion) of spirituality. I would have to imagine that by freeing up men’s reproductive imperatives while dabbling in bio-engineering that we would have a path forward in furthering humanity’s evolution — essentially utilizing science and technology for an exponentially accelerated eugenics program. With each generation or so becoming rapidly more intelligent, the development of AI could hypothetically increase with it. With this, you might end up with a positive feedback loop where smarter people create more efficient AI, and in turn this AI helps aid in the development of smarter crops of people and so on and so forth. We could maybe end up with a meritocracy (not a utopia, I never meant this) where the most important decisions are delegated to the best of the best in any given field.

      As far as religion goes, I think that we’re in agreement that some kind of philosophical or spiritual foundation is important. I just don’t personally vibe with Christianity that much. I come from that background and I get the sense that it’s somewhat cucked in its modern form — “Turn the other cheek, goyim.” Christians have this thing where they like to place Jews on a pedestal, and also they tend to forgive and forget transgressions made upon them in hopes that they can one day gain access into the Sky Kingdom. I’ve also spent a lot of time on Far Right forums and such in the past couple years, and a lot of them tend to make an attempt to revise Christianity so that you end up with an Aryan Jesus and modern Jews are actually imposters i.e. Canaanites.

      I’m responding to you because I have some thoughts about this subject and I think it’s interesting to discuss. However, can you really say that Christianity is something you personally believe to be valid in terms of a truthful doctrine? I for sure can’t. Either it’s fake and gay and therefore only something I could go along with so far as it benefits whites and helps us prosper, or it’s factual and Yahweh is something to be feared and obeyed. The former would give me a sense of cognitive dissonance, while the latter would be something I would wish to rebel against.

    3. “I would have to imagine that by freeing up men’s reproductive imperatives while dabbling in bio-engineering that we would have a path forward in furthering humanity’s evolution.”

      “As far as religion goes, I think that we’re in agreement that some kind of philosophical or spiritual foundation is important.”

      Your first two paragraphs are incompatible, sorry. That technology will enlighten mankind to new horizons, finally rendering religion obsolete, that’s the fantasy of some of our elites, and we’ve seen the consequences of that kind of philosophy. That kind of power HAS to corrupt the people who wield it, no two ways about it.

      Regarding the rest, as I elaborated on in a discussion several months ago, that modern Christianity is cucked by Juice and some other agents is beside the point. I argue for a more traditional Christianity, as it was for about 1.5 millennia until we started implementing all this liberalism bullshit toward the end of the 19th century.

    4. “That technology will enlighten mankind to new horizons, finally rendering religion obsolete, that’s the fantasy of some of our elites, and we’ve seen the consequences of that kind of philosophy.”

      I didn’t even hint at this. You can simultaneously have a highly advanced civilization and a spiritual/philosophical foundation in place. I’m saying no to Abrahamic religions specifically, though. And traditionally speaking, I’m not interested in once more adopting Judeo-Christian values as if it’s the end all be all ultimate truth of the Universe. Have a good day.

    5. That “Judeo” attached to the Christian part is everything that’s wrong though. Judaism has as much in common with Christianity as Islam, they all trace their line to Abraham and that’s it.

      And of course I understand that you don’t want to go back to traditional religion, we’ve all been there here, haven’t we? I just tell you, the modern world has given you more or less what you want and then some, so let’s just enjoy it.

    6. Stonetoss has a related comic strip:
      I am quite sure that the term “Judea-Christian” is a rather recent invention. Even in the 19th century, the Catholic church had some rather based views towards Judaism. Today, though, you cannot enter a church anywhere in the West without seeing a poster or even an exhibition that points out that Judaism is really the bedrock of Christianity. Somehow I do not think that I would find the converse in a Jewish synagogue. I am not even sure if gentiles are allowed to enter these, but that would be a different question.

    7. @Aaron: indeed your point is correct. Pickernanny is kind of making the same mistake as Varg Vikerness, the infamous church-burner and metal musician, who nowadays has quite a lot of based views but tends to conflate the Juice with the Christians just because of where Jesus was supposed to be born from. His thing is Norse paganism, though of course Odin et al were never Pan-european gods, so his wish is akin to a Mexican trying to revive Quetzalcoatl or Huitzilopochtli and claim them for the whole of Latin America.

    8. It’s my understanding that Europeans didn’t give much of a shit about Jesus until Paul the Apostle (an ethnic Jew!) and company spread Christ’s subversions, I mean teachings, throughout the known world. That’s like saying communism was great until that meddling Marx came about. Oh wait.

    9. @Pickernanny: dude, you’re even worse than Varg. LOL

      That Paul was a Jew is nothing, since Jesus himself was a Jew. Probably 99.99% of early Christians (century I, A.D) were ehtnic Jews. By the fall of the Western Roman Empire Christianity was not only Europe’s religion, but very, very distinct from Judaism, and it’s clear from the beginning it was never a branch of it.

      Paul was a Jew, water is wet.

    10. “Paul was a Jew, water is wet.”

      You goofball. And sure, have it your way. Christianity is super based and we will flourish like the Romans once we reconnect with it. After we get back to what’s traditional, wholesome and pure, surely the Chinese with their 180 IQ super soldiers that were genetically enhanced using the methods of the devil will be struck down by the mighty Yahweh and his Son Jesus will appear to rapture us true believers into the Kingdom of Heaven. Can’t wait.

    11. You give way too much credit to the Dog-Eater Empire. But, if they “beat” the West, whatever that means, it won’t certainly be because we emulated the spirit ofr the Crusaders, but because we were cucked beyond recognition, away from it.

    12. “it won’t certainly be because we emulated the spirit ofr the Crusaders”

      Hey, if it gets Muslims out of Europe then that would be a definite plus.

  7. This blog has been lit af lately, very entertaining. Appreciate everyone here. I’ll be sending a donation before the year’s end, Aaron. Merry Christmas to all and have a Happy New Year.

  8. I’m not saying that any genocide is planned; I think it’s more a matter of thought control than population control. But when Ubermensch states: “if in the year 2030 the world population is still around the same as now, Aaron will argue the elites probably gave up on their genocide plan, because there was too much resistance.” Does he realize he just disproved the existence of Nazi/Soviet genocide, both world wars and the Spanish Flu? Because the population of Europe had decadal growth throughout the twentieth century. If population declines in the future; it’s more likely due to dropping birth rates than rising death rates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.