I fully agree.
If the vaccines were a success and their children did not die as usual, it would take several generations of people to adjust to the fact that they did not need to have extra children to ensure the survival of a few.
SO the global population would rise massively during that transition period.
It makes no sense.
But given…
If the vaccines were a success and their children did not die as usual, it would take several generations of people to adjust to the fact that they did not need to have extra children to ensure the survival of a few.
SO the global population would rise massively during that transition period.
It makes no sense.
But given the hysteria over Stew Peters film, I felt it better to be charitable to Mr Gates and allow the "permitted narrative" to be heard.
I really don't mind if people disagree and want to state their criticism -- in fact, I like it. We've had far too much censorship and we need to get back to open and fair debate (many have forgotten what that is supposed to be like). Opinions. Free speech. Supporting arguments with evidence. Questioning the narrative.
There could be critique without the ad hominem pile on. But Stew himself has been prone to insults if someone doesn't agree with him 100%. The Left doesn't give a damn about facts so criticisms bounce off their nareatives (e.g., safe and effective) like they were Teflon. On the thinking side we "take no prisoners" of our allies. Not a smart strategy.
well, I believe it's complicated. It depends on how we frame what is happening. I think we are (obviously) at war. So, with that as my perspective, words and information are weapons. My perspective also is that while we are actually at war, there are a great many people who are unaware that this war is going on.... but everyone is affected by it.
What I'm getting at is that I am used to polite discourse yet at the same time I've never shied away from discussing controversial topics. I enjoy the debate very much, but not ad hominem (that destroys the fun of it). But, since my perspective is now that we are engaged in a war -- my purpose is no longer to "have fun" -- my purpose is to win. Or, if I am not a significant player, then I certainly cheer on my betters and I really want the good guys to win. Sometimes fighting gets ugly. I do and I don't have the stomach for it. I can take it if there is a good purpose to the "ugly." But under normal circumstances -- no. It's not cool, then.
I do think that some people need to be jolted from their unawareness. And I do wish some others would toughen up a bit and not be so easily offended, nor back down so quickly, nor accept degeneracy because they've been taught that tolerance is a good thing. It's all so very complicated, and different for each person.
Stew Peters currently performs a valuable role or function in this war. If the Left is on the attack and playing dirty, then there is no way to win by trying to play fair. It won't work.
What needs to happen is to wake up enough of the population that the Left's tactics won't work anymore. This IS happening. Stew Peters won't wake up everyone, but once you see, you can't unsee, so every person who wakes up "counts."
I agree. The "friendly fire" is lobbed at a few advancing troops all too often. Stew's movie has some flaws (the DoD data is flawed for example although the coverup is actually more diabolical than most people know according to Matthew Vrawford) but it is "close enough for military work." My father, a USAF major, explained to me that a bomb doesn't have to drop exactly on target to do major damage.
I fully agree.
If the vaccines were a success and their children did not die as usual, it would take several generations of people to adjust to the fact that they did not need to have extra children to ensure the survival of a few.
SO the global population would rise massively during that transition period.
It makes no sense.
But given the hysteria over Stew Peters film, I felt it better to be charitable to Mr Gates and allow the "permitted narrative" to be heard.
I really don't mind if people disagree and want to state their criticism -- in fact, I like it. We've had far too much censorship and we need to get back to open and fair debate (many have forgotten what that is supposed to be like). Opinions. Free speech. Supporting arguments with evidence. Questioning the narrative.
There could be critique without the ad hominem pile on. But Stew himself has been prone to insults if someone doesn't agree with him 100%. The Left doesn't give a damn about facts so criticisms bounce off their nareatives (e.g., safe and effective) like they were Teflon. On the thinking side we "take no prisoners" of our allies. Not a smart strategy.
well, I believe it's complicated. It depends on how we frame what is happening. I think we are (obviously) at war. So, with that as my perspective, words and information are weapons. My perspective also is that while we are actually at war, there are a great many people who are unaware that this war is going on.... but everyone is affected by it.
What I'm getting at is that I am used to polite discourse yet at the same time I've never shied away from discussing controversial topics. I enjoy the debate very much, but not ad hominem (that destroys the fun of it). But, since my perspective is now that we are engaged in a war -- my purpose is no longer to "have fun" -- my purpose is to win. Or, if I am not a significant player, then I certainly cheer on my betters and I really want the good guys to win. Sometimes fighting gets ugly. I do and I don't have the stomach for it. I can take it if there is a good purpose to the "ugly." But under normal circumstances -- no. It's not cool, then.
I do think that some people need to be jolted from their unawareness. And I do wish some others would toughen up a bit and not be so easily offended, nor back down so quickly, nor accept degeneracy because they've been taught that tolerance is a good thing. It's all so very complicated, and different for each person.
Stew Peters currently performs a valuable role or function in this war. If the Left is on the attack and playing dirty, then there is no way to win by trying to play fair. It won't work.
What needs to happen is to wake up enough of the population that the Left's tactics won't work anymore. This IS happening. Stew Peters won't wake up everyone, but once you see, you can't unsee, so every person who wakes up "counts."
I agree. The "friendly fire" is lobbed at a few advancing troops all too often. Stew's movie has some flaws (the DoD data is flawed for example although the coverup is actually more diabolical than most people know according to Matthew Vrawford) but it is "close enough for military work." My father, a USAF major, explained to me that a bomb doesn't have to drop exactly on target to do major damage.
Crispin Miller gets like that too. Drives me nuts.