recent image
Stop Taking Politics Personally
Gregg Hurwitz
 February 22 2024 at 12:44 am
more_horiz
Before the bill to secure our border and reform immigration policies even arrived, Speaker Mike Johnson declared it, “Dead on arrival.” Trump likened it a gift to Democrats, declaiming with characteristic punchiness, “A bad border deal is far worse than no border deal.” The Republicans preferred to kill the deal entirely than pass a negotiated compromise and give the White House home team a win. Given that Republicans intend to run on border security, they benefit from keeping the issue raging like an infection through election season, the better to fundraise and drive turnout. In case this sounds familiar, the Democrats deployed the same playbook around abortion. The lame-duck Democratic Congress of early 2022 could have sought to codify a federal baseline of abortion rights, just as it enshrined the right to gay marriage. Instead they put forth a bill with zero compromises so every Republican would be on record opposing it, useful indeed for fundraising letters and next season’s mud-slinging. The result? More outrage and polarization. More nothing getting done. Zero movement toward settling issues and moving America forward into an increasingly complex future. You’d think we might have woken up by now. AI, a land war in Europe, a rapidly innovating economic landscape, quickening polarization spurred by teams of addiction experts wielding algorithmic deep-machine learning, Jews and Muslims warring in the cradle of civilization, the birthplace of original sin. When the world tears itself apart and hits another seeming bottom, there are only two directions to go. Upward together with renewed hopes for peace and prosperity given our abundance of collective resources. Or we turn this bottom into yet another ceiling of a fresh hell beneath. It's easy to direct our ire at Schumer or Trump, but the fault isn’t merely in the stars. It’s in ourselves and what we demand of and reward from our society. How much of our resources and attention are we devoting to leaders who do budge—who compromise, argue, negotiate, moderate, and bridge-build? And to positions, bills, laws, or policies that are actually achievable? Beneath the blinding lights of our 24-7 Outragetainment Industrial Complex, it’s hard to know where to begin. An excellent starting point would be for us to sacrifice our notion of chronic uniqueness, our belief that the singular pattern of our private heart should be the template for the political world around us. We must give up the narcissistic will to have our every attitude translated into the direction our party of choice takes—and that the country takes from there. My personal politics are more liberal than where I believe the country should be and where I aim my efforts to advise and guide those in positions of governance who choose to listen to me. That’s not merely strategic on my part, some cynical approach to the electoral chessboard. The Constitution and what I consider fair and right for America doesn’t perfectly match my idiosyncratic set of cultural beliefs. And guess what? It’s not supposed to. The Constitution isn’t designed to be stretched out of shape to mirror the precise beliefs of each of our country’s 330 million individuals. It can’t possibly accommodate every person’s cultural whims and peculiar perspectives. Rather, ourglorious “bundle of compromises” provides the protective frame of a majestic home in which we can all seek to thrive, be free, and prosper. Our founding fathers provided an architecture for these goals that is solid beyond compare—or at least a damn lot better than any other system that has been tried. It used to be obvious, but now it seems radical to say that our red and blue elected officials shouldn’t kowtow to our every belief. No matter what platform of values we’ve arrived at to govern our own lives—whether we’re country-club Republicans, libertarians, San Francisco liberals, Second Amendment advocates, white/black/brown/whatever working class, lefty activists, MAGAites, intellectuals, people of faith—or any combination of the above—we need our leaders to hold a broader view of the big picture, of what compromises, negotiations, and alliances are necessary for America to hold strong and keep competitive in a world containing powerful leaders like Putin and Xi. That means as citizens we must strive to find that broader view as well. We must not demand that everyone else fall into lockstep with our particular world view. We must not pressure others to celebrate that which they are only willing to tolerate. Monetized pressures to polarize, outrage, and radicalize are blasted at us every time we turn on a screen. The more we eschew those impulses, the more unified we will be to face the coming firestorms, challenges, and opportunities. And they are coming. Let us begin by ceding what space we might find between our personal values and what we believe is the best and fairest way forward for 330 million different personal values. The more we allow for that within ourselves, our discourse, and our engagement, the more we move our parties toward badly needed common ground. Democrats are an imperfect proxy for liberalism. Republicans are an imperfect proxy for conservatism. One of the aims of true liberalism is to engage meaningfully with true conservatism and vice versa. They are respectively the gas pedal and brake for how we navigate complex change. Only stomping the gas means we smash into a wall or fly off a cliff. And standing on the brake means we don’t go anywhere. The rest of the world will not wait for us to figure out how to drive the car. We must drive it now. It’s up to us whether we break down or continue forward together. Continuing forward together means remembering that true liberalism is handshake distance across the aisle from true conservatism. Don’t take politics personally. Take them seriously.
recent image
How the Left Thinks...Or Doesn't
Octaveoctave
 February 05 2024 at 08:54 pm
more_horiz
post image
I like to survey Left wing essays and news to get sort of an idea of what my "adversaries" believe and are thinking. A lot of arguments they put forward to placate the Left wing base are ludicrous. There are immense volumes that they do not know, because in general they have a severe allergy to widely surveying news and web sites from a variety of ideological backgrounds. For example, it is almost "canon" to these Leftists that there has never been any cheating or fraud in any US election, ever. And they just ignore all the evidence to the contrary and call people who disagree with them mentally ill. They also believe the earth is going to incinerate in 5 or 10 years and all life will be extinguished because people are farming and breathing and driving cars. Uh huh...well, for people that scream constantly, "trust the science", they really have no idea what they are talking about. They also seem to blindly trust anything that comes out of "big government", "big technology", "big media", "big Hollywood", most large corporations and multinationals and the liberal elites. As someone who has watched the Left flip flop back and forth on their positions over the decades, this is another sort of amazing example. Recently I came across this essay: Lasting Impact: Things MAGA Ruined For Everyone https://thatsviralnow.com/lasting-impact-things-maga-ruined-for-everyone/ My first warning about what I was about to read in this piece was that the author "Matty Jacobson" looked like a child of no more than 20 or 25 years of age. Matty lists off a long list of complaints that are mostly nonsense. For example: (1) Matty claims that people who support Trump "ruined" the red baseball cap. But it was the Left attacking anyone with a red baseball cap that ruined this type of hat, not people supporting Trump. (2) Matty also does not like the phrase "Make America Great Again" and thinks its meaning has been besmirched. So what about "Hope and Change", or "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health plan, you can keep your plan." and any number of other phrases that have become colored by the nonsense of the Left? (3) Matty does not like the fact that Twitter/X now has some on the Right who are pushing back. The Left liked Twitter when they "ruled the roost" and could promote nonsense and lies and trade child porn with each other to their heart's content. Being forced to abide by societal norms and laws irritates them. Having other voices heard offends them. The same is true of other internet forums. Finally the Right and conservatives and the anti-woke have awakened and are pushing back a tiny bit. And Matty hates this. (4) Matty does not like it when the mainstream news is branded as "fake news". But the mainstream media has done this to themselves. I remember in 2016 when the "newspaper of record", the New York Times, put on their front page that the country was confronting an emergency represented by Trump, so they would no longer report the news accurately and truthfully. This lasted for a couple of years as I recall. Of course, I did not trust them before that, and I definitely do not trust them now. The NYT even boasted that it was only going to publish fake news, at least on one topic anyway. So it offends Matty when we call it out for what it is? (5) Matty is upset that there are politics discussed at family gatherings, like Thanksgiving. But the Left fired first, with Obama repeatedly advising his followers to approach their relatives at holiday gatherings and feasts and "get in their faces" to push his agenda. Maxine Waters said similar things, including pushing to make it impossible for any conservatives to ever appear in public. This went on for years and years and years before finally some pushback to started to appear. If I remember correctly, it was during Obama's term that more than half of all US families reported irreparable rifts over politics. The Right and conservatives and MAGA did not do this. The Left did it. The conservatives and MAGA are just responding. Matty, if you do not like it, then maybe you idiots should not have started it. How did you think it was going to go? (6) Matty is upset that the Right classify themselves as patriots and show the US flag. But the Left for decades has been burning US flags and stomping on US flags and spitting on servicemembers and so on. The Left chose what side of this issue they were on, long before Matty was born and probably before his parents were born. (7) Matty does not like the fact that Right wing political rallies have become boisterous, exuberent affairs. Well, compared to the dull-as-dishwater lectures by the pretentious, joyless, angry, stick-up-their ass Left that few attend, Right wing rallies do stand out. There is minimal passion but plenty of fear and loathing and depression on the Left. The Left want to show how tolerant and peaceful they are by resorting to violence and worse. They disgust me, and I think they disgust most rational people. (8) Matty claims that MAGA is devoted to "winning above all". Sorry Matty, but phrases like "by any means necessary", and "No justice, no peace" have been the dominant tenets of the Left for decades. Are you too stupid to know this, Matty? Or too young? Or just ignorant and naive? The Right is only starting to wake up now, having lost almost all of the educational establishment and the media and the entertainment industry and a large fraction of corporate executives, and enduring the aggressive encroachment of Leftist BS into sports and every other aspect of society. It is about time. Is it too late? We will find out, I guess. (9) Matty does not like how Federal institutions and organizations and agencies like the FBI are now viewed negatively. Well Matty, if you do not like it, you morons on the Left should not have politicized them and turned them into weapons to go after the average law-abiding citizen, you see? You thought making the FBI and other Federal institutions into a sort of Praetorian Guard for the Left was going to go unnoticed, did you? Wow, talk about clueless and naive. (10) Matty does not like the supposed narrowness of the MAGA positions and policies. But the same criticisms could be more accurately aimed at the woke. We have been under the thumb of the woke for probably as long as Matty has been alive. This oppression has become worse and worse. And now the US State Department, in a sort of rebirth of American Imperialism, is pushing it on foreign countries like crazy (with the implied threat of US military action if they do not comply with "woke mandates"). And people have had about enough of it. So now Matty is whining about how terrible "populism" is, and how awful it is to push for things that are good for most people and that most people want. However, to Matty, I say, "tough". (11) Matty complains about how modern technology has created information bubbles or silos and algorithms that cause more disagreement and dissension. But Matty, these are the products of the woke Big Tech companies that you seem to be in love with. This has nothing to do with MAGA or conservatives. You Leftists did this, so enjoy.
recent image
Why Are Michigan Democrats Choosing the Abyss?
JonathanFunke
 February 21 2024 at 11:14 pm
more_horiz
If nothing changes in Michigan before Tuesday, Rep. Dean Phillips will repeat Gov. Nikki Haley’s achievement earlier this month in Nevada: by some crazy margin, he will lose his party’s primary to “none of the above.” In reality, Haley at least did lose to a somebody: 60% of voters plainly chose “other” only because their preferred flavor, orange, wasn’t on the menu. (Trump skipped the Nevada primary, and competed in the state’s caucuses a few days later instead.) But Phillips stands to lose because Michiganders may choose the actual abyss. A group co-founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders is organizing to that end, saying it wants to send Pres. Biden the message that “he needs to separate from [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu." It’s a protest vote, and to register this protest, they’re making hundreds of thousands of calls asking voters to pull the lever for “uncommitted.” They’re acting as though a protest candidate named “Phillips” isn’t even on the ballot. But Phillips is indeed on the ballot—and for months he’s been a vocal critic of how Netanyahu is prosecuting Israel’s war against Hamas. If that’s the message you want to send, the three-term Minnesota Congressman is the natural messenger, from Michigan to the other 42 states where he’s secured ballot access. What drives disaffected Democrats to consider “nobody” a better ally than “somebody”? Some distrust Phillips for balancing his deep sympathy for Palestine with a defense of Israel’s fundamental right to self-defense. But Phillips called for “an immediate and mutual ceasefire” in Gaza just six weeks into the war, citing its “unacceptable toll on Palestinian civilians.” Yet to this day, the administration’s vetoes of UN ceasefire resolutions continue to cost Biden dearly in Michigan polls. The contrast couldn’t be clearer. For many who will choose “uncommitted” over Phillips on Tuesday, I think the mental mechanism at work is subtler and more insidious than any policy disagreement. It’s as though they simply cannot process the theoretical possibility that someone other than Biden will be the nominee. They are so distracted by the big circus on our tiny screens that they believe a scream into the electoral void—a vote for no one—is the only card they have to play. As Nietzsche put it: Man would rather will nothingness, than not will at all. It is a desperate and blinkered reflex, and a dangerous one. While the technologies have evolved, the hardening of this reflex—to shout down rather than to look up, think fresh and choose different—has always helped the autocrat. Today it is particularly face-palm-inducing to see progressives spurn Phillips, a natural ally who shares their outrage at Netanyahu and would carry none of Biden’s biggest negatives into November, when we will face the far greater threat. Haley, in a delightful moment of media jiu jitsu, yesterday lured reporters to a presumed concession speech, only to forcefully commit to staying in the race indefinitely. She has the resources to do so; Phillips does not. Nevertheless, even as he laid off much of his campaign staff last Friday, Phillips pledged to “continue this journey as long as you want this journey continued.” Even if it seems he must, like the late Sen. John McCain, eventually carry his own suitcase through the airport. We are lucky that Phillips is staying in. Even more than Haley, he does so at great personal and political cost—and against a party that pays even less lip service to a fair primary process than Republicans do. Those who have listened to Phillips know his voice is welcoming, purposeful and vibrant. The least Michigan Democrats can do is go into the voting booth, and choose him over the abyss. Disclosure: The author has contributed nominal amounts to the presidential primary campaigns of both Dean Phillips and Nikki Haley.
recent image
Comments on the Essay 'Between Research and...
Octaveoctave
 February 21 2024 at 05:18 pm
more_horiz
Abstract This essay has three main points: (1) We need defense because otherwise we would be destroyed. And in defense, science and STEM are growing in importance. (2) You can't know ahead of time what a discovery will eventually be used for, at least not always. (3)This character Harari who is associated with the WEF is sort of a hypocrite.The plans he and his associates in the WEF have for humanity are terrible. And they plan on using the very discoveries and advances that STEM makes. But meanwhile, Harari thinks STEM people should not make any advances because they might be used for ill. But Harari and the WEF and people like them are those who want to use the advances for ill!Body I liked this essay by Washington University Junior Jonah Sachs: Between Research and Responsibility: The Invention of Dynamite https://hxstem.substack.com/p/between-research-and-responsibility It examines the history around the creation of dynamite and the establishment of the Nobel Prizes. All discoveries or innovations can be used for both good and for ill. And all the possible applications of a given advance are not always immediately apparent. For example, after the laser was discovered in 1960, for a good decade or more it was said to be a solution looking for a problem to solve. Although the laser was used in surgical experiments not long after its first appearance, widespread medical use took longer to emerge. Also, the UPC code scanner and optical disc recording and fiber optic communications took at least a decade to develop and reach the point where they could be broadly implemented. Other applications, including directed energy weaponry, took even longer to develop. New applications of the laser continue to be announced all the time even now, more than 63 years later. The idea for such a device was even older, and predated its physical implementation by substantial amounts of time. The theoretical possibilities of a laser or maser had been described many decades before they were first built in laboratories. It is certain that when the first musings about such a technology were published by Einstein in 1917 that no one could really foresee what might eventually occur and how these devices might be used. Although the Sachs essay suggests it is possible to hold back discoveries for the "good of the public" or "humanity", I am not convinced that this is reasonable over the longer term. When the time is "ripe" for an innovation or discovery, they will frequently be made by multiple people and groups almost simultaneously. The discovery of calculus and the Theory of Evolution are two such examples.[1] The original discoverer or inventor and their close supporters and colleagues have some small measure of control over the new knowledge, at least for a limited period. But even then, espionage (as in the case of Klaus Fuchs and the Manhattan Project) can take away this advantage in short order. Many mistakenly believe that hiding or halting advances or discoveries or forbidding scientists, engineers and mathematicians from working in defense can reduce the chance of war.[2] However, history shows us this is not true. The US demilitarized and became isolationist before both world wars, but that did not stop the US from being dragged into these conflicts. I am reminded of the famous aphorism, "He who would have peace should prepare for war."[3] People mistakenly believe that unilateral disarmament can dissuade adversaries and opponents from pursuing military and terrorist activities. But the evidence is strong that the opposite is in fact closer to reality.[4] Rather than forbidding STEM innovators from making progress that in retrospect might appear dangerous (something that is very difficult if not impossible to predict), perhaps it is better to consider other restrictions on new technologies. We have laws and judicial systems and treaties and international bodies and political infrastructures and public opinion that are supposedly a check on the bad inclinations of those in power. We also have various other forms of deterrence. It is a bit naive to think that the only solution is to stop STEM progress or censor science because of the weak or corrupt natures of those in power, their evident inability to rein in their dark impulses and their repeated frantic attempts to circumvent or even remove the checks and balances that are available. Surely we can develop better mechanisms of control than this. This situation is particularly ludicrous since many of those in power unceasingly lecture the rest of humanity about how much more ethical and moral and virtuous they are than everyone else, all evidence to the contrary. It quite striking that one of those who is particularly pretentious and self-righteous about his moral superiority is quoted in the Sachs essay; that is, Professor Yuval Noah Harari.[5] I also found the content of these Yuval Noah Harari quotes particularly telling. Knowing who Harari is and who he associates with, these two Harari statements border on the astounding: (1) “𝘏𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘺.” (2) “𝘛𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦.”[7] Harari is reportedly the "right hand man" of problematic globalist Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (WEF). In addition, Harari has made numerous other statements which are more than slightly disturbing. Harari's occasional employer or colleague Schwab has a scandalous history[10] and has also made a lot of outrageous comments over the years.[12] For example, recently Harari gave a lecture saying that human rights are just words on paper, so they do not really exist; Harari even implied that they probably should not exist. In some sense, Harari is partially correct. However, there are many ways to organize societies, and those that enshrine human rights as something special differentiate themselves from the others. So human rights might be fictitious in a way, but so are all laws and all money and assets and property and contracts and other agreements. A lot of things we accept and rely on are kind of illusory, from some point of view. But we find these fictions useful. Harari also wrote that indigenous people are essentially "apes" in his 2011 book 'Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind'. As someone of indigenous extraction, I do not find this comment particularly charitable. In addition, Harari is a huge advocate of imposing a permanent lockdown on all of the world's population. We can reasonably surmise that this would exclude the "elites", like those in the World Economic Forum (presumably including Harari himself).[13][14] Harari was stimulated to imagine how wonderful such a lockdown would be because of our recent experiences with the pandemic lockdown. However, the pandemic and the associated lockdown were not some innocuous events that had no effect on civilization; far from it. There were many millions killed either by the virus, which appears to have been purposely man-made and funded by the US taxpayers, or through incompetent medical care and iatrogenic disasters of various sorts, including sloppy vaccine science and bad policies. There were also many trillions of dollars of economic losses, including many failed businesses. Children's development and educations were drastically affected and suffered setbacks. Many lost their jobs because they did not want to take the vaccines, which were not near as effective or safe or tested as had been advertised, purported and promised. Some who resisted the vaccine or other pandemic measures were punished and imprisoned. Protests were violently put down. We still have not had a very accurate accounting of all the disasters associated with this event; the powers that be just want to cover it all up and hope everyone else forgets.[15] But as previously mentioned, it is not just that Harari is a bit of an offensive and obnoxious loose cannon who seems to lack prudence and self-awareness. It is also those that Harari is closely associated with, like the World Economic forum, and in particular, its leader Klaus Schwab. For example, Schwab and his minions and colleagues at the WEF are lobbying for the abolishment of agriculture, and the imprisonment of all farmers and fisherman as "climate criminals".[17] They also are in favor of mass surveillance and mass censorship.[18] At the yearly WEF meeting at Davos, Switzerland, Schwab was intrigued by the idea that mass surveillance could and would enable the elites to know people better than they know themselves. In this way, the self-styled elites (such as the WEF members), who are our "wanna-be overlords", would supposedly be able to predict with complete accuracy how people would vote. Schwab offered to save the earth's entire population from the inconvenience of going to the polls to vote. Schwab said he would just vote for everyone so they would not have to be bothered with something as tedious as voting. Schwab was also excited at this year's WEF meeting in Davos by the idea of brain implants and brain-computer interfaces. Schwab was enthusiastic about the idea that he could know what everyone was thinking. This is attractive to people like Schwab who want to impose punishments for "thought crimes" or "wrong think". This also starts to sound more than slightly unsavory and even creepy. In addition, the WEF is eagerly anticipating the introduction of digital currencies world wide, to prevent people from buying the "wrong things", or from saving any money. The WEF want the ability to force all your money to "expire". After all, they want the "little people" to "own nothing, and be happy".[19] There was even a section at this year's Davos conference on maintaining some control over science and technology, and keeping abreast of any potential and new developments. My impression is that they know that their careful and ambitious plans can easily be upset by the emergence of unanticipated developments in various spheres, including in STEM. The people in the WEF are uncreative and unproductive for the most part,[20] but they are in positions of power and they desperately want to maintain the current status quo. John Kerry made it clear in his presentations at Davos that the entire point of these crises they anticipate or even create, is to make huge profits. Of course, if there is one thing these billionaires appear to desperately crave, aside from infinite power and control, it is even more wealth. It is up to us, the public, i.e., the polity, to put an end to this disgraceful charade that has developed. We need to send a strong signal that we are not just sheep or potential slaves, and that we are worthy of being treated with dignity and respect.Notes [1] For more examples, consult the web article: 13 “Stolen” Inventions-Will The Real Inventor Please Stand Up https://www.savingadvice.com/articles/2024/02/12/10129777_13-stolen-inventions-will-the-real-inventor-please-stand-up.html [2] In his later years, Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who had served in the FDR, Kennedy and Johnson administrations, was a firm believer that scientists and engineers should refuse to have anything to do with the military (in spite of his own repeated involvement with the military). I heard him lecture about this at MIT in 1980. For an economist, Galbraith seemed to have no idea about what funding and positions were available for young STEM professionals in the United States, or why the US was a leader in innovation in STEM (mainly because of the substantial funding of STEM by US military and intelligence entities). [3] This sentiment has been repeated many times over the centuries. For a couple of noteworthy examples, consider: Si vis pacem, para bellum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum 𝘚ī 𝘷ī𝘴 𝘱ā𝘤𝘦𝘮, 𝘱𝘢𝘳ā 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘮 (𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯: [𝘴𝘪ː 𝘸𝘪ː𝘴 ˈ𝘱𝘢ː𝘬ẽː ˈ𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢ː ˈ𝘣ɛ𝘭𝘭ũː]) 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 "𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦, 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳". 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘦 '𝘚𝘪 𝘷𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘮, 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘮' 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳 𝘗𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘶𝘴 𝘍𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘶𝘴 𝘝𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴'𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘋ē 𝘙ē 𝘔ī𝘭𝘪𝘵ā𝘳ī (𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘪𝘧𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝘈𝘋), 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘩𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘳 𝘲𝘶ī 𝘥ē𝘴ī𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵 𝘱ā𝘤𝘦𝘮, 𝘱𝘳æ𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘮 ("𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳."). 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘰'𝘴 𝘕𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘪 (𝘓𝘢𝘸𝘴) 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘚𝘩𝘪 𝘑𝘪. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥. "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." -- George Washington https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/quotes/article/to-be-prepared-for-war-is-one-of-the-most-effectual-means-of-preserving-peace/ FIRST ANNUAL ADDRESS, TO BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS | FRIDAY, JANUARY 08, 1790 [4] The US disarmed, declared itself neutral and was strongly noninterventionist leading up to both World War I and World War II. In both cases, the US was essentially dragged into the conflicts to save Western Civilization. Trying to step back from conflict did not protect the US particularly. Also, it is extremely dangerous if one's adversary is able to make an advance in some destructive technology first. This has happened in the case of the jet fighter and the ICBM, for example. In both cases, the US and the West were flirting with disaster. And this came very close to happening in the case of the atomic bomb. The Japanese were only a month or so away from dropping a nuclear device on San Francisco, when the Japanese surrendered. Even some of the refined nuclear material that found its way into the American atomic devices was stolen from a shipment that was being sent from Germany to Japan. The US stopped work on hypersonic missiles, only to find themselves playing catch-up to the Russians and the Chinese who had leapfrogged the US in this technology. If you stop work on some weapons technology, and even if a treaty to supposedly stop development of this technology is in place (as in the case of biological weapons), that does not mean that your adversaries will necessarily stop. And it is even worse if your enemies reach dominance in a particular type of destructive weaponry first. [5] Many draw parallels between Harari and Jordan Peterson. Both have written books for the public that sold quite well. Both command large fees for speaking to the public. Both are academics. However, upon closer inspection, it is apparent that Peterson and Harari are not that similar at all. In fact, Peterson and Harari are closer to complete opposites. Harari is the son of an arms manufacturer in Israel. Although Harari managed to dodge mandatory military service in Israel through exploiting a series of loopholes, Harari seems fascinated with the military and has written extensively about it. Peterson is the son of a school teacher. Peterson seems to be quite well-respected in his field of research. Harari's work, on the other hand, appears to approach plagiarism; Harari is at least very sloppy in his scholarship and attribution practices. Peterson is careful and exacting in his publications. Harari's publications are full of errors and he is not particularly respected by his peers.[6] Peterson's work is heavily cited by others in his profession and he has contributed substantially to the scholarly literature in his field. Harari is more of a popularizer, a polemicist and a gadfly. Also, if you look at who Peterson and Harari associate with, and their views on society and culture, they are like mirror images of each other. Peterson fears the encroachment of the 'woke mind virus', weaponized compassion and creeping totalitarianism. Peterson is a defender of Western civilization. Harari promotes woke views and gives the impression that he sides with those trying desperately to destroy Western civilization. Peterson has created the Association for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) in an attempt to oppose the efforts of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Harari on the other hand is in bed with the World Economic Forum and wants to support and encourage the efforts of the WEF. Peterson has gone to court to defend his right to free speech. Harari is disdainful of free speech (at least for the public, not for "elites" like himself and the WEF; they are just dictating to us, the ignorant masses who are beneath them, the so-called "deplorables"). Harari is distinguished by his tremendous vanity and icy arrogance. Peterson comes off as the exact opposite, as someone who wants to do well, but admits he often comes up short. And Peterson is quite emotional; he is famous for crying over various issues in public. [6] For details, consult, for example, the article: The Dangerous Populist Science of Yuval Noah Harari https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/07/the-dangerous-populist-science-of-yuval-noah-harari/ This is an article by Darshana Narayanan, Current Affairs, July 6th, 2022, who writes, "The best-selling author is a gifted storyteller and popular speaker. But he sacrifices science for sensationalism, and his work is riddled with errors." [7] These two statements by Harari are incredible in the extreme, and are at the very least hypocritical. This is particularly true considering what Harari and his close associates propose, advocate and lobby for, encourage and demand. Harari and his colleagues at the World Economic Forum push for the abandonment of human rights, to make privacy illegal, for mass censorship and surveillance, for total control of the media,[8] for worldwide slavery and a global totalitarian authoritarian government with infinite power and authority over the world's population. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. They also are desperate for the world's population to shrink by 95% or more, immediately if not sooner, by "any means necessary". These elites and the WEF in particular, make every effort to circumvent and subvert all controls and laws over their activity, if not according to the precise letter, at least in spirit. In the face of this sort of recalcitrance, are the technical innovators really those at fault? Harari attempts to chastise the technical community for its supposed dangerous creations. This is an obscene fantasy. He blames STEM and its practitioners while the wealthy elites that Harari is apparently part of, represents and advises, are more than willing to seize any and all technical tools and apply them to destroying Western Civilization and enslaving most of the world's population. The comparison between these two groups is stark. Why cast aspersions on the technical community when the leadership and political class (of which Harari prides himself on being a member in good standing) are those who are pushing frantically to create a dystopian hellscape? [9] [8] It is increasingly clear that the media in the West has become less and less trustworthy over recent years. The idea that a free press still currently exists has become almost risible. Outside public scrutiny, through a free and independent media or from new internet venues, is critical for the functioning of a free society. I am reminded of a famous quote of Thomas Jefferson on this issue: "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1787 [9] Harari lectures everyone else about morality, but his own values are more than slightly suspect. Harari seems to place all the responsibility for bad behavior on STEM professionals who invent technology that others misuse. However, the technical people are almost never those who misuse technology or the tools they create. This abuse is almost exclusively the province the politicians and other decision makers, and influencers like the WEF, Harari's peers. It is like trying to blame the people who make axes for the actions of a serial axe-murderer. Axes are useful tools, but they can also be weapons. And blaming those responsible for the technology instead of those who use it to produce a disaster is the wrong approach. For example, Obama tried desperately to create a situation where Iran would acquire ICBMs and nuclear weapons. The Clintons created the environment where Russia could and did develop hypersonic weapons and sold Russia a large fraction of the American uranium ore stockpile. Klaus Schwab devoted a large part of his career to trying to spread nuclear weapons technology. The Biden administration has steadfastly pursued internet and media censorship on a variety of topics, such as the pandemic and vaccines and global climate change and election fraud and assorted wars they wanted to encourage (going so far as to fund both sides by various means). The Biden administration has continued this even when ordered by the courts to cease this activity. [10] Schwab's father was a famous German Nazi and owned weapons factories. His father's company even won awards for being the most outstanding Nazi corporation in Germany. Therefore, Schwab was raised in a Nazi household, in a similar way to his close friend and fellow World Economic Forum supporter George Soros.[11] Fascist ideas profoundly shaped both of these influential men. Schwab was an enthusiastic supporter of the Apartheid Regime in South Africa and even worked diligently (for substantial fees, of course), to help them acquire nuclear weapons to attack or at least threaten their black African neighbors. [11] Soros is quite proud of personally causing the deaths of many thousands of Jews. Soros says the period when he was ruining Jewish lives were the happiest days of his life. Remember, he was helping to slaughter his fellow Jews by cooperating and working with the German SS. Soros is a staunch WEF member and has many times expressed his loathing of Western civilization and his determination to eliminate it. I would suggest that Soros probably resents the fact that the Nazis lost World War II. Therefore, Soros seems to want to get revenge, in some way, by being as disruptive and destructive as he can. [12] In light of these problems and issues, Harari is the last person I would want to take advice from or trust with the future plans of civilization, let alone endow with any power. [13] Harari shares this view with Klaus Schwab's daughter Nicole Schwab, as she has confirmed in numerous public statements. [14] In all likelihood, none of the restrictions and policies the WEF proposes would apply to the WEF members, i.e., the "elites". They are "our betters" and we are just the "hoi polloi". So the WEF fly in to Davos, Switzerland every year en masse in substantial numbers of private jets that spew more pollution in just a trip or two than most people create in years or even their entire lives. But it is ok, you see, because these elites supposedly "care" about the planet and therefore the pollution they produce is "necessary". However, the pollution caused by everyone else is "gratuitous" and "unneeded" and should be terribly punished, according to these elites. These elites are "greener" than someone who just rides a bicycle because they have declared themselves to be "greener", and they "care more"; according to them, anyway. [15] There are some disturbing indications that some connected to the WEF had some forewarning of the pandemic. If you look at Schwab's emails and Bill Gates' emails, one certainly gets that impression. The same is true of Bill Gates' investments. Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel joked at the WEF that he told his staff a year before the pandemic broke out that they would have to ramp up vaccine production by more than a factor of 1000 because he was confident a pandemic would occur in a year. He related that his staff thought he was crazy, but he was uncannily completely accurate. Also there are suspicious reports about the CEO of Pfizer and his senior staff not getting vaccinated themselves (apparently the Pfizer CEO could not visit certain foreign countries because of his own personal lack of vaccination).[16] There also seems to be some desperation to hide all the records of this event. Pharmaceutical companies that are being sued in various jurisdictions are just producing totally redacted, blacked-out pages in discovery. Now the WEF is gleefully predicting another imminent pandemic from a "disease X" that will supposedly be 20 times more lethal than the covid19 (i.e., SARS-CoV-2) virus. What makes this all more disturbing is that Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates and others have made repeated statements about the supposedly desperate need to reduce the world's population by at least a factor of 20 or even 100 as soon as possible. And they have even suggested that the best way to do this is through a manufactured virus and/or deadly vaccinations. [16] This makes a statement Harari published in his 2017 best-selling book 'Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow' somewhat concerning: “𝘚𝘰 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘈𝘐𝘋𝘚 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘣𝘰𝘭𝘢, 𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺’𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳. … 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺.” [17] Jojo Mehta, speaking at the WEF in Davos, wants "ecocide" to be a serious crime that she can brutally punish. She wants to make farmers and fishermen "climate criminals". The Dutch government and the Sri Lankan government were following the plans and demands of the World Economic Forum when they effectively declared war on farming in their countries. Sri Lanka suffered an economic collapse and riots, and the Dutch government, after many farmer protests, was eventually voted out of power. Several other countries have governments that have at least partially acquiesced to these desires, leading to farmer protests. Even Stacey Abrams, the perennial failed gubernatorial candidate in Georgia (who has maintained for years that she really won at least 2 of the Georgia state elections for Governor), has opined, "why do we need farms? I get all my food from the grocery store like normal people." As comical as this statement is, there have been numerous rumblings in the US about plans to drastically alter agriculture in the US. The WEF has also proposed the forced inoculation of most of the world's population to make them allergic to the consumption of meat. The elites will not be required to take this injection, of course. [18] The problem with mass censorship is that the current ruling elites want to forbid all discussions of things they find uncomfortable, inconvenient or embarrassing. This would include things like an honest discussion of climate science and related policies, or evidence of voter fraud, or government corruption, or unbridled immigration policies, or details about the pandemic, and so on. The pandemic was an entire series of scandals and cover-ups and government lies for the benefit of some supermassive pharmaceutical companies and their investors. It would be a great topic for an international review to examine what we learned and how our responses failed us. However, many of those who do not want to be held accountable for assorted acts of fraud and mismanagement have been calling for a permanent amnesty on anything associated with this calamity. I am not sure that ignoring this massive event and allowing those who engaged in negligent or even criminal behavior to suffer no consequences, not even public shame or being the subject of a transparent inquiry, is a particularly good idea. This disaster was like a huge war in its impact. So why should those who caused it get a pass, exactly? [19] "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" is a phrase that originated in a video from the 2016 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. This video was based on an essay authored by Danish politician Ida Auken, who is associated with the WEF. [20] At Davos this year, there were pointed comments about Elon Musk no longer being welcome in their ranks. And the WEF organizers also made sure to emphasize that Argentina's new president Javier Milei would not be invited back to Davos. Musk and Milei (as well as Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase and Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation) clearly have the "wrong attitudes" to fit in with the Davos crowd. They seem to be too interested in the well-being of the world's population as a whole, instead of being just greedy and selfish. The WEF has a very inviting and glossy website advertising their "good works". Although the WEF pays lip service to environmentalism and the flourishing of liberal democracy, that seems to be only a surface disguise. That is not what the WEF is really about; not even close.
recent image
Identifying the Players: Technocrats (Part One)
UserduRFN4u5o4
 February 01 2024 at 10:55 pm
more_horiz
Phase Two. Document Five. March, 2024 Identifying the Players: Technocrats (Part One) ‘Elon Musk offers [AI] brain chips . . . Nick Bostrom calls for a totalitarian one world government. Eleizer Yudkowsky wants ‘airstrikes’ on rogue data centers. Sam Altman wants ‘exclusion zones’ for Luddites. Ben Goertzel assures us [that ‘legacy humans’ will] be preserved like squirrels in the park.’ Dark Aeon Certainly by 1915, nation-states could conscript you to go ‘over the top’ and likely die. That control, however, was ideological; and there were huge chunks of the world beyond the reach of ‘the system’ as it existed at that time. By the 1950’s, however, citizens in western nations were steadily being woven into a web of documentation – but huge chunks of the third world remained beyond the pale. Today’s Post is cheery and reminiscent because it turns out that understanding the advent of technologies – and we are specifically interested in the last half century – is a much much bigger project than you might think. I’ve spoken to everyone over 60 that I know. Please put some datum of your own in the Comments. So, personal insights: I rented my first flat (apartment) in Australia in 1980. One’s ‘Documents of Life’ – birth certificate, school results, gas and telephone bills – were all paper. Vaccinations in the Regular Army were mandatory. (Airborne Infantry, me.) When I went to Asia in 1983, all documents were still paper. In India at that time, I recall, when you booked an international phone call at the ‘call center,’ you were advised to bring food and bedding for the wait until you were called, which might be a day or more. And technology at this point – the early ‘80’s -- was still largely stuff: cars and video players and Walkmans and bicycles with ten gears. ‘Lag’ is a thing of particular note. For example, the contraceptive pill was authorized in the U.S. in 1960; but it was not in use in my cultural milieu – it was a bombshell life-event for my girlfriend and her female friends – until the mid-late 1970’s. Geography is part of the lag. We assume that electronic surveillance technologies, for example, spread in some pattern from ‘first world’ to ‘third world,’ from banks and airports first, to bus terminals and shopping malls.
recent image
The Government Would Never Do That!
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 February 07 2024 at 04:00 am
more_horiz
post image
In reflecting on history, it's clear that governments have been responsible for significant misdeeds. Despite this, there's a tendency to act as if such events are relics of the past, ignoring the possibility that similar issues could be unfolding today, often unnoticed until it's 'too late' to address them effectively. This brings to light the crucial role of skepticism in our interaction with government and authority. While adopting a questioning stance towards authority isn't universally popular, it's undeniable that the world benefits from skepticism. It seems we're in no short supply of blind followers, yet what we truly need is a greater abundance of critical thinkers. History has shown that governments can and do lie, and they have various incentives to continue doing so. A piece of advice that resonates with this reality is straightforward yet profound: don't trust known liars. This advice extends beyond skepticism; it's a fundamental principle for making informed, healthy decisions. By questioning and verifying the information we're given, especially from sources with a history of deceit, we protect ourselves and contribute to a more informed, vigilant society. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. How do you balance the need for skepticism with the need to engage positively in society? And how do you navigate information and narratives from authority figures in your quest for truth?Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn 🧠 "Collaborative Critical Thinking" Unleashed: As a Board-Certified Health Coach, I guide you through personalized strategies for optimal health and awareness. Explore more at https://www.redpillhealthandwellness.com
recent image
Comparing Canada and Australia
Octaveoctave
 February 16 2024 at 11:29 pm
more_horiz
Both countries are similar in many ways. Both are anglophone countries, mainly. Both were British colonies. Neither had a revolution like the US. Both have large aboriginal populations. Both have low population densities. And so on and so forth. However, there are some differences. Not a single Australian state has a conservative or even a centrist government (according to my Australian sources). At least Alberta in Canada at the moment has a conservative government (are there any other provinces with one?). Australia and Canada have very different immigration policies as well. Australia retains a tight grip on immigration, and it has even further tightened its immigration policies recently. Australia now focuses even more on "merit" and "qualifications" to gain the right to immigrate. Canada, per capita, has more immigration at the moment than any other country on earth. And there are few if any restrictions on qualifications to immigrate to Canada currently, which strikes me personally as a singularly dumb idea. I do not really understand what Canada is doing under this current lunatic in office. Australia, perhaps because of its isolation and the threat from China, has a far more robust military than Canada does. Australia pays far more attention to R & D, while Canada mainly exports its technical talent to the US, and rides on American coat-tails. During the pandemic, both countries went through terrible gyrations that in retrospect look terrible. Australia opened covid19 concentration camps. There are also shocking videos online of Australian police beating the hell out of lockdown and mandate protestors with nightsticks. Canada disgraced itself in front of the entire planet by seizing bank accounts of those who donated to the trucker rally (even seizing American bank accounts...what on earth?). Canada was also planning to seize children from the protestors (Peterson thought this was a bad idea, and for saying so, he has been charged with some offense). Perhaps Canada was not quite as brutal during the pandemic as Australia was, but Canada's actions were more heavily publicized (particularly since they enforced them on American citizens; a really, really bad idea in hindsight). This hurt Canada's reputation terribly, internationally. I think most Canadians do not even realize how bad they look to the rest of the world because of this. Canada has squandered its moral standing, and even might look worse than the US in this instance, if such a thing is even possible. Canada also has almost exclusively left wing media, controlled by the Canadian Federal Government. Australia at least has Sky News, which is reasonably conservative, even on a par with OAN and Newsmax in the US. So in spite of the similarities between the two countries, there are some substantial differences as well.
recent image
Identifying the Players: Technocrats (Part Two)
UserduRFN4u5o4
 February 02 2024 at 10:04 pm
more_horiz
Phase Two. Document Six. March, 2024 Identifying the Players: Technocrats (Part Two) Covid responses, the trans agenda, and now the technocratic dynamic, exhibit a pattern. One: someone – not an elected official or you – really really cares about something or someone. Two: because they really care, and because you are ignorant (or maybe a fascist), there must be no distracting discussion of the fine print. Three: the implementation of the solution ‘bypasses’ civil society – the tax-paying voters. Four: note that this model involves an open-ended expansion of bureaucracy simply because more caring equals more bureaucracy. This increase in ‘processes’ serves effectively to further ‘hold at arm’s length’ the citizenry. Who knows what an ‘ox bow lake’ is? In Australia, we call it a ‘billabong.’ Google it. A river changes its direction a little, and a section of that river gets cut off. Well, that’s what is going on. Society is being made into a billabong. Two types of anti-democrats – Super Poindexters (technocrats) and political activists (neo-communists) -- are ‘redirecting the river’ so that society and its institutions become cut off from the control and development of their own society. One key to understanding this dynamic is Singer’s expanding moral circle. No one wants to say, ‘Thus far and no further!’ The Western Australian Government Covid website provided the following datum: ‘a 96-yr.-old man died a Covid-involved death’ What could this possible mean? A 96-yr.-old man in a nursing home could suffer a banana-custard-involved death. Invoking the involvement of Covid is a ploy here. It’s a tactic of Really Really Caring. So, money-printing provides a theoretically unlimited supply of funding, and Really Really Caring justifies the shouting down of any desire to discuss the logical limits of how much the individual must defer to society. This is an inversion of individualism, of ‘the pioneer spirit.’ So, how is the above relevant to ‘identifying the players’? Well, with the immigration invasion of Europe last decade, it was the neo-communists (and Co.). With the trans agenda, same crowd. But did the equation change with the Covid responses? With Covid, the zealots and the poindexters double-teamed. The zealots, with the slavish assistance of the MSM, vituperated all and sundry. Meanwhile, the Super Poindexters worked with gubmints and massive corporations to advance the ‘surveillance industrial complex’ (and make a ton of money). But ‘technocracy’? Starting in perhaps the 1980’s, we’ve seem the Super Poindexters leveraging rapidly developing technologies. Three things concern us. The first is that they are so utterly self-centered that their interest in democracy is nil. The second is that a range of factors makes their project astonishingly powerful, which is allowing them to become more central players in everything, and their rapidly growing power is side-lining all other players. The third is that capitalism and nation-states (like China) have chimed in on technocracy. Let’s consider this issue later.
recent image
Identifying the Players: Plutocrats
UserduRFN4u5o4
 January 30 2024 at 08:46 am
more_horiz
No tips, please!!! Identifying the Players: Plutocrats Phase Two. Document Four. February, 2024 We are not only going to accept fuzzy definitions for a few Posts, but we want fuzzy definitions because they allow us to move at a pace. So, what is ‘plutocracy’? It’s outright rule/significant influence on society by the very rich. It’s displaces or distorts democracy. Let’s back up: what’s democracy? It’s rule by the people. Are there many forms of democracy? Oh yeh! Have we, historically, enjoyed much democracy in this world? No. Every time we begin ‘approaching democracy,’ something seems to nudge us off course. So, ‘plutocracy’? It’s one of those things that nudges us off course. And these few words bring us close to today’s goal. Although plutocracy and a range of other problems have largely kept us from achieving ‘real’ democracy, it seems that, thirty years into the Internet era, technology and techno-driven transgenderism and tech-driven (early forms of) transhumanism are bringing into play amounts of money/power that make old-school plutocracy look like a playground game. [Blah blah blah – we have to get to 250 words. This site is ridiculous – blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah (This is insane.) blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.]
recent image
What's Worse, Climate Change Or Totalitarian...
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 Yesterday at 12:46 am
more_horiz
post image
In today's conversation, I'm not looking to dive into the depths of climate change itself—a topic both complex and beyond my expertise. Instead, I want to explore the narratives that surround it. It's intriguing, isn't it? How the same sources that struggle to predict tomorrow's weather claim certainty about the climate decades from now. Over the years, we've seen a fair share of doomsday predictions that haven't come to pass. This observation isn't meant to diminish the importance of environmental stewardship but to question the solutions often proposed—solutions that invariably involve more government intervention and increased taxation. Skepticism, in this context, seems not only reasonable but necessary. Especially when those advocating for drastic changes in our lifestyle, those urging us to reduce our carbon footprint, are the same individuals who traverse the globe in private jets and maintain fleets of cars. It's a classic case of "rules for thee but not for me." This discrepancy between words and actions invites us to question the motives behind certain climate change narratives. Are the proposed solutions genuinely about safeguarding the environment, or are they about consolidating power and control? As always, I believe in doing our part for the planet. Simple, everyday actions can make a difference. But when it comes to grandiose schemes that demand sacrifice from the many to accommodate the lifestyles of the few, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted. What are your thoughts? How do you navigate the complex narratives surrounding climate change, and where do you draw the line between personal responsibility and skepticism towards proposed solutions? Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBMRumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6VYouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn
recent image
Too Incompetent To Charge
Numapepi
 February 10 2024 at 04:45 pm
more_horiz
post image
Too Incompetent To Charge Posted on February 10, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, the story that Biden won’t be charged with mishandling classified documents, despite the grievous way he allowed them to potentially fall into the CCP and other enemies hands, is because he’s incompetent… is not that the man has late stage dementia, that’s been obvious since his installment as a puppet president, the real story is, if he’s too incompetent to be held to a basic criminal standard, why is he still in office? His supporters who claim he’s above the law due to ineptitude, should be the first ones asking him to step down. If they’re the least bit consistent. Republicans should be impeaching. Especially since they recently tossed out one of their own over an allegation of corruption, while Biden’s corruption and dementia poses a real and present danger to the world. The lead executive of a nation has to be on the ball. Democrats would insist on nothing less from a republican President. To argue that the bureaucracy can do the job of running the government, is arguing we don’t need elected representation. That a special prosecutor has now made a sworn statement, President Biden engaged in the mishandling of classified documents when a senator, and vice president, yet can’t be prosecuted because he’s incompetent, must be addressed. That this is the main thrust of the story, yet remains unaddressed, says a lot about our ruling elites. Republicans want him to be the democrat nominee because he’s so universally loathed, while democrats want him to remain in office so history’s brush will paint them in a better color. Both are wrong. To someone on the outside looking in this looks like a classic cover up. Trump was President while he declassified the documents his lawyers took for his Presidential library, as had every other President before him, yet has been charged with mishandling classified documents. The case is in the court system now. Meanwhile, Biden was a senator and vice president when he took classified documents from a SCIF and stored some at a university the CCP had access to, his garage that Hunter would do lines in with his foreign bosses, and strewn anyplace Biden has been. The bureaucracy had quite a greased hog chase running them all down. Yet, while Biden’s mishandling is clearly a crime, he’s not being charged. While it’s debatable whether the deep state has the Constitutional authority to override a President. Both cases involve the bureaucracy’s contention, it alone, has the authority to classify and declassify national secrets. In Trump’s case, his declassification was without the consent of the administrative state and so is a crime. In Biden’s case, his taking classified documents without authority or permission is irrelevant, since only our foreign adversaries got access to them. Trump might have allowed Americans to see what their government has been up to. Now that’s a heinous criminal offense… transparency. Just ask Julian Assange. The contrast is as stark as it is illustrative of the corruption and inability of a bureaucracy to run itself. People drunk on their usurped power are sub optimal choices to give unlimited authority to. Proven by recent history. The same bureaucracy that’s charged a former president… isn’t charging a former senator and vice President for the same crime, because they claim he’s incompetent? Yet they say he’s competent to stay in office? Seriously? Moreover, the democrats in the house and Senate are unanimous he should stay in office… or else. So we have democrats and the deep state saying the President is corrupt and incompetent but should stay in office. Like the Arizona judge who found there had been fraud and probably enough to effect the outcome of the election… but he didn’t want to overturn a democratic election. The bureaucracy is becoming ever more absurd by the day. They want to cover it up, but their insanity effects us more and more, and so is becoming impossible to hide. Sincerely, John Pepin
recent image
Staring Down The Barrel of The Extinction of...
UserduRFN4u5o4
 February 04 2024 at 12:01 am
more_horiz
No tips, please! Phase Two. Document Seven. March, 2024 ‘For them, the universe is expanding out into an all-encompassing social media platform.’ ‘ . . . the struggle hinges on persuasion, deception, or subtle psychological manipulation.’ Dark Aeon, Joe Allen Postmodernism and Utopianism and Authoritarianism and Technology are, in combination, easily powerful enough to extinguish democracy; and that’s what happening. Let’s take a broader perspective. The Roman Empire wasn’t that large, but it was vastly larger than the city states of 3,000-4,000 B.C. The Mongols and Chinese empires were comparably large – and in 31 words, we’ve traversed five millennia. The British and Spanish colonial empires – now we’re almost in the Twentieth Century – were larger again, genuinely massive, and geographically fragmented. Technology enabled this. Technology has been the enabler from the beginning: the horse-drawn chariot, the siege engine, roads, the Mongol bow, the musket, ocean-going ships of war. One thing, however, had not been invented over the millennia: utopianism. Let’s draw a line across history in the second half of the 1800’s. Until that time, it had never been supposed that planet earth could be ‘homogenized.’ (It can’t actually be, but that has not much lessened the seductive nature of the idea.) By the 1970’s, the ‘socialist empire’ – if you include Russia and China and social-democratic nations like Australia and Canada and Sweden – was the biggest empire ever. Resources and technology (and ‘discounting the future’ with debt, etc.) provided for this. Capitalism and communism and ex-colonial nations and some other elements were engaged, for the first time in history, in a genuinely global tussle. But the advent of postmodernism and computers/the Net changed the equation again. Postmodernism empowers a moronic form of utopianism, and computers/the Net is empowering a global imposition of that form of utopianism. The thesis above is shockingly simplistic, but it puts the pieces of the puzzle together in a basically-correct manner. Utopianism is contrary to human nature. Intelligent and ruthless individuals just keep refashioning utopian empires to their own ends. China is a case in point. This brings us to February, 2024. The intelligent and ruthless element is doing yet again what it always does, but this time they have a super power, technology, which is ideally suited to a first-time-ever global authoritarian political model.
recent image
MAGA vs Trump Derangement Syndrome
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 February 14 2024 at 01:40 am
more_horiz
post image
The only thing people love more than categorizing themselves is putting others into categories. This tendency isn't merely a social habit; it's deeply ingrained in our psychology, stemming from a hardwired mechanism known as the ingroup-outgroup bias. This bias has roots in our survival instincts, helping our ancestors quickly distinguish friend from foe. However, in the modern context, this instinct often leads to oversimplification and stifles nuanced thinking. While categorization can sometimes offer accurate descriptions, it more frequently serves as a mental shortcut that undermines critical thinking, productive dialogue, and the exchange of ideas, ultimately dividing us more than uniting us. Consider the example of Donald Trump, a figure who polarizes like few others. On one side, there are individuals whose devotion might resemble a cult. On the opposite end, there are those who exhibit what has been termed "Trump Derangement Syndrome," a level of opposition that can be just as extreme. I've seen people from both extremes, and as is often the case, the most reasoned perspective likely lies somewhere in the middle. The appeal of categorization is understandable; it simplifies the complex web of human thought and behavior. But here's the crucial point: critical thinking was never meant to be easy. It challenges us to move beyond the lowest hanging fruit, to question our assumptions, and to extend the benefit of the doubt rather than relying on labels that allow us to make quick judgments. This intellectual shortcut shares its roots with mechanisms that drive deeper societal divides, such as racism—a divisive, 'divide and conquer' strategy. Despite these tendencies, we must remember that most of us share more common ground than divisive narratives suggest. It's too easy to view those with differing opinions as enemies rather than as fellow humans with whom we simply disagree. Choosing understanding and critical engagement over categorization and division reflects our strength and intelligence. How can we work to overcome our ingrained biases and look beyond labels to see the complex individuals behind them? What steps can we take to foster empathy and understanding, bridging the divides that these biases reinforce? Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBMRumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6VYouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn
recent image
Food for democratic (and not 'of democrats')...
Este
 February 19 2024 at 03:17 pm
more_horiz
Somewhere on Quora: "The bloody Chinese Cultural Revolution shows that one should always be wary of peasant coming into power shouting slogans. They are not champions of democracy as you think, they think they ARE the democracy. Whatever they say right is right." I remember reading something in a piece of literature (fiction) that sounded remarkably similar - "What do the beavers know?" - referring to how the apex predators actually moderate their entire food chains due to their self interest in having a consistently abundant supply of prey.So, what about it? What can I say? While the left jumps on the "carnivore bad" band wagon that just illustrates a refusal of rigor of thought; while the right just keeps saying "agree! agree! AGREE!"; I'm unsure where to find myself in that spectrum. May be, just may be, one day I will. Or, may be, I'll die trying. Alternatively still, I might just forget about this shortly after writing this. Only to be vaguely reminded of this a later day, whereupon, I either fail (refuse?) to think too much about it, or, really expand on it. We'll see, I guess. Yeah. We will see. PS> There is no reason to read this PS. Or, even a real reason that it has to even exist, in the first place. Other than, that is, to please our beloved TS overlord (That is, the application rule they choose to deploy, that I must enter two hundred and fifty counts of these linguistic components called Words, into these lines, to finally let them deem me eligible to post). Or rather, deem my thought eligible to be posted. Now, since these are just my thoughts that I’m posting here and may, more likely than not, NOT be two hundred and fifty words long, this PS piece might see repetition across my posts, potentially with some changes. Who know – I guess, once again – we’ll see.
recent image
State of Oklahoma Developing AI Digital...
RJGonTS
 February 01 2024 at 09:44 pm
more_horiz
In the name of taxpayer dollar efficiency, the State of Oklahoma is wanting to create digital full time employees ( AI based FTEs), and asking their workforce to embrace this by adopting digital FTE team members. https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/oklahoma-governor-says-ai-can-eliminate-government-redundancy?_hsmi=292120740 I have some concerns. I believe the aim of efficiency with taxpayer dollars for government services is a worthy aim; One concern I have is that a government entity is giving tacit approval through its public promotion of an approach that aims to " Establish an AI digital workforce task force to encourage the existing workforce to incorporate more digital employees", and its example for other enterprises to do the same. (FPOV recommendation). https://app.box.com/s/xt2wwek5mi1b11zeb7vsnrrzpdivdhv8 It would seem in this announcement and recommendations the seeds of employment displacement are being planted, (see linked BLS/Gallup/MIT/BostonU study page 5 highlighted text). https://app.box.com/s/509wdxcbfeift1u43vxo8sueba9d6cbp I believe when people are no longer economically relevant it won't be long before they are socially marginalized and then become existentially under threat. I believe it is clear that the State of Oklahoma, in its zeal to lead from the emerging future, is miscalculating its own impact to statewide corporate employment. IMHO, This trajectory's will lead to Oklahoma's primary export becoming policy and technology driven unrecoverable joblessness. (Career Lifecycle Education and UBI not withstanding) I believe their approach will inflict needless suffering, and if the corporate C-suite simply follows the State of Oklahoma's lead, along with industry AI vendors, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, OpenAI, they will be steamrolled into thoughtless AI adoption which will use corporate payroll transfer to their monetize their stacks. (BLS/Gallup - reinstatement effect of technological adoption). In collaborative and cooperative production our world has been characterized by relationships that are alliances or rivalries. Where does AI, robotics and automation align to relationships in this regard? A more pressing question is where does our own government's intentions fall in that characterization? I ask for members of this community to start conversations in their circles and with their leadership on the need for a better paradigm of generative value architecture between humans and AI; this development with the State of Oklahoma is the perfect opportunity to raise the need to do so. I believe there should be a paradigm and principled approach that is more considered that helps enterprises preserve customers, margin (profit) and jobs. Let this be a race to the top for excellence, and delivering human-centric differentiated value, rather than a race to the bottom through initiatives that only aim to use AI used for job replacement and the type of cost cutting approaches that lead to commodification of intelligence. I presented a new paradigm approach at a recent AI Innovation Ecosystem - Economic Development Conference. https://app.box.com/s/2mw4pzwe6l3vvy0hu1lupr1dqvlyssgm I am looking for opportunities to influence leaders and impact outcomes. Contact me with questions or opportunities. - RGJonTS
recent image
4 years ago i wrote this
Cameron1inm
 February 09 2024 at 07:25 pm
more_horiz
Look at that morning sun Shining like it hasn't since the past Hurray for the carbon tax Fixed that thing we did at last Oops oh no we threw a rod That was just the quiet before the blast Here comes a new engine Thrule Filled with authoritarian rule It runs on nothing sept broken backs Soot caked against the black glass What was once built off the backs of giants Crumbled from all the silence Quietness wasn't our choice Censor ship the whip of choice Look at the morning sun Oops I'm sorry the grave I'm in Was caused by someone else's sin Cameron M Vessey . . . . . Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras consectetur mattis nisi, vitae volutpat libero luctus in. Integer et diam condimentum, suscipit sem nec, facilisis orci. Aliquam mauris nulla, scelerisque eget placerat non, dignissim quis ipsum. In enim nulla, placerat sed velit vel, porta semper est. Mauris lorem nisi, rhoncus vitae mauris eget, scelerisque auctor enim. Quisque malesuada erat eros. Aenean ut aliquam dolor, nec lobortis magna. Sed id justo urna. Phasellus suscipit, eros id aliquam viverra, dui sapien viverra urna, id ultrices leo erat vel eros. Duis feugiat risus ac scelerisque volutpat. Proin faucibus risus nec neque lacinia, id egestas neque pellentesque.Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Ut viverra dolor eget ex cursus viverra. Proin sollicitudin porta consequat. Fusce molestie eget magna ac cursus. Donec ultricies facilisis tempor. Praesent tristique consectetur eros, mattis posuere arcu aliquam sodales. Sed ut euismod urna, nec tempus tellus. Nulla quis enim dapibus libero venenatis placerat.Nulla mi sapien, mattis in ante ac, aliquet tincidunt ante. Aliquam a velit ligula. Nulla commodo urna et justo tincidunt cursus. Praesent vitae vehicula ligula, in tempor lectus. Nulla id eros felis. Phasellus sodales, lacus at congue scelerisque, urna turpis volutpat nisl, ut sagittis eros mi vel justo. Curabitur in tincidunt tortor. Suspendisse id aliquet neque. Nulla facilisi. Integer accumsan, velit ac viverra fermentum, orci sem sollicitudin purus, pretium consequat augue nunc maximus libero. Praesent pellentesque risus sed egestas hendrerit. Nullam porta porta felis. Vestibulum eget ante urna. Fusce varius laoreet quam, sed porta nibh efficitur aliquet. Sed iaculis, elit at egestas iaculis, orci mauris pellentesque orci, vel fermentum erat lacus pellentesque enim.Vivamus et facilisis lectus. Quisque eu hendrerit quam. Nunc laoreet dapibus turpis, id dignissim nulla ultricies a. Sed massa leo, tincidunt eu massa nec, auctor aliquet sem. Mauris vitae dapibus justo. Proin egestas placerat felis quis rutrum. Praesent justo dui, commodo ac nulla et, tincidunt convallis erat. Vestibulum luctus tempor est id posuere. Nam a sollicitudin risus. Suspendisse at justo vitae sem lobortis egestas. Curabitur ac mi quam. Donec malesuada, felis ut pellentesque ultrices, diam metus efficitur lectus, ut commodo velit nulla sit amet dui. Maecenas gravida, erat in commodo dictum, sem enim rhoncus sem, vel semper diam elit ut risus.In tristique lobortis nisl eget posuere. Donec et faucibus risus. Nunc odio sem, venenatis malesuada mollis ut, interdum non nibh. Fusce interdum justo risus. Mauris ornare, ante in elementum porta, tellus arcu sollicitudin massa, id varius velit metus vitae massa. Nunc suscipit nulla luctus eleifend hendrerit. Aliquam consequat erat non sapien gravida, quis tempor nibh ornare. Curabitur tristique neque quis sapien varius, sit amet volutpat sapien eleifend. In vitae pulvinar augue. Aliquam viverra condimentum bibendum. Pellentesque nec mi nulla. Sed lobortis, felis vitae viverra tempus, mi purus tincidunt ligula, id tempor sem ligula sed lectus. Pellentesque nisi metus, cursus semper blandit ut, aliquam sed libero. In blandit diam id imperdiet porttitor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
recent image
Red Team or Blue Team?
Healthy & Awake Podcast
 February 27 2024 at 04:45 am
more_horiz
post image
The divisive nature of modern politics often resembles the fierce loyalty found in sports fandom, where the world is split between 'us' and 'them'—our team versus theirs. This binary thinking, while a shortcut for efficient decision-making, has a significant downside: it fosters unnecessary animosity among everyday people. Instead of recognizing our shared humanity and common goals, we find ourselves in opposing camps, viewing those with different opinions as the enemy. This division does more than just polarize; it stifles critical thinking and meaningful dialogue. It's a distraction from the reality that, beneath the surface, many of us share common values and good intentions. The media might have us believe we're worlds apart, but in truth, we likely agree on more than we're led to think. The problem arises when politics is treated less like a matter of governance and more like a competitive sport, leading to a breakdown in trust and cooperation. Such a mindset makes it challenging for us to work together on the issues that matter most. At the end of the day, we all want the same basic things: a better world for ourselves and the generations that follow. It's time to step beyond seeing those with different political views as 'idiots' or adversaries. The road to better communication and understanding won't be easy—it's fraught with challenges and discomfort. Yet, the effort to bridge our divides is imperative for the health of our communities and our collective future. What actions can we take to foster a more united community, focused on dialogue and mutual respect? How can we remind ourselves and others of the shared goals that bind us, even amidst our diverse opinions? How have you already made efforts to bridge the gap in conversations of people who differ with you politically? Healthy & Awake Podcast: Apple: https://bit.ly/44pEBV6 Spotify: https://bit.ly/47KVbBM Rumble: https://bit.ly/3HPzG6V YouTube: https://bit.ly/3SKeZjn
recent image
Senate Immigration, etc., bill
rayd
 February 06 2024 at 05:46 pm
more_horiz
The Senate bill to fix the border (and provide funds to Israel and Ukraine) is a fraud perpetrated on America’s citizens. Besides combining unrelated funding packages into one bill, it is an attempt to pass a federal statute legalizing illegal entry into our country! If passed, it would require the Executive branch, i.e., the President, to enforce allowing up to 5,000 migrants to come illegally into our country per day. That members of the Senate could construct such a bill shows how corrupt our federal government has become. Rahm Emanuel is credited with the idea of never letting a crisis go to waste. He was referring to Black Swan crises. Now, the Democrats are simply creating crises so that they can use them to damage Republicans or the country or both. History has shown that they will do anything to enhance their power to use government for their benefit. When the Civil Rights movement began in the ‘50’s and ‘60’s, Democrats were fiercely against Blacks having equal rights. They were the party of the KKK, Jim Crow laws and segregation. President Eisenhower, a Republican, tried to pass a voting rights bill but was thwarted by House Speaker Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat. After President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, VP LBJ became President. Convinced that the Civil Rights movement was not going to be stopped, he convinced many of his fellow Democrats that they would have the gratitude (and votes) of generations of Black Americans if they would support for a voting rights bill. Sure enough, Democrats received credit for passing the Voting Rights Act of 1964, (even though a higher percentage of Republicans voted in favor than Democrats) and the Black vote was solidly for Democrats for decades. Now that many Black Americans are seeing the duplicity of the Democrat party and beginning to vote Republican, Democrats need to cultivate a new, reliable voting bloc. So, Biden and his party reversed the Trump policies, opened the border, and incentivized millions of immigrants from around the world to come illegally to America. They were provided free cell phones, bank cards, food, transportation, etc., paid for by American taxpayers. They know that once they arrive, it is likely that they will be able to stay, and the Democrats will make sure they will be given voting rights. As illegal aliens settle throughout the country, their increased numbers will boost the number of Democrat Representatives in the House of Representatives and enable Democrats to win more political races in cities, counties, states and at the federal level. Presto, Democrats once again have created a crisis and used it to further empower their party and denigrate Republicans and have done so at the expense of the taxpaying citizens of our nation. Democrats love power and treat American citizens as suckers. Save America. Close the border. Deport illegal aliens.
recent image
Disability rights groups concerned euthanasia...
angelobottone
 February 11 2024 at 10:43 pm
more_horiz
post image
The Oireachtas Committee on Assisted Dying continues to hold hearings. On Tuesday it heard from representatives of disability groups. Peter Kearns (pictured), the representative from the Independent Living Movement observed that debates about euthanasia and assisted suicide can easily “trigger commentary with eugenic overtones”. He said that lack of necessary resources and of societal acceptance will make disabled people feel like a burden. Mr Kearns acknowledged that there is a variety of opinions on end of life issues among the members of his group and disabled people should not be used as “pawns” in this debate. Nonetheless, he stressed the negative impact that the introduction of assisted suicide or euthanasia would have on people with disabilities. “In other jurisdictions where assisted suicide has been legislated for, disabled people frequently speak about feeling hopeless, ‘having nothing to live for’ or feeling they would be ‘better off dead’ and take the State’s only clear support ‘option’ to cross the Rubicon to ‘clinical assisted suicide’”, he told the Committee. Many members of Independent Living Movement Ireland believe that the offer of assisted suicide would result in disabled individuals feeling like they are a ‘burden’ on their families, the State, and Irish society, primarily due to a lack of necessary support, according to Mr Kearns. “We need to be mindful of any discourse in relation to assisted dying that can trigger commentary with eugenic overtones about who is ‘worthy’ of supports to live”, he said. The Independent Living Movement says that many disabled individuals fear a slippery slope where the concept of ‘dying with dignity’ evolves from euthanising terminally ill people to encompassing those who might end their lives due to societal pressures or the perceived inferiority associated with disabilities. This concern was confirmed by John Dolan, CEO of the Disability Federation of Ireland. “It is important that the State does not unduly have an ‘invisible’ hand, or influence, in the decision of someone to end their life because it has not supported disabled people to have a life of independence equal to everyone else”, he said. Both witnesses were careful to represent the variety of views held by the members of their organisations, but it was clear that both very much fear the “slippery slope” and that the grounds for assisted suicide and euthanasia will swiftly more from the terminally ill to those considered to have a poor quality of life such as people with severe disabilities.
recent image
i wrote this 4 years ago ... Wtf do I know
Cameron1inm
 February 20 2024 at 08:18 am
more_horiz
Look at that morning sun Shining like it hasn't since the past Hurray for the carbon tax Fixed that thing we did at last Oops oh no we threw a rod That was just the quiet before the blast Here comes a new engine Thrule Filled with authoritarian rule It runs on nothing sept broken backs Soot caked against the black glass What was once built off the backs of giants Crumbled from all the silence Quietness wasn't our choice Censor ship the whip of choice Look at the morning sun Oops I'm sorry the grave I'm in Was caused by someone else's sin Cameron M Vessey Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras consectetur mattis nisi, vitae volutpat libero luctus in. Integer et diam condimentum, suscipit sem nec, facilisis orci. Aliquam mauris nulla, scelerisque eget placerat non, dignissim quis ipsum. In enim nulla, placerat sed velit vel, porta semper est. Mauris lorem nisi, rhoncus vitae mauris eget, scelerisque auctor enim. Quisque malesuada erat eros. Aenean ut aliquam dolor, nec lobortis magna. Sed id justo urna. Phasellus suscipit, eros id aliquam viverra, dui sapien viverra urna, id ultrices leo erat vel eros. Duis feugiat risus ac scelerisque volutpat. Proin faucibus risus nec neque lacinia, id egestas neque pellentesque. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Ut viverra dolor eget ex cursus viverra. Proin sollicitudin porta consequat. Fusce molestie eget magna ac cursus. Donec ultricies facilisis tempor. Praesent tristique consectetur eros, mattis posuere arcu aliquam sodales. Sed ut euismod urna, nec tempus tellus. Nulla quis enim dapibus libero venenatis placerat. Nulla mi sapien, mattis in ante ac, aliquet tincidunt ante. Aliquam a velit ligula. Nulla commodo urna et justo tincidunt cursus. Praesent vitae vehicula ligula, in tempor lectus. Nulla id eros felis. Phasellus sodales, lacus at congue scelerisque, urna turpis volutpat nisl, ut sagittis eros mi vel justo. Curabitur in tincidunt tortor. Suspendisse id aliquet neque. Nulla facilisi. Integer accumsan, velit ac viverra fermentum, orci sem sollicitudin purus, pretium consequat augue nunc maximus libero. Praesent pellentesque risus sed egestas hendrerit. Nullam porta porta felis. Vestibulum eget ante urna. Fusce varius laoreet quam, sed porta nibh efficitur aliquet. Sed iaculis, elit at egestas iaculis, orci mauris pellentesque orci, vel fermentum erat lacus pellentesque enim. Vivamus et facilisis lectus. Quisque eu hendrerit quam. Nunc laoreet dapibus turpis, id dignissim nulla ultricies a. Sed massa leo, tincidunt eu massa nec, auctor aliquet sem. Mauris vitae dapibus justo. Proin egestas placerat felis quis rutrum. Praesent justo dui, commodo ac nulla et, tincidunt convallis erat. Vestibulum luctus tempor est id posuere. Nam a sollicitudin risus. Suspendisse at justo vitae sem lobortis egestas. Curabitur ac mi quam. Donec malesuada, felis ut pellentesque ultrices, diam metus efficitur lectus, ut commodo velit nulla sit amet dui. Maecenas gravida, erat in commodo dictum, sem enim rhoncus sem, vel semper diam elit ut risus. In tristique lobortis nisl eget posuere. Donec et faucibus risus. Nunc odio sem, venenatis malesuada mollis ut, interdum non nibh. Fusce interdum justo risus. Mauris ornare, ante in elementum porta, tellus arcu sollicitudin massa, id varius velit metus vitae massa. Nunc suscipit nulla luctus eleifend hendrerit. Aliquam consequat erat non sapien gravida, quis tempor nibh ornare. Curabitur tristique neque quis sapien varius, sit amet volutpat sapien eleifend. In vitae pulvinar augue. Aliquam viverra condimentum bibendum. Pellentesque nec mi nulla. Sed lobortis, felis vitae viverra tempus, mi purus tincidunt ligula, id tempor sem ligula sed lectus. Pellentesque nisi metus, cursus semper blandit ut, aliquam sed libero. In blandit diam id imperdiet porttitor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.