Then why is congress, and staffers, and their families exempted from having to get the vaccine, and are getting Ivermectin?
I am not surprised. The elites' insistence that 100% vaccination of the non-exempt population is the
only way to stop the not-plague is a clue. The total media blackout on the effectiveness of Ivermectin in places like India, the "horse paste" stories, and all the ascientific stories about how dangerous it is to use a drug off-label, all that's another. The revelation that the elites themselves are using Ivermectin to keep themselves from succumbing to the disease, though--it's not surprising, but it's
damning.
In Indonesia, the new infection rate had gone asymptotic,
so they authorized the use of Ivermectin. Just
guess what happened next.
That's right!
Millions of people died of Ivermectin poisoning Once the people were given Ivermectin, the new case rate
began to drop as steeply as it had risen.India and Indonesia, faced with a staggering number of new cases, threw a hail mary and tried Ivermectin--
and it worked. The progress of the spread of the disease through the population was
halted by handing each person about $5 worth of drugs.
I honestly don't know what the hell to think about any of this any longer. The profit motive is still enough, by itself--three hundred million people each getting at least one shot each, billed at $50 per head, that is an
enormous amount of money--so I think those folks who ascribe more monstrous motives to all this are probably overly paranoid. (But only "probably".)
By "monstrous" I mean population reduction, or destruction of peoples' immune systems so that they must get a booster shot every year, or anything that involves the permanent alteration of a large number of people's medical conditions. I do
not mean "vaccine passports" or other control methods, because I do believe that the left wants something very much like that in order to force the people to do what they want. ("You must be vaccinated to work. If you want to be vaccinated, you must give up your firearms.")
The pharma companies want the profits that come from vaccines for which they bear no legal responsibility if they either don't work, or are worse than the disease. The
government wants the control that comes from mandating vaccinations and telling people what they may or may not do, based on whether or not they've been vaccinated; and further, "vaccine passports", because they provide a handy way to track everyone's movements, and may even allow the government to "shut off" people they find inconvenient.
There is nothing else needed. Just money and power.
Absent any other issues, this wouldn't really be all that much of a problem. I mean, if the vaccine didn't really do anything, but also didn't hurt anyone, that wouldn't be such a big deal--at least, not compared to what is actually happening. Sure, the government is lying to us, but what's new about that? That's not new, and it's not confined solely to the Potempkin Plague.
But the
problem is that the vaccine is killing people, or ruining their health--a minority, true, but having vaccinated some hundreds of millions of people, the adverse reactions have affected a significant number of people--tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. And these cases are swept under the rug, unlike the Swine Flu epidemic of the 1970s, when the vaccinations were stopped after a
literal handful of adverse reactions.
The vaccine doesn't vaccinate. It does not prevent transmission of the thing. It does not keep the vaccinated from contracting the thing. It's further been discovered that when you get the thing after being vaccinated, your viral load is the same as for an unvaccinated person, meaning that the antibodies that the body generates in response to the vaccine don't
do anything about the infection. That means that "the vaccine reduces your chances of a severe infection" is
bullshit. Quite literally, the vaccine does not do anything that an injection of saline solution would not do...except for one thing: Antibody Dependent Enhancement seems to make sure that anyone who's had the shot is
more susceptible to the Coof. The new case rate in highly vaccinated areas
dwarfs the new case rate in unvaccinated areas.
So, as I say, the left wants money and power, and that's enough motivation for all ths shit. It may or may not be the whole reason, but that's enough.
* * *
And by the way? Over in Africa, where everyone is routinely given hydroxychloroquine because of the prevalence of malaria,
the infection rate is vanishingly low. You haven't heard about how it's ravaging the poor black people in Africa because
it is not ravaging the poor black people in Africa.* * *
Big Country Expat talks about air traffic controllers in Jacksonville, Florida, walking out because of the vaccine mandate. 650 flights cancelled.
I had a commenter FROM the Air Traffic Controllers union who pretty much said that 60% of ATCs said BFYTW about the NottaVaxx. So, Background checking and sure as shit
A metric fuckton of cancelled flights on the board.
Whoo-eee
That right there is going to HURT a lot of the 'recovery' that the Glorious and Harmonious P&PBUH Orifice of The (p)Resident, The Dementor-in-Chief, Emperor Poopypants the First, Chief Executive of the Kidsmeller Pursuivant, Good Ole Slo Xi-Den has been touting.
It won't hurt that much--not one night's worth of flights--but the the simple fact is that people are quitting their jobs--or being fired--rather than take the shot.
One thing that I've noticed is that the media is trying to sell the story that although people are saying they'd quit before taking the shot, they're not quitting.
Well, of
course they're not quitting.
THEY ARE BEING FIRED....but there are places where people
are quitting, and those stories are being very, very carefully ignored by the media. Nothing must get in the way of everyone being vaccinated. Because reasons.
* * *
Which is not to say that I would utterly reject the "monstrous" uses of the vaccine; but there's no proof that that is the case. The more extreme the claim, the more I need to see
evidence that it's probable, before I can accept it. In that, I'm no different than anyone elese is. And as I said "money and power" are more than enough reason by themselves.
* * *
...the second half of that BCE post, though, discusses what happened when computer researchers let loose an AI program and it turned into Jim Crow. "The black race," the AI said, among other things, "is a plague upon the world."
Yeech!
I don't think that's "programmer bias"; I think that's something else, though I for damned sure don't know what. The system in question was not connected to the Internet and its training input was carefully curated, yet it came to this conclusion, for some reason. The problem, I think, is that AI is based on machine learning.
Let me give another example why that's a problem.
There was some experimentation done with field-programmable gate arrays and machine learning. They set up a genetic algorithm to allow the circuit to evolve to solve a certain problem. After running through a bunch of iterations they finally got a circuit which did what they wanted it to do, reliably.
The "logic" of the programming of the FPGA was virtually nonsensical to the people who were running the experiment, but when they fed inputs into the circuit, it reliably produced the desired output, every time. The most peculiar part was that there was a little node of gates off to the side, not connected to anything, but programmed; if they shut those gates off, the circuit stopped working, even though they weren't
doing anything. Turn them back on, it worked fine.
When they tried to apply the generated program for the FPGA to a different chip of the same model number, it also didn't work. But if they ran the same genetic programming algorithm, eventually the other FPGA produced the desired outputs, though with a different program than the first one. The programs had evolved such that they would work
only on the particular FPGA on which they'd been generated, due to manufacturing variations and such.
This is the problem with machine learning: you can't control what the machine learns, and what it does with what it learns. Trying to develop a universal program for an FPGA to perform a specific function, using machine learning, programs
that specific FPGA to do it, but it's not portable. Giving an AI access to all the statistics and data available, it concludes that one race is a scourge on the Earth and must be eliminated.
The point is that when you start running learning and genetic algorithms, you take human hands
off the process and it runs automatically. "There aren't enough man-hours in the world," etc. It's just a stupid machine, and it doesn't know things like "all men are created equal" or "God loves everyone" or anything of the sort. (Also, people working at universities tend to be people who reject notions like those, anyway, and disregard them as unimportant.) How do you program a machine with
humanity?So, let a computer tiptoe through the statistics, and it'll come up with surefire ways to horrify just about everyone.
* * *
Speaking of racism, leftism, and black people--
Brickmuppet lays out just how modern society has failed black people.
No, really. It's another example of "the soft racism of diminished expectations" except that it's
not "soft" racism. It's just as pernicious and evil as any other sort, the idea that blacks simply cannot help themselves...but it serves a purpose.
Calm down! I did not say it serves a
good purpose.
The thing is, if you wanted to crush a people--without actually going out and shooting them dead in job lots--you could hardly do a better job of it than by simply lowering your expectations for their performance, giving them a pass on basic responsibility, and letting them get away with bad behavior.
I want to call attention, specifically, to this paragraph:
One of the advantages to being a southern history buff is that Sons of Confederate Veterans of all people is made up of history enthusiasts who look at the history of our misguided ancestors 'warts and all'. We've had this conversation with the racists who try to enter our spaces. You see, in the 1950's and early '60s African American students were, (despite the poorer physical condition of their schools) on a par with and not infrequently outscored white students on the standardized tests that were then required in the south to matriculate from primary school to junior high school and into high school. This was partly a product of the fact that African American families pushed their kids to learn in much the same way as Jewish and Asian families are thought to do today. Additionally, the segregation of the age, while certainly abominable, did mean that the Black teachers, were teaching black students and pushing them hard. One result of this can be seen by reading Letter From a Birmingham Jail by the late Dr. Martin Luther King. This historic document used to be required reading in the freshman year of high school. It was favored as a teaching tool not just because of its eloquence in expressing Dr. King's message of racial tolerance and human dignity, but because it teaches modern readers a lesson in cross referencing. King references, amongst other things, the Bhagavad Gita in reference to Gandhi's then recent struggles in India, and the whole thing is written at such a level that the text is, today considered too advanced for freshmen...in college. However, King wrote this for and got it published as a letter to the editor in an African American paper. It was written at, what was at the time, a SIXTH GRADE READING LEVEL..among black students in 1963.
Remember the "Corn Pop" fiasco during the election? People were talking about how fake that story was because why would a black gang call themselves "The Romans"? But
this is what I was talking about when I defended the possibility. Gangs in the early 1960s were not like the gangs of today. Their members dropped out of schools that actually
educated people, for one thing, and so they absorbed at least
some basic knowledge before they dropped out.
Here's what I said
in that post:
Biden's tale about facing down "Corn Pop" in 1962 may actually be more true than not. To be honest, the skepticism leveled at the story seemed too present-centric.
No, really: the past is a foreign country, 1962 was fifty-seven years ago, and gangs have changed rather significantly in that time. It felt, to me, as if it were plausible--the guy could have been called "CornPop"--it sounded reasonable to me. The gang could have been called "The Romans", especially considering that anyone who was of adult age in 1962 probably got more education before dropping out of high school than kids today who graduate from high school as class valedictorian.
Ultimately, no one cares, but I wasn't skeptical of his story because the antagonist in it did not resemble a gang leader from 2019, or because the name of the gang was something literate.
I've emphasized the salient bit.
Brickmuppet says:
The "Woke" in particular cannot abide the truth of prior African American academic excellence because the problems with present day African American academics are the result of catastrophic cultural changes that happened very rapidly and mostly after 1968, including, but not limited to, the devastation of black families through divorce and out of wedlock births leading to the sudden ubiquity of single motherhood in that community.
So the idea that asking for academic achievement is racist is deeply flawed, and if ones goal is greater African American participation at the higher levels of society, one should look at the root causes, which are cultural in nature and better handled through black churches and institutions and not through holding back others "so the poor blacks can catch up" which only serves to power up resentment, and reinforce the most evil and racist of stereotypes.
All of this is true. The problem is, the educational establishment is no longer about making sure people can read, write, cipher, and
think.
What the democrat party has done to blacks since the 1960s is nothing more or less than making sure they stay on the plantation. The party of slavery and the KKK and Jim Crow has consistently worked to make sure blacks have no choice but to vote for them, and only them, in order to keep themselves fed and sheltered. If you doubt this, then look at what happens
any time a prominent black person dares to speak out against the status quo. Larry Elder--a black man running against Gavin Newsom in the California recall election--was pilloried as being a
white supremecist for his views. A
black man.If you look at the history of the so-called "black power" movement, you find that the movement is just another communist front. Their goals have never been about black people becoming self-sufficient individuals; they've always been about making the black race into a power bloc that is subservient to the left. "Self-determination" is not about blacks being able to decide for themselves what they want to do, but about the black race being able to demand concessions from the political parties in order for them to vote a certain way. It's collectivism, not individualism.
But you can't control people who stubbornly insist on thinking for themselves. And what better way to control someone than to make him utterly dependent on government handouts? To promulgate the notion that getting an education is "acting white", that the expectation that people get an education and make something useful of themselves is "racism", is the surest way to ensure that they
cannot do for themsleves, that they are dependent on what the government can do for them.
I'm going to let Brickmuppet have the last word on this.
The "Woke" in particular cannot abide the truth of prior African American academic excellence because the problems with present day African American academics are the result of catastrophic cultural changes that happened very rapidly and mostly after 1968, including, but not limited to, the devastation of black families through divorce and out of wedlock births leading to the sudden ubiquity of single motherhood in that community.
So the idea that asking for academic achievement is racist is deeply flawed, and if ones goal is greater African American participation at the higher levels of society, one should look at the root causes, which are cultural in nature and better handled through black churches and institutions and not through holding back others "so the poor blacks can catch up" which only serves to power up resentment, and reinforce the most evil and racist of stereotypes.
* * *
As for me, I've been sitting here for a couple of hours, now, working on this post, and not in the driveway where the Jeep waits patiently for a rear brake job.
I'd better get moving.
