As the Senate passed a gun control bill this week with fifteen Republicans siding with Democrats, Senator Rand Paul noted that no one had time to even read the legislation because it was “assembled in secret.”

“Unfortunately, this legislation was assembled as many are — in secret, absent well-placed leaks to journalists,” Paul tweeted, adding “There doesn’t appear to be a willingness or time provided to read, understand, debate or amend this bill.”

Eva Mireles’ husband, a police officer, tried to save her after she was shot at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, according to the director of the state Department of Public Safety, Col. Steven McCraw.

During a Texas Senate hearing Tuesday on the police response to the shooting, McCraw said that Mireles’ husband, Ruben Ruiz, had his gun taken away, was detained and escorted off the scene after he received a call from his wife.

“We got an officer, Officer Ruiz, whose wife had called him and said she (had) been shot and she’s dying,” McCraw said in video shared by PBS "News Hour." “What happened to him as he tried to move forward into the hallway, he was detained and they took his gun away from him and escorted him off the scene.” 

Fourth grade teacher Mireles was one of the two educators who was killed in the school shooting on May 24, when an 18-year-old killed 19 students. Lydia Martinez Delgado told The New York Times that her niece died protecting her students.

Ruiz is an Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District officer. The couple’s daughter, Adalynn Ruiz, wrote a heartbreaking tribute following her mother’s death.

“Mom, you are a hero. I keep telling myself that this isn’t real . I just want to hear your voice,” she wrote on Facebook in part, adding, “I want everything back. I want you to come back to me mom. I miss you more than words can explain.”  (read more)

Without Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett who, despite facing an intense intimidation campaign from openly violent leftists, stood behind the judicial belief that there is no constitutional right to abortion, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wouldn’t have had the backup they needed to overturn 50 years of an “exceptionally weak” ruling that had “damaging consequences” on Americans for years.

They certainly wouldn’t have received much help from Chief Justice John Roberts, George W. Bush’s pick for the court.

As a matter of fact, even though he didn’t side with the dissent, Roberts refused to join the court’s majority opinion. In return, he was pummeled by Alito for doing “exactly what it criticizes Roe for doing: pulling ‘out of thin air’ a test that ‘[n]o party or amicus asked the Court to adopt.’”

“The concurrence would ‘leave for another day whether to reject any right to an abortion at all,’ and would hold only that if the Constitution protects any such right, the right ends once women have had ‘a reasonable opportunity’ to obtain an abortion,” Alito wrote. “The concurrence does not specify what period of time is sufficient to provide such an opportunity, but it would hold that 15 weeks, the period allowed under Mississippi’s law, is enough—at least “absent rare circumstances. There are serious problems with this approach, and it is revealing that nothing like it was recommended by either party.”

Not even Alito was Bush’s top choice for the court.

Leftists understood the threat that Trump’s nomination power posed to their abortion regime. After all, he predicted that if he added another two or three justices to the court, Roe would be overturned “automatically.”

“And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court,” he said during a 2016 debate.

That’s why the left tried to stonewall, bully, and tarnish Trump’s picks for the highest court in the land.

Their opposition campaign began with Gorsuch. It quickly escalated when Democrats, along with the corrupt corporate media, launched a weeks-long smear campaign against Kavanaugh. By the time Barrett came along, the leftists in Congress and the media had their vilification tactics down pat.

At the end of Trump’s judicial saga, leftists had waged a full-blown war on the Supreme Court. When things didn’t go their way, they called for court-packing. By the time the Dobbs opinion was leaked in May, they landed on completely destroying and undermining the court’s integrity.

Without Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, the court might have caved to pressure to appease the masses. After all, the court chief Roberts did change his mind on Obamacare in 2012 to satiate his fears over potential pushback.

But because Trump and his Republican backing fought to put solid picks on the court, the justices stood firm and gave their final word on Roe.

Even Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, albeit, in a twisted, pro-abortion rhetoric kind of way, recognized Trump was somewhat responsible for the landmark decision.

“Because of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Party, [and] their supermajority in the Supreme Court, American women today have less freedom than their mothers,” Pelosi said in a press conference on Friday.

Under Roberts, the NeverTrumpers who suddenly want to claim credit for the legal victory they long opposed the Trump-forged path to, and a Hillary Clinton-led regime aided by a Supreme Court filled with activist justices, Roe would still be cursing states and permitting the butchering of millions of unborn babies.

Under Trump, states are allowed to ban the killing of unborn babies completely. As a matter of fact, many of them have already started to preserve life in the womb.

“This is following the Constitution, and giving rights back when they should have been given long ago,” Trump told Fox News on Friday after the ruling was released. (read more)

It is also a turning point. We should now expect Democrats and the left to call more explicitly for violence, initially against places like crisis pregnancy centers and Catholic churches, as we have already seen, and eventually against ordinary people who disagree with them. We should expect not just calls for physical attacks against the justices in the Dobbs majority, but, as we have also already seen, attempts to carry out such attacks.

This violence will likely be accompanied by rhetoric that more explicitly posits abortion not just as a positive good — “shout your abortion” — but a necessary one for women to enjoy their full rights as citizens under the Constitution. The argument, already gaining steam in public discourse, is that without a constitutional right to kill the unborn, women are relegated to a kind of second-class status, stripped of their full humanity. This rhetoric will be used in part as a justification for violence, but it also reflects the actual views of Democrats and the left on abortion.

Indeed, the very first paragraph of Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent in Dobbs makes this claim: “Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.” Note the phrase “full equality.” Without a right to abortion, women do not have full equality, goes the argument.

It is not the first time Democrats have asserted absolute constitutional rights that for their vindication require the total abnegation of rights or even personhood of entire classes of people. The modern Democratic Party’s stance on abortion rights is almost indistinguishable from its antebellum stance on the constitutionality of slaveowner rights.

Prior to the Civil War amendments, Democrats asserted that the inherent rights of white men, not just property rights but all of them, required the complete denial of the rights of black Americans. Today, Democrats assert that the inherent rights of women require the complete denial of the rights of the unborn.

Chief Justice Roger Taney in his infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision perhaps captured this view best when he argued that when the Founding Fathers wrote “all men are created equal,” they did not really mean it. They only meant white men are created equal. If they had really meant that all men are created equal, including black men, wrote Taney, the Founders “would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.”

Taney’s view, and the view of all pro-slavery Americans at the time, was that the Constitution held no protections whatsoever for black people. They had zero rights, and indeed only the formal recognition of this could fully vindicate the constitutionally protected rights of southern slaveowners. After all, if a white man could be equal to a black man, then a white man was nothing: he could be enslaved, segregated, subjected to all the deprivations the black man was subjected to. The inherent rights of the white man depended on the denial of all rights to the black man.

That’s why, three years after the Dred Scott decision, the southern slave states seceded from the Union following the election of Abraham Lincoln. If slavery were to be curtailed or prohibited, even in the territories, southern slaveowners believed their entire way of life would be destroyed, and with it their constitutional rights. Given the stakes, and the principles in question, they felt they had no choice but to secede. 

For example, Mississippi’s declaration of secession, passed on January 8, 1861, states the case plainly:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world… Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Lawrence Keitt, a congressman from South Carolina, expressed the same idea in a speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on January 25, 1860:

African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism.

Those quotes are broadly representative. Southern Democrats believed the denial of all rights to black people — and indeed the denial of their personhood — was integral to what they understood to be their constitutionally protected rights, without which they would cease to be citizens with equal rights as their northern counterparts.

The exact same thing can be said of today’s pro-abortion Democrats. They believe that the denial of all rights to the unborn is integral to what they understand to be women’s constitutionally protected rights, without which they will cease to be citizens with equal rights as their male counterparts. If women are not allowed to kill their unborn babies, they will be stripped of their full humanity, just as stripping slavery from southern whites meant, to them, stripping full humanity from white people.

The Dobbs decision and the end of Roe have exposed the Democrat view of the Constitution for what it is: not, as Frederick Douglass called it, “a glorious liberty document,” but a slave Constitution that relies for its operation on the total subjugation, indeed the extermination, of an entire class of people whose very humanity must be denied for the rights of women to be vindicated.

We should rejoice in the end of Roe, but we should also be realistic about what lies ahead. It took a civil war and three constitutional amendments to correct the Supreme Court’s error in Dred Scott. This time it took 60 million unborn dead before the Supreme Court corrected the error of Roe.

In the coming days and weeks, expect Democrats to sound the same notes of secession their forebears sounded. A constitutional order that vindicates the rights of the unborn is not a constitutional order they want to be a part of. We will hear the same arguments we heard in the 1850s and 60s, but instead of objecting to the emancipation of black Americans they will object to the emancipation of the unborn. Understand what this means. The last time Democrats openly made these kind of arguments, war soon followed. (read more)

Below is the list of America’s 98 plants that have been destroyed, damaged or impacted by “accidental fires,” disease, or general causes.

1. 1/11/21 A fire that destroyed 75,000-square-foot processing plant in Fayetteville
2. 4/30/21 A fire ignited inside the Smithfield Foods pork processing plant in Monmouth, IL
3. 7/25/21 Three-alarm fire at Kellogg plant in Memphis, 170 emergency personnel responded to the call
4. 7/30/21 Firefighters on Friday battled a large fire at Tyson’s River Valley Ingredients plant in Hanceville, Alabama
5. 8/23/21 Fire crews were called to the Patak Meat Production company on Ewing Road in Austell
6. 9/13/21 A fire at the JBS beef plant in Grand Island, Neb., on Sunday night forced a halt to slaughter and fabrication lines
7. 10/13/21 A five-alarm fire ripped through the Darigold butter production plant in Caldwell, ID
8. 11/15/21  A woman is in custody following a fire at the Garrard County Food Pantry
9. 11/29/21  A fire broke out around 5:30 p.m. at the Maid-Rite Steak Company meat processing plant
10. 12/13/21 West Side food processing plant in San Antonio left with smoke damage after a fire
11. 1/7/22 Damage to a poultry processing plant on Hamilton’s Mountain following an overnight fire
12. 1/13/22 Firefighters worked for 12 hours to put a fire out at the Cargill-Nutrena plant in Lecompte, LA
13. 1/31/22 a fertilizer plant with 600 tons of ammonium nitrate inside caught on fire on Cherry Street in Winston-Salem
14. 2/3/22 A massive fire swept through Wisconsin River Meats in Mauston
15. 2/3/22 At least 130 cows were killed in a fire at Percy Farm in Stowe
16. 2/15/22 Bonanza Meat Company goes up in flames in El Paso, Texas
17. 2/15/22 Nearly a week after the fire destroyed most of the Shearer’s Foods plant in Hermiston
18. 2/16/22 A fire had broken at US largest soybean processing and biodiesel plant in Claypool, Indiana
19. 2/18/22 An early morning fire tore through the milk parlor at Bess View Farm
20. 2/19/22 Three people were injured, and one was hospitalized, after an ammonia leak at Lincoln Premium Poultry in Fremont
21. 2/22/22 The Shearer’s Foods plant in Hermiston caught fire after a propane boiler exploded
22. 2/28/22 A smoldering pile of sulfur quickly became a raging chemical fire at Nutrien Ag Solutions
23. 2/28/22 A man was hurt after a fire broke out at the Shadow Brook Farm and Dutch Girl Creamery
24. 3/4/22 294,800 chickens destroyed at farm in Stoddard, Missouri
25. 3/4/22 644,000 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Cecil, Maryland
26. 3/8/22 243,900 chickens destroyed at egg farm in New Castle, Delaware
27. 3/10/22 663,400 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Cecil, MD
28. 3/10/22 915,900 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Taylor, IA
29. 3/14/22 The blaze at 244 Meadow Drive was discovered shortly after 5 p.m. by farm owner Wayne Hoover
30. 3/14/22 2,750,700 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Jefferson, Wisconsin
31. 3/16/22 A fire at a Walmart warehouse distribution center in Plainfield, Indiana has cast a large plume of smoke visible throughout Indianapolis.
32. 3/16/22 Nestle Food Plant extensively damaged in fire and new production destroyed Jonesboro, Arkansas
33. 3/17/22 5,347,500 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Buena Vista, Iowa
34. 3/17/22 147,600 chickens destroyed at farm in Kent, Delaware
35. 3/18/22 315,400 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Cecil, Maryland
36. 3/22/22 172,000 Turkeys destroyed on farms in South Dakota
37. 3/22/22 570,000 chickens destroyed at farm in Butler, Nebraska
38. 3/24/22 Fire fighters from numerous towns are battling a major fire at the McCrum potato processing facility in Belfast, Maine.
39. 3/24/22 418,500 chickens destroyed at farm in Butler, Nebraska
40. 3/25/22 250,300 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Franklin, Iowa
41. 3/26/22 311,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
42. 3/27/22 126,300 Turkeys destroyed in South Dakota
43. 3/28/22 1,460,000 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Guthrie, Iowa
44. 3/29/22 A massive fire burned 40,000 pounds of food meant to feed people in a food desert near Maricopa
45. 3/31/22 A structure fire caused significant damage to a large portion of key fresh onion packing facilities in south Texas
46. 3/31/22 76,400 Turkeys destroyed in Osceola, Iowa
47. 3/31/22 5,011,700 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Osceola, Iowa
48. 4/6/22 281,600 chickens destroyed at farm in Wayne, North Carolina
49. 4/9/22 76,400 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
50. 4/9/22 208,900 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
51. 4/12/22 89,700 chickens destroyed at farm in Wayne, North Carolina
52. 4/12/22 1,746,900 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Dixon, Nebraska
53. 4/12/22 259,000 chickens destroyed at farm in Minnesota
54. 4/13/22 Fire destroys East Conway Beef & Pork Meat Market in Conway, New Hampshire
55. 4/13/22 Plane crashes into Gem State Processing, Idaho potato and food processing plant
56. 4/13/22 77,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
57. 4/14/22 Taylor Farms Food Processing plant burns down Salinas, California.
58. 4/14/22 99,600 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
59. 4/15/22 1,380,500 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Lancaster, Minnesota
60. 4/19/22 Azure Standard nation’s premier independent distributor of organic and healthy food, was destroyed by fire in Dufur, Oregon
61. 4/19/22 339,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
62. 4/19/22 58,000 chickens destroyed at farm in Montrose, Color
63. 4/20/22 2,000,000 chickens destroyed at egg farm in Minnesota
64. 4/21/22 A small plane crashed in the lot of a General Mills plant in Covington, Georgia
65. 4/22/22 197,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
66. 4/23/22 200,000 Turkeys destroyed in Minnesota
67. 4/25/22 1,501,200 chickens destroyed at egg farm Cache, Utah
68. 4/26/22 307,400 chickens destroyed at farm Lancaster Pennsylvania
69. 4/27/22 2,118,000 chickens destroyed at farm Knox, Nebraska
70. 4/28/22 Egg-laying facility in Iowa kills 5.3 million chickens, fires 200-plus workers
71. 4/28/22 Allen Harim Foods processing plant killed nearly 2M chickens in Delaware
72. 4/2822 110,700 Turkeys destroyed Barron Wisconsin
73. 4/29/22 5 million honeybees are dead after a flight carrying the pollinator insects from California to Alaska got diverted to Georgia (New)
74. 4/29/22 1,366,200 chickens destroyed at farm Weld Colorado
75. 4/30/22 13,800 chickens destroyed at farm Sequoia Oklahoma
76. 5/3/22 58,000 Turkeys destroyed Barron Wisconsin
77. 5/3/22 118,900 Turkeys destroyed Beadle S Dakota
78. 5/3/22 114,000 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
79. 5/3/22 118,900 Turkeys destroyed Lyon Minnesota
80. 5/7/22 20,100 Turkeys destroyed Barron Wisconsin
81. 5/10/22 72,300 chickens destroyed at farm Lancaster Pennsylvania
82. 5/10/22 61,000 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
83. 5/10/22 35,100 Turkeys destroyed Muskegon, Michigan
84. 5/13/22 10,500 Turkeys destroyed Barron Wisconsin
85. 5/14/22 83,400 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
86. 5/17/22 79,00 chickens destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
87. 5/18/22 7,200 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
88. 5/19/22 Train carrying limestone derailed Jensen Beach FL
89. 5/21/22 57,000 Turkeys destroyed on farm in Dakota Minnesota
90. 5/23/22 4,000 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
91. 5/29/22 A Saturday night fire destroyed a poultry building at Forsman Farms in Howard Lake, Minnesota
92. 5/31/22 3,000,000 chickens destroyed by fire at Forsman facility in Stockholm Township, Minnesota
93. 6/2/22 30,000 ducks destroyed at Duck farm Berks Pennsylvania
94. 6/7/22 A fire occurred Tuesday evening at the JBS meat packing plant in Green Bay, Wisconsin
95. 6/8/22 Firefighters from Tangipahoa Fire District 1 respond to a fire at the Purina Feed Mill in Arcola, Louisiana
96. 6/9/22 Irrigation water was canceled in California (the #1 producer of food in the US) and storage water flushed directly out to the delta.
97. 6/12/22 Largest Pork Company in the US Shuts Down California Plant Due to High Costs
98. 6/13/22 Fire Breaks Out at a Food Processing Plant West of Waupaca County in Wisconsin
99. 6/14/22 Over 10,000 head of cattle have reportedly died in the recent Kansas heat wave (New)

With inflation at 40-year highs, this is devastating news.

What is going on in America today? (read more)

These accusations against the WEF are accompanied by misrepresentation and outright fakery. Photos were recently circulated on social media of hundreds of private planes lined up on an airfield, claimed to be those of attendees at Davos 2022 who were (for shame!) flouting their own pretensions to reduce carbon emissions. According to Reuters, one of the two widely circulated photos was in fact taken years ago at Las Vegas Airport around the time of a boxing title fight between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao, while another was taken in January 2016 at a Swiss air force base that is often used by Davos attendees and was probably associated with the event that year.

None of us was able personally to fly to Davos this year (though some of us have attended such events in the past), but no matter: every session of the 2022 meeting from May 22-26 was posted online.  This included the opening address, via video link, by none other than Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, resplendent in his trademark brown tee and staring down the camera with unblinking intensity. Invigorated by the President’s defiant address, attendees turned their attention to the remaining 220 or so sessions that covered every weighty and worldly topic under the sun.

We took the time to watch a few, and found them to share a few characteristics.  First, those involved expressed overblown expectations of what would be achieved during the discussions.  Second, the discussions themselves were intelligent and informative. Third, the discussions all led to no particular kind of action. 

The basic model of a WEF conference session is to subsidize smart people (the presenters) to say smart things to rich people (the audience), who themselves pay the exorbitant conference registration fees in order to network with each other and have smart people pretend to take them seriously for a few days.

In a word, Klaus Schwab is a glorified and very talented conference planner selling flattery. He pretends that $60,000 provides the attending customer with access to crucial world decisions, all made in 4 days. The hordes paying the entry fee schmooze together, down vast quantities of wine and canapes, and participate in panel discussions that purport to solve problems associated with the world’s economy, environment, and society in end-on-end blocks of 45 minutes each. (Actually, it is closer to 35 minutes, because of 10 minutes of Q&A from the audience squeezed in at the end of each session.  Given the price tag of attendance, the organizers rightly expect some delegates to feel justified in having their moment on the mic.)

Typical of the level of ambition evident in WEF conference sessions, in his introduction to this year’s session on global taxation, host Geoff Cutmore announced that the incipient panel discussion was about getting to a point where “we all feel comfortable about what we’re paying, and we feel comfortable about what other people are paying and we feel comfortable about what corporations are paying and we all feel comfortable about where that tax revenue is ultimately going.” 

Whoa.  He might have added, “And if we have a few minutes left over at the end, we’ll work out how to restore the Amazonian rain forest.” The panel consisted of the heads of both Oxfam and the OECD, plus a heavily masked economics professor from Harvard. Imagine what the head of Oxfam would have thought about Cutmore’s pronouncements, given how critical Oxfam has been of the tax evasion and self-enrichment of elites, particularly in the last 2 years.  If only he could get the conference delegates to pay their taxes and stop robbing poor people, he could axe Oxfam altogether!

Some sessions do make the stomach turn. For example, in one, Pfizer announced an “Accord for a Healthier World,”  with its CEO sitting alongside Bill Gates and two African potentates. Announcements like this are made at the WEF, but would they really not exist if not for the WEF? Unlikely. By providing a platform for such announcements, however, it becomes a lightning rod for suspicion. The WEF styles itself an “International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation,” and like any large entity of its kind, it wants to get even bigger and more influential. But at heart, this is business. Klaus Schwab’s business.

The WEF claims serious positive impacts. For example, its ‘First Movers Coalition’ consists of 50 companies that have committed to investing in green technologies and removing carbon. Sounds great, right? The snag, of course, is that they have set up the measurement in such a way that they are able to decide themselves what is meant by ‘green’ or by ‘removing’ carbon. You can count caretaking a forest today as ‘removing’ carbon, and as long as the audience doesn’t know that you cut down and burned a mature forest in the same place last year, they will applaud! 

Similarly, the WEF champions a system of reporting called ‘Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics’ (containing environmental, social, and governance, or “ESG,” measures), developed in a cooperative effort with major accounting firms and adopted by 70 companies. Paying a reasonable amount of taxes is not in those KPIs. Nor is free speech. Metrics, but not as you know them.

But what about the smoking gun represented in the many top politicians of today’s world who graduated from the WEF’s Young Leaders program? What about the creepy 2019 WEF conference about what to do in a pandemic?

On the Young Leaders program, it is undoubtedly true that the WEF has become a very successful job networking organization. But it did not invent networking. Networking societies for the rich and powerful have existed for centuries. Think of the Freemasons, the Rotary society, Chatham House, private high schools, Oxbridge, or the Ivy League. The rich and powerful will network with each other, come hell or high water, WEF or no WEF. 

Perhaps those who met at the WEF have gelled together on an evil ideology that is bad for the world, but that ideology is clearly not the “Great Reset” ideology articulated by Schwab, since they are not following it in the slightest. Why then does Schwab not protest at how politicians are pretending to enact a Great Reset that is the very opposite of what he advocated in his book? Because he does not really care about his own ideas. A puffed-up conference organizer, Schwab follows his flock of customers rather than leading them. He is being used as a stooge.

OK, but what about that 2019 pandemic simulation conference? Again, you can read all about it online, a level of publicity for their plans that is surely not what you would expect of Bond villains. In these simulations, the WEF folks came to the conclusion that during a pandemic, movement and trade should not be disrupted because of the high costs to society. Yes, you read that right.  Once again, this is the very opposite of what was actually done. 

The WEF pandemic conference was just one of the many ‘war games’ simulations that entertain people continuously all around the world. Pandemic simulations this week, asteroid simulations next week, killer bee simulations after that. Rather a lot of problems can be covered off in 220 sessions, and one of them is bound to be tomorrow’s news.

The total disconnect between what his pandemic conference said should be done and what actually happened during covid times is once again proof that Klaus is not led by his principles.  If he were, he would have been loudly protesting what has gone on over the past two years. Instead, he is merely riding his “good luck” that the leaders who came to drink champagne at his events have now embraced him as their supposed figurehead. 

Since he is well into his 80s, Klaus probably figures that if an angry world population came to believe that he was responsible for the disaster that has befallen them, he’d be dead long before they came for justice. Thierry Malleret, his younger co-author on “The Great Reset,” has more to worry about in that regard!

The WEF, in sum, is hot air all the way.  It is led by a man who epitomizes pomp, which is nothing new in the circles of the rich and powerful. WEF-approved hot air is no different to the regular variety. 

Sure, it’s a place where schmoozing and coordination happen, but the WEF invented neither schmoozing nor the idea of an old-boys club. It is simply the current clubhouse. The real culprits will find another venue the day after the WEF’s shingle is taken down. (read more)

Remember the limbo? It was a dance fad kind of like the Olympic high jump in reverse: instead of leaping over a horizontal bar, you duck-walked under it to calypso music, with the crowd squealing, “How low can you go?” As it happens, in the culture of Western Civ, Limbo is also the name of a place on the edge of Hell. Either way, you have an apt metaphor for the spot that the USA is in as we enter the summer of double-deuce.

Lots of things are going south all at once: the stock markets and bond prices, Bitcoin is doing a vanishing act. The Colorado River reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, are so low that, by September, both water and electricity may run out for a vast region that includes Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Southern California. The housing market is tanking (suburbia’s business model is broken). Whole herds of beef cattle roll over and die out on the range. Fertilizer is scarce. Food processing plants get torched by the dozen. Shortages loom.

The oil-and-gas industry is getting killed four ways: 1) our stupid Russia sanctions queered longstanding global distribution arrangements; 2) the industry is starved for capital; 3) depletion is seriously kicking in; and 4) “Joe Biden” and the knuckleheads running the EU countries are trying to kill it so as to usher in a Green New Deal that just doesn’t pencil-out.

The car dealers have no new cars on their lots, and pretty soon they’ll run out of decent used cars — which, these days, are often priced higher than the non-existent new cars. How’s that for a business model? Plus, the financially beaten-up middle-class can’t afford cars in either case, and increasingly can’t qualify for car loans.

The airline industry reels with a sucking chest wound due to a pilot shortage (thanks to vaxx mandates) and the high cost of jet fuel. The trucking industry’s business model is also broken with diesel fuel over six dollars a gallon — the cost of delivery exceeds the value of the cargo. America runs on trucks and if they stop running, so does everything else. Replacement parts are growing scarce for every mechanical device in the land. It’s getting harder to fix anything that’s broken.

“Joe Biden’s” proxy war against Russia in Ukraine isn’t working out. It was flamboyantly stupid from the get-go. We deliberately broke the Minsk agreements for a cease-fire in the Donbas to goad the Russians into action. NATO didn’t have the troops or the political mojo to back up its US-inspired bluster. Our financial warfare blew back in our faces and actually benefited the Russian economy and its currency, the ruble. The billions of dollars in weapons we’re sending into the war are easily interdicted in transport, or else are getting loose in a world of non-state maniacs ranging from the Taliban to al Qaeda to drug cartels.

Meanwhile, Russia steadfastly grinds out a victory on-the-ground that will leave it in control of the Black Sea and will reveal the USA’s lost capacity to impose its will around the world. In other words, our Ukraine project “to weaken Russia” brought on an epochal shift in the balance of power to our enormous disadvantage. This is on top of more than twenty years of US military fiascos from Afghanistan, to Iraq, to North Africa, to Syria which demonstrated our reckless disregard for human life and a gross inability to carry out a mission. This aggregate failure and display of weakness leaves us vulnerable to Chinese aggression assertiveness in the Pacific. There is even spooky chatter now about China venturing to invade Australia, Japan, and the USA mainland. Yes, really.

With all this to be concerned about, half the American public, and the “Joe Biden” regime they insist they elected, remain in thrall to the Covid-19 horror movie and at the mercy of the deadly mRNA pharmaceutical products that were magically waiting in-advance of the outbreak to profit on it. But now, all the cover stories are falling apart. It’s getting harder to conceal the deaths and injuries caused by the vaccines, including a striking drop in fertility and the permanent damage to millions of people’s immune systems that will lay them low with cancer, neurological illness, and cardiovascular disease in the months ahead.

The CDC / FDA / Pharma cabal’s strategy-for-now: keep bluffing and quintupling down on their cover up — they just sweepingly approved mRNA shots for babies. Why? To extend the emergency use authorization that shields Pfizer and Moderna from liability. It won’t work long, of course, because under settled law fraud vacates vitiates that kind of protection, and the public health officials with their Pharma cronies have orchestrated the deadliest fraud in human history.

If there is an American nation left in a year or so, with a functioning legal system, the players in this cabal are going to land in witness chairs to explain why they killed so many people. (“We were following The Science,” they’ll say. Uh-huh….) By then, no one will believe their bullshit and it will be off to the American limbo known as Palookaville for the likes of Fauci, Collins, Gates, Bourla, Bancel, Walensky and the gang.

To try to head-off anything like that, the “Joe Biden” regime just announced a second attempt to control the news-flow with a White House Disinformation Task Force, to replace the ludicrous Homeland Security Disinformation Governance Board that flopped so miserably in May when its appointed chief, Ms. Jankowicz, turned out to be a prime purveyor of disinformation. The new Disinfo Task Force, led by Veep Kamala Harris — who performed so well in her previous assignment as Border Czar — is pretending to be all about online sexual harassment and gender bigotry. I’m sure….

It won’t work. “Joe Biden” is running on empty. His [illegitimate] regime staggers on in a delirium and an odium, like one of those groaning, brain-leaking zombies on cable-TV. The voters are poised to unload two barrels of buckshot to this monster’s head in November if we are not prevented from holding elections by yet another bogus “emergency.” Until then, we’re in a race to see just how the Party of Chaos completes the destruction of the economy, which is the prelude to the people of the USA destroying the Party of Chaos. (read more)

A fallacy is reasoning that is logically invalid, or that undermines the logical validity of an argument. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies.

Because of their variety, fallacies are challenging to classify. They can be classified by their structure (formal fallacies) or content (informal fallacies). Informal fallacies, the larger group, may then be subdivided into categories such as improper presumption, faulty generalization, and error in assigning causation and relevance, among others.

The use of fallacies is common when the speaker's goal of achieving common agreement is more important to them than utilizing sound reasoning. When fallacies are used, the premise should be recognized as not well-grounded, the conclusion as unproven (but not necessarily false), and the argument as unsound.^[1]

Formal fallacies

A formal fallacy is an error in the argument's form.^[2] All formal fallacies are types of non sequitur.

• Appeal to probability – a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).^[3][4]
• Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false.^[5]
• Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.^[6]
• Conjunction fallacy – the assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.^[7]
• Non-sequitur fallacy - where the conclusion does not logically follow the premise. ^[8]
• Masked-man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.^[9]

Propositional fallacies

A propositional fallacy is an error that concerns compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives that occur in it (most commonly: [and], [or], [not], [only if], [if and only if]). The following fallacies involve relations whose truth values are not guaranteed and therefore not guaranteed to yield true conclusions.
Types of propositional fallacies:

• Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.^[10]
• Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.^[10]
• Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.^[10]

Quantification fallacies

A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of quantification fallacies:

• Existential fallacy – an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.^[11]

Formal syllogistic fallacies

Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.

• Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.^[11]
• Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.^[11]
• Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum) – a categorical syllogism that has four terms.^[12]
• Illicit major – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.^[11]
• Illicit minor – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.^[11]
• Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative) – a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises.^[11]
• Fallacy of the undistributed middle – the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.^[13]
• Modal fallacy – confusing necessity with sufficiency. A condition X is necessary for Y if X is required for even the possibility of Y. X does not bring about Y by itself, but if there is no X, there will be no Y. For example, oxygen is necessary for fire. But one cannot assume that everywhere there is oxygen, there is fire. A condition X is sufficient for Y if X, by itself, is enough to bring about Y. For example, riding the bus is a sufficient mode of transportation to get to work. But there are other modes of transportation – car, taxi, bicycle, walking – that can be used.
• Modal scope fallacy – a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion.

Informal fallacies

Informal fallacies – arguments that are logically unsound for lack of well-grounded premises.^[14]

• Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that a compromise between two positions is always correct.^[15]
• Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy, decision-point fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.^[16]
• Correlative-based fallacies
  • Suppressed correlative – a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible (e.g., "I'm not fat because I'm thinner than John.").^[17]
• Definist fallacy – defining a term used in an argument in a biased manner (e.g., using "loaded terms"). The person making the argument expects that the listener will accept the provided definition, making the argument difficult to refute.^[18]
• Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) – arguing that, because something is so incredible or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.^[19]
• Double counting – counting events or occurrences more than once in probabilistic reasoning, which leads to the sum of the probabilities of all cases exceeding unity.
• Equivocation – using a term with more than one meaning in a statement without specifying which meaning is intended.^[20]
  • Ambiguous middle term – using a middle term with multiple meanings.^[21]
  • Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised.^[22] Often paired with moving the goalposts (see below), as when an argument is challenged using a common definition of a term in the argument, and the arguer presents a different definition of the term and thereby demands different evidence to debunk the argument.
  • Motte-and-bailey fallacy – conflating two positions with similar properties, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one more controversial (the "bailey").^[23] The arguer first states the controversial position, but when challenged, states that they are advancing the modest position.^[24][25]
  • Fallacy of accent – changing the meaning of a statement by not specifying on which word emphasis falls.
  • Persuasive definition – purporting to use the "true" or "commonly accepted" meaning of a term while, in reality, using an uncommon or altered definition.
  • (cf. the if-by-whiskey fallacy)
• Ecological fallacy – inferring about the nature of an entity based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which that entity belongs.^[26]
• Etymological fallacy – assuming that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.^[27]
• Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.^[28]
• Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a composite thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.^[29]
• False attribution – appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
  • Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextotomy, contextomy; quotation mining) – selective excerpting of words from their original context to distort the intended meaning.^[30]
• False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to promote a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority.
• False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are given as the only possible options when, in reality, there are more.^[31]
• False equivalence – describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.
• Feedback fallacy – believing in the objectivity of an evaluation to be used as the basis for improvement without verifying that the source of the evaluation is a disinterested party.^[32]
• Historian's fallacy – assuming that decision-makers of the past had identical information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.^[33] This should not to be confused with presentism, in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically projected into the past.
• Historical fallacy – believing that certain results occurred only because a specific process was performed, though said process may actually be unrelated to the results.^[34]
  • Baconian fallacy – supposing that historians can obtain the "whole truth" via induction from individual pieces of historical evidence. The "whole truth" is defined as learning "something about everything", "everything about something", or "everything about everything". In reality, a historian "can only hope to know something about something".^[35]
• Homunculus fallacy – using a "middle-man" for explanation; this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. It explains a concept in terms of the concept itself without explaining its real nature (e.g.: explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker – a homunculus – inside the head simply identifies an intermediary actor and does not explain the product or process of thinking).^[36]
• Inflation of conflict – arguing that, if experts in a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point within that field, no conclusion can be reached or that the legitimacy of that field of knowledge is questionable.^[37][38]
• If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are emotionally sensitive and ambiguous.
• Incomplete comparison – insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
• Inconsistent comparison – different methods of comparison are used, leaving a false impression of the whole comparison.
• Intentionality fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated (e.g. a work of fiction that is widely received as a blatant allegory must necessarily not be regarded as such if the author intended it not to be so).^[39]
• Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
• Ludic fallacy – failing to take into account that non-regulated random occurrences unknown unknowns can affect the probability of an event taking place.^[40]
• Lump of labour fallacy – the misconception that there is a fixed amount of work to be done within an economy, which can be distributed to create more or fewer jobs.^[41]
• McNamara fallacy (quantitative fallacy) – making an argument using only quantitative observations (measurements, statistical or numerical values) and discounting subjective information that focuses on quality (traits, features, or relationships).
• Mind projection fallacy – assuming that a statement about an object describes an inherent property of the object, rather than a personal perception.
• Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction (e.g.: inferring is from ought). Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy.
• Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
• Nirvana fallacy (perfect-solution fallacy) – solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
• Package deal - treating essentially dissimilar concepts as though they were essentially similar.
• Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam).
• Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.
• Proving too much – an argument that results in an overly generalized conclusion (e.g.: arguing that drinking alcohol is bad because in some instances it has led to spousal or child abuse).
• Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of their own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
• Referential fallacy^[42] – assuming that all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object (e.g.: Pegasus) or that the meaning comes from how they are used (e.g.: "nobody" was in the room).
• Reification (concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) – treating an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity (e.g.: saying that evolution selects which traits are passed on to future generations; evolution is not a conscious entity with agency).
• Retrospective determinism – believing that, because an event has occurred under some circumstance, the circumstance must have made the event inevitable (e.g.: because someone won the lottery while wearing their lucky socks, wearing those socks made winning the lottery inevitable).
• Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a proposed, relatively small, first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant and negative event and, therefore, should not be permitted.^[43]
• Special pleading – the arguer attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption (e.g.: a defendant who murdered his parents asks for leniency because he is now an orphan).

Improper premise

• Begging the question (petitio principii) – using the conclusion of the argument in support of itself in a premise (e.g.: saying that smoking cigarettes is deadly because cigarettes can kill you; something that kills is deadly).^[44][45]
  • Loaded label – while not inherently fallacious, the use of evocative terms to support a conclusion is a type of begging the question fallacy. When fallaciously used, the term's connotations are relied on to sway the argument towards a particular conclusion. For example, an organic foods advertisement that says "Organic foods are safe and healthy foods grown without any pesticides, herbicides, or other unhealthy additives." Use of the term "unhealthy additives" is used as support for the idea that the product is safe.^[46]
• Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with (e.g.: all bachelors are unmarried males).
• Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presuppositions, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda. (E.g., "Have you or have you not stopped beating your wife?".)

Faulty generalizations

Faulty generalization – reaching a conclusion from weak premises.

• Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored.^[47]
  • No true Scotsman – makes a generalization true by changing the generalization to exclude a counterexample.^[48]
• Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence, argument by half-truth, fallacy of exclusion, card stacking, slanting) – using individual cases or data that confirm a particular position, while ignoring related cases or data that may contradict that position.^[49][50]
  • Nut-picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – using individual cases or data that falsify a particular position, while ignoring related cases or data that may support that position.
  • Survivorship bias – a small number of successes of a given process are actively promoted while completely ignoring a large number of failures.
• False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.^[51]
• Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident, jumping to conclusions) – basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample.^[52]
• Inductive fallacy – a more general name for a class of fallacies, including hasty generalization and its relatives. A fallacy of induction happens when a conclusion is drawn from premises that only lightly support it.
• Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is more important; this also relies on the appeal to emotion fallacy.
• Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.^[53]
• Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of forethought, move on to other topics, etc. – but in any case, to end the debate with a cliché rather than a point.

Questionable cause

Questionable cause is a general type of error with many variants. Its primary basis is the confusion of association with causation, either by inappropriately deducing (or rejecting) causation or a broader failure to properly investigate the cause of an observed effect.

• Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this"; correlation implies causation; faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – a faulty assumption that, because there is a correlation between two variables, one caused the other.^[54]
  • Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this"; temporal sequence implies causation) – X happened, then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.^[55]
  • Wrong direction (reverse causation) – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.^[56] The consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
  • Ignoring a common cause
• Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification^[57]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
• Furtive fallacy – outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of decision makers.
• Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a fair coin lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails" is incorrect.^[58]
  • Inverse gambler's fallacy - the inverse of the gamblers fallacy. It is the incorrect belief that on the basis of an unlikely outcome, the process must have happened many times before.
• Magical thinking – fallacious attribution of causal relationships between actions and events. In anthropology, it refers primarily to cultural beliefs that ritual, prayer, sacrifice, and taboos will produce specific supernatural consequences. In psychology, it refers to an irrational belief that thoughts by themselves can affect the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it.
• Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of post hoc fallacy.

Relevance fallacies

• Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.^[59]
• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.^[60]
• Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."^[61]
• Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam or argumentum ad infinitum) – repeating an argument until nobody cares to discuss it any more and referencing that lack of objection as evidence of support for the truth of the conclusion;^[62][63] sometimes confused with proof by assertion.
• Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – assuming that a claim is true based on the absence of textual or spoken evidence from an authoritative source, or vice versa.^[64]
• Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.^[65]

Red herring fallacies

A red herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. This includes any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.^[66][67]

Red herring – introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic (e.g.: saying “If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?”).^[68] In jury trial, it is known as a Chewbacca defense. In political strategy, it is called a dead cat strategy. See also irrelevant conclusion.

• Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. (Note that "ad hominem" can also refer to the dialectical strategy of arguing on the basis of the opponent's own commitments. This type of ad hominem is not a fallacy.)
  • Circumstantial ad hominem – stating that the arguer's personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong.^[69]
  • Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.^[70]
  • Appeal to motive – dismissing an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.
  • Tone policing – focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.
  • Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo, 'thus leave') – a critic's perceived affiliation is portrayed as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether. Easily confused with the association fallacy ("guilt by association") below.
• Appeal to authority (argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam) – an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.^[71][72]
  • Appeal to accomplishment – an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. This may often also have elements of appeal to emotion (see below).
  • Courtier's reply – a criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.
• Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.^[73]
• Appeal to emotion – manipulating the emotions of the listener rather than using valid reasoning to obtain common agreement.^[74]
  • Appeal to fear – generating distress, anxiety, cynicism, or prejudice towards the opponent in an argument.^[75]
  • Appeal to flattery – using excessive or insincere praise to obtain common agreement.^[76]
  • Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – generating feelings of sympathy or mercy in the listener to obtain common agreement.^[77]
  • Appeal to ridicule (reductio ad ridiculum, reductio ad absurdum, ad absurdum) – mocking or stating that the opponent's position is laughable to deflect from the merits of the opponent's argument. (Note that "reductio ad absurdum" can also refer to the classic form of argument that establishes a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. This type of reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy.)^[78]
  • Appeal to spite – generating bitterness or hostility in the listener toward an opponent in an argument.^[79]
  • Judgmental language – using insulting or pejorative language in an argument.
  • Pooh-pooh – stating that an opponent's argument is unworthy of consideration.^[80]
  • Wishful thinking – arguing for a course of action by the listener according to what might be pleasing to imagine rather than according to evidence or reason.^[81]
• Appeal to nature – judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.^[82] (Sometimes also called the "naturalistic fallacy", but is not to be confused with the other fallacies by that name.)
• Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis, argumentum ad antiquitatis) – a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.^[83] (opposite of appeal to tradition)
• Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)^[84]
• Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.^[85]
• Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).^[86] (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
• Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.^[87]
• Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so.^[88]
• Association fallacy (guilt by association and honor by association) – arguing that because two things share (or are implied to share) some property, they are the same.^[89]
• Logic chopping fallacy (nit-picking, trivial objections) - Focusing on trivial details of an argument, rather than the main point of the argumentation.^[90][91]
• Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy) – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.^[92][93]
• Bulverism (psychogenetic fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. The assumption that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood.^[37]
• Chronological snobbery – a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, known to be false, was also commonly held.^[94][95]
• Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.^[96][97]
• Genetic fallacy – a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.^[98]
• I'm entitled to my opinion – a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion.
• Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises, in violation of fact-value distinction; e.g. making statements about what is, on the basis of claims about what ought to be. This is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy.
• Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises^[99][100] in violation of fact-value distinction. Naturalistic fallacy (sometimes confused with appeal to nature) is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.
  • Is–ought fallacy^[101] – deduce a conclusion about what ought to be, on the basis of what is.
• Naturalistic fallacy fallacy^[102] (anti-naturalistic fallacy)^[103] – inferring an impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy, mentioned above. For instance, is does imply ought for any proposition , although the naturalistic fallacy fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy.
• Straw man fallacy – misrepresenting an opponent's argument by broadening or narrowing the scope of a premise and/or refuting a weaker version of their argument (e.g.: If someone says that killing animals is wrong because we are animals too saying "It is not true that humans have no moral worth" would be a strawman since they have not asserted that humans have no moral worth, rather that the moral worth of animals and humans are equivalent.)^[104]
• Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.^[105]
• Tu quoque ('you too' – appeal to hypocrisy, whataboutism) – stating that a position is false, wrong, or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with it.^[106]
• Two wrongs make a right – assuming that, if one wrong is committed, another wrong will rectify it.^[107]
• Vacuous truth – a claim that is technically true but meaningless, in the form no A in B has C, when there is no A in B. For example, claiming that no mobile phones in the room are on when there are no mobile phones in the room.