Antedating the OED

SV40 is the same virus that contaminated the polio vaccinations. This virus is known to cause cancer in humans.It has been linked to bone, brain ,liver and lung cancers. And it seems the virus can be passed on to the children of those inoculated with vaccine contaminated with SV40. The virus is found in the cancers of those people and cancers in their children. If it didn't come from the vaccine, how did these people come into contact with a monkey virus? Read about this in " Turtles All the Way Down" or " Anyone Who Tells You Vacines are Safe and Effective is Lying" by Dr. Vernon Coleman. For that matter, the last time I looked this up on the internet, all the information was there. The "trusted experts" knew about the contamination for years before it was finally removed from the polio vaccines. I will never trust any of them again.

"Anyone Who Tells You Vacines are Safe and Effective is Lying" by Dr. Vernon Coleman

they lie about everything.<br /> they always reward their believers (useful idiots).<br /> they always punish their skeptics (enemies of the state).

just think about how many people still believe that<br /> "smoking tobacco is better than smoking cannabis".<br /> that lie has been around for 100 years.<br /> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States

see also:<br /> 180 Degrees: Unlearn The Lies You've Been Taught To Believe.<br /> by Feargus O’Connor Greenwood

https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/exclusive-interview-with-feargus

Discernment is much easier when you realise the enemy deals almost exclusively in ‘inversion’. So to get back to the truth you just need to invert their inversions. Often by reversing their narrative the world makes more sense.

So for example with regard to COVID:

The control measures were not brought in because of the virus, the virus was released in order to bring in the control measures.<br /> Again, "safe and effective" becomes "dangerous and useless".<br /> "Don’t take Ivermectin because it’s horse paste and ignore Vitamin D, C and Zinc" becomes "take Ivermectin and Vitamin D because they work".

Falsehood flies, and Truth comes limping after it;<br /> —Jonathan Swift, “The Examiner, From Thursday Nov 2 to Thursday Nov 9, 1710.” In The Examiner [Afterw.] The Whig Examiner, edited by Joseph Addison and Jonathan Swift, Vol. 15. London: John Morphew, near Stationers Hall, 1710.

found via https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/

with variations on "A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes." attributed variously to Mark Twain, Jonathan Swift, Thomas Francklin, Fisher Ames, Thomas Jefferson, John Randolph, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Winston Churchill, Terry Pratchett?

“A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” C. H. Spurgeon

I truly wonder how many Facebook accounts are real.

Yet another example of Trump anchoring himself in lies and disinformation.

I suppose I may be a bit biased, being a "Warren" college student. ; ) In all honesty however it is likely that it is the high profile nature of the claim, and the intense politicization that brings so much publicity to this particular case.

Wow! such a shame :(

What more can Elizabeth Warren do to placate the Cherokee? It looks like this might seriously hurt her campaign, and if she does become president, then this could simply sour relations between the United States and the Cherokee. Some have accepted her apology, and “understand that she apologized for causing confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and the harm that has resulted,” Julie Hubbard, a spokeswoman for the tribe said. “The chief and secretary of state appreciate that she has reaffirmed that she is not a Cherokee Nation citizen or a citizen of any tribal nation.”

But others are still not satisfied. “This still isn’t transparent,” said Twila Barnes, a Cherokee genealogist who has been critical of Ms. Warren’s claims of native ancestry since it became national news in 2012. “She needs to go public and say she fully takes responsibility and that the DNA test was ridiculous. There is still something about this that feels off.” It seems that only time will tell in this case. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-cherokee-dna.html

I believe the precise term to be used here is Anthropometry, or human measurement, which was a key aspect of pre-genetic Eugenic ideology, and continues today in genetic biology, under more 'subtle' labels such as euthanizing, sterilizing, or preventing intermarriage between people with 'genetic diseases.' http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/themes/6.html (I mean i'm not saying I am denying genetic disease research and treatment is based on science, but so was eugenics back in the day, it's just science has 'improved' since then... or has it? Maybe, but it is policy that is more important in these regards.)

What does this mean exactly? This is extremely important and I don't know exactly what is being articulated here.

This isn't really subtle at all. Most of the public I speak to outside of my family and college seem to view Native Americans as a racial classification that receives certain government benefits as reparations based on past discrimination. Reservations tend to be spoken of as segregated zones, rather than sovereign nations. Public misconceptions by Non-Natives seem to inform the issue.

This statement is vague because it does not clarify what the misunderstanding is, and what it means to weigh in, and precisely what kinship means. Ethically, what is the distinction here? Did Warren make an ethical violation when she publicly claimed to have Cherokee ancestry, without first notifying tribal authority? What constitutes as kinship, versus ancestry. It seems to take the power away from individual identity, and grant it to institutions. It is an opportunity cost of self-determination. What would be the proper course of action for Warren to take afterwards? Make a public apology, or publicly make a statement denying kinship?

Based on this Rhetoric, she sounds sincere, but what is so controversial about this statement? Are there other statements where she made different kind of claims?

Assimilation and 'whitewashing' could indeed produce a large number of un-enrolled people who are of Cherokee descent, and also produce false accounts where people genuinely believe they have some Cherokee ancestry but are mistaken based on an old family story. What is implied here is that there is a malicious, intentional fabrication of Native Ancestry to advance one's own personal agenda. There is a fine line between a claim that should illicit the response, "Really? How neat, what an interesting heritage story," and "I see under race/ethnicity you put down 'Cherokee' on your application. That is very serious claim, do you have any documentation?" I think there is a difference. How harmful is it for someone to claim 'unofficial' or unverifiable ancestry, and what problems does this present? How should these be viewed/enforced differently.

Only a fraction of a percentage of Americans claim to be Cherokee, but high profile cases make a big impact. "In 2000, the federal census reported that 729,533 (0.26%) Americans self-identified as Cherokee. By 2010, that number increased, with the Census Bureau reporting that 819,105 (0.26%) Americans claimed at least one Cherokee ancestor" https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/10/cherokee-blood-why-do-so-many-americans-believe-they-have-cherokee-ancestry.html

About 300,000 Cherokee are enrolled, so that is under half of all Americans who claim to be of Cherokee descent. In other words, there is about 3 Americans who claim to be Cherokee for every 2 enrolled Cherokee. It is difficult to say how big of a problem this really is; it could be a minor inconvenience, or it could be a catastrophic threat. It is difficult to say how this should or can be enforced. It could be that a simple fine could dissuade people, or even a public service announcement, or this may be a breach of freedom of speech. Maybe only in instances where fraud is involved, for financial gains or in high profile cases? It is hard to say.

To read it is also to learn how/why we have been lied to and how/why we will continue to lie to ourselves and others.

~ shout out to my homie Nietzsche ~

Trump estimated a price that would sound convenient for him to gain support meanwhile the true estimate was far-fetched.

Mark Antony's speech at the Senate House in Act III Scene II appealed to the values and emotions of the Roman public to ignite a rebellion against the conspirators. A key element of his rhetoric centred on Julius Caesar's will; seventy-five drachmas were to be issued to each citizen. It was the generosity of Caesar that Mark Antony used to persuade a mutiny.

Ironically, in the privacy of his home, Antony commands Lepidus to "fetch the will" to "determine how to cut off some charge in legacies." He wants to realise the funds in Caesar's will to raise and army against Brutus and Cassius.

Here Antony is presented as manipulative and avaricious, which contrasts the loyal Tribune the audience was first introduced to. His ascension was made possible by offering to honor Caesar's will, a promise which he obviously has no intention in fulfilling.

From his speech in the Capitol to the end of the play, Mark Antony is confident, ambitious, successful and ruthless. He displays no concern for the Roman citizens as they suffer in the civil upheaval, he is willing to execute a nephew instead of argue for his life, and he only upholds the bare minimum of Caesar's legacy to maintain totalitarian control over the Roman Empire.

Ah, the lies again!

Earlier in the semester, I proposed tracking the instances of authors invoking "truth," but it is becoming far more interesting to track "lies" instead.

It feels like we are finally getting to his most important point. This also seems related to Nietzsche, to an extent, in that to claim a "right" or "good" usage implies that we can improve on language by narrowing it, but this sort of view of language ignores that it's all just a system of metaphor.

I wonder what Nietzsche would think about the Trump Administration's rise to power. The "success" of D. Trump and his cronies (Spicer, Conway, etc.), who lie time and time again, seems to contradict this comment?

False. Trump brought a group of supporters to his visit with the CIA. CIA employees were not cheering him. See CBS News, January 23, 2017.

False. "In fact, a United States Secret Service spokesperson told CNN, no magnetometers were used on the Mall." See CNNMoney, January 21, 2017.

False. The women's march in Washington was about 3 times the size of the inauguration, which was close to half a million people. See New York Times, January 22, 2017.

False. 1965 - about 1.2 million people attended Lyndon B. Johnson's inauguration; in 2009 an estimated 1.9 million people attended Obama's inauguration; in 2013 about 1 million attended Obama's inauguration. See Washington Post, January 22, 2017.

False. There were about 160,000 people in the area of the National Mall leading up to Trump's speech. See New York Times, January 22, 2017.

"False. Floor coverings were first used in 2013. It’s actually astonishing a White House press secretary would get such a basic fact wrong in a prepared statement from the podium." See Washington Post, January 22, 2017.

Whoa.

This is so dangerous, and why isn't this the biggest story of the day?

Businesses aren't "burdened" by Obamacare.

This class is a lie! However, it seems that we could now break down any type of writing as rhetoric. Even throwing this phrase does not negate the nature of the writing.

Seems to state the same ideas as Plato. Truth vs. rhetoric/appearance/deception