patrick.net

Shaman says

richwicks says

we can't forget that we are living under a ruling class that will readily kill us, our family, our children, our grandchildren should they deem them inconvenient,

This is the usual situation in which humanity finds itself. The powerful have always used and abused the lowly. It’s not new and it’s not unusual. Sadly, conservatives aren’t known for opposing this situation. That’s what liberals are good for. But when you get too many people going too left, you get Revolution and that’s a disaster for the ruling class. They will do ANYTHING to prevent losing their power and their wealth.

Look, it won't just be "the left" that ends up dying if, in the EXTREMELY unlikely chance that these vaccines are either designed to kill or do kill.

It will be the survivor's moral responsibility to eradicate the sociopath's from society, and end their gene lines. And people that aren't willing to do that should a catastrophe come to pass, can go straight to hell, and they ought to as well.

BoomAndBustCycle says

The ultra wealthy rich and powerful have enough money and power for generations. How does killing off half the population improve their lifestyles at all?

The issue is liability: the governments and the banksters already spent the money. The money is gone! Everyone thought Bernie Madoff was supremely rich and well-connected (former head of NASDAQ, after all) . . . yet, turned out he was running a ponzi scam (13 million dollars on hand vs. 60-80 billion account claims from clients at the end, IIRC). Now, what if Madoff's clients were not foundations and family trusts that do not die, but simply natural persons (with many more smaller accounts) that do die, and he could control the media to tell everyone to inject themselves with sewage water?

Egptian Pharoah and Chinese Emperors did not live long. Their average life span was much shorter than the average life span of their contemporaries . . . they were overthrown whenever the bureaucratic corps couldn't pretend the ponzi scams any longer, and often had their entire extended families exterminated. European equivalents were Louise XVI and Nicholas II . . . theoretically all-powerful autocrats until they were not!

The real issue is not earth running out of resources, but conflicting expectations from the population, thanks to ponzi scams run by some people. There simply isn't enough money or resources to satisfy all the expectations. The ponzi scams reeled a lot of people in, then they face a run-on-the-bank. "Wealth and power" don't mean much when the dude can't afford to pay the "soldiers," which derived its name from being paid in a solid gold coin called "solidus," which was not debased in times of rampant monetary debasement (i.e. the difference between WRE collapse vs. ERE carrying on for another thousand years). In WRE, when government couldn't afford to pay soldiers, the soldiers took over, again and again, until one soldier figured out that holding the title to the ponzi machine ("Emperor") was bad for one's health, so refused to declare himself the new emperor after killing the previous one.

Reality says

Egptian Pharoah and Chinese Emperors did not live long. Their average life span was much shorter than the average life span of their contemporaries . . . they were overthrown whenever the bureaucratic corps couldn't pretend the ponzi scams any longer, and often had their entire extended families exterminated. European equivalents were Louise XVI and Nicholas II . . . theoretically all-powerful autocrats until they were not!

Egyptian and Chinese Dynasties lasted many generations and at least a century or two. Not much different than post medieval monarchies, such as the Tudors, Stuarts, etc.

Ancient monarchs seemed to have lived into their 50s, which was about the same as most wealthier people in the pre-medical days, and generally reigned for about 20 years on average.

Most Bronze Age societies used bureaucrats in "Temples" to gather and then ration out resources based on rank. With Priests serving as the gatherers and distributors. Trade was almost entirely underwritten by governments. Peasants, the vast majority of people, also owed Corvee Labor, which is how the Pyramids got built. One team of monument builders called themselves "The Pharaoh's Drunks" and received Barley Wine ratios, along with a certain amount of linen for clothes and wheat for breadbaking.

International Trade went like this:
"My brother Pharaoh, to whom gold dust is like the chaff of wheat, greetings from your Brother Ruler in Ugarit. I gift you many fine cedars for your palaces and several ingots of Copper from Cyprus and hope you will send the precious yellow metal as soon as possible. I fall 7 times 7 at my Brothers feet and wish him and my daughter who is married to his 3rd son the best of health".

It was NOT done by independent traders, though Rulers would license individuals to build ships and deliver the goods, possibly trading a little on the side for their own profit.

In some societies, most of the crop was taken by Priest-Bureaucrats (The Clerisy! never changes, always a combo of paper-pushers and propagandists and regulators) and credit issued. Hence a periodic Jubilee was needed so the common rabble could occasionally obtain some tools or trinkets by occasionally forgiving some of their permanent debtor status

Check out Eric Cline's 1177BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed for more entertaining letters.

The House of Romanov lasted from about 1600-1917, three centuries, and increasingly centralized power during that time.

About 150 years seems to be the "Reset" Time for Human Governments, of any kind, it's pretty rare they last much longer than this without substantial alteration in the Governing Elites or the Underlying Foundations of the Society.

The idea of free people, with no slaves or serfs, freely engaging in commerce on their own account is rather revolutionary concept. The idea of central governments hoarding and distributing seems to lie at the beginning of complex agricultural states.

In other words, Communist/Socialist redistribution is the primitive norm, and Clerisy working a mixture of terror and superstition to keep the schlubs in line is par for the course.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

Ancient monarchs seemed to have lived into their 50s, which was about the same as most wealthier people in the pre-medical days, and generally reigned for about 20 years on average.

That number (50's) only took into account monarchs that died of natural causes. For every Henry VIII (died at 55yo), there was an Edward VI (Henry's successor, died at 16 of possible court intrigue) and a Jane (Edward's successor, died at 17 of public execution). The average of the 3 consecutive monarchs would be 29

Egyptian and Chinese Dynasties lasted many generations and at least a century or two.

I'm afraid that conclusion suffers from survivors' bias: the vast majority of dynasties or attempted dyansties lasted very short time. The historians simply discounted them because they were so short that they either didn't leave much behind or didn't finish building/rebuilding the universal state.

60-80 years seem to be the typical ponzi-scheme blow-up cycle. Some dynasties manage to survive two blow-up cycles, some as many as four, mostly due to sudden trade opportunities (equivalent to technological breack-throughs) alleviating the runs-on-the-bank in the middle of their "dynasties," but usually involve chaos and internal conflict with a cadet branch over-taking the throne.

Also, the description of trade and international trade was very wrong. The court scribes of course had a heavy bias in describing trade as fully government controlled. However, in reality, even prison has smuggling, despite all of today's monitoring technology! How would neighboring kings even know each other if not for private trade routes/ships/caravans? How would the laborers not die of malnourishment / vitamin-deficiency if they only ate the listed items from the administrators? The scribes wrote that way because they were colleagues of the administrators and knew which side of their bread gets buttered. Also, the scribe's emphasis on grain distribution might be an indication that grain was used as a small-denomination currency in the ancient world; receivers were expected to use the grain to trade for all the things they want to eat . . . a little like during the soviet union's collapse, some factories paid workers using vodka. The workers were not expected to live off vodka alone, but using vodka to trade for real food and clothing, shelter, etc.

Reality says

That number (50's) only took into account monarchs that died of natural causes. For every Henry VIII (died at 55yo), there was an Edward VI (Henry's successor, died at 16 of possible court intrigue) and a Jane (Edwar's successor, died at 17 of public execution). The average of the 3 would be 29

I'm talking about the span of Dynasties. About 100-150 years is pretty average. Obviously there were weaker/sickly individuals. And individuals who were disposed.

Jane (not a Tudor) was quickly replaced (9 Days) by Mary (a Tudor) who was replaced with Queen Elizabeth (a Tudor). The Tudor Line as Monarchs started with the Glorious Henry VII who through a policy of Export Controls began bringing the specialists (Textile Manufacturers) from the Rhine Area to where the supplies were in England (Fuller's Earth, Wool). Henry VII's reign began in 1485, and ended with Elizabeth, who had no issue, in 1603. About 120 years.



Reality says

Also, the description of trade and international trade was very wrong. The court scribes of course had a heavy bias in describing trade as fully government controlled. However, in reality, even prison has smuggling, despite all of today's monitoring technology! How would neighboring kings even know each other if not for private trade routes/ships/caravans? How would the laborers not die of malnourishment / vitamin-deficiency if they only ate the listed items from the administrators? The scribes wrote that way because they were colleagues of the administrators and knew which side of their bread gets buttered. Also, the scribe's emphasis on grain distribution might be an indication that grain was used as a small-denomination currency in the ancient world; receivers were expected to use the grain to trade for all the things they want to eat . . . a little like during the soviet union's collapse, some factories paid workers using vodka. The workers were not expected to live off vodka a...

This is pushing private resource ownership back in the past, and there is NO evidence for it. Resources in structured agra societies were owned by the Clerisy/Monarch. So where did the copper to smuggle come from? We have the official stamped ingots and records of the shipments; we don't have any evidence of widespread independent trade.

When powerful Clerisy/Monarchs talk about their possessions, they consistently mention "My gold knobbed staff is a gift from the Hittite King. My robes were given to me by Nebbishfufu II. My palace and staff are by the grace of the Son of Horus." etc.

Is it possible that some copper or cedar was stolen from Royal/Temple lands, smuggled on a ship and traded on the sly from Phoencia to Egypt? Yep, I'm sure it happened - here and there. Was it the norm that accounted for most trade? Likely not. Both importer and exporter authorities had a strong interest in preventing it.

Shipping bulk goods in this way presented a problem: Bulk incense for Cedar, fine. What do you do with huge bags of incense? How are you subdividing them and selling them off in the Bronze Age? Because... there was NO COINAGE.

Credit preceded Coinage: Evidence of Credit extends way back into the Bronze Age, 1200BC and earlier. Rationing goes back even earlier. The first coins only go back to about 800BC, and that was only seen in temples, likely a focus for religion rather than currency. The first metal currency is in Lydia around 600BC

My point being this: The idea of an ordinary person empowered to own things and trade/produce them largely unmolested was not at the beginning of civilization.

It's human nature to extrapolate current conditions back into the past.

The Nation State of Free Citizens is the pinnacle of Human Development. Whig History is Real, however it has it's enemies.

The Elite class, esp. in a Free Republic, feels Robbed of their Due and seeks to return Humanity to rationing and ordering by an Elite Clerisy.

richwicks says

Shaman says

So they have engineered a situation where the Leftists and the weak-willed socialists will take the death jab and the conservatives mostly won’t. Also the sickly and the obese and the old (especially useless as they’re not working) will take the jab in very high percentages!

Later, when the commies are mostly dead, the world will again be safe for the nobility. Provided they immediately make things great again for the conservatives who are left. Mollifying us won’t be cheap or easy, but it should be possible. Keep in mind that conservatives are more likely to work with an unfair system than protest it.

First of all, I hear quite often that everybody that has "taken the jab" are certain to die. This is irresponsible, people don't know so making this statement creates hysteria.

Second of all, if this does end up killing the people who have "taken the jab", we can'...

Are you aware that all the animals died in the trial? Once they were exposed back to a natural environment. It would be irresponsible to not assume the worst case scenario in a safety analysis.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

I'm talking about the span of Dynasties. About 100-150 years is pretty average.

100-150 years roughly correspond to two ponzi-scam cycles. Many dynasties lasted shorter than that. What's taught to middle school kids as "dynasties" are only a select few long-lasting or historically significant dynasties; many dynasties simply didn't make the cut for the history textbooks . . . because history was often written by scribes paid by the immediate following "dynasty" rich enough and long-lasting enough to have full-time scribes on the payroll. Those scribes were very much aware of the political legitimacy of their employer, so all the shorter and insignificant dynasties were ignored.


MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

This is pushing private resource ownership back in the past, and there is NO evidence for it.

LOL! 20th century Russia, China and Cambodia supplied plenty evidence that without private ownership, the society starves to death. BTW, the pilgrims from the May Flower found the same reality in their first winter in the new world trying collective farming. BTW, even antebellum southern plantations used plantation script . . . which showed that even early 19th century southern slave plantations were economically far superior to the 20th Communes.

Resources in structured agra societies were owned by the Clerisy/Monarch. So where did the copper to smuggle come from?

Depending on what type of resources. Gold wouldn't be valued as much it was if the Clerisy/Monarch could rule by fiat. Even in today's fiat money world, rich people value gold much less than the ancient Clerisy/Monarch did. The Clerisy/Monarch were obsessed with gold only because wealth was still judged by sound money, not fiat. What copper are you talking about? Gold was naturally occuring, and its original value likely derived from its rarity and its shininess could get sex from girls.

We have the official stamped ingots and records of the shipments; we don't have any evidence of widespread independent trade.

The best evidence of widespread independent trade was in the survival of the society and the development of the agro society at all: if you have ever tried planting a few acres of grain you'd known that growing grain is a highly unpredictable enterprise without chemical fertilizers and pesticides: drought and flooding frequency is much higher than once every 15 years (the least amount of time to raise the next generation), and pests as well as microbes that destroy repeated planting of the same crop in the same patch of soil ensure that independent grain farmers can not survive without trade! Just like Indian farmers of the 20th century: grain farmers have to convert surplus crop into gold and other highly storable items of value in order to survive the lean years (by trading those items back to food). The emergence of grain agricultural society near the major rivers was not due to water availability but due to ease of transportation on slow-flowing segment of the big rivers, so that agro areas significant distance from each other could trade and survive as local weather patters and microbes/soil condition change.

Also, as trade grew, enabling grain cropping gradually replacing much easier and more stable on a smaller scale sheep-herding / chicken/egg raising / fishing, grain cropping societies were essentially slave plantations focused on producing a storable/transportable i.e. tradeable export (grain) . . . because clay containers for storing grain were cheaper than salt for preserving meat and fish back then for inland locations.

The origin of grain cropping likely started in beer-making, as growing grain was not nearly as stable as hearding sheep or raising chicken/eggs, and could not survive without trade due to the frequent drought, flood, pests and soil deterioration after a few years of repeated cropping.

tanked says

Are you aware that all the animals died in the trial? Once they were exposed back to a natural environment. It would be irresponsible to not assume the worst case scenario in a safety analysis.

Yes, I've heard this.

Like I've said over and over, if they are stupid enough to be actually trying to kill people, it will be our absolute moral duty to entirely eradicate them from the human race.

They must know that, but if the almost impossible to conceive event they don't and they've purposely poisoned the population.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

My point being this: The idea of an ordinary person empowered to own things and trade/produce them largely unmolested was not at the beginning of civilization.

The instinct of private ownership was there from the beginning: even apes and monkeys learn to trade bananas and grapes for sex in labs very quickly without explicit instruction . . . but only being rewarded with grapes and bananas for non-sexual accomplishment then they extrapolate on their own regarding the value of grape/banana ownership and trading it for sex; gnobo do the trade on their own in the wild.

As for being able to trade/produce (division of labor is a result of trade) unmolested, that is a whole different topic. I'm sure you live in a place that impose tax on trade too, even today!

Adam Smith points out that the prosperity of Britain relative to other countries was due mostly to the common people being able to keep the fruits of their own labor, without fear of the oligarchy or government confiscating their small businesses or assets. This gave them the confidence that their hard work would be rewarded, even in spite of harmful regulations. He points out a lot of harmful regulations that they had even back then in 1780 or so.

In most poor countries, the principal cause of poverty is the disincentive to work hard, because the mafia that runs the government will simply muscle in and take whatever you create.

richwicks says

tanked says

Are you aware that all the animals died in the trial? Once they were exposed back to a natural environment. It would be irresponsible to not assume the worst case scenario in a safety analysis.

Yes, I've heard this.

Like I've said over and over, if they are stupid enough to be actually trying to kill people, it will be our absolute moral duty to entirely eradicate them from the human race.

They must know that, but if the almost impossible to conceive event they don't and they've purposely poisoned the population.

Sure, Nuremberg 2. For the ppl actually known, the puppets put in. They are probably as fooled as anyone else into doing what they have done and most of them likely took the death jab themselves.

But who is pulling their strings. We don't know, and never will. But we can do a thought experiment to what their motivation is.

The obvious motivations seem to be profit via systemic corruption of the CDC/FDA/NIH, and the power to restrict life for anyone who does not obey.

People lower down in the hierarchy may be motivated by anxiety reduction, the comforting believe that this is all about the virus and can be solved by obeying the order to submit to the jab.

https://patrick.net/post/1341418/2021-09-20-prof-mattias-desmet-explains-the-mass-psychosis

There could also be a motive to make conservatives lose jobs, out of resentment at their having elected Trump.

I'm not sure we need any more motives than those to explain everything. The conspiracy is pretty much out in the open.

Patrick says

There could also be a motive to make conservatives lose jobs, out of resentment at their having elected Trump.

I think that would just result in a lot of new businesses.

I don't know any small business owners who are democrats. People that start out as one, I can't see as lasting as one for very long. Running a small company you learn what a vile piece of shit the government is in short order.

Patrick says

The obvious motivations seem to be profit via systemic corruption of the CDC/FDA/NIH, and the power to restrict life for anyone who does not obey.

People lower down in the hierarchy may be motivated by anxiety reduction, the comforting believe that this is all about the virus and can be solved by obeying the order to submit to the jab.

https://patrick.net/post/1341418/2021-09-20-prof-mattias-desmet-explains-the-mass-psychosis

There could also be a motive to make conservatives lose jobs, out of resentment at their having elected Trump.

I'm not sure we need any more motives than those to explain everything. The conspiracy is pretty much out in the open.

I tend to like Shaman's analysis. There's a very clear split between liberals and conservatives as to who took the jab. Liberals is 90% took it, non liberals only 24%. If this was meant to punish conservatives then it backfired. Which means that perhaps it was on purpose.

If you look at what they did in 1973 they were absolutely targeting the lower IQ people knowing they are far more prone to kill their own kids, and be a sink not source on society. In other words, liberals. We're seeing it again, them tricked into self voluntary genocide.

The user Reality is also on the right track, I don't believe the financial motivation and the productivity motivation to be mutually exclusive, they go hand in hand.

tanked says

There's a very clear split between liberals and conservatives as to who took the jab. Liberals is 90% took it, non liberals only 24%. If this was meant to punish conservatives then it backfired.

I don't see how it backfired.

it is 76% conservatives who are being forced out of a job by not subjecting their bodies to the unknowns of the jab.

Patrick says

tanked says

There's a very clear split between liberals and conservatives as to who took the jab. Liberals is 90% took it, non liberals only 24%. If this was meant to punish conservatives then it backfired.

I don't see how it backfired.

it is 76% conservatives who are being forced out of a job by not subjecting their bodies to the unknowns of the jab.

That's a bluff, there's no way that will stand after it is settled in court. Any companies worth anything will wait until that point before acting. Already General Dynamics chose instead to wait for the courts to review it after 40% of their employees threatened to resign rather than take the death jab.

But what it will do is cause a few thousand more to take it ahead of it being settled, but they were already on the fence about it. The vaccine hesitant vs the vaccine hell no. And the damage will already be done. So it was low hanging fruit. Biden and his handlers don't care at all about any backlash for anything they say.

The few thousand won't scratch the surface of the 100M standing strong unvaxxed. Which is likely to be a propaganda number and the real number perhaps 200M, 250M, or more, in the US alone. Easily billions worldwide have refused to take it and never will voluntarily.

Yah I feel like Biden’s mandate is just a bluff. It probably won’t hold up in court and will absolutely be delayed past the point of relevance by the lawsuits. Even if it goes into effect for a few months, that’s just a few months we have to test every week. PITA but beats dying of the vax. And in half a year the fallout from the vax is going to be MUCH harder to hide. Especially with the boosters going into effect. People are already dying of ADE, excess cancers triggered by the vax, and pulmonary heart disease is vastly increasing beyond and resemblance of a baseline. Half a year from now, there will be more vaxxed people bemoaning their unfortunate status than vaxxed people screaming for unvaccinated blood.

tanked says

Any companies worth anything will wait until that point before acting.

I agree that any company would be stupid to fire anyone for refusal to take a drug still entirely under EUA and before OSHA even issued any guidelines.

But a guy on this site has been fired already for refusal.

Patrick says

tanked says

Any companies worth anything will wait until that point before acting.

I agree that any company would be stupid to fire anyone for refusal to take a drug still entirely under EUA and before OSHA even issued any guidelines.

But a guy on this site has been fired already for refusal.

That is terrible of course and we wish him the best in finding his next job.

Priority wise it is a no brainer, health and body first, job second. Jobs can be replaced your life cannot.

He is a casualty of war but this war has had and will have many other casualties of actual death, and far more on the left.

tanked says

He is a casualty of war but this war has had and will have many other casualties of actual death, and far more on the left.

True. Think of job loss as taking a wound in the war against the Left. You’ll miss some income, but they’ll fucking DIE. No brainer on which side you’ll want to be on in the long run.