Discerning the truth about the public discourse these days can seem challenging as the craziness abounds. But not that much effort is truly needed. Those watching this modern game (and it is clearly a game) only need an open mind. You probably know something is wrong with the world today, but you may not know exactly which are the lies and which the truth. You may not be certain who the good guys and who the bad guys or you may not have chosen your side wisely. If we dig just below the surface, we can expose those who think they know better than you; they deceive or shame in order to manipulate your thinking. All the lies, even the seemingly insignificant ones, are impactful. They are all crafted with a sinister purpose. Accepting or ignoring even the seemingly small lies, only opens the door for bigger and more impactful lies. Let’s nip them all in the bud as soon as possible.
Sports Illustrated Cover Model
First, the Sports Illustrated annual swimsuit issue this year features an atypical cover model, one who is at least fifty pounds overweight. Let’s be clear, the SI swimsuit issue has nothing to do with sports, nor is it intended for women interested in the latest summer fashions. It is targeted wholly for men who are interested in ogling pretty women. Sex sells in our culture, and this issue has always been about sex. Shame us men for what you consider dirty minds, but it is just the way men are. Civilized men can control their emotions and that is exactly what most of us do. That’s how productive cultures work.
Our collective vision of beauty is a problem in the minds of our woke betters at Sports Illustrated. They have decided to re-define the term “beauty”–for all of us. In other words, we, men especially, need to be instructed on what is beautiful and what is not. Politics, woke politics especially, cannot leave anything alone these days.
Inclusivity is a key for changing your thinking. If you disagree the new cover model is not exactly beautiful, you are called a bigot, narrow-minded, and most importantly, not inclusive. These folks have sullied the term “inclusive”; if you don’t opt for what they want to include, you are not inclusive and therefore you are a problem. This is how they attempt to sell all kinds of nonsense; you may know it is nonsense, but they shame you if you don’t agree, and many are intimidated into silence to avoid trouble. Maybe it seems something not worth arguing about: who cares about some silly sports magazine issue? You have real problems to deal with, after all. But they are deeply committed to changing you, and they won’t stop with this one issue. They are the elite, the well-educated, the well-known, and they believe we should all accept their vision of what is good and bad in all things–and if we don’t show how silly they all are, they have success in re-defining cultural norms to their ridiculous notions. You will find others around you accepting these new silly norms and you will wonder what happened. We need to be just as committed to exposing them and their silliness.
The SI cover model, Yumi Nu, is not necessarily unattractive, but most men would opt for the other models given a choice. Ms. Nu would, in fact, be quite attractive were she to lose a good chunk of weight. Yet, the SI editors dare folks like me to say she is not all that pretty, so they can label us sexists, misogynists, fat-shamers, or something of the sort. If the SI swimsuit edition were selling something other than sexy women, Ms. Nu might blend in nicely, but choosing her makes no sense given the true purpose of this edition; she is not in the same league as the other models. I think it is an obvious point, but obvious points don’t register with people who want to change your thinking. You are the one under attack.
https://swimsuit.si.com/swimsuit/model/yumi-nu-2022-si-swimsuit-photos
Outspoken public figure and Canadian professor Jordan Peterson dared to speak as well. https://news.yahoo.com/jordan-peterson-quits-twitter-calling-231218547.html
Jordan Peterson sparked outrage on Monday after tweeting, “Sorry. Not beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.”
Twitter users were divided, with several of his own fans condemning Peterson for publicly insulting a woman’s looks. Others shot back that Nu was overweight and unhealthy.
This is a clear attempt to manipulate opinions. Like it or not men continually assess women’s looks. Everyone knows it. It is not our best feature, but it is the way men are wired, and it is basically a harmless outlet for the vast majority of us. Peterson says what most men instinctively think: we prefer the other models. SI knows this as well, but SI pretends they can fix men, pretends they can change human nature, pretends they can re-wire our thinking by telling us how to assess beauty. As Orwell said: two plus two equals whatever Big Brother says it is.
SI was hoping someone like Jordan Peterson would respond, so he could be made an example of. They hate him in any case because he speaks his mind and so easily dissembles their other lies; they can’t defeat him on the merits, so they win only by labeling him. Peterson’s response to the attacks was direct and sensible, as always:
“Rage away, panderers. And tell me you believe such images are not conscious and cynical manipulation by the oh-so-virtuous politically correct,” he said.
Peterson continued, “The endless flood of vicious insult is really not something that can be experienced anywhere else. I like to follow the people I know but I think the incentive structure of the platform makes it intrinsically and dangerously insane.”
Certainly, some men find plus sized women attractive; many may think Ms. Nu attractive or appealing already. We all have different tastes and that’s perfectly fine. Still, there is some commonality of esthetic beliefs that is still easily recognized. Peterson was forced off Twitter for the grave sin of saying what millions of other normal men also believe. Ms. Nu just doesn’t belong in this group, and we should be allowed to speak this obvious truth.
Georgia Election
After the 2020 election, the Georgia state legislature passed legislation intended to prevent election fraud and fix some of the loopholes–or was it about something else? Every American, whether you believe the 2020 election was rigged or not, whether you think the Georgia legislature is sincere or not, should want all our elections to be honest and fair. (for more of my thoughts on fair elections: https://seek-the-truth.com/category/elections/)
Election integrity has been under dispute for several years, going back to the 2000 Bush-Gore Florida fiasco. More recently, we have some Americans who believe the 2016 presidential election was rigged:
“Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.” – Nancy Pelosi Twitter, 5/7/2017.
Other Americans believe the 2020 presidential election was hijacked:
“I won this election by a lot” – Donald Trump, Twitter, November 7, 2020.
The presidential election was contested in the U.S. Senate January 6, 2016 as well as on January 6, 2020. Unknown to most, is the fact that more states were contested in 2016 than in 2020.
Stacey Abrams who lost the 2018 Georgia governor’s election by 50,000 votes, never conceded that race. This “steal” has been a continual talking point for her and other prominent Democrats. The 2020 Democrat presidential convention even gave Abrams a seat in a forum with the other Democrat governors. They talk of the dangers of President Trump’s claims about the election, but for four years they have furthered Stacey Abrams claims, even though her loss was by even more than Trump’s. In 2022, by the way, she is running for governor again (and likely to lose again).
There are clearly dueling narratives regarding recent elections. Those who like an election result are more likely to say it was fair. Those who were disappointed by a result, may be a bit too quick to say it was rigged. If you believe some or all of the claims, you should be interested in fixing the system, fixing it so that cheating (i.e. allowing non-eligible voters or casting of ballots illegally) becomes more difficult and so that legitimate voters rights are protected.
Laws to correct such problems (or perceived problems) are always controversial today. Republican efforts are often characterized as racist, restrictive, unfair, or are not inclusive (there is that word again). In 2021, Major League Baseball withdrew its All-Star Game from Atlanta because they claimed the new Georgia voting law was openly racist. Republicans can’t win on a level playing field, MLB and others said, so they tried to manipulate the game by changing the law.
The decision follows an election bill signed on Wednesday by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, which opponents say disproportionately disenfranchises people of color.
“This is what they do,” Mrs. Clinton said. “They try to shrink the electorate.”
Ms. Abrams, a former Georgia legislator whose candidacy for governor made her a star of the Democratic Party, said that the Trump campaign’s recruitment of poll watchers was nothing more than an attempt to disenfranchise minority voters.
“They have recruited 50,000 people who will be deployed as intimidators,” Ms. Abrams said. “Let’s be clear, this isn’t paranoia. They are enemies of democracy.”
Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, on the other hand, says it is a good law.
https://www.wabe.org/governor-kemp-defends-georgias-voting-law/
“I’m telling you the truth about this bill. It expands access,” he said.
Kemp argued claims of “suppression” and labels of “Jim Crow 2.0” are based on “blatant misinformation.”
“I think when people get educated on the bill and are not subjected to people misleading them on the other side about what this bill actually does, I think they’ll have good understanding of why the General Assembly took the actions that they did,” he said.
How are we to determine who is telling the truth? The number of people voting in the first election following the law’s passage might be a good barometer. Did the electorate shrink as Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abrams suggested or was it expanded as Governor Kemp suggested?
So far in the 2022 primary election, 860,068 people have voted.
At this point in the 2018 primary, that number was 320,692.
Total turnout for the 2022 primary is 168% higher.
Do I need to say anything more? Instead, listen to what Stacey Abrams said about this result. Can you make sense of this analogy?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/stacey-abrams-joy-reid-georgia-voter-suppression-record-turnout
While sitting down for an interview with Reid on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut,” Abrams oddly claimed there was “no correlation” between the record high turnout and less voter suppression, and that arguing such was like saying “if more people are in the water there are fewer sharks.”
Let’s get this straight now. In the interview she claims only Democrat voters are suppressed and Republican votes are bolstered. Well, this isn’t what she said before the election. Could the explanation be as simple as: fewer Georgians are interested in voting Democrat given how the country has been run the last two years? There is nothing in the Georgia legislation that targets Democrat or Abrams voters specifically. This particular lie will never end because there is always an implausible explanation that will be championed to explain otherwise obvious results. We all need to see through this nonsense.
Elon Musk, who has until this year has identified as a Democrat, said recently on Twitter he would vote Republican for the first time in 2022 (because he believes his Democrat compatriots have abandoned him). At the same time he revealed this, he predicted the woke mob would now come for him–and it immediately did. It was almost as if the following story was being held until such time as it was needed.
https://www.yourtango.com/news/elon-musk-issues-challenge-woman-accusing-him-sexual-abuse
Elon Musk is facing serious sexual misconduct allegations after an article from Business Insider exclusively alleged that the Tesla CEO bought the silence of a SpaceX flight attendant after exposing himself to her in 2016.
While the alleged victim declined to speak to Insider, a friend alleged a sexual misconduct claim was filed against the company in 2018, and the woman was given a severance package of $250,000.
It took Musk’s support of free speech on Twitter and declaring himself a Republican for us to learn this story. The woman has a serious claim against the richest man in the world and she settles for $250,000? The lawyers will get most of this pittance. Think carefully, if there was anything to the claim, it would not have been settled for such a small amount. Michael Jackson was sued multiple times and never settled for less than $5 million. If this woman had something on the richest man in the world, she (and her lawyers) would have sued for millions. Also, why wait four years to tell this story? The scenario is not credible.
Now, Tesla is also losing its ESG status. Perhaps you have not heard of ESG: the Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) stock index invests in companies they see good for the environment. If you want to support the environment (and snub businesses you think are non-environmentally friendly), you would invest in the index and rely on them to select businesses for you. Only it seems there is more to it than that.
https://marketrealist.com/p/what-is-esg/
ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing has been gaining traction across the world. ESG isn’t synonymous with investing in clean energy companies like Tesla. The other two constituents of ESG, which are social and corporate governance, are also equally important.
The social part of the equation measures how the company manages its relationship with different stakeholders like employees, customers, suppliers, local communities, and society in general. The “G” in ESG has to do with corporate governance. It’s a function of how the company deals with minority stockholder rights, executive pay, and internal controls.
ESG is the American equivalent to China’s “social credit” score. But, in any case, Tesla is the premiere electric car maker in the world. They are the ideal company for this stock index. Yet, they are now being snubbed by the Left’s own standard-bearer, ostensibly because Musk is challenging their fragile world view. There is an unwritten, a silent “W” for woke that is actually included in term ESG. Musk is not woke enough, so he and his company are being excluded, despite their business acumen. They can’t beat Mr. Musk on the merits, so they try to beat him in a more under-handed fashion.
Tom Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, has been a noted critic of Musk and Tesla in the past. But he smells more than a whiff of politics at play here. “How quickly the left has turned on Elon Musk,” he told me in an email. “As soon as he started started criticizing Democrats, they sharpened their knives. As soon as he announced he was going to clean up Twitter, they revved up their attack machine. Now Wall Street, which has showered him with capital for years, is joining the attack. It shows you what the ESG movement is really about – rewarding companies and executives for towing the progressive line.”
The leading maker of electric cars around the world is no longer a good investment for environmentally concerned Leftists? Go figure.
The truth is not hard to find here. Ten minutes after Musk abandons the Democrat Party, he is accused of sexual impropriety. Next, Tesla is excluded from the woke ESG index because Mr. Musk is not woke enough himself, not because of the company’s operating model. It’s all about Musk’s abandonment of the Left’s agenda (although Mr. Musk himself would say it’s about their abandonment of him). Do you remember how well-liked Donald Trump was before he came down the escalator as a Republican in 2015? History repeats itself.
As Mr. Musk himself shows us, the woke crowd’s tactics are as predictable and as cheap as their lies about everything else. Perhaps you don’t see the lies do because you wish so much for them be the truth. Just keep an open mind and ask the same questions as Mr. Musk and you will see the reality.
Monkeypox
So, the game includes all these ugly tactics: compel people to deny basic human truths: men can have babies too, beauty is what the woke says it is just as two plus two is whatever they say it is. Lie about the voting laws in Georgia and then lie some more when your original lies are exposed. Lie about Elon Musk and his company because he is exposing your lies as well. If all that doesn’t work, just scare people. MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch revealed to the Morning Joe what the game is really all about (he said the QUIET part out loud):
@DonnyDeutsch: “We don’t have the economy on our side as Democrats. So you have to scare the bejesus out of people — & a way to scare them, to say, You know this replacement theory, this is not just coming from some dark corner of the web, this is the Republican platform”
What better to scare people than a new ailment, one that will immediately remind us all of COVID, and convince us we are about to repeat that nightmare? Our politicians had such success at manipulating the public during COVID, they need more of it. They need something new to further extend their power over you. Here is what we get from our president: be concerned about monkeypox even though they haven’t told me anything substantial that I can share with you:
“Well, they haven’t told me the level of exposure yet, but it is something that everybody should be concerned about. We’re working on it hard to figure out what we do and what vaccine, if any, may be available for it.
“But it is a concern in the sense that if it were to spread, it’s consequential. That’s all they have told me.”
Should we actually be concerned about monkeypox? It does indeed sound like a nasty disease, so, I will agree with the president on being concerned and careful. But the president always seems to start with a reasonable point and then pushes it way beyond credulity. It is one of his talents, unfortunately. Let’s do a bit of research (research, that the president’s team couldn’t be bothered to share with us) and determine for ourselves if this is truly the next pandemic and something we should be as afraid of as Mr. Deutsch and President Biden would like us to be:
- there are relatively few cases still. As of Thursday, May 26, there have been only nine U.S. cases and nobody has died.
- It is a known disease, not a “novel” disease as COVID was in 2020.
- it is not as easily spread as COVID. It is spread by close contact. It can be sexually transmitted as has been noted, but it can also be spread by other means, including droplets, but not the very small droplets we find with COVID, not the droplets that easily seep through paper and cloth masks.
- a vaccine is already available; the smallpox vaccine can be used.
- it is a deadly disease and children are especially vulnerable.
- it is not likely to turn into a pandemic as it is not spread as easily as COVID.
- the origin of the recent spread has been traced to gay sexual activity, although gay sex is not the only way to transmit it.
We should be aware of monkeypox and take appropriate precautions, but we should not be panicked and we should not surrender our liberties to the government as we did with COVID. Can we, at least, tell people to be careful about sex with unknown partners? Why is that such difficult advice to dispense? Do such extreme measures only apply with respiratory diseases like COVID? In any case, monkeypox is not in same category as COVID; the mitigating measures are not the same and it will not kill millions in the next year. Here are several more links if you would like to learn more for yourself.
https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/transmission.html (CDC notice)
Campbell (long video):
Campbell 5 minute video:
More
I could continue indefinitely with examples on truth fudging and incredulous behavior from public figures.
Nancy Pelosi is denied communion by her archbishop (because of her public stance on abortion) and Whoopi Goldberg says the archbishop is “not doing his job”. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/20/pelosi-abortion-archbishop-communion/. Actually, many of us Catholics believe he just started doing his job.
Congress also hears testimony on abortion, and some of the most mystifying comments are made from those who spoke in defense of the indefensible. It is all a woman’s choice, you know. We are to believe without questioning that nobody else is impacted by the woman’s choice. We are not “inclusive” of women’s rights if we ask such questions or remind folks that other lives are, in fact, negatively impacted.
There is a mass shooting in Buffalo and another at a small Texas school. Yet again, these events are politicized. We all want to hear solutions of how to avoid future violence. Certain folks among us say you must be for some sort of gun control or else you are burying your head in the sand. Gun control is certainly one potential solution. I am always happy to debate the issue with others, but I will point out there are many other solutions. The real problem is that there is no real conversation about the various other alternatives. If you believe gun control is not the solution (because it will create a whole new set of problems worse than one you want to solve, or it may not solve the problem at hand), you are labeled again. The woke opposition demands you agree with them or you are wholly evil. You are either for gun control or you place corporate interests ahead of children’s lives. That’s actually how they frame the argument. How disgusting. How can you have a debate in such circumstances? If you want to suggest alternatives other than gun-control, well again they label you a non-serous person to be ignored or condemned.
The Homeland Security Disinformation Board is now “paused” and as its former Chief, Nina Jankowicz, resigns. Don’t forget this ploy. Ask yourself: why do we need the government to tell us what is disinformation and what is not? Who do you trust for the truth: yourself or political leaders? George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth is closer than we realize. The board is on the ropes now, but it will almost certainly return in the future, probably in another form. They tried unsuccessfully to convince us this board is needed today, but they softened us up with years of talk about “disinformation” (disinformation is often just an idea someone disagrees with or embarrassing news to suppress) and they continue to look for the right formula to slide a new Ministry of Truth by us another time.
Finally, Dr. Fauci’s own National Institute of Health disseminated an interesting retrospective on COVID, and it is not complementary of government’s own role in this effort. It’s a lengthy article, but quite enlightening. I share the first two paragraphs below. We need more doctors like this one to speak the truth, so we can begin to fix this awful mess. We can begin by taking the politics out of medicine, sports, and everything else.
COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? – PMC (nih.gov)
The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.[3,6,57] We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence.
For the first time in American history a president, governors, mayors, hospital administrators and federal bureaucrats are determining medical treatments based not on accurate scientifically based or even experience based information, but rather to force the acceptance of special forms of care and “prevention”—including remdesivir, use of respirators and ultimately a series of essentially untested messenger RNA vaccines. For the first time in history medical treatment, protocols are not being formulated based on the experience of the physicians treating the largest number of patients successfully, but rather individuals and bureaucracies that have never treated a single patient—including Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, EcoHealth Alliance, the CDC, WHO, state public health officers and hospital administrators.[23,38]
Folks, can we have a serious conversation about these topics? Can we look at the issues themselves and avoid the personal and ad hominem attacks of those who disagree with us? If your neighbor disagrees with you on issues, it may just be your neighbor is taking a principled stand as well. Go figure. I will give you with an opposing view credit for being sincere and honest in your beliefs. I believe most of us want to find solutions to problems and not play games, so please also respect my opposing views which come from the same desire to fix problems.
Seek the Truth 
2 thoughts on “SI Models, Georgia Voting, Musk, Monkeypox, and More Truth Twisting”