Evan Morrison

@cabsav456 It was a politically motivated prosecution though. What is your suggested remedy? Wait until the allies of the bad actors are back in power? Sue Mueller's estate? On the priority list of who's getting dodgy payouts at taxpayer expense he's nowhere near the top.

So let me get this straight. The previous administration criminally prosecuted Michael Flynn. Michael Flynn pleaded GUILTY to the charges. Then Trump 2.0 pardons Michael Flynn. Flynn sues the previous administration for politically motivated prosecution. ...And the current Trump administration is settling the lawsuit with taxpayer dollars an UNDISCLOSED amount of $. There needs to be a law against this kind of self-dealing. This is absolutely maddening.

@por2gueseguy @wil_da_beast630 That's not proof. Your "proof" is refuted by what Trump did with the border without the bill. The bill was a permanent open borders bill. That it had bipartisan support is irrelevant. Plenty of Ds and Rs are for open borders.

@wil_da_beast630 I know you think Trump cared about the border (he didn’t).. He cared about winning.. That’s all.. Proof? He killed a very strong bipartisan (both sides) border bill so he had it to run on. Trump has made billions as a sitting president. Wanna talk about his kids or son in law?

You scum let in 10,000,000 illegals during one Presidency. Your figurehead POTUS was dead for two years. #lb You can watch his son, a top 10K consultant in the world, weigh an ounce of crack and smoke most of it with a probably-trafficked hooker right here...youtube.com/watch?v=Rj9V-X…. Spare me.

@kronenbergouise @DanFriedman81 This level of selfishness is not something to brag about.

@DanFriedman81 Yea I live here. And sure, the majority of delivery bikers are not white. But I find it hard to believe you’ve ever asked the scary e-bikers their citizenship status, because thats weird. And who cares? Just because Fox cares, doesn’t mean you need to care man.

Zohran Mamdani has ended an Eric Adams policy of criminally charging people who drive mopeds on sidewalks and ride them the wrong way on one way streets. He is doing this to protect illegal immigrants, who come to this country from places where there are no traffic laws to work illegally as food delivery workers. These people recreate the conditions of their third-world homelands and injure or kill pedestrians. Trump should send ICE to NYC to round them up.

There are without question some parties on the right who use woke tactics and adopt a critical consciousness mindset, some expressly so. But most of the controversy with the "woke right" name calling orbits around the issue of antisemitism vs criticism of Isreali influence. The gap between you two seems to be in your different ideas about the causes, boundaries, and appropriate responses to antisemitism.

@ConceptualJames That's a very strange response, James. You're rejecting a claim I didn't make, right in the heart of your core competence. Did you misread it? In effect I asked 'Is one side falsely projecting wokeness onto the other?' and you replied 'No, because my side is not projecting'

Bret, I'm with you on the general priciple of open discussion. But I strongly disagree it's reasonable to postulate Kirk's murder was the work of Isreal or any other state actor because 1. We have strong evidence of the identity and motive of the actual killer, and 2. There is no way to prove a negative: if hypothetically some covert influence operation took place to manipulate the killer into the act, there's zero chance we can prove or disprove it through open discussion, FBI investigation or otherwise. It's a fruitless pursuit that acts as a smear of Isreal because there isn't a shred of evidence and no possibility of resolution/exoneration. In contrast, what Rubio said about the reason for US involvement should give everyone pause. I'm fairly pro-Isreal in general, but the fact that the US was dragged into a war it would not have otherwise engaged in, is very troubling. I think that deserves far more attention and discussion. Even though Trump tried to take ownership of the decision, I haven't seen evidence Iran was going to initiate an attack on the US absent being hit by Isreal. I think bringing Kirk's murder into this is counter productive to the type of discussion you seek, one which I would also like to see.

On June 18th, I had a text exchange with Charlie Kirk. He said he was spending two full days at the White House trying to persuade President Trump not to initiate a war with Iran. Given that Charlie was close with the President and that he represented a large constituency essential to Trump, and given that many proponents of the war with Iran saw a U.S. attack as urgently necessary to the survival of Israel, it is reasonable to wonder if his refusal to back down from his steadfast opposition somehow resulted in his murder. A good investigation could have settled the matter. What we got only increases the reason for concern. Asking this question may be unforgivable, but it is in no way unreasonable. Charlie was in a strong position to keep us from doing what we have now done, and the timing of his death removed him from the equation and likely changed the course of history--as Charlie himself worried it might.

Yes. Let me ask you, do you think the current political parties, academia, media, and administrative state are basically healthy but simply in need of a few reforms? Unless you're prepared to defend those institutions, casting a sinister framing on Bret's use of the term phoenixed without direct evidence of his intended meaning is just bad faith cynicism. There are no "receipts" establishing he was referring to the Constitution and such an assumption is at odds with so much else of what he's said. She accuses Bret of promoting "eugenics with better branding." That's a smear. It is not supported by the evidence. In fact is it contradicted by all the evidence of what he says and does. She admits as much, then insists we should disregard what he says and accept that she knows what he truly believes better than he does: "I will caveat that they don’t explicitly say they wish to eradicate free will and in fact many of them rhetorically advocate for it, but operationally their philosophical framework negates it." Much of the case leans heavily on us accepting as true her framing of the "IDW" as orchestrated hegelian dialectic, which is simply her unsubstantiated opinion. If she'd focused on Thiel or people *actually* engaged in the transhumanist project she might have been on solid ground. Citing lots of sources only counts as "receipts" if they substantively support your key claims. That's not present here as to the subjects I'm familiar with, so I can't trust it for those I'm not.

Evan, have you read the linked sources? There’s no smearing in the article at all. On the matter of aligning (or not) with the ontological principles the Founders predicated the Declaration on - that is not a matter of private belief, or subjective opinion. It is juridical in nature and directly relevant to whether the Constitutional Republic is maintained, upheld and defended - or whether it is…….what was Brett’s operational term….. ‘phoenixed’. The receipts are there in Courtenay’s article but it’s not at all what many who’ve been groomed post 2001, 2008, 2016/17 and finally 2020 want to hear. That their heroes are in fact key architects and enablers of the systems, methodologies and infrastructure for the technocratic build out. Particularly the transformation of man which that requires, in order to progress with the least resistance possible.

Amazing the accounts that very quickly come out to negate Courtenay’s work. Given all the links to source material she always includes in her articles there simply has not been the time to even digest the article (since I made this post) let alone follow up on reading all the sources etc. These negations are so obvious and frequently occur within minutes of posts being made. Sock account? Who knows - but sus.

@thepalmerworm Tried reading the article but it immediately and repeatedly reveals itself as pure narrative. It is anti-persuasive, far more effective at discrediting the authors than the targets.

‘Brett Weinstein (left), evolutionary biologist and Game B advocate, and Eric Weinstein (right), Harvard-trained mathematical physicist and Managing Director of Thiel Capital — two brothers who spent years cultivating reputations as principled outsiders while occupying central nodes in a technocratic network funded by Peter Thiel, the EDGE Foundation, and Jeffrey Epstein.’ open.substack.com/pub/courtenayt…

@eyesnote @drtexdi @allenanalysis Fair enough, but when I see someone go with "grifter" as applied to Kennedy it's just so laughably disconnected from reality. It signals they are not engaged in reason, just parroting a line or lashing out emotionally.

@evanrmorrison @drtexdi @allenanalysis I interacted with Diana enough to see she dislikes Kennedy because she disagrees with his challenges to vaccine science meta, and she aligns herself with the establishment science. I understand her doubt as I default to skeptic myself, and many tax anti-vax too far imo.

🚨 Just last month, RFK Jr. said glyphosate causes cancer. Now he’s backing Trump’s executive order to expand its production. From “this poisons people” to “let’s make more of it.”

@eyesnote @drtexdi @allenanalysis Someone calling RFK Jr a grifter lacks the intelligence and awareness to debate in good faith. One can argue he's right or wrong about one thing or another but to think he's doing this to enrich himself is the brainwashed ranting of someone who's opinions are assigned to them.

@drtexdi @allenanalysis Examples?

@Warsiethe1337 @xwanyex But my point is that it IS a distinctly modern western flaw. We got rid of insane asylums, prison is now the only place to keep someone away from the public. Invoking the past is a superficial comparison, the underlying concepts are entirely different.

@evanrmorrison @xwanyex I mean the point is you can't say it's a modern western flaw. It's historically built in. Also pretty sure it's universal to an extent (enough stories of people faking insanity until the cruel tyrant dies etc)

You don’t understand. There are extremely complex, abstract reasons why we have to be careful about swiftly executing the guy who filmed his own crime and whose guilt is not even remotely in doubt.

@Warsiethe1337 @xwanyex And? If a violent criminal was found to be insane was he released freely into the public? No. Besides, I suspect there's a lot about ancient Roman justice you wouldn't want us to emulate today.

@evanrmorrison @xwanyex Ancient Romans had an insanity defence or mitigation in court.

@xwanyex This notion that low IQ/mental incapacity is a mitigating factor in how long to sequester a violent person from society is really insane. It's a bad sign for the future when judges don't understand justice and it's role in maintaining civilization.

The problem with appealing to abstractions is that it’s actually completely irrelevant in this case and others like it. All we’re dealing with here is a single mistake that’s baked into western criminal justice systems, which is the belief that you can be too dumb to punish. This is just a conceptual error, a very straightforward mistake that can and should be remedied.

@HistoryBoomer You think culture is static? Fixed in time? Obviously not if you're a history guy. You think people from different cultures are interchangeable like Legos? No, because you can see living in third world countries is not as good as living in America. The disconnect is astounding.

How is wanye getting replaced? I really don't get it. My buddy is from a Mayflower family. My dad came over in 1938. We both have kids. Nobody has been replaced. Ananya Gupta's parents came here. She was born she has kids. Who has been replaced? Just more people. More kids.

@wil_da_beast630 Well, the purpose of the FDA is to reject medical interventions that are not proven safe and effective. From reports I've seen on the trials of the mRNA flu shots, it is neither safe nor effective. For Cathy, simply calling something a "vaccine" is evidence enough of its safety.

Credit where due: this is a legitimate left-bloc point against the right. Center right debaters will often ask opponents to name a policy of "ours" that will kill like nuke power denialism, playing games with open borders and racial faction, shackling police, etc. Ok. Rejecting vaccines?

@yhdistyminen Lol, we know the actual evidence never changed. The insane left was able to coerce our major institutions to pretend a fake, non-evidence based consensus was more important. HAES, covid restrictions with a magic carve out for BLM, transing children... it goes on.

You think "obesity isn't bad for you" was mainstream because your media diet consists of ragebait aggregators who find fringe views and present them as mainstream. The evidence-based consensus is still that obesity carries health risks like heart disease and type II diabetes.

@Freakoutery @BretWeinstein Bret's statement is correct though. Genetic evolution produced beings capable of culture, which is itself a supercharged means of evolutionary adaptation. They do effect each other but it's not really a question of what came first.

@BretWeinstein You still have a chicken/egg problem, @BretWeinstein. What are some of the ways in which those genes outcompeted ones that didn't? War. Slavery. Agriculture. Hierarchy. (in short: ant stuff) So the culture is pruning the genes as much as the genes are forcing the culture.

Culture is biology, downstream of genes.

@feelsdesperate It was nothing, this is just another sad case of "Republicans pounce" lol.

I’m arguing with people that ‘fat positivity’ and ‘health at every size’ wasn’t a thing getting pushed just a few years ago. It seems too stupid to believe so people don’t believe it but of course it was true. There are many things like this.

@MichaelAlbertMD Does this argue for more, or less, patient autonomy over the care or interventions they receive? More, or less, caution/humility from medical doctors, administrators, and public health about what they "know" is safe and effective? "More" is the only ethical answer to both.

Saying the quiet part out loud: “Do your own research” is mostly a farce. Many physicians are so busy with clinical care and administrative burden that keeping up with the rapidly expanding medical literature is genuinely difficult. Many physicians also lack formal training in program evaluation, epidemiology, and biostatistics—skills required to rigorously assess study design, bias, confounding, and internal & external validity. The general public is even less equipped. Without training in scientific methods, most people cannot reliably interpret primary research, assess evidentiary strength, or distinguish high-quality data from noise, hype, or misinformation. This isn’t a moral failing. It’s a structural reality of modern medicine and science.

@MikeBenzCyber, among others, have explained this really well. The CIA (and it's quasi progeny) is tasked to do illegal things, ostensibly in service to national security. But when someone inevitably goes too far they cannot be held accountable because it might unravel everything else. This is unacceptable. But it's extremely difficult to unwind. As these illegal clandestine networks have matured they've become a power into themselves, with a strong desire for self preservation, and access to tools and power others don't have. It's the ultimate example of the "factions" the founders feared (we call them special interests today) because there are no adequate checks and balances against it.

We are discovering why the world is so screwed up. Not exactly how, though we know lots more than we did two weeks ago. And not the full extent. We'll probably never know that. But the Epstein files are revealing how interconnected and ubiquitous the rot actually is. Incredible.