COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[Ryan DCNT]

I find the idea of history cycling from barbarism, to reason, to decadence, and then back to barbarism to be pretty much on the mark. We are definitely in an era of decadence.

I read a theory once about why this cycle happens, and it was basically that during barbarism, the underclasses are disproportionately impacted, or "culled", leaving only those capable of more civilized behavior left to run things. Essentially the low-IQ, lack-of-foresight type people are all killed off during periods of barbarism, which give way to periods of reason, which allow those populations to return, which leads to decadence, and then that becomes unsustainable and we revert to barbarism.

It's an interesting theory.

Implicit here is that someone - probably "them" - is maliciously doing the spoon-feeding. Once again, I will cite Hanlon's razor. The consumption and acceptance of corporate-generated mass media is an individual's economic choice, though most are too stupid to recognize this. This has nothing to do with who is in power, except that the media will pick the side that generates the best story for the most "sales".

Just using a completely absurd hypothetical here, but let's say the mass media in Japan was disproportionately operated by people of North Korean descent, and over the last hundred years the media they've put out seems aimed at criticizing, fracturing, or ridiculing Japanese culture, and actively promoting North Korean culture instead.

Would you say thus was done purely out of economic demand by the Japanese audience, with no malice intended by those in charge?

[anticausal]

I am 100% sure that somewhere, at some point, some climate change activist has used this exact analogy.

The climate narrative, like almost everything on the left, is a perversion/inversion of reality. They've done a great job of redirecting the angst people feel about the collapse of Western civilization towards something they can use to their advantage. That's why it works so well. But it doesn't make the angst any less real or justified. When they aren't parasitizing wealth, they parasatize emotions. It's all parasitic.

[Gilead]

https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/statu...yT67WaLGw&s=19

Once again, Fauci lied. COVID-19 does not cause myocarditis or pericarditis.

The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients—A Large Population-Based Study
JCM | Free Full-Text | The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients—A Large Population-Based Study

SAFE AND EFFECTIVE: Dr. Fauci Now Admits COVID Vaccines Cause Myocarditis (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

[Stump]

A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense...

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals...

When seconds count, the police are moments away.


Rand's "objectivism" sounds good on paper but it's pie in the sky.

[David Roberts]

This is a false choice. It's not either no government or collectivism. I am not ashamed to say I am not an anarchist and believe in the value of limited government. That our government has egregiously strayed from its purpose is no reason to abandon government. Ayn Rand expresses my position much more eloquently than I:

The only purpose of government is to protect man's rights, which means to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

Excerpt from Galt's Speech in For the New Intellectual (1961)

Without a properly limited government, the weak are at the mercy of the strong, the old at the mercy of the young, the individual at the mercy of the mob.

Excellent retort to some interesting thoughts. A Lawless Free for All seems like a real bad idea. Even Rip has rules (might be laws) in his gym and I think he is a libertarian.

[Robert Santana]

Possibly the worst nutrition study ever published:


But it’s good enough for The Guardian.

" No reductions were statistically significant. We also examined the prevalence of 22 specific health disorders, using reported veterinary assessments. Forty two percent of cats fed meat, and 37% of those fed vegan diets suffered from at least one disorder. Of these 22 disorders, 15 were most common in cats fed meat, and seven in cats fed vegan diets. Only one difference was statistically significant. Considering these results overall, cats fed vegan diets tended to be healthier than cats fed meat-based diets. This trend was clear and consistent. These results largely concur with previous, similar studies."

Notice how they left the one difference that was statistically significant: The age of the cats (vegans were younger). They conveniently left that out of the abstract and buried it somewhere else in the pile of shit. So these people claim there is no difference between the cats on any variables of interest yet the diet that produced statistically identical results is superior. Well if that's the case I have some pre flushed toilet water for them to drink. It is no different than bottled water, I assure you.

Excellent retort to some interesting thoughts. A Lawless Free for All seems like a real bad idea. Even Rip has rules (might be laws) in his gym and I think he is a libertarian.

The problem really arises when the government becomes so many degrees removed from the governed, which inevitably happens as total population and population density increases. Not sure if you watched 1923 but the episode titled "The Rule of 500" sums up the issue (the title of the episode refers to Harrison Ford's character's speech).

[UberBabs]

When seconds count, the police are moments away.


Rand's "objectivism" sounds good on paper but it's pie in the sky.

Having a police force and having the right to defend oneself are not mutually exclusive. I can appreciate having the police available to intervene and investigate crime without giving up the right to protect myself. Rand is no purveyor of "pie in the sky." She likely knew more about tyranny than most people on this board, having lived in it and escaped from it.

[Eric Schexnayder]

Just using a completely absurd hypothetical here, but let's say the mass media in Japan was disproportionately operated by people of North Korean descent, and over the last hundred years the media they've put out seems aimed at criticizing, fracturing, or ridiculing Japanese culture, and actively promoting North Korean culture instead.

Would you say thus was done purely out of economic demand by the Japanese audience, with no malice intended by those in charge?

If this is a completely absurd hypothetical, it's not really applicable to my point, now is it? Maybe a real example is in order, preferably one with evidence provided.

While you look for that, I'll remind you that I was replying to Jenni's assertion that people should think for themselves instead of believing everything they read, which I agree with. But I think - perhaps incorrectly - that she is implying that people are not "free" because "they" are controlling the media and deciding what is true. To which I argue:

Implicit here is that someone - probably "them" - is maliciously doing the spoon-feeding. Once again, I will cite Hanlon's razor. The consumption and acceptance of corporate-generated mass media is an individual's economic choice, though most are too stupid to recognize this. This has nothing to do with who is in power, except that the media will pick the side that generates the best story for the most "sales". This is not a problem of freedom, but a problem of stupidity. You'll get that no matter the society.

What was the Japanese response to the North Korean media in your absurd hypothetical?

[Jenni]

Government isn't fighting a war at all here at home. Their strategy is to do everything they can to keep one from happening. If it ever came to an actual civil war, they would not win. Their game is to monitor everywhere for sparks and snuff them out ASAP. So far, it seems to be working for them. Imagine how Iraq or Afghanistan would have went if the entire US infrastructure and economy were also concentrated in those countries, along with the US government having to live there. What allowed those conflicts to stretch on into endless stalemates was the fact that the US' means of waging war and the people who decide we are waging those wars were always totally out of reach for the enemy. All ISIS or the Taliban got the opportunity to attack consistently was our outstretched war appendages, not the main body or the head of the American organism.

I agree. The only way we can fight at the moment is rather intangible. I don't see how that doesn't change though if the current course remains steady. I do think that this government will eventually step on people to the point that they can't take it anymore even if right now they are comfortable and trying to avoid the fight.

I find the idea of history cycling from barbarism, to reason, to decadence, and then back to barbarism to be pretty much on the mark. We are definitely in an era of decadence. Barbarism is probably coming next, which will not look at all like "normalcy". What we'd all really love is a return to reason. Reason seems to be the best time to be alive. Barbarism is a little satisfying because decadence sucks for so many reasons, but it will bring entirely new hardships with it that few are prepared to deal with. The wonderful things that reason gave us that have begun to crumble under decadence will fall apart completely under barbarism.

There may need to be some definition of terms here. Barbarians weren't that barbaric and reason has definitely brought some terrible stuff. Generally, I think the decadence comes when a small group of people are in a position to control resources they don't have to labor for while seeking power over people who do labor. That takes a society advanced enough to have the resources to coddle the weak. What starts as kindness and humane intention gets twisted into a sort of parasitism. Eventually the parasites have to either be dealt with or they will kill the host. I'd prefer we learn this and stop the cycling but that may take a while longer. Humanity is young. The young don't always listen.

The point is the recourse the individual has. And unlike a fire, a law or "constraint" might make an individual think twice.

That may be some people's idea. It's not mine, nor is it what I think people need to coexist. Take the smallest infractions (a teen loitering at the corner store being a nuisance) or the largest (the murder of a child.) What does the state offer these victims? Nobody's keeping the teen in jail, he'll be back at that corner the next day. No amount of trial will comfort the child's parents and the possibility of reprieve for the murderer is real. Curtailing my freedom to do a thing will not prevent an actual bad person from doing bad things. Nor does the state deal well when things do go bad. Looking to the state for everything is not the way to solve problems. The power you give them to club the other person over the head will eventually be used to club you over the head.

The incentive is social cooperation. People get more done when they cooperate. This is innate in all humans. Note that language is a thing.

What are we getting done, Eric? I'm 47 years old. I've seen people get dumber and less ambitious. When I was a child do you know how often I would see a woman in curlers at the store? Maybe once in a blue moon. Usually on a Sunday morning to grab milk or something. One was suitably embarrassed to be in such a state. You know what I see at Kroger now? Full on pajamas. Bras. Slippers. I once saw a chick in a fucking onesie. A whole grown ass woman in a onesie, Eric. The incentive is gone for a lot of us. At least for now. Which may be why our infrastructure sucks. There are incentives, just for the wrong people, for the least productive, the least intelligent.

This reminds me of those TV shows about people living "in isolation" in Alaska. They're "independent". They "don't need society". They "provide everything for themselves". And then the next scenes include them using a rifle to hunt and a chainsaw and bulldozer to clear land. Real independent, right?

You should watch less TV.

Localization is better than centralization, and the more centralized the authority, the worse the society. The nightmare hellscape where everyone is at each other's throats is much more likely in the latter. If a strong man ruling a small region doesn't keep his promises, he's going to feel a lot more heat than a strong man keeping his enforcers fed from hundreds or thousands of miles away.

Excellent point.

Without a properly limited government, the weak are at the mercy of the strong, the old at the mercy of the young, the individual at the mercy of the mob.

So where are the success stories? Arguably, the framers of the Constitution set up the closest thing to an attempt at that and look where we are. I'm not saying it's not a good ideal to hold, it just doesn't work in real life. For now. They even knew and told us it would stray from its purpose and yet we were not able to stop it. You are arguing what should be. I wouldn't be speaking the same way about a government that actually ran that way. Even if I still didn't like it, personally, I would be able to admit that it seemed to be working for most people. But that's not what is. This is an objectively bad situation caused by a problem that no state has really solved. The power snowballs and corrupts.

Even Rip has rules (might be laws) in his gym and I think he is a libertarian.

Personal property. Coach can have all the rules he wants in his place. You get to choose whether or not to subject yourself to them and he is not the state. Rules aren't the problem, power is.

[Ads]

Orwell Meets Your Stuffy Nose ⋆ Brownstone Institute

The old ingredient was out of patent and manufactured for pennies each. The new product was produced by Boehringer Ingelheim Corp, a German company that back then gave mostly to Republicans. In other words, this was likely a payoff to a political donor.

El Gato Malo

wanna bet there is a new something, something oh, say, on patent that someone wants to replace it with? something that could be incredibly profitable for someone as it instantly replaces phenylephrine across the nation?
by mandate?

We have the same rules down here in Australia - i.e. handing over your licence for the drug that works. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that our drug approval authorities seem to act in unison.