COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[anticausal]

This is rather obvious: Yes, the Media Bury the Race of Murderers—If They're Not White - Washington Free Beacon

I wish they would have done the tally on headlines, as well as depth into an article. My guess is that a headline mention of race for negative news is very close to or at 100% white.

[francesco.decaro]

Indeed, although it has to be noted that this persistence requires increasing amounts of violence, of the political and (increasingly) physical kind. I would say this is not unexpected, it might even be necessary. If the consequences of a body of rules are damaging for an increasing portion of the population, you need to exert violence on that portion of the population to stop it from revolting.


I would also like to segue on my previous post with the following:

" The idea that the liberal organisation of life (liberal in the classical economics, free trade and laissez-faire sense) is respectful of others and humanitarian in its inspiration is one of the most extraordinary lies and one of the biggest self-interpretation illusions a culture has ever produced.

During its historical evolution, real (as opposed to theoretical) liberalism had no qualms trading slaves; it opposed in any way it could the establishment of any sort of government not based on wealth; in the XX century (and later) it guided imperialist armies in the ruthless exploitation of every corner of the world; it used its newspapers to foment chauvinism and war in 1914; after the brief interlude of the World Wars, it restarted its ideological battle (dressed as 'defence of the free world') to enact a raft of proxy wars, while at the same time posing as pacifist; and, finally, starting in the 70s, in its neo-liberal form, it has restarted its work to extinguish democracy and to systematically exploit anyone in a position of vulnerability."

(translated from Andrea Zhok)

Imho, the idea that replacing fiat money with the product of a complex and obscure algorithm would solve any of these issues seems to me naive at best, if not spectacularly misinformed.


IPB

If you are referring to Bitcoin, what makes it obscure to you? The fact that it has a public ledger and consensus rules that everyone can participate in?
How is free trade anything BUT the only human, natural and respectful solution? What are the respectful and humanitarian alternatives? The illusion that a central power will be made of only good people that will never abuse that power who are elected democratically by everyone and stand in front of the law, that they made up, just as equal as anybody else?
We can agree on the fact that money is the cause of 99% of the shenanigans that have happened and are happening right now, right? Can we also agree on the fact that fiat money, is making it a lot more easier for people to get in power, hold that power, silence dissent, spread misinformation, finance wars, ecc? And that this is an inherent feature of this type of money, because it is owned by the 1%? We do not own our money. If you don't think so, take another good look at your dollar bill.

Bitcoin is simply the best alternative someone could come up with, to try to radically change this faulty system, without asking anyone permission, but making itself resistant to censorship from the only entity who would be threatened by this new technology, which is something never seen before.
Whether this will bring subsequent radical changes, although very likely, is not yet precisely predictable.
What we do know is that from its inception it's been the best alternative we have, and every year that goes by this statement becomes more and more realistic.

[Rashad]

A better analogy: a harvest lost to fire and a harvest lost to laziness and neglect are essentially the same: you get no harvest.

The mass migration of Europeans to the US in the 19th and 20th centuries had dramatic, nation altering consequences. There almost surely would have never been a 1965 immigration act without the social chaos it caused. The original American nation was subjugated in the process (and are only now waking up to the fact), just like in war. Americans didn't just vote away all their values. People with different values moved here and did. If only founding stock Americans voted, the entire map of the US would not only be "red", it would be so fundamentally different that 99% of Republicans would have to flee for their lives.

Full disclaimer: I would not be here without the 1965 immigration act, but I call them like I see them.

Seems like inaccurate history and untestable assumptions. The colonies were heterogeneous enterprises by different people with different goals. There were religious separatists, businessmen, oddball rehabilitation schemes, quakers, etc; people who did not get along or respect one another. Convincing them to “unite or die” to win a revolution and found a government was an intellectual project of ideas applying classical and enlightenment concepts of checks and balances and rights to create a framework for compromise between competing interests.

I’m not sure what you mean by “founding stock.” The way you phrase it appears to involve inheritance and genetics somehow driving ideas and culture?

If so it certainly has been tried before…the drawback being that the great grandson of a strong, wise, just man who eats ho hos all day, lives in his mom’s basement, is not seeking gainful employment and blames others for his problems is not a strong, wise, or just man, irrespective of his “stock.”

I think I prefer our (American) system where we aren’t ruled by the incompetent eldest son of the last king and don’t have to bow before the imbecile sixth earl of Kansas when he passes with his cousin wife.

Full disclosure: even you don’t trust me on this you should just agree to it…I’m a founding stock citizen with a direct Plymouth colony ancestor, so should your ideas somehow gain acceptance you’d have to defer to me in the resulting dystopia anyway.

[Barry Charles]

FB0A76B2-E936-4E19-BCF1-803AE8C16EF5.jpg

Anything obviously wrong?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Yeah. It's far too easy.

[wal]

wal my man, you are one hundred percent insane.

Maybe so. In Australia we have sheep dogs that round up sheep. When the sheep are in a paddock and you put a barking sheep dog in with them the sheep all run to the corner of the fence, huddling together and perhaps a ram might challenge the dog. In Europe as I said before many have been trying to unite Europe into one entity. Sometimes the only thing that works is a barking dog. Don't you think there are folk within the Russian Federation who want this European Unity to take place and what better place to find a barking dog, especially with a bite.

Can't you see all the Europeans huddling together into the corner and the stragglers are wanting to join the huddle?

[anticausal]

I don't know much about how this business legal wizardry works, but could this be why Elon Musk decided not to join the board?

It’s worth pointing out that since Elon did not join the board, he does not have that fiduciary duty, but the board has a fiduciary duty to him. He is one of the people that could sue them.

[Ray Gillenwater]

So, what do we think about Elon?

Brilliant engineers are rare. Especially those with the wisdom and foresight to solve important problems. The level of understanding he has about every aspect of each of his companies is truly incredible.

Brilliant entrepreneurs are rare. Especially those whose capability matches their confidence. His big picture thinking, PR skill, ability to recruit/lead top talent, and fundraising skills (including gov money), is truly incredible.

His work ethic is impressive as hell. He has a positive vision for the future and an unwillingness to quit, no matter the odds. His actions even seem to match his words.

He had a once in a lifetime exit at PayPal and then almost went bankrupt betting on ideas that were very low probability and incredibly difficult. Now he's the richest man on earth.

I'm a fan, to say the least. His move with twitter is brilliant. He either buys the company in a way that allows the board to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility, or he shines a light on the government's entanglement with social media if the purchase somehow doesn't go through. Twitter would clearly be making ideological decisions instead of financial ones, making them subject to shareholder lawsuits. Either outcome is good.

I don't know him and I don't know anyone that does, so of course it would be foolish to trust him but his actions seem to be earnest.

The guy is a breath of fresh air for those of us that believe in free markets, limited government, and freedom of speech. I'm rooting for him and I'll sign up for twitter if he buys it.

[Yngvi]

NAC also has many studies discussing potential anti cancer properties. Probably why the powers that be want to make it prescription only.
Recently I fell down the vitamin C rabbit hole ranging from Linus Paulings work to a more recent covid 19 hero Dr Paul Marik and his work on sepsis. Dr. Paul Marik: Potential Cure for Sepsis - Hope For HS
Vitamin C is another SAFE tool for the toolkit that is beneficial for many ailments that would probably undermine many of pharmas more lucrative patents.

I am skeptical about the use of Ivermectin as a stand-alone treatment for most cancers.
Most cancers are gerontological diseases, so we would expect low cancer rates in nations where the average age is low and people die from other things long before they have the opportunity to die from cancer.

He needs to stop taking tax money and pay back every cent Tesla has received from the government.

The only thing this would do is put him at a major disadvantage compared to his competitors, lessening his influence and further entrenching the corrupt system.


__________________________________________

Martin Armstrong is a very intelligent man with an interesting perspective:
The West Needs WWIII - Martin Armstrong

[Michael Grantham]

Yeah. It's far too easy.

Care to explain? What's the concern?