What's good for the propagoose is good for the propagander
Apologies for the downtime, but I've been handling a bunch of technical stuff like changing the OS of my laptop from Windows to Linux, which required more time than I thought to get everything back up and running. Why did I switch to Linux? Maybe because Windows is spyware masquerading as an operating system. Why am I not on a Mac? I decided that I wanted to support FOSS, free and open source software, as opposed to Apple's walled garden that provides a Disneyland-like experience of ease of use at the expense of freedom.
Check out the latest episode of my podcast! Please subscribe if you haven't already.
In the latest Kim Cast, I discuss an incident that went viral at Wi Spa in Koreatown involving a man claiming to be a trans woman exposing his dick and balls to a bunch of women, how the reporting of the incident assumes the women are transphobes, and is written from the point of view of a political propagandist. Honestly, I don't even want to give them the clicks because of the atrocious nature of their "journalism."
The entire article is batshit insane and reads like, well political propaganda, as the entire point of view is from someone who hasn't the foggiest notion why a man wagging his dick at a bunch of naked women in a spa would be a problem. Then in a spectacular reverse-MeToo maneuver, the "journalist" blames the victims for not being woke enough.
An earlier Century Spa incident is also mentioned, and I happen to know someone who was there personally. The dude went into the women's sauna, where women were naked, strolled in and began acting like a dude by stroking his shaft with a wicked smile knowing he was making the huddled cluster of ladies freak out. As hilarious as that is, the guy was obviously taking advantage of the spa's trans-inclusive policy, and literally doing what conservatives said would happen during the whole gendered bathroom retardation we went through a few years back.
It's interesting that a movement that claims to be advancing the rights of women does everything it can to help men invade women's spaces and then demonize the ones who object.
The perniciousness of this kind of thinking has seeped into everyday life. People believe the horseshit being spread that the organizing principle behind society is upholding white patriarchy, and will say it without any self-awareness as to how their very existence refutes their claim.
Take my friend's wife, please. This lady has no job, has all her meals cooked, the house cleaned, and the bacon brought home by her man, my good friend, and she has the gall to tell me that she lives under an oppressive patriarchy. Really? The patriarchy that cooks and cleans for you? The one that lets you not have a job? The one that let you name his kid with a made-up last name? That patriarchy? The same woman who told me she would love to get free gov't money and never have to work again is being oppressed?
Of course, I held my tongue so as to not put my friend in the doghouse, but Jesus... She told me that she believed the world would be a better place if it was run by women, "How could it get worse?," she asked.
"I can think of a few ways," I said.
"What? How could things possibly be worse?"
"Your lack of imagination doesn't mean it's not possible."
Overall, I was just imagining if she was in charge, even of her own household, things could be way worse. If the future is female, it's a fucking dystopia.
Next, I explore a video clip of a CNN interview with the co-founder of The Weather Channel, who's actually a scientist, putting a corporate stooge in his place by laying out the climate change deception that has become a political weapon propagandized into mainstream consciousness.
For the longest time, I thought it was a given that humans were destroying the planet, and that we would be heading toward an unlivable hellscape in ten years time. That was ten years ago. Things seem fine now.
The more I look into it, the more it's clear that the climate apocalypse narrative is politically motivated, and does not have the science to back it up. As John Coleman explains above, there may be consensus among scientists, but the consensus is through the coercive pressure of politics and funding incentives. Those who do not tow the line, do not get funded. Science is not built by consensus, but by challenging claims. Anybody who tell you to "follow the science" or "believe" anything scientific is exposing their ignorance as to how science works.
Anybody using localized weather phenomenon to sell you on a climate narrative is bullshitting you. It's the same argument the conservatives use when they say, "Hey, it's cold, there's no global warming," but reversed. You can't rightfully say, "Hey it's hot, so there is global warming," but then ignore all the aberrant cold weather. These are two examples of the logical fallacy of begging the question, where an argument's premises assume the truth of a conclusion instead of supporting it.
Don't take my word for it. Check out this podcast with one of the founders of Greenpeace that lays out many of the false narratives that we've swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
It's very similar to the mask logic. We assume that masks must work and if we see that California, which has had the strictest mask mandate in the country, and Texas, which has ended its mandate months ago, are reporting similar mortality rates, propagandists must say the most illogical things in order to make the premise that masks reduce COVID cases work in the face of contradictory evidence.
Fauci goes onto suggest that Texans must be following the mask mandates anyway because the only way cases could fall is with mass masking, ergo the Free State of Texas must be voluntarily following an expired mask mandate, while The People's Republic of California must be flagrantly violating their mandates. This is not scientific or even logical thinking, this is pure propaganda.
LA County has just announced that they are reinstating their indoor mask mandate, even for the vaccinated, flying against all the current scientific evidence and CDC guidelines.
Notice they are using the claim of "increased transmission" to justify this reversal. Let's take a look at this increased transmission in context, shall we?
Just like they never tell you that Iran is in between Iraq and Afghanistan, and so invading it makes the pieces nicely fit, the state and corporate media fail to provide information about COVID in context to truly inform and encourage critical thinking. Why? Because the purpose is not to inform. The purpose is to get you relinquish critical thinking using fear, so that you become reliant on authoritative dictates and spoon-fed information.
I know, crazy Rogin's gone down the conspiracy hole. "Is he a Q-Anon now?," you may be asking yourself.
When the organizing principle behind the world is bullshit, any attempt to point out the truth is met with hostility.
If you're interested in doing the work, here is an extended body of research with 52 citations providing evidence as to why masks for children should not be mandated, and why mask mandates in general have no conclusive evidence supporting the claim that they reduce transmission of COVID.
Racial eugenics used scientific consensus to support white supremacy, and to keep white people safe from crazy black people. That same racism was used to justify the War on Drugs, along with scientific consensus that lied about the dangers of marijuana, especially for children. The War on Drugs got the country desensitized to state power using surveillance and violations of privacy for our own safety, which only primed us for the security theater of the TSA, and the domestic surveillance program designed to keep us even safer from threats from the War on Terror. The War on Trump convinced half the country that the sitting US President was an agent of the Kremlin, and even after embarrassingly failing at finding a single shred of evidence, the Democrats and corporate press managed to create a climate of fear that led people to believe that a white supremacist coup was happening in front of their eyes. The War on COVID helped oust Trump, and now we are here in the new normal.
Perhaps this seems like the ramblings of a deranged man, but on the other hand, how about having a little dignity? Do you have to let yourself be lied to like that over and over, and still come back to defend the authorities like you're in an abusive relationship? Is there any evidence of the government ever doing anything similar in the past?
The Biden Administration has admitted that they are censoring Facebook to combat "disinformation" like Hunter Biden's laptop, or whatever they deem wrongthink.
Hmm... the state working in collusion with private corporations in order to exercise power through censorship and strict information control, where have I heard of that before?