The Strange Case of The Immortality Key
Many people depicted in a supposedly "groundbreaking" book on psychedelics and religion are now speaking out against it.

Though the science journalist Michael Pollan called the book "groundbreaking," Brian Muraresku's The Immortality Key is largely a rehash of others' work shaped into a Da Vinci Code–style thriller. To flesh out his search for the Holy Grail, the author joined the theories of classicist Carl Ruck and ethnomycologist Gordon Wasson with the research of both Roland Griffiths and Patrick McGovern, an expert in archaeological chemistry.
Trade publishers would have little interest in a 400-page goose chase for what intoxicants the oracles and prophets might have been smoking or sipping. (Ancient wines were frequently blended with botanicals, roots, fungi, and other potentially psychoactive ingredients.)
And so The Immortality Key begins with a message for today. Western civilization, Muraresku argues, is in the grip of a cataclysmic "spiritual crisis" that can only be remedied through a "popular outbreak of mysticism," the result of retrieving the Eucharist's ancient, and until now secret, pharmacological roots.
And what are those roots? According to Muraresku, Christianity evolved from pagan mystery cults whose most sacred ritual involved the ingestion of a psychedelic fungus—and this sacrament, the kykeon, eventually became the Holy Eucharist.
A protégé of Graham Hancock (an Economist reporter turned conspiracy theorist who has made a fortune writing speculative bestsellers about purported lost civilizations), Muraresku told Vox that he has never taken psychedelics himself but eventually came to believe that the drugs can begin "a life of dedicated introspection, a path to love of self and others." His book claims that "about seventy-five percent would leave the FDA-approved house church permanently transformed. And ready to begin a lifelong spiritual journey that could, once again, make life livable on this planet. This should begin happening by 2030, if not sooner."
Like the religious professionals' paper, The Immortality Key has been surrounded by controversy. Critics have already assailed it as a work of scholarship. Now many people depicted in the book are speaking out against it too.
McGovern agreed to advise Muraresku in assessing several organic residue samples from ancient sites in Spain and Greece; he is mentioned more than 70 times in The Immortality Key, including 20 citations in the endnotes. "Brian ingratiated himself to me to get as much out of me as possible, promised that he was being objective and only was interested in the process of discovery, etc.," McGovern says. "He then produced a book very much at odds with those goals, and instead promoted his psychedelic mysticism agenda to the general public, from the sounds of which he has been greatly profiting."
More specifically, McGovern says that Muraresku "misconstrues and overinterprets the very limited, ambiguous archaeological and archaeobotanical data for religious use of psychedelics in antiquity to reinvigorate the discredited ergot theory for Eleusis and to build a fanciful tale about the Eucharist with no basis in Christian tradition."
Long a source of fascination—particularly to Victorian-era mythologists, satirized by George Eliot in Middlemarch as the pedantic bore Edward Casaubon—the secretive rituals of the Greek mystery religions, long suggested to resemble early Christian communities, were centered around a magical beverage called the kykeon. Murareksu's book is a search for the recipe, which he argues is a "proxy" for the drinking vessel used at the Last Supper. The book also attempts to correlate the testimonies of clinical trial volunteers with descriptions of mystical experience found in Christian literature.
Any scientific evidence supporting a connection between psychedelics and Christianity, McGovern says, is "extremely weak to nonexistent."
McGovern claims that Muraresku "dropped him like a hot potato" after appearing on Joe Rogan's podcast. The final severing of ties came when Muraresku proposed recreating a fermented beverage, an Immortality Key–themed beer, as part of the program of Ancient Ales and Spirits that McGovern carried out in collaboration with Dogfish Head Brewery.
"Were we supposed to lace a beer with ergot (perhaps call it 'St. Anthony's Fire')," McGovern joked, "and wait for the imbibers to go crazy and die—or just in moderate amounts to spur their imaginative faculties? Or maybe add some LSD to the brew with even more unpredictable results?"
McGovern is not the only one who feels bamboozled by Muraresku. The central figure in The Immortality Key, Carl Ruck, is now conflicted about his role in the project, which he believed was aimed at gaining wider acceptance for his work.
Ruck stands by the ideas he, Gordon Wasson, and Albert Hofmann proposed back in 1978, including the notion that it was psychedelics that first "awakened" humanity. "The accidental or deliberate induction of such altered states was probably the original instance millennia ago of humankind's first awareness of consciousness as spiritually separate from what appears to be inanimate matter," he says.
But the 89-year-old professor thinks it is "suspect and potentially dangerous" for existing religions to endorse psychedelics, and he wants no part of any "New Reformation." Religions, he says, have been the "cause of global conflict for millennia," and those trying to revitalize this primordial experience—"imposing upon it their traditional mode of interpreting it"—might result in "newer generations of ardent believers."
"The danger in this area of research," Ruck adds, "is that you could come across as a guru, and I definitely don't want to do that, to be a figurehead for a new religion of mind control. That is totally against everything that I believe."
Ruck has also become skeptical of Muraresku's claim of being a psychedelic virgin. "From the very beginning, Brian has presented himself as someone who's never had an experience of altered consciousness," he says. "I can't imagine, it's been about 10 years now, that he hasn't been tempted to see what he's supposedly talking about. But if you admit that you had this experience, then you become unreliable as a witness."
David Hillman, a controversial classicist and scholar of ancient medicine who advised Muraresku, says he was unaware at the time of the author's larger philosophical commitments. When the book was finally released, he tells me, he felt his research had been "hijacked" for purposes that he and Ruck are now suspicious of.
"I felt like he screwed up the direction of the research," he says. "He took it in a way to make it user-friendly to whatever he happens to be connected with or interested in."
Many of the scholars I spoke with condemned The Immortality Key as opportunistic. Kevin Clinton, a Cornell University classicist who specializes in the Eleusinian mysteries, told me that Muraresku "demonstrates how not to do research on ancient religion, particularly if you are interested in finding out whether hallucinogenic drugs were used in rituals: You take a one-day tour of an ancient sanctuary (e.g. Eleusis), as he did, in the company of the site's head archaeologist, who was well aware that no evidence of drug use has ever been found! And what did he learn by the end of the day? No evidence of any psychedelic drugs!"
Clinton notes that "Athenian sanctuaries, their priests, and their administrators produced annual financial accounts that were publicly audited and published on stone; any expenses for drugs would have been public knowledge. Athens produced a financial account of its entire production of barley and wheat, from which a portion of grain was given to the sanctuary, to be sold and the funds used for sacrifices and dedications, none of it for the production of ergot or drugs—all published on stone."
Jan Bremmer, a Dutch expert on ancient mystery cults, agrees the book's argument is fantasy: "No cult is known that used mushrooms in antiquity, and Christianity was not a mystery cult."
The kindest remarks were offered by the Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman. "I admire Brian's tenacity in exploring this topic in depth," he says, "but I don't think his findings at all plausible."
In one of the most perceptive reviews of The Immortality Key, David Hewett of The Paideia Institute for Humanistic Study argued that rather than contributing to the field of research, it is a "regressive work," distorting history (and Ruck's scholarship) while calling for a special class of government medical administrators who would tightly control access to religious experience.
"The book has a predatory approach to the topic of Western religion: pick out the parts useful for its social agenda, demonize and discard the rest," Hewett wrote on the cyberdisciple blog. "In doing so, the book shuts itself off from understanding Western religion and undermines progress in the field. The book is not a well-intentioned scholarly work, dedicated to making a contribution to the field and moving the field forward. The book is instead a P.R. campaign for its author and contemporary psychedelic therapy."
If the scholarly response to Muraresku's book has been negative, what about the more legitimate scholars whose work he built on? How are their ideas faring?
Christian Greer, a Stanford University–based scholar of religious studies who focuses on psychedelic culture, tells me that some scholars regard Wasson and Ruck's soma thesis as "remarkably insightful despite being incorrect," crediting it with "opening the doors for other (and better trained) scholars" to explore similar but better-grounded ideas. "Ultimately, though, we will never have proof enough to fully accept or dismiss Wasson's ideas," he notes.
One of the most influential thinkers in psychedelic research was Mircea Eliade, who taught the history of religions at the University of Chicago from the mid-1960s up until his death in 1986. It is practically impossible to overstate Eliade's influence on the field's thinking about the nature and characteristics of the mystical experience and its significance for the modern world. Wasson naturally sought Eliade's approval for his idea that psychedelics were the key to all mythologies, including Christianity.
"At first [Eliade] dismissed hallucinogens," says Andrei Znamenski, a scholar of Eliade and contemporary spirituality. "He didn't pay attention to this in the 1940s and '50s. Read his book Shamanism, you hardly find anything there….And when Wasson started pedaling this fly agaric mushroom, Eliade even went further. He said, 'Oh, it's a bunch of crap, a bunch of nonsense.'" But in the '60s, when "everybody became crazy about hallucinogens," Eliade "started to scratch his head, 'Ah, maybe there was something about it.' And now he changes his mind and he embraces it."
Long before Carlos Castaneda came along, Eliade advanced the idea of the shaman as a primitive psychedelic expert and priest-doctor-pharmacist-magician-psychologist who connects modern man to the ultimate "archaic" reality, promoting this notion both in novels and in traditional academic monographs brimming with citations (though Eliade himself never met a shaman). Terence McKenna, a major influence on Muraresku, later borrowed and popularized many of Eliade and Wasson's ideas about religion.
Eliade didn't like "official Christianity," Znamenski says. He wanted to strip away all local context to uncover a "universal basis" for religion and its most basic unit: the mystical experience or primitive revelation. "So basically he argues that if you go to the bones, to the roots of human spirituality, you will see that the bare bottom of spirituality is a bunch of basic concepts that Carl Jung called archetypes." (Eliade and Jung knew each other.) "So we need to go to the roots of human spirituality, to a Stone Age spirituality. That is why they have this obsession with paganism."
The aim, in Znamenski's words, was "to create some kind of organic religion," a "unity" to be found "when you strip away all this 'civilizational husk.'"
These same ideas would come to inform the current psychedelic movement, which is ultimately guided more by philosophy than by science. For example: Anthony Bossis, one of Griffiths' co-authors on the religious professionals paper, believes that the ultimate goal of the psychedelic renaissance is not to develop "super Prozacs" but to revitalize the world's faith traditions, which he likens to empty containers.
That said, Bossis' vision may trouble those who don't want the federal government regulating religious activity under the guise of medicine. He has imagined a future where prescription psychedelics are administered through a chain of government-regulated spas offering psychedelic therapy alongside yoga, meditation, and health food.
"There would be one or two psilocybin sessions with well-trained clinical teams," Bossis told Muraresku. "And then you go back home. Just like Eleusis."
In Reason's March 2025 issue, Kitchens also took a deep dive into Roland Griffiths' research project in which two dozen religious clergy were given psilocybin and explained how this study of the connection between faith and psychedelics may never see the light of day. Read it here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
14 democrats state AGs sued to stop the audit currently going on with DOGE. They waited until a late Friday night where they knew which federal judge was working. Held an ex parte meeting, and judge agrees to injunction. Unlike other judges who have dismissed these desperate acts, judge grants injunction while ignoring issue of standing.
Here is the kicker. The judicial order puts deep state bureaucrats above our political officials, essentially letting unelected bureaucrats now run all spending at the federal level without oversight from duly elected officials.
Will love to see the excuses jeffsarc and qb come up to defend this.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/02/judge-issues-emergency-order-halting-doge-access-to-treasury-payment-systems/
Democrats are also now petitioning the state AGs to begin arresting everyone working to audit federal accounts.
Chief Nerd
@TheChiefNerd
Kara Swisher & Scott Galloway Are in Full Panic Mode Now Calling for the Arrest of the
@DOGE
Engineers
“I want to see Democratic governors … use the full faith and the letter of the law to put you folks in prison … This is a coup … We need to go gangster here.”
Video
https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1888287836215922814
Sarc will probably agree with this and not call it revenge.
This is a coup
It's an attempt, at least.
There's more than an attempt:
New York Judge Paul Engelmayer just forbade all political appointees — including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — from accessing Dept. of Treasury data, all based on Blueanon conspiracy theories!!
Those theories couldn't be challenged because the order was EX PARTE — meaning Trump's lawyers weren't warned, and couldn't weigh in. Only Democrat Attorneys General were allowed to argue.
The judge cites no law or logic to support this unprecedented order, because it defies both. The judge’s ruling is, in essence, that Scott Bessent simply occupies a ceremonial position without real power, like the King of England.
This is a grenade thrown into the functioning of the Treasury Department.
It forbids the elected government from accessing information about budget and finances. Instead, only the permanent, deep-state government can know what's being spent.
It means Scott Bessent's subordinates have far more power than Scott Bessent does.
Democrat pundits who whine about the Constitution are liars, and will shred it the first chance they get.
For now, the order is only for the next week, but if a court tries to make it permanent the Trump Administration should absolutely consider defying it.
Better yet, SCOTUS should bar this judge from ever hearing similar cases again, and every Democrat lawyer involved should be sanctioned.
Secretary of the Treasury functions as the CFO of the U.S. government.
If the CFO is denied access to spending information, how can he do his job?
The people elected Donald Trump, who appointed Scott Bessent to run the Treasury — not bureaucrats.
This has the feel of a coup—not a military coup, but a judicial one
No widespread corruption.
The deep state resurfaces.
Trump should just shut down the Treasury.
COMPLETELY.
No money in or out.
If a judge runs it now, let the judge try and do so on his own dime.
Englemayer cannot stop the executive branch from doing its constitutionally required duties. Trump should give him the same treatment Jackson gave Marshall.
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
But defiance of state authority is bad, right?
Sounds like this judge should be thrown in GitMo.
@amuse
LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome.
Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence.
The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees.
This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship.
While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats.
Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned.
This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.
Ilya Shapiro's response:
The judicial resistance has begun. The Trump administration will ultimately win most of these legal battles—they’re lawyered up well this time—but the establishment won’t give up without a fight.
Some Resist! judges need to end up behind bars. No more genteel legal decorum bullshit.
Make him enforce it.
The Hill pulls a QB and starts talking about Musk's family.
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/5133794-doge-leader-elon-musk-family/
???
It's the voices in his head. He didn't take his medication.
Fuck off, drunky.
Ideas™ !
You're right. I've never seen someone argue so vociferously against nonexistant arguments, oblivious to reality.
If he didn't make shit up he wouldn't have anything to argue against.
You talkin' 'bout your strawmen again?
No, it’s a Hill article you dumb cunt.
Oh. You didn't make a veiled threat yesterday? 24 hour amnesia reset?
Ill even add that liberals on reddit are right now trying to find out where the children of anyone in Trumps cabinet currently goes to school. Publicly issuing calls to dox so they can threaten officials that they know where their kids are.
And here comes The Hill to publicize families.
Time to start rounding up The Resistance. At least this will fulfill their persecution fantasies.
Given the vast history of left wing revolutions, we won't need to round them up, that'll happen once they win the revolution. You can ask Robespierre except his throat is a little sore.
Considering that Trump is the one ru Ning federal law enforcement. These actions might not go the way they’re expecting.
Of the democrats want to start a civil war, it will be the end of them. And this time the federal government is controlled by the forces of good. Not democrats.
No. It was not a threat. I was speculating that his life is in danger because he's taking on the deep state.
For others wondering what this silliness is about:
https://reason.com/2025/02/08/the-end-of-rent-control-in-argentina/?comments=true#comment-10907170
I just said
All I'll say is that if these people are being given access to sensitive information that requires some process like a background check and/or clearance, and they haven't gone through the process, then they probably shouldn't have access until they do. If they have then let them do their thing.
and Jesse responded with
They have clearances. They had background checks. You're repeating standard leftist narratives while supporting the deep state being over elected officials. You're authoritarian.
Reminder, you also supported the 1st impeachment which was also Vindman testifying Trump went against the beliefs of the deep state as motivation for the impeachment.
You're not a libertarian. They don't support unelected bureaucracy as the power centers.
He reads what you write, and then responds to the voices in his head. Dude is mental.
Awww. Sarc has a new buddy.
Part of my job as ambassador is to bring all those who hate me together. They usually share the same liberaltarian tendencies.
Three of you guys now have handles about me. Wish I got paid rent for the time I spend inside that tiny mind of yours.
My handle doesn’t mention you.
Three? Am I unmuted now?
Three of you guys now have handles about me.
Four now, Drunky.
The other day Jesse tried to complain that I had an issue with Catholic churches having Mass services in Latin. I have never once even brought up the subject here, let alone complain about it. I don't care what language a Catholic priest chooses to hold Mass in. It could be Pig Latin for all I care. But Jesse has been told that THE LEFT IS OUTRAGED BY LATIN IN CHURCHES or something and he projects that onto me and everyone else who disagrees with him.
Cite? Please link the exact comment.
But Jesse has been told that THE LEFT IS OUTRAGED BY LATIN IN CHURCHES or something
Silly Jesse, Jeff hates all Xtians equally. Latin rite, Anabaptist, Syriac or Episcopalian makes no difference to him. He wants them all dead.
I've never mentioned the left and Latin and churches.
I mentioned the DoJ putting Latin mass on watch lists for investigation. 100% true.
Jeff is a lying fucking retard.
Pedo Jeffy is intrinsically dishonest. Combines it with his insufferable bullshit, jus to be super annoying.
Jeez, bud, you picking on QB is one of your weirder fixations. Sarc and Jeffy deserve all the snark they get, but QB? What did he do, defend free trade or immigration or something worse? Reason's pushing psychedelics today, did he defend them, did you take some?
Stick to your quotes and citations. You at least do something there that sarc and jeffy never do.
Because he is a common sea lion. Rarely providing evidence for his arguments while demanding hundreds of citations for anything he disagrees with. This is why some believe it is another Laursen sock.
He is also very selective of when he decides to make a "libertarian post", very similar to Jeff and Mike.
He is just boring. He could easily make counter arguments instead of his sea lion routine. He refuses.
I don't care if someone disagrees with me if they can actually back up their arguments. I'm over putting up with sea lions demanding a masters thesis when they provide no counter. That seems to be the prime behavior of jeff, mike, and others. So i lump them together
Especially in clear selection bias.
If I thought he was intellectually curious i wouldn't care. But he simply demands citations and when they are provided he dismisses it. Never giving his own citations.
Except you never provide your usual links and quotes in defense of mercantilism. Otherwise you're one of the best commenters here.
Look at SGT capitulate to Jesse out of fear of being treated like me. What an ass kisser.
Ideas™ !
You’re such a bitchcunt.
Lol. Okay bud. Ive given dozens of links and books in the past.
I even offered to give you them the other day and you didn't want them.
Is this what this is about? Your sophomoric views on economics being refuted in real time?
It is a weird claim of yours because I actually linked to an article about import agents, changes to dollar values, etc in an article they asked you to show me your evidence and you didn't.
Lol.
Your views are economics are very sophomoric, as I keep pointing out.
I've linked to dozens of articles from Mises, cited Rothbard and others, etc.
Your brand of economics is a simple brand that makes incorrect assumptions. As I've often compared it to building a plane with high school physics assuming. No friction and ideal atmospheric.
This is what you're buttress hurt about lol?
Your claim I've never linked to economics or mentioned books is a straight fucking lie. No wonder you're defending QB. As sophimoric as he is.
Start with looking up behavioral economics. Read Power and Market. Read Human Action.
Most importantly investigate your incorrect accepted truths based on simplistic economics models.
Once you realize the historical assumption that all actors are rational is false, you'll dissuade the majority of your accepted truths that fall apart with thinks like a 1B market cap for fartcoin.
The only problem here is that practically every economist who has existed in the last two and a half centuries disagrees with you.
Either you know more than everyone who has ever studied the dismal science, or you're a pathetic shill who will say anything to defend Trump.
I think I'll go with the latter.
Honest question; do you get beaten up a lot? You’re loud, insufferable, a severe drunk with impulse control issues, and probably suffer from at least a few personality disorders.
So do you completely hide from he general public, or do you get the shit kicked out of you on a regular basis? It’s got to be one or the other.
I feel a lot better that you put SGT in the same bucket with Sarc and me.
SGT, not only posts links, he understands them. He dissects them. He's one of the most, if not THE most, intellectual commenters here. If you can call him sophmoric, you discredit your judgement on commenters you disagree with.
Wait, you want to be in the same bucket as Sarc?
You're going to need a far stronger liver, son. It might be a good idea to go motorcycle riding without a helmet too... Also, you're going to need a messy divorce.
Also, the most intellectual commenter here was Michael Hihn, but since he's gone, maybe Ken or Zeb.
Plus, mistreat you daughter, fantasize about serving horse meat and burn steaks on purpose.
He understands economics, which means he'll never have anything in common with you, Jesse, or any other Trump fellator.
Also, insult short lesbians, make a principal stand against spoofing while spoofing, and "suck down a scorpion bowl or two while driving home from getting takeout".
I've been in the same bucket with sarc. SGT is the new addition.
I don't remember Michael Hihn, maybe before my time. Glad to see you mention Zeb. I don't know any commeter I agree with more consistently than Zeb. Ken's a powerhouse. Your comments often have a Ken quality too.
And I know Sarc's a pariah here, but I like him. If you spent some time in the reason commentariat doghouse, it might change your perspective.
Agreeing with the use of tariffs (either as a tax generator or a pressure tactic) doesn’t make one economically illiterate, unless you’re saying that all of the founding fathers up through Obama were economically illiterate.
(If you’re referring to other economic theories Trump holds or has talked about, I apologize, it’s just most of the economic conversation when it comes to him revolves around them.)
"And I know Sarc's a pariah here, but I like him.
Wait a bit. The constant lying, drunken trolling and immense self-pity wear thin.
And I know Sarc's a pariah here, but I like him. If you spent some time in the reason commentariat doghouse, it might change your perspective.
As someone who has actually been singled out for a trait completely unrelated to my opinions and targeted for continuing abuse in the Reason forums, it is insulting for you to pretend that Sarc does not deserve all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon him. Sarc is not interested in honest discourse. Everything he posts is fallacious. He is the archetypal internet troll. And he has openly admitted to it in the past.
Thanks SGT,
Anyone else feel the way Jesse does about my commenting here?
He does make some good points.
I do.
Thanks FutWc and rbike. I appreciate the forthright feedback.
You seem to be genuinely interested in constructive dialog, but if you think that either Sarc of Jeffy are remotely honest, you are too dumb to be worth any attempt to persuade you. They lie. When called out, they change the subject, when pursued, they run away. Dissemble, deflect, distract. It is straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. If you can't see that their tactics are straight out of the Marxist playbook, you are not a critical thinker.
I think he’s just genuinely curious how others get to their reasoning. Unlike Jeff or Mike who just ask to completely derail the conversation (that’s the problem with actual sea lions, they poison any discussion to the point anyone asking questions seems like they may be doing the same.)
Thank you DesigNate. This is what I'm trying to do, but obviously not totally successfully.
It is beyond annoying after a decade of dealing with Jeff and Mike.
Even the jus soli discussions seem to have only one side presenting relevant quotes and cases while the other side assumes truth while refusing to address the cited quotes and examples or their own evidence.
A qualified debate needs vetted arguments on both sides. More oft than not, however, one side has accepted a baseless "truth" and will reject all evidence against it without any thought. Often these "truths" are something they learned early in life and merely accepted, not having verified it.
There is a reason in the economics discussions I keep bringing up the Keyenesian multiplier. An economic school that swears the value can be greater than 1. We see the same ill formed truths with even libertarian or Austrian thought when they simplify assumptions.
Many of STGs beliefs have never been shown in data as has been pointed out to him. For example historical cost growth vs tariff amounts. There is no real correlation. But he demands his simplified model is true. The problem is economics is a chaotic system, not a simple first order model.
Anyone who has studies systems, control theory, or other means you account for and find signals in noisy data recognizes the flaws in economics 101 type belief systems.
Even the jus soli discussions seem to have only one side presenting relevant quotes and cases while the other side assumes truth while refusing to address the cited quotes and examples or their own evidence.
lol this is too funny
No, what actually happens is, Jesse provides his quotes and arguments, others provide THEIR quotes and THEIR arguments, and Jesse blithely ignores all of the arguments contradicting his own position and then tries to bully you into agreement with his view by name-calling and insults.
Jesse STILL tries to claim that illegal immigrants cost $150 billion per year, when I have pointed out multiple times that even if we accept that estimate to be accurate, that fully 1/3 of that cost is the cost of law enforcement against the illegal immigrants themselves. This is from Jesse's OWN DATA. So that figure is deliberately inflated in order to depict illegal immigrants as worse than they really are. But Jesse refuses to acknowledge this and just insults anyone who disagrees with him.
Jesse blindly accepts what his Team Red media bubble tells him.
It's still far better than any of the long-winded diatribes you barf all over the comment section consistently. Jesse, SGT, QB, et.al., are all superior to your lying sack of shit ass.
^This
You're just mad because I demonstrate continually that you cannot support your opinion.
"long winded diatribes" = arguments that are well thought out that you cannot refute
You’ve never demonstrated anything, Jeffy, but the fact that you can baffle and obfuscate with bullshit.
You're just mad because I demonstrate continually that you cannot support your opinion.
You never demonstrate anything. You'll take what someone said. Twist it until it says what you want it to say, and then argue against that, whenever you're not pettifogging or lawyering definitions.
Jesse is 100% correct. And everyone is sick of your shit.
No, what actually happens is, Jesse provides his quotes and arguments, others provide THEIR quotes and THEIR arguments, and Jesse blithely ignores all of the arguments contradicting his own position and then tries to bully you into agreement with his view by name-calling and insults.
Perfect projection. Nobody can point out better what Jeffy does than Jeffy.
Oh that is nonsense. I present arguments to make a point. I don't deliberately try to derail other people's arguments. That is what most of my detractors do with their goalpost-shifting and whataboutisms.
I present arguments to make a point.
Bullshit. You present arguments to push a narrative that is more often than not dead wrong.
The only narrative I push is one of liberty. Liberty for everyone, not just for a few.
The people you side with push a Team Red narrative - liberty for some, shit sandwiches for everyone else.
Liberty. Like using the state to force masks and vaccinations, Mr. Bears-in-trunks?
"The only narrative I push is one of liberty."
Oh fucking wow!
Yes liberty. I never advocated for government-mandated masks or vaccinations. I dare you to provide even one citation otherwise.
On the other hand, the rest of you shit on the liberty of the people you don't like, such as transgender people, anyone accused of a crime who isn't on Team Red, non-Christians, anyone with politics to the left of Ted Cruz. Your entire team is nothing but grievance and revenge against the people you hate. It isn't pro-liberty. It is anti-Left.
THAT is why you object to me. It is because I expose you as the frauds you really are. You're just pro-Trump boosters nothing more.
You want to force the democrat agenda down our throats. And the cocks pedophilic illegals into the orifices of small children.
I never advocated for government-mandated masks or vaccinations. I dare you to provide even one citation otherwise.
The bears in trunks episode was an undisguised attempt to claim that an unvaccinated person was violating the NAP by going out in public. When you were called out on it, you immediately spiraled into a shit-spewing frenzy. You have never once walked back your claim that the unvaccinated should be locked down.
Here is your citation: https://reason.com/podcast/2021/10/25/freedom-responsibility-and-coronavirus-policy/?comments=true#comment-9176512
Jesse's definition of a "sea lion" is "anyone who disagrees with his arguments"
Jesse: I HAVE PROVIDED THE LINKS AND ARGUMENTS
Others: Well, I disagree with your argument for the following reason...
Jesse: YOU ARE A SEA LION!!!
Flailing.
No. Jesse provides a cite and then you frantically look for something to complain about in the source so you can demand another, and continue making relentless additional requests for evidence, always tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense that your just trying to engage in sincere debate.
Jesse provides some citation from a right-wing cite which pushes a right-wing narrative. I provide just a little bit of balance, and you all complain because I don't support your narrative.
No, ML amd Jesse are exactly right. So stop lying.
Cite?
But states have no authority over the feds, right Reason? Or does that apply only for immigration and library books?
If you read his injunction, he skips right over how these AGs have standing. It is federal dollars. All of their claims were speculative. Their primary claim is protecting PII, but Treasury literally got hacked by China just last year.
That's why most of the judges have been squashing these requests such as labor and unions petitions.
Time to make judicial impeachment great again. All of the judges issuing these so far should be impeached. They are failing at the basics of judicial authority. From pre declaratory judgements, to threats, to basic failure of judicial analysis.
When the lede spokesman of a commentariat hails from the nation's peyote capital , It's hard to know when it's on drugs or off its medications.
Swing and a miss you dumb bitch.
Same lawyer who dug into where DOGE is authorized takes apart judicial injunction.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1888370799695831044.html
Wish he had covered count 2 "contrary to law". What law?
"ordered to direct any person prohibited above from having access to such information, records and systems but who has had access to such information, records, and systems since January 20, 2025, to immediately destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and systems"
Wow. This judge is way out of his depth and the entire order is illegitimate and illegal. I say Doge should ignore it and press on. What's he gonna do? Send federal marshals to arrest Bessent?
I'm sure JS will write an article about the constitutional issue of putting unelected officials or political state AGs against the president and article 2 standing.
I'd expect the JS article to drop sometime around midnight (11 central) tonight.
All I'll say is that if these people are being given access to sensitive information that requires some process like a background check and/or clearance, and they haven't gone through the process, then they probably shouldn't have access until they do. If they have then let them do their thing.
Including the Secretary of the Treasury, who was approved by the Senate? What next, Trump himself? All because some two-bit judge knows better than the voters two months ago?
Nope, no excuse. Pure power grab. Makes me wonder what he's afraid they might uncover.
Exactly. I'm very certain there some serious incriminating evidence that will be uncovered by the audit. The nest of vipers keeps getting deeper and bigger, the further they go into the finances.
They have clearances. They had background checks. You're repeating standard leftist narratives while supporting the deep state being over elected officials. You're authoritarian.
Reminder, you also supported the 1st impeachment which was also Vindman testifying Trump went against the beliefs of the deep state as motivation for the impeachment.
You're not a libertarian. They don't support unelected bureaucracy as the power centers.
They have clearances.
Alrighty then, let them do their thing.
Not exactly sure what good it will do though, since spending is directed by Congress. I suppose they can bring a bunch of stupid shit to light for the purpose of pressuring Congress into not funding it, and that would be a good thing. But, as I've said many times, the Executive executes laws passed by Congress. If the law says "Spend money on stupid shit", then the Executive is supposed to spend money on stupid shit. Separation of powers and all that.
I do hope that this results in legislation that stops funding stupid shit, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
“Sensitive information “.
Like where my tax dollars are going?
You don't deserve to know that. And you certainly don't deserve to have any say.
- Superior Elite Person
"There is nothing in the constitution that says ordinary Americans have a right to see what we are spending tax dollars on."
- Fauxcahontas
"All I'll say is that if these people are being given access to sensitive information that requires some process like a background check and/or clearance"
I'm sure it will delight you to know that they all have had background checks and clearances. This must mean that you're happy to let them do their thing, right?
It should also make you happy to learn, that contrary to the insinuations of increasingly more nervous Democrats, they aren't accessing nuclear secrets or citizens personal information. They are conducting an audit of government spending. The information they are analyzing should've been open and freely available to all Americans, with or without security clearance.
I'm sure it will delight you to know that they all have had background checks and clearances. This must mean that you're happy to let them do their thing, right?
Yup. Sorry to contradict the narrative you've been spreading about me, but yes I'm happy to let them do their thing.
Somehow I don't believe you and think you will soon provide us with evidence to the contrary. Maybe as early as later on this afternoon. But for now I'll be generous and play along.
Good for you, Sarcasmic.
Somehow I don't believe you and think you will soon provide us with evidence to the contrary.
Well Jesse read "let them do their thing" and his retarded brain registered "STOP THEM NOW!"
So I'm sure your imagination will provide something to prove your predisposed beliefs.
Poor sarc.
Poor Sarc.
Good for you, Sarcasmic.
Not sure what background check you need to pass to expose government waste and corruption…
I think what they want is to make sure the people are qualified. Which to them means being a Democrat party member in good standing.
They have apparently been given clearance.
My question is, still, what was USAID doing that would require clearance?
I was talking about peaking at the Treasury database.
Peeking.
Like at “muted” people’s posts.
OK. WHAT WAS USAID DOING THAT REQUIRED CLEARANCE?
Seriously. Why the security clearance for a charity arm?
Also, they don't need clearance. Security clearance can be waved by the process of being read into a certain project, information, etc if they are declared mission critical, even without appropriate security clearance, but they are made to sign a NDI, and are subject to the same laws as someone with a security clearance for the information they are read into. Happens all the fucking time. And yes, why does USAID need so much security clearance? And a lot of DoD waste and grift gets hidden in classified projects, and why does the AG of NYS and the DA of NYC have a security clearance? As mentioned they can be read into information that they need that is pertinent to their jobs. What I'm seeing is that DC has given way to many people security clearances that never should have been issued, and then let them keep them long after they no longer work for the government (why are ex President's getting secret daily briefings? They are no longer CiC).
...and why does the AG of NYS and the DA of NYC have a security clearance?
Because they need to communicate on the back channels on how best to screw Trump, conservatives, and real libertarians.
So, counter-revolutionary or counter-counter-revolutionary?
lol, so after 4 years it turns out that their overuse of “insurrection” was actually just them projecting? Hahaha
They used the word "insurrection" to activate laws that would prevent Trump from running for office again.
Just like Trump is making up national emergencies to activate tariff powers.
But it's ok when he does it, after all they did it first.
Fuck “national emergency” powers. That is all.
There are currently over 40 national emergencies in effect.
That’s fucking insane.
When everything is a national emergency nothing is a national emergency.
Also, a lot of national emergencies keep getting extended long past when the emergency is over, so they can keep funding projects created to deal with the emergency. There is nothing more permanent than temporary government projects/spending. And if we know if Trump tries to stop any of these temporary measures, some leftwing judge will say he doesn't have the power.
But the attack on (D)emocracy!, aka the entrenched government bureaucracy-media-academia-DNC-WEF establishment is the Mother of All Emergencies!
How many votes did Elon Musk receive again?
I must have missed Elon Musk's confirmation hearings in the Senate. When were those again?
How many votes did Kamala get to run for office? Her primary vote totals were, last I checked, identical to Elon's.
oh look, a lame whataboutism to distract from Elon
lame
Consultants don’t get votes or confirmed.
Consultants are hired under a contract.
That contract has terms which must conform to government contracting rules.
What are the consultant terms to which Elon and DOGE must conform to?
Look up the United States Digital Service, renamed the United States DOGE Service, then get back to us.
Well okay, but if Trump wants to use USDS as a "container" for DOGE, then that means it's subject to the same rules as that which authorized USDS. I don't recall USDS having the authority to go around to the rest of the executive branch and snoop around all their records.
Trump gave them the authority to conduct the digital investigative portion of the audit. He's Chief Executive Officer, he has the power to do that.
As much as you want Trump to be a dictator, he is not.
That’s not a dictator move Jeff, what the fuck?
"Well okay, but if Trump wants to use USDS as a "container" for DOGE, then that means it's subject to the same rules as that which authorized USDS. I don't recall USDS having the authority to go around to the rest of the executive branch and snoop around all their records."
Not sure how you think anybody can improve the function of systems without seeing the workings of said system.
Advise us how it is possible to do that.
You won't, because you cannot, but feel free to try.
Elon did not attempt to win the White House.
Kamala did.
What the Dems did is exponentially worse.
But, hey, look at who cannot criticize his Dem boos.
Hack.
His boss got 77 million.
Congratulations on regurgitating a retarded Reddit whine.
So, if/when Elon or his staff screw up, how are they going to be held accountable?
Elected politicians are impeached/voted out of office. Government employees are fired (at least in theory). Government agencies have to report to Congress periodically, and are subject to transparency laws like FOIA. Congress also holds the power of the purse over government agencies. What are the mechanisms to hold Elon and DOGE accountable and transparent?
You don't even have to assume malice or ill intent here. Everybody makes a mistake from time to time, that is one reason why institutions have rules and procedures to try to minimize these mistakes. But Elon and DOGE don't seem to be beholden to any rules or procedures.
Why do you hate saving money?
Because the NGO he gets his money from is funded by USAID. Poor Jeffy might actually have to get his fat ass out of his mother's basement and get a real job, maybe digging ditches somewhere.
Yeah, pretty sure Jeffy is fucked if whoever is paying him to fifty-cent here loses their USAID bucks.
lol
How do you "screw up" making recommendations?
Well, let's start with how they treat data. Are they keeping their data private and secure? Is it sufficiently anonymized so that individuals' private information isn't revealed, even unintentionally? What rights do they have over the data? Can Elon & co. take that data and use it for their own personal gain?
Then there is how the data is eventually analyzed. Do their eventual conclusions follow from the data? Are the rest of us going to be able to review their work?
Or are all of us expected to simply put blind faith in Elon that he will do the right thing?
Are they keeping their data private and secure? Is it sufficiently anonymized so that individuals' private information isn't revealed, even unintentionally?
They're auditing government department finances and outlays, you weaselly fuck. They're not looking at nuclear secrets or individual's personal bank accounts. Not one drop on it is personal information and none of it ever should've been "private and secure".
It's telling how terrified you are of sunshine falling on your dark, nasty little spending secrets.
They're not looking at nuclear secrets or individual's personal bank accounts.
Is that so.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/musks-next-target-trump-says-220206340.html
So, he is already looking at the Dept of Education, which has all sorts of personal bank account records from student loan borrowers, and he is looking at the Dept of Defense, which has - get this - nuclear secrets.
For years and years libertarians have warned how much the government has been snooping on Americans. And now Elon is snooping on the government's secrets. And you expect us all to be unconcerned.
If he’s just looking at the accounting, the only nuclear secrets he could uncover is if the government has been running black sites in violation of several treaties.
But sure, a mistake could happen so let’s just forget the whole thing and let the government continue to spend our money on propaganda and churning the MIC war machine.
“For years and years libertarians have warned how much the government has been snooping on Americans. And now Elon is snooping on the government's secrets. And you expect us all to be unconcerned.”
Why should they be concerned that he might expose more government malfeasance than even Snowden was able to? Libertarians have been pushing for audits and sunlight on government spending/waste since forever.
Which is why Jeffy is no libertarian even though he claims to be one.
"So, he is already looking at the Dept of Education, which has all sorts of personal bank account records from student loan borrowers, and he is looking at the Dept of Defense, which has - get this - nuclear secrets."
Jeff's solution is --- do not audit these groups. Sure, DoD has not passed an audit in my lifetime. and Dept of Education is a shitshow on a good day. But, no, do not audit them.
Trump has sole power to provide permission to access that info. Courts have zero say on that.
We could just shut DoE down entirely, if that makes you feel better. Which it will not. Because you're a government fanboi.
"For years and years libertarians have warned how much the government has been snooping on Americans. And now Elon is snooping on the government's secrets. And you expect us all to be unconcerned."
They also claimed to give a shit about government just wasting government money. Reason and you have shown that to be bullshit.
Fuck "libertarians". You lot are useless.
"Are they keeping their data private and secure?"
Far moreso than the chuckleheads who have been running these departments who had China given full access to the Treasury system for who knows how long. The government is prone to hacking and leaks like few other systems.
Who at Treasury was disciplined when a contractor leaked Trump's tax returns? Why, NOBODY was. As usual.
"What rights do they have over the data? Can Elon & co. take that data and use it for their own personal gain?"
They never had that level of access. Feel free to provide ACTUAL evidence to the contrary.
"So, if/when Elon or his staff screw up, how are they going to be held accountable?"
The same way current federal employees fuck-ups are dealt with. Namely, probably promotions and more money. I love how you do not worry about what happens when current fed employees fuck things up, which is a constant issue.
Don't whine about the system you are pimping for.
"Elected politicians are impeached/voted out of office."
Still the case.
"Government employees are fired (at least in theory)."
*snicker* Hold on to that one. Much of the heat is that Trump is *GASP* firing people for ineptitude and insubordination.
"Government agencies have to report to Congress periodically, and are subject to transparency laws like FOIA."
Has Congress asked for any reports? Have any FOIA requests been made? No, none have been.
"Congress also holds the power of the purse over government agencies."
Congress CLEARLY had no idea what groups like USAID were doing. They clearly had no idea about the lack of any controls on spending. They had no idea that duplicate SSN were quite permitted.
This is what an audit looks like, son. One that should have been done decades ago. But people like you love the system. LOVE it.
"What are the mechanisms to hold Elon and DOGE accountable and transparent?"
The identical ones that covered USDS.
"You don't even have to assume malice or ill intent here. Everybody makes a mistake from time to time, that is one reason why institutions have rules and procedures to try to minimize these mistakes. But Elon and DOGE don't seem to be beholden to any rules or procedures."
You don't like accountability. Got it.
Why do you and sarc love sucking government cock so hard?
He's not a member of the Cabinet.
And good thing too, his office as paid staff with more powers let's him humiliate the rest of the swamp.
How many votes does any member of the executive branch get, besides the President? You know, cabinet members (including those in line for presidential succession), agency heads, and advisors?
You are such a retard.
Does Congress get to impeach Elon?
He's not even getting paid. He's helping conduct a long overdue audit, and you rats are terrified by that.
And the fact that you're targeting the audit staff shows just how guilty you guys are.
He's not getting paid? I thought he was now a part of the USDS. Doesn't that mean he is getting some type of compensation?
Even if I'm wrong though, do you really expect all of us to believe that he is doing all of this out of pure altruism? Did Elon make his billions doing things out of altruism, or did he get rich by doing things to make money?
Why do you all think that your team is immune from Public Choice Theory?
Perhaps Elon would prefer not to be subject to the Great Reset that will certainly constrain his ability to make money, keep the money he has, or for that matter, allow other people to get rich, and which will be widely considered necessary by the same economists, debt addicted politicians and bureaucrats who caused the collapse in the first place. In that sense perhaps he is motivated more by self interest than altruism. Feel better?
Jesus, what the fuck is wrong with you, dude? Seriously, fuck off. You are the worst.
"He's not getting paid? I thought he was now a part of the USDS. Doesn't that mean he is getting some type of compensation?"
One can forego a salary if so desired.
Perhaps he should investigate how the former head of USAID, Samantha Power, had her net worth increase by $23M on a government salary of $180K a year.
No, we should stop investigating because the bad rocket man is in charge of it.
Does Congress get to summon Elon for oversight hearings?
Is DOGE subject to FOIA requests?
Does DOGE have to follow the same privacy and accountability rules as government agencies?
Pretty much the same as any other presidential advisors employed by your Marxist leaders such as Obama and Biden.
"Is DOGE subject to FOIA requests?"
For what, you stupid fifty-centing fuck? They're investigating government spending (that should have always been transparent), in broad daylight and publishing their findings as they go.
You sound ridiculous. You and your masters are so terrified by this you're just throwing everything to see if you can get something to stick.
Let the record show ML is in favor of unelected unaccountable cronies in government.
Let the record show that Jeff is in favor of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats grafting taxpayer dollars from useless, wasteful government spending and never having to answer for any of it, nor even have it questioned or examined.
Nice projection there, Jeffy, but it seems to be you who wants the unaccountable in government.
Cough…. Cough…. Jeffrey Immelt……. Cough…. Cough.
The book is an interesting read. A lot of it is like other pro psychedelic books such as the belief that mushrooms caused primate brains to grow.
As with all of this, it is theory. Edge of probable.
This is along the lines of the other stories of DaVinci, Franklin, tesla and others using psychedelics.
Yeah all of the scholarly arguments are a little too esoteric for a country boy like me but sounds like a fun read.
The idea that psychedelics caused primate brains to grow is exactly the kind of theory you'd expect from someone that uses too many psychedelics.
'Edge of possible' is a kind way to say they are full of shit.
I don't know enough about the psychedelic usage in the ancient world to comment on that part, but what I realized in The Immortality Key was that the author relied way too much on Victorian and Edwardian speculation and fantasy as to what Gnosticism was, and not enough on the actual research.
It seems to be Margaret Murray's The Witch-Cult in Western Europe all over again.
Its the same long running belief of shamans, Templar, esoteric groups, masons, etc.
Always stories of drugs centered on psychedelics. Instead of just realizing the value knowledge had in history.
Why the entire apprentice system was created. Even the Egyptians kept their secrets held close to specific orders.
But secrecy always equals drugs.
I was in DeMolay. I must have missed out.
The conspiracy theories were never theories.
Ilhan Omar DID marry her brother and said she would 'do what she had to do to get him "papers" to keep him in U.S.'
Not gonna put a lot of stock in what a "Somali community leader" says. The last community leader we had turned out to be full of shit from one end to the other.
ETA this is the Daily Fail. While I do appreciate their "report everything" attitude, the side column has the credulous headline "Is there a God? Scientists give their definitive answers to the eternal question"
Getting people's DNA is not hard. I'd think anyone who really wanted to could get both theirs and analyze them. That this has not been even reported tells me that it's more likely someone did and it came up negative.
Here.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6268538170001
There is also her Facebook posts from a decade back and other evidence.
"Is there a God? Scientists give their definitive answers to the eternal question"
If ENB can write an article asking about the definitive scientific answer to whether carving up your pre-teen with deconstructive surgery is 'a good thing' then this is perfectly fair.
Can she still be prosecuted for that?
From Wikileaks last night:
USAID has pushed nearly half a billion dollars ($472.6m) through a secretive US government financed NGO, "Internews Network" (IN), which has “worked with” 4,291 media outlets, producing in one year 4,799 hours of broadcasts reaching up to 778 million people and "training” over 9000 journalists (2023 figures). IN has also supported social media censorship initiatives.
The operation claims “offices” in over 30 countries, including main offices in US, London, Paris and regional HQs in Kiev, Bangkok and Nairobi. It is headed up by Jeanne Bourgault, who pays herself $451k a year. Bourgault worked out of the US embassy in Moscow during the early 1990s, where she was in charge of a $250m budget, and in other revolts or conflicts at critical times, before formally rotating out of six years at USAID to IN.
Bourgault’s IN bio and those of its other key people and board members have been recently scrubbed from its website but remain accessible at http://archive.org. Records show the board being co-chaired by Democrat securocrat Richard J. Kessler and Simone Otus Coxe, wife of NVIDIA billionaire Trench Coxe, both major Democratic donors. In 2023, supported by Hillary Clinton, Bourgault launched a $10m IN fund at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). The IN page showing a picture of Bourgault at the CGI has also been deleted.
IN has at least six captive subsidiaries under unrelated names including one based out of the Cayman Islands. Since 2008, when electronic records begin, more than 95% of IN's budget has been supplied by the US government (thread follows)
No widespread corruption.
Wiki has basically banned all non liberal or USAID funded citations.
https://nypost.com/2025/02/05/opinion/big-tech-must-block-wikipedia-until-it-stops-censoring-and-pushing-disinformation/
Wikipedia is a fantastic idea but it's been hijacked by a bunch of CIA operatives who are essentially locking everyone else out. Wikipedia needs to figure something out, but unfortunately the board has been stacked with CIA hirelings too.
Maybe someone can clone Wikipedia and operate it as Wikipedia 2.
Just get rid of them.
If anyone still even clicks on Wikipedia, they're doing it wrong.
Wikipedia is still a fantastic resource for topics the beast doesn't care about. Like arthropods or medieval portraiture.
I bet it's not. I'm guessing there are glaring omissions.
I remember a study done back in the EARLY days of Wikipedia that showed that even relatively non-controversial topics on history and science had glaring omissions on important details.
There's always going to be glaring omissions, and there's far fewer of them in Wikipedia on the apolitical topics than say, Encyclopedia Britannica.
Given their belief that everything is political, what topic is outside that scope of caring?
Right now? Stuff they don't care about, or understand.
Trump issues new order against NIH regarding grants to cap indirect costs at 15%. This is the normal rate for almost all charities and NGOs. Prior to this order universities and research groups were charging up to 50% of grant funds to indirect costs.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/3315099/after-nih-move-doge-hysteria-spreads/
Media of course freaked out. So expect a JS or Boehm article attacking this.
You aren't going to like the result of this. Just say that you want all the top scientific talent to go to China, it would have the same effect.
You aren't going to like the result of this.
What result?
Just say that you want all the top scientific talent to go to China,
They have a billion expendables.
They have no need for anyone else regardless of field.
I doubt you know much about what those indirect costs pay for.
I don't care.
Graft is graft.
And by morally guilting me over scientists going to China shows you don't give a shit about cutting costs.
Why don’t other organizations pay more than 15%?
Because the government permits 50%. And the government is BY FAR the largest source of research funding.
So yes, guilt us into spending.
That was easy.
Then the government STOPS permitting it and allows 15%. The problem is...?
FIFY
You have citations and links?
Here is a discussion of indirect costs from the perspective of MIT.
https://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/295/zuber.html
So what's your problem with them not wanting to pay as much for overhead? Reducing overhead is a goal of most businesses and should be a goal for government and research. Or do you prefer to waste money on overhead?
I see that you did not read the above article and you went directly into sealioning mode.
I read it, dipshit. I also saw MIT keeps it down to 19%.
So you have a problem with saving money?
From the article:
MIT's current indirect cost rate is 54.7%
So you didn't read it. This time, try to read AND comprehend it.
Then you missed the rest of it and read your links about as well as Shrike does.
Well, I read the whole thing. If you did, why did you claim that the indirect cost rate was 19% when it was actually 54.7%?
Because you don't know what you are talking about.
The 54.7% is the negotiated indirect cost rate on those direct costs that are allowable to be charged. From the article, 28% (not 19%) is the percentage of the *total* award size that goes to overhead.
Here is an example that even your puny pea-brain can understand.
Suppose an MIT professor writes a grant for $100,000, but only $70,000 of that $100,000 is allowable for indirect costs. That means the indirect cost amount is 0.547 x $70,000 ~ $38,000, so the total award amount is $100,000 + $38,000 = $138,000, and so the indirect cost rate as a percentage of the *total* amount is $38,000/$138,000 or ~28%. See how it works?
So that $38,000 is supposed to pay for administrative costs for the award, and as the article mentions, it also pays for the costs of the long list of regulations that the government imposes because of the award.
So Trump wants to cut the indirect cost rate, but he isn't reducing the regulations. Plus, this is in the field of scientific research, which is a strength of America. If this is really about "making America great", why not reduce some of these regulations? Why not make it easier to make scientific discoveries?
It is because this isn't about "making America great", it is about revenge and grievance. It's petty and foolish.
Fuck you, Lying Jeffy.
Every single day we're seeing theft, and graft, and greed on an unprecedented scale. It's a hundred times worse than the worst case scenarios imagined. These aren't the noble public servants and NGOs you're trying to fabulate, they're criminals operating at a level that puts mafias and the cartels to shame.
There we go. You can't refute my argument so you just resort to insults.
Tell us, why should we regard Elon Musk as a 'noble public servant'? Because he is on Team Red?
So we’re going to lose top minds because they can’t graft the American taxpayer?
That’s a bold position Cotton, let’s see how it plays out.
Who is the "they"? University researchers? They just play the game that was put in front of them. They aren't the ones responsible for 50% indirect cost rates.
There is a reason why in this country, graduate school in the sciences is mostly 'free'. This is one big reason why.
TANSTAAFL. America leads the world in scientific research and discovery. Most Nobel Prizes have gone to Americans in recent years. There is a reason why that is the case.
Not stopping research, just not paying more than the going rate for indirect costs.
But that isn't a fair comparison. The REASON why private foundations can charge low rates, is BECAUSE the government permits high rates. In a sense, the private foundations are free-riding off of the government.
And in your article, it’s been lower for the government in the past (25%).
So you’re against saving money, Jeffy?
Costs have also been lower in the past.
Do you know what indirect costs pay for?
Do you know that the government funds the vast majority of scientific research, whether you like it or not?
Yes, I know what they pay for, so why are you against saving money?
I'm not against saving money. I am against making stupid decisions in the name of saving money.
I'm not against saving money. I am against making stupid decisions in the name of saving money.
"Fuck you cut spending" knows no distinction.
Do you know that handing out money incentivizes wasting it on exhorbitant or even unnecessary expenditures?
“Prior to this order universities and research groups were charging up to 50% of grant funds to indirect costs.”
I thought the “they” was pretty obvious.
I’m interested to see how much they traditionally charge for indirect costs. I’d be willing to bet it hasn’t always been 50%.
And I’ll admit to being hasty in equating indirect costs with graft. I will look into what exactly these groups considered “indirect costs”, and come back with an opinion.
Well thank you for your humility. No it isn't graft. Of course the indirect rate has been less in the past, but universities aren't immune from government regulations either.
Then they will make do with less or get funding from a country (until we outlaw that, mind you, which we should post haste) that will own everything they do and will tell them exactly what to do.
That is Jeff's preferred option.
We. Are. Broke.
You do not seem to get that.
"You aren't going to like the result of this. Just say that you want all the top scientific talent to go to China, it would have the same effect."
...because China is known to not put any requirements in place for them to fund their research.
Volokh has an article that links to another article (both linked below) that indicate the sudden cut will likely fail in court.
I'll refrain from further comment because my salary is largely via NIH grants (although direct costs) and my job is on the line which outranks politics, you know feeding my kids and all...
However justified the Trump Administration's move may be as a matter of policy, it has significant legal problems, not least because it purports to apply to existing grants and appears to contravene an appropriations rider that remains in force for the current fiscal year
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/09/can-the-trump-administration-unilaterally-cut-indirect-costs-for-nih-grants/
https://buttondown.com/sbagen/archive/indirect-costs-and-trumps-attack-on-independent/
I don't know if it is legal or illegal. It may very well be legal, since I would certainly imagine that the legal contracts that govern these grants are very one-sided in the government's favor.
But either way, it is stupid from a "Making America Great" perspective. Everyone acknowledges that America leads the world in scientific research and discovery. Going after indirect costs like this is cutting off your nose to spite your face. What do they hope to achieve from this? It will only lead to an exodus of talent to places where they feel more welcome.
It is just one more data point to demonstrate that "MAGA" is more about revenge and grievance, than about actually making America great. It's about cutting off the libruls indoctrinating kids at kollidge.
Americans need to take revenge on you evil, grifting cunts who have stolen literally trillions, and that includes the fraudsters and Marxist race hustlers stealing education money.
Unfortunately, I think Trump and co are only going to arrest the theft and not take the revenge that's so sorely needed.
I wonder who at Reason thinks psychedelics are such a hot topic. They're none of the government's business, there's a simple straightforward legislative fix which will never happen, there's no crazy bureaucratic quagmire to untangle and explain, so why put so much effort into such a small corner of government abuse?
Look, SGT, we run two basic stories here: How unchecked immigration will make everything better and legalized weed. Everything else... everything stems as a subplot from one of those two angles.
Missing middle and housing: Explosion of immigrants need more housing.
Sex work is work, let the women give handjobs at the massage parlor: Poor, non-english-speaking immigrant women need a place to work, it's the only place they're qualified for, and they're doing the work ENB won't do.
Legalized psychedelics: Legalized weed.
And so on.
Cocktail party cosplay libertarians.
Bunch of stoners, who think they've found the secret to the universe.
If he thinks life is unlivable without being stoned, he's got one sorry-ass imagination. And "2030, if not sooner" sounds like climate alarmist predictions of doom. Why doncha write that on a sign and march around Greenwich Village, bud?
Alcohol, more like, and it goes way back before humans. Birds are known to eat fermented fruit and berries to get that buzz. But perhaps alcohol is too mundane to qualify as the holy grail.
I would have more respect for Reason's obsession with psychedelics if they said:
We want to get wasted at all times, and fuck you for bashing our hedonism.
They don't say that?
Most of the time they try to gaslight us by saying that "askchually, these drugs are like miracles", so no.
Lulz. I dated a woman who did the Ayahuasca trips to Central America. It opens your mind up so much, you’ll believe a lot of garbage.
For those of a spiritual bent, it’s even more dangerous to open yourself up to - you may not like what
"For those of a spiritual bent, it’s even more dangerous to open yourself up to - you may not like what"
I think that's where a lot of "demon possession" as viewed by many religions comes into play.
Muraresku told Vox that he has never taken psychedelics himself but eventually came to believe that the drugs can begin "a life of dedicated introspection, a path to love of self and others."His book claims that "about seventy-five percent would leave the FDA-approved house church permanently transformed.
Seriously? You're making that strong a claim about the power of psychedelics but you've never once taken them? Dude...
about seventy-five percent would leave the FDA-approved house church permanently
transformeddamaged.Religions, he says, have been the "cause of global conflict for millennia," and those trying to revitalize this primordial experience—"imposing upon it their traditional mode of interpreting it"—might result in "newer generations of ardent believers."
*eyeroll*
As an atheist, I miss the old Gods, because the new ones scare the hell out of me.
"Religions, he says, have been the "cause of global conflict for millennia,""
Yes, this is the bromide, but any examination of history will show that organized religion has greatly ameliorated global conflict. The Mesolithic and Neolithic were incredibly brutal, in comparison to the bronze age, and wherever Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Christianity were present things were positively idyllic. Even the Crusades and Wars of Religion had nothing on the post-religious 20th Century brutality.
Anyone that asserts that can be safely ignored. Religion gave a veneer of justification to a lot of wars, but the root causes are almost universally about scarce resources of one type or another.
It's also an exercise of missing the point. Throughout most of the history of civilization-- religion held the mantle of "the state". Many religious institutions were filled with career bureaucrats who didn't much give a toss about any particular belief system. The idea that the institution being tied together by some kind of bow of 'mystic beliefs' was the central source of its brutality is in no way different than what we have today. As governments have become increasingly secularized they've become far more efficient at killing their own citizens than at any previous time in human history.
And even if you wanted to restrict it to the mundane business of running a city or a county or a state, our modern "non-religious" governments are so completely full of mystical bullshit that it should shock any rational person, yet it never seems to.
So on we go, painting mystical rainbow crosswalks, waiving symbols of sexual orientation in an effort to scare away the spirits of bigotry, we call men women if they say the correct set of incantations, we believed there were magical protections to an unseen demon that began at 6' distance, we wore plague masks, we bend knees, be believe that certain ethnic characteristics give one a kind of spiritual wisdom whose mere presence will bring good fortune to any organization that ensures its ongoing presence, we believe that cutting off healthy body parts in a kind of sacrificial ritual will make you the opposite sex-- as sex and gender are purely 'spiritual' concepts, we believe in appeasing weather gods by paying a penitence to Mother Gaia through ritualistic sacrifice, fasting and piety. We have observant priests who moralize about what we eat, what we smoke, what we say, what we think, what we do.
I could go on all day.
You're right. Well said.
WRT to Christianity, try telling those persecuted as Witches... as the wrong flavor of Christian... as unbaptized savages (aborigines, African tribespeople, South American Indians, American Indians, et al) ... and etcetera just how idyllic their suffering was.
David Hewett of The Paideia Institute for Humanistic Study argued that rather than contributing to the field of research, it is a "regressive work," distorting history (and Ruck's scholarship) while calling for a special class of government medical administrators who would tightly control access to religious experience.
Like when you "legalize" psychedelics and it requires you do them in the presence of a stern-looking social worker wielding a clipboard? Pimps registering with the government, indeed.
I read that as 'David Hewlett' AKA Dr. M. Rodney McKay.
Seriously doesn't taking psychedelics in a controlled environment have the potential to maybe alter the experience? And if so what exactly is the value of the observation? I seem to remember Timothy Leary explained this all very concisely sometime back. Or maybe that was a dream somebody else had.
Hmmm, the SSN database does not prevent duplicate SSN. A simple fix and it has not happened. Your SSN, technically, could be had by untold other people.
But, no, clearly --- this is not fraud. Obviously.
As long as I get all of the checks I'm cool with that.
Sadly, you will not.
LOL. ICE is gaming the Google search algorithm to make it look like they are rounding up the vermin for mass deportation, but the press releases are from years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/06/ice-us-immigration-deportations-google
[...]
So what’s to worry about? We’ve been deporting for years, and nobody cared.
You're seriously citing the Guardian, a far leftist news site chock full of glowies?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
How much is the CIA paying the Guardian through USAID again?
So, in a move that surprises absolutely nobody, Trump has appointed as his 'spiritual advisor' a pastor who believes in 'prosperity theology'.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-enrages-christian-maga-naming-224833273.html
Briefly: Prosperity theology says, if you're rich it's because you're blessed by God, and if you're poor it's because God has punished you. I'm not a particularly religious person myself but I'm pretty sure Jesus would have a cow about this type of doctrine.
Article by a very green news intern meant to do nothing more than try to split the right. Fuck off, Jeffy.
meant to do nothing more than try to split the right
OMG! And why should anyone care if the right is 'split'? Do you think that we are supposed to be supplicants for Team Red?
You hate Christians. What you're doing is concern trolling with your WWJD.
For the record I think that the prosperity gospel folks qualify as heretical con artists, but its totally hilarious that you're pretending to favor one sect over another.
Of course he hates Christians. He’s a Neo Marxist. Christian’s have morals and standards. That is anathema to someone like Pedo Jeffy, and an impediment to the Democrat’s grooming agenda.
At least he does not pretend to be Catholic while studiously violating Catholic doctrine.
Even more importantly, she can be replaced by someone else, as the office she occupies is one that is largely pastoral.
He didn't appoint her (RED FLAG) his "spiritual adviser." He created the White House Faith Office. Its primary goal is to stop the persecution of Christians in America and protect the 1st Amendment.
Of course, this is doomed from the outset because he didn't choose a Catholic. But then, the Catholic in me wonders whether there's some higher power at work here - because the failures of Protestantism ultimately lead the genuinely faithful (as opposed to the what's best for me "faithful") to the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Given the Pope currently, I wouldn't name a Catholic to anything unless they were willing to, on record, call the Pope the idiotic shitbag he is.
The Pope is not the Church. Nor do Catholics follow the Pope. He is just as much a flawed, fallen, and sinful man as the rest of us.