Psalm 100:1-5
Shout with joy to the Lord, O earth!
Worship the Lord with gladness.
Come before him singing with joy.
Acknowledge that the Lord is God!
He made us, and we are his.
We are his people; the sheep of his pasture.
Enter his gates with thanksgiving;
go into his courts with praise.
Give thanks to him and bless his name.
For the Lord is good.
His unfailing love continues forever,
and his faithfulness continues to each generation.
I’m not a supporter of sentimentality, as a general rule. I consider sentimentality a weakness. It is certainly in opposition to realism, which I’ve built as the core of my personal identity – and for that matter my professional identity (the dichotomy between personal and professional identity – the places where the two overlap and the places where they should not – is an important topic for another time). Sentimentalism is a fundamentally feminine trait.
Nostalgia can probably exist without sentimentalism, in theory, though this is some kind of emotional gymnastics. In general, we should be dealing with the present, and how we can use the present to shape the future. That is certainly something that should be true in personal and professional life equally. The past is relevant only insofar as you can learn from it, and nostalgia can, in theory, be a method for reflecting on the ways that the present is different from the past, and where things went wrong.
Whether you want to admit it or not, you are either an incel or you have serious emotional problems. You do not have the option of forming a permanent relationship, no matter how successful or attractive you might be.
If you are not attractive enough to actually convince a woman to marry you, which is most of you, but you do hit the occasional “hook-up,” you are still an incel, in the same way that a homeless man who is able to break into an abandoned building and sleep for a few nights before being evicted by the police is still homeless. You just got lucky and got to sleep in a building for a few nights. When you’re kicked out by the police, you’re back on the streets.
Any non-incel decision is an absurd waste of your time and resources, and is deeply personally humiliating. If you get married and have everything taken from you through a grueling process, you’ve played yourself. If you get lucky on an app and get a hook-up, you’ve wasted how much time and emotional resources that could have been spent on making money, learning skills, studying, and doing things that are actually enjoyable, in exchange for a few minutes of sexual release.
If you are one of the few who manage to find a woman and stay married, then you are serving as a slave, without any power at all, waiting for the woman to get a feeling she is “not happy” and it’s time to cash out. This can happen in your 40s or even your 50s. Any married man is simply rolling the dice, every single day, hoping that the woman doesn’t say “we need to talk” and tell you she is “not happy.” Or, as has happened to more than one person I know personally, doesn’t even say anything to you, changes the locks on your house, and has the divorce papers sent to you.
If you are a “live-in boyfriend” – now often goofily referred to as a “fiancé,” then the situation is about the same, though it will cost you less money when she decides she is “not happy.”
Women are not logical. They can not be talked out of things. They make decisions purely based on emotions, and all of their emotions are based on the premise that they are personally the center of the universe and that everything that exists in the universe exists for the purpose of making them feel happy.
That’s just what they are, that’s what they’ve always been. It’s the first story in the Bible. A woman’s desire for excitement is what destroyed paradise.
Where we are now, all of their worst instincts have been unleashed, and they are rewarded for embracing these worst instincts. They do not need you for sustenance anymore. Technological society, and the welfare system, feed, house, and clothe them. Therefore, you are obsolete, unless you are capable of being entertaining or otherwise feeding her ego.
This is the system we live in. We didn’t volunteer for it. But this is where we are, and we cannot change it as individuals.
Just to round this off, the entire “women in the workplace” phenomenon needs to be mentioned, as it often gets the blame for a lot of this. However, women in the workplace is more of a side effect than a core cause of the problem. If women could not prevent pregnancy through all of these different means, they wouldn’t have the option of joining the workplace.
It’s likely that the social pressure for women to “have a career” is part of why they choose to have abortions. It is unlikely that if you polled most 13-year-old girls before this massive brainwashing campaign that many of them would say they dream of being a bank manager rather than a stay-at-home mother. But the birth control/abortion system enables this.
The system of welfare for single mothers and just women generally also enables this. But really, “women in the workplace” is a form of government welfare, via the affirmative action programs. The only real job that a woman can do and make money comparable to that of a man, without an affirmative action program, is prostitution. And the period in which a prostitute can work and make good money is relatively short.
At the core of the disaster is the failure of Christian Churches – which, not too long ago, had a lot of influence – to push back against this agenda.
If churches in the 1950s and 1960s would have taken a hard line against feminism, none of this would be happening. Churches should have actively pushed not only for a ban on contraception and abortion, but on divorce, and on women being allowed to go to college and enter the workplace.
Imagine that churches were at least at the time teaching that sex before marriage was wrong. Yet they were supportive of women going to college and getting jobs before marriage, which would mean that they would be expected to lose their virginity at what age? 28? 32? This is plainly nonsensical.
It’s far from difficult to make the argument from the Bible that women’s place is in the home, having children. In fact, it is virtually impossible to make any other argument. Yet the churches didn’t do this, save for perhaps the Mormons (who are now backing off of that like every other church).
Saint Paul, who is for all intents and purposes the founder of the religion of Christianity (Jesus was more of the basis of it than the founder, although I don’t want to get into semantics), said explicitly that the only way a woman can be saved is through childbirth.
Whenever this conversation comes up, someone tries to bring up some kind of loophole. “Oh, I could become Amish” is probably the most extreme (and probably most likely to be successful, I guess, if the Amish let you join them, which I think is impossible). But there’s also “meet a girl at church,” which completely misses the entire point and shows a total lack of understanding of what is happening right now (according to statistics, Christians have a higher divorce rate than non-Christians, though that’s probably due to income gap rather than religiosity).
There are also dumb arguments about how “it’s not really that bad.” Someone will bring up the alleged divorce rate. Firstly, go look at how divorce statistics are measured. They use different methods, but none of them make any sense, because people don’t get married at the same time they get divorced. Furthermore, most people who are currently not yet in the divorce statistics who are under the age of 40 will be in the divorce statistics soon enough. That also doesn’t acknowledge the fact that “common law” marriages (i.e., “live-in boyfriend” situations) are extremely common, and virtually always end in “divorce.”
There is no loophole, there is no solution, it is as bad as it looks. You can go look around you, you can go look at the con artist gurus telling you they know how to make your marriage work. In fact, I encourage it. Go look at everything, and come to your own conclusions.
Of course, it is possible that you’ll find a woman, get married, have kids and grow old together, happily. It’s not impossible, it’s just statistically improbable. This is like saying “you could play the Powerball and win $200 million.” Intelligent people do not play the Powerball.
Bottom line: there is nothing you can do to make a divorce less likely. Literally, nothing. You can be kind to her, you can “neg” her and try to control her, you can be reasonable with her, you can be a raging abuser – none of that is going to affect the outcome.
Women are the greatest possible distraction for all of us, due to the biological reality of the drive to reproduce (that’s what the sex drive is, by the way – it’s not about pleasure). The fact that a healthy relationship with a woman is officially impossible is killing our ability to live meaningful lives.
Meaningful life as a slave is resisting slavery, fighting back against the slave masters. We can only do that with God.
Here’s my advice:
- Don’t be fat
- Forgive your mother
- Stop pitying yourself (no one cares)
- Respect yourself
- Do things that give you self-esteem (work! Whatever it is, just work!)
- Learn to pray
- I don’t have a solution to how to make a relationship with a woman work, because there is no solution to that problem. Look around you. This is self-evident.
You are not special. You are not going to beat the house, you’re not going to pull some kind of trick and win the game that everyone else who plays is losing.
I enjoy reading Andrew Anglin. He provokes thought, which is the purpose of reading.
He gets enough readers that I don't like to regurgitate his words. Plus he does a good job of explaining his positions to the point that I don't feel a need to add commentary. He does a good job of deconstructing his ideas before presenting them.
While it's rather obvious his writing is directed at a particular audience (disenfranchised young men), this particular article should be read by all men.
There are always exceptions to rules. The article addresses that. Although I don't think having a successful marriage is the equivalent to hitting the Powerball, I do think that spending your life chasing women in the hopes of a few seconds of pleasure is silly. Even if you don't agree with his premise, how much more fulfilling would a man's life be if he didn't spend most of his time trying attract or impress women.
I encourage you to read the article in full. It's not my job to think for you.
Psalm 115: 1-18
Not to us, O Lord, but to you goes all the glory
for your unfailing love and faithfulness.
Why let the nations say,
"Where is their God?"
For our God is in the heavens,
and he does as he wishes.
Their idols are merely things of silver and gold,
shaped by human hands.
They cannot talk, though they have mouths,
or see, though the have eyes!
They cannon hear with their ears,
or smell with their noses,
or feel with their hands,
or walk with their feet,
or utter sounds with their throats!
And those who make them are just like them,
as are all who trust in them.
O Israel, trust the Lord!
He is your helper; he is your shield.
O Priests of Aaron, trust the Lord!
He is your helper; he is your shield.
All you who fear the Lord, trust the Lord!
He is your helper; he is your shield!
The Lord remembers us,
and he will surely bless us.
He will bless the people of Israel
and the family of Aaron, the priests.
He will bless those who fear the Lord,
both great and small.
May the Lord richly bless
both you and your children.
May you be blessed by the Lord,
who made heaven and earth.
The heavens belong to the Lord,
but he has given the earth to the children of men.
The dead cannon sing the praises of the Lord,
for they have gone into the silence of the grave.
But we can sing the praise of the Lord
both now and forever!
Public Health Scotland will stop publishing data on Covid deaths and hospitalisations by vaccination status due to concerns the data is being wilfully misrepresented by anti-vaccination campaigners.
The report published on Wednesday will be the last weekly publication to include the data which includes information on Covid-19 infection rates among the vaccinated and unvaccinated, as well as hospitalisation and death rates, broken down by the number of doses received.
Officials said that two central issues relating to the unvaccinated population and testing habits meant the data was no longer reliable or robust and open for misinterpretation without adequate context.
This is due to the fact that the population data used for the unvaccinated population is based on GP registration details, meaning it includes thousands of individuals who are registered but may no longer live in Scotland or simply failed to deregister.
As the vaccinated population grows, this flaw in the data becomes more pronounced due to the true number of unvaccinated people being much lower than the number used, making the final published data less reliable.
The PHS official added: “What is happening is people are looking at those simple data and trying to make inferences about the vaccination, whether the vaccines work, inappropriately and sometimes wilfully.
"There are so many caveats and they just pull certain figures out that should not be used.
"What we are going to do is do a lot more on the vaccine effectiveness side and try and make people understand how effective the vaccine is.
“For example we know it is 50 per cent effective against getting infected, but that it is much higher effectiveness against hospitalisations and deaths which is the key thing really as that’s what we want to prevent.”
I just can't seem to understand why anyone wouldn't trust our leaders. It's so obvious that they just care about everyone so much.
If you think these people are honest, then you just enjoy being lied to.
Don't you think that everyone who wants to get a COVID injection has gotten one by now?
How is "misinformation" even relevant at this point? It's almost like they're intentionally being deceptive to just giggly say, "They still believe us. I bet we can do this forever. LOL"
If the data doesn't shine a positive light on the vax, they just omit it from the public database. How is that not shady? Not just shady, but disrespectful. Because what they're actually saying is this: "You're not smart enough to comprehend data, so we we will decide which data we let you see." It's basically like a child-lock on a cabinet to keep you from drinking Drano. Or when your mom lies to you about putting onions in the spaghetti, thinking you're too stupid to recognize the big onion chunks in your dinner.
At this point, everyone who is still all-in on these COVID injections deserves to be lied to. It's as simple as that. These people have been lying from the very beginning. And when they're caught in a lie, they just cover it up with other lies.
The questions you should be asking are: Why are they lying so much? Why do they want me to get injected so bad? What's really going on here?
An attorney for the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting spoke about a settlement in their case against the maker of the weapon used in the shooting.
The case was Soto Et Al, which included nine Sandy Hook families, v. Bushmaster Firearms International.
It's a $73 million settlement, the families' counsel confirmed.
Remington Arms initially offered $33 million.
First filed in 2014, the lawsuit argued that gun manufacturer Remington aggressively marketed the assaultive and militaristic capabilities of the weapon used in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, purposefully appealing to the very kinds of people most likely to commit mass murder.
Remington denied the allegations.
Initially described by legal experts as “a losing proposition,” the families’ legal effort to help prevent "the next Sandy Hook" continued through seven years of legal challenges and two Remington bankruptcies.
According to court documents on Tuesday, a settlement agreement was reached between both parties.
“These nine families have shared a single goal from the very beginning: to do whatever they could to help prevent the next Sandy Hook. It is hard to imagine an outcome that better accomplishes that goal,” said Josh Koskoff, lead counsel and Partner at Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder. “This victory should serve as a wake up call not only to the gun industry, but also the insurance and banking companies that prop it up. For the gun industry, it’s time to stop recklessly marketing all guns to all people for all uses and instead ask how marketing can lower risk rather than court it. For the insurance and banking industries, it’s time to recognize the financial cost of underwriting companies that elevate profit by escalating risk. Our hope is that this victory will be the first boulder in the avalanche that forces that change.”
Twenty six students and staff members were killed in the shooting, which happened at the school in Newtown in 2012.
State police said the gunman used an AR-15.
The concept of money making everything better is a really weird thing to get your mind around.
Imagine losing your child and then spending 7 years trying to get money out of the loss.
Notice only 9 of the 26 families were involved in the settlement. So, at least 17 families get the point I'm trying to make here.
Undoubtedly, there were some greedy lawyers who were calling the families constantly telling them that they deserved to be rich because some psychopath killed their child. The families were probably like, "that's not going to bring my child back. We just want to move on." And the lawyer rubbed his hands together and said, "oh, but you don't want this to happen to anyone else, so if you sue them for millions of dollars I'll get 40% we can make sure this will never happen to any other family. Plus, you won't have to pay for anything, I'll take your case for a sizable percentage pro-bono, because I'm just a good person who wants to get rich you to get the justice you deserve."
This is where we are in society. This is the evolution of a materialistic, capitalist and Godless society that is hyper-focused on greed, status and humanism.
Historically, the community would have rallied around these families and offered them emotional, spiritual and material support. The community would have mourned with them. But, today society just sends news crews to camp outside their homes hoping to catch glimpses of grieving families and wait impatiently to write up articles on how much they won in the settlement.
This settlement will have absolutely zero effect on Remington. Because, they have lawyers and accountants who also know how to work the system. So, they calculate the settlement into losses or put it towards taxes or whatever they do.
So, basically these families just cashed out on the loss of their children at the expense of some big corporation that had nothing to do with the crime. The idea that Remington markets guns to criminals is just dumb.
Therefore, the settlement is just charity. In fact, Remington even offered a charitable contribution of $33 million that was declined by the greedy virtuous lawyers. Because they knew if Remington doubled that amount it would prevent anyone from using a gun to do bad things again.
I'm just glad these families can live a life of luxury while they're mourning the loss of their child.
I'm also glad that we live in a society that if something bad happens to you, lawyers will find someone to sue to make sure everyone gets rich.
In America, money is the cure for sorrow!
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-02-reusable-plastic-bottles-shown-hundreds.html
Researchers at the University of Copenhagen have found several hundred different chemical substances in tap water stored in reusable plastic bottles. Several of these substances are potentially harmful to human health. There is a need for better regulation and manufacturing standards for manufacturers, according to the chemists behind the study.
Two chemists from the University of Copenhagen have studied which chemical substances are released into liquids by popular types of soft plastic reusable bottles. The results were quite a surprise.
"We were taken aback by the large amount of chemical substances we found in water after 24 hours in the bottles. There were hundreds of substances in the water—including substances never before found in plastic, as well as substances that are potentially harmful to health. After a dishwasher cycle, there were several thousand," says Jan H. Christensen, Professor of Environmental Analytical Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen's Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences.
Professor Christensen and fellow researcher Selina Tisler detected more than 400 different substances from the bottle plastic and over 3,500 substances derived from dishwasher soap. A large portion of these are unknown substances that the researchers have yet to identify. But even of the identified chemicals, the toxicity of at least 70 % remains unknown.
Photo-initiators are among the toxic substances in the water which worry the researchers. These are known to have potentially harmful effects on health in organisms, such as being endocrine disruptors and carcinogens. Furthermore, the researchers found a variety of plastic softeners, antioxidants and release agents used in the manufacture of the plastic, as well as Diethyltoluamide (DEET), commonly known as the active substance in mosquito spray.
In their experiments, the researchers mimicked the ways in which many people typically use plastic drinks bottles. People often drink water that has been kept in bottles for several hours. The researchers left ordinary tap water in both new and used drinking bottles for 24 hours, both before and after machine washing, as well as after the bottles had been in the dishwasher and rinsed thoroughly in tap water.
"What is released most after machine washing are the soap substances from the surface. Most of the chemicals that come from the water bottle itself remain after machine washing and extra rinsing. The most toxic substances that we identified actually came after the bottle had been in the dishwasher—presumably because washing wears down the plastic and thereby increases leaching," explains postdoctoral researcher and first author Selina Tisler of the Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences.
In new reusable bottles, close to 500 different substances remained in the water after an additional rinse. Over 100 of these substances came from the plastic itself.
She emphasizes that they have yet to conclude whether the water in the bottles is harmful to health, as they currently have only an estimate of the concentrations of the substances and toxicological assessments have yet to be completed.
"Just because these substances are in the water, doesn't mean that the water is toxic and affects us humans. But the problem is, is that we just don't know. And in principle, it isn't all that great to be drinking soap residues or other chemicals," says Selina Tisler.
"We care so much about low levels of pesticides in our drinking water. But when we pour water into a container to drink from, we unflinchingly add hundreds or thousands of substances to the water ourselves. Although we cannot yet say whether the substances in the reusable bottles affect our health, I'll be using a glass or quality stainless steel bottle in the future," says Jan H. Christensen.
"The study exemplifies how little knowledge there is about the chemicals emitted from the products that our food and drink come in contact with. And, it is a general problem that measurement regulations during production are very lenient. Fortunately, both in Denmark and internationally, we are looking into how to better regulate this area," says Jan H. Christensen.
Plastics are actively destroying the earth's ecosystem, as well as the endocrine systems of humans (and every other living organism).
Plastic seems to be a necessary evil.
What would a world without plastic look like?
What would the health of humans be like in a world without plastics?
Plastics are going to go down in history similarly to how Polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) did. All of the negatives will be covered up for the sake of profits, only to later be uncovered. Then everyone with birth defects will be paid some form of settlement.
Something like 99% of humans have Teflon in their DNA. I assume the same can be said of plastics. They don't deny that, they just haven't acknowledged that it's "harmful."
Do you think having plastic in your DNA is harmful?
There are a couple major problems with society: For one, people aren't as smart as we think they are. In other words, people act like Science! has all the answers. It doesn't. Secondly, our information systems are corrupt. Pretty much everything we are told on a daily basis is a lie. The only knowledge we truly have is what we have gained from experience. You should be highly skeptical of everything else.
Wait. What am I talking about?! I almost forgot.
Our leaders care about us. They want to keep us safe. They even forced offered gene-editing injections of mRNA for free. No worries. We will probably live forever.
%2Fpsalms-104263808-5c7444b246e0fb000107633f.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Psalm 90:1-17
Lord, through all the generations you have been our home!
Before the mountains were created,
before you made the earth and the world,
you are God, without beginning or end.
You turn people back to dust, saying,
"Return to dust!"
For you, a thousand years are as yesterday!
They are like a few hours!
You sweep away people like dreams that disappear
or like grass that springs up in the morning.
In the morning it blooms and flourishes,
but by evening it is dry and withered.
We wither beneath your anger;
we are overwhelmed by your fury.
You spread out our sins before you -
our secret sins - and you see them all.
We live our lives beneath your wrath.
We end our lives with a groan.
Seventy years are given to us!
Some may even reach eighty.
But even the best of these years are filled with pain and trouble;
soon they disappear, and we are gone.
Who can comprehend the power of your anger?
Your wrath is as awesome as the fear you deserve.
Teach us to make the most of our time,
so that we may grow in wisdom.
O Lord, come back to us!
How long will you delay?
Take pity on your servants!
Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love,
so we may sing for joy to the end of our lives.
Give us gladness in proportion to our former misery!
Replace the evil years with good.
Let us see your miracles again;
let our children see your glory at work.
And may the Lord our God show us his approval
and make our efforts successful.
Yes, make our efforts successful!
French President Emmanuel Macron refused a Kremlin request that he take a Russian COVID-19 test when he arrived to see President Vladimir Putin this week, to prevent Russia getting hold of Macron's DNA, two sources in Macron's entourage told Reuters.
As a result, the visiting French head of state was kept at a distance from the Russian leader during lengthy talks on the Ukraine crisis in Moscow.
But two sources who have knowledge of the French president's health protocol told Reuters Macron had been given a choice: either accept a PCR test done by the Russian authorities and be allowed to get close to Putin, or refuse and have to abide by more stringent social distancing.
"We knew very well that meant no handshake and that long table. But we could not accept that they get their hands on the president's DNA," one of the sources told Reuters, referring to security concerns if the French leader was tested by Russian doctors.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that Macron had declined the test and said Russia had no problem with this, but it meant that a 6-metre (20 feet) distance from Putin was required in order to protect the Kremlin leader's health.
"There is no politics in this, it does not interfere with negotiations in any way," he said.
"The Russians told us Putin needed to be kept in a strict health bubble," the second source said.
When asked specifically about DNA theft, Macron’s office said: "The president has doctors who define with him the rules that are acceptable or not in terms of his own health protocol."
When world leaders are concerned about others collecting samples of their DNA, what does that tell you?
They obviously are up-to-date on the world's most advanced technology. And Macron is concerned about Russia collecting a sample of his DNA?
What could Russia possibly do with a sample of Macron's DNA?
Could they clone him? Could they release a virus that would directly attack a weak link in his genetic code? Could they biohack his DNA and uncover national secrets?
The world has entered into a new era. The days of nation-state ground wars are over.
When conventional warfare becomes obsolete, unconventional warfare becomes the new conventional. Hence, we have transitioned from 3rd to 4th generation warfare.
Whether it be psychological, spiritual, ethnic, national, military, biological, nuclear, etc, warfare is encoded into the DNA of humanity. Why? Because power creates conflict.
In the future, leaders will never meet in person.
https://kfor.com/news/local/2-oklahoma-men-charged-with-hate-crimes/
A federal grand jury unsealed an indictment Tuesday, charging two men with two hate crime counts for an alleged brutal attack against a Black man in Shawnee in 2019.
The indictment was unsealed in the Western District of Oklahoma.
A surveillance camera recorded the brutal beating. The camera captured one of the suspects yelling, “You’re dead” and a racial slur, following the attack.
Johnson previously accepted a deal, pleading guilty to aggravated assault and battery and malicious intimidation or harassment.
Killian and Johnson face a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000 if they are convicted on the hate crimes.
The concept of "hate" crimes are stupid. It's a manifestation of the incompetency of our entire system; a flawed system based on emotions and feelings.
When an assault occurs, the attacker is obviously filled with rage and anger. It goes with out saying that when people physically attack other people they aren't doing it because they love them. It makes the justice system look stupid to even suggest such a thing.
It's like they're trying to establish a legal statute based on the emotional hierarchy of crime. In other words, if you whip someone's ass because they owe you money, or had sex with your wife, that hatred is acceptable. But if they happen to be a different race that you don't like, that crime is actually a double-crime.
Btw, how is that not double jeopardy?
I honestly don't see how "hate crimes" were ever determined to be constitutional. Well, actually I do. It's not like our legal system is made up of geniuses or anything.
Take the quoted incident above. This assault took place in 2019, and in 2022 they release a sealed indictment for "hate" crime charges after one of the defendants has already pleaded guilty and is serving a 5-year prison sentence. Why? He's already in prison serving time for the crime.
According to the article it's because one of the guys yelled a bad word while they assaulted him. It appears like they waited 3 years and decided to charge him with verbal assault. But what if they had yelled that they were sorry and he had pretty eyes? Would that be a "love crime"? Or what if they just whipped his ass and didn't say anything, but still had the same motive? Would that just be a normal crime?
If that sounds stupid, it's because it is. That's the point.
If the attack was particularly heinous, or brutal, just make the punishment harsher. Give them the maximum sentence. But to come out 3 years later and say: "These two white guys beat the hell out of this black guy and said a bad word in the process. We've pondered this for last 3 years and have determined they hated this guy. So we're going to charge them twice."
Really?
When you have a justice system that tries to read people's minds in order to make a crime a double-crime then your justice system is flawed and failing. When your justice system is flawed and failing that means your justice system doesn't work like it was intended to work.
There is no room for feelings and emotions in the quest for justice. Justice is based on a set of tangible standards that were implemented by people who used logic and reason to set those standards.
If I've said it once, I've said it 1000 times: neo-liberalism is a snake that eats its own tail.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/06/1078571919/washington-commanders-name-change-native-americans
When the Washington Commanders announced their official name change this past week, it brought a sense of closure to a dark chapter for many Native Americans.
The NFL franchise unveiled its new name, logo and uniforms on Wednesday, more than 18 months after it dropped its former name of 87 years. The "Washington Redskins," as the team was formerly known, is offensive to many Indigenous people who viewed the name and branding as both a slur and a disparaging stereotype grounded in America's history of violence against Native peoples.
Suzan Harjo, a 76-year-old advocate central to the fight to change the team's name, called the change "a huge step forward."
"A lot of people now get it," she said. "That it's not all right to use disparaging terms, derogatory names, slurs, images, behaviors."
In her experience, the "R-word," as Harjo calls it, is inseparable from harmful, racist attitudes that have translated into "emotional and physical violence" against Native Americans.
"If it's permissible to say such things to us, such names, then it is permissible to do anything to us," she said.
"I had lots of things in my personal life using that word," said Harjo, a member of the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes. "When I was a girl, you barely could make it through your young life without getting attacked by a bunch of white people — whether they were boys or girls or men or women. And they would always go to that word."
The origin of the term has long been debated by linguists and historians. Some say "redskin" didn't start out as an insult. But to many Native Americans, Harjo among them, the word refers to the grotesque act of hunting down and skinning their ancestors' scalps for cash bounties.
NPR provides absolutely zero intellectual stimulation in their articles.
When was the last time you read an NPR article and was like, "that's interesting"? It's all just a bunch of emotional jibberish by anti-Whites whose only contribution to society is that they're anti-White.
Think about that for a second: NPR wants to write a story about you because you're anti-White living in an anti-White society and your only contribution to the anti-White society is that you're anti-White.
To personify that, imagine being a 76-year-old woman whose life is so meaningless that she scapegoats an entire race for her personal lack of achievement in order to feel good about herself.
What does that say about your life when your crowning achievement is guilting a sportsball team into changing their name on the premise that it personally offends you?
Here's a weird analogy to better understand the weirdness of neo-liberalism: a dumpster diver complains that people don't have good enough garbage, so they become anti-garbage and threaten to boycott dumpster diving. As a result, a few people feel sorry for them and elect to trash a few things out of pity that they might have previously donated to charity. The dumpster diver considers that an accomplishment and takes pride in it.
I can remember watching football growing up. I specifically recall watching the 1983 Super Bowl. It was the Redskins vs Raiders. I didn't know what a Raider, or a Redskin was. I don't think anyone else did either. We had favorite teams and players. If people mocked other team's mascots it was probably cause their team sucked, although I don't ever remember hearing anything like that.
This highlights the self-grandiosity of people like the 76-year-old Indian lady. They think that White people just sit around their homes and think about calling other races names. Normal White folks are indifferent to non-Whites for the most part. This is probably why they whine so much. They're like babies who want the attention of White people, and when they don't get it they throw a tantrum that sites like NPR provide a bully pulpit for.
I've never once heard anyone call an Indian a "redskin" in a derogatory way (or anyway, for that matter). And before you say, "that's because you're not a 'redskin,'" I did spend a good majority of my life living in Oklahoma, where pretty much everyone claims to be part Indian.
I did have a buddy who was half Indian who told me the epithet for Indians was "wagon burners," but I never heard anyone but him use it. And I think he just thought it was funny.
Finally, everyone knows who was scalping who back in the cowboy and indians battles. This is just another example of the unethical journalism and anti-White bias presented on a regular basis by NPR.
It is good to give thanks to the Lord,
to sing praises to the Most High.
It is good to proclaim your unfailing love in the morning,
your faithfulness in the evening, accompanied by the harp and lute
and the harmony of the lyre.
You thrill me, Lord, with all you have done for me!
I sing for joy because of what you have done.
O Lord, what great miracles you do!
And how deep are your thoughts.
Only an ignorant person would not know this!
Only a fool would not understand it.
Although the wicked flourish like weeds,
and evildoers blossom with success,
there is only external destruction ahead of them.
But you are exalted in the heavens.
You, O Lord, continue forever.
Your enemies, Lord, will surely perish;
all evildoers will be scattered.
But you have made me as strong as a wild bull.
How refreshed I am by your power!
With my own eyes I have seen the downfall of my enemies;
with my own ears I have heard the defeat of my wicked opponents.
But the godly will flourish like palm trees
and grow strong like the cedars of Lebanon.
For they are transplanted into the Lord's own house.
They flourish in the courts of our God.
Even in old age they will still produce fruit;
they will remain vital and green.
They will declare, "The Lord is just!
He is my rock!
There is nothing buy goodness in him!"
https://nypost.com/2022/02/05/covid-19-death-toll-in-us-surpasses-900000-now-leads-the-world/
Nearly two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States reached a grim milestone surpassing 900,000 deaths from the virus on Friday following a surge of the highly-infectious omicron variant, less than two months after reaching 800,000.
According to the latest data compiled by Johns Hopkins University, 901,388 Americans have succumbed to the coronavirus over the last two years, more than the populations of major American cities such as San Francisco, Indianapolis and Charlotte.
The bleak toll comes 13 months into the United States’ vaccination campaign. To date, 212,481,465 Americans, or 64.3% of the country, are fully vaccinated.
On Feb. 4, a total of 4,151 Americans died from the virus, with a seven-day average of 3,391 daily deaths, the highest numbers since January 2021, according to the university’s data.
Despite all its wealth and technology, the US has by and large the highest death toll reported of any country in the world. Brazil is next in line with roughly 630,000 reported COVID-19 deaths, followed by India with roughly 500,000 deaths reported.
The country with the most wealth, money, technology and compassionate leaders leads the world in COVID deaths. How is this even possible?
COVID has infected people on every continent on the planet. Every country has had a different response to the pandemic. Some, like Sweden, haven't done a lot. Others, like Australia, have pretty much shut down society. America has done a little of both.
America isn't the most extreme on any spectrum of COVID response (perhaps excluding data collection and mainstream news stories). Besides that, there's just not a lot of separation between America and the rest of the world (particularly the Western world).
There are several possible hypothesis that could be presented:
1. COVID affects Americans differently.
2. COVID deaths are recorded differently.
3. COVID medical protocols are performed differently.
4. The data is wrong.
5. Americans are unhealthier.
6. The American system is completely incompetent.
7. The American system is superior at recording COVID deaths
8. All of the above.
9. None of the above.
The only one that I would exclude from that list of possibilities is No 9.
If I could only pick one from the list, I would probably choose No 8. But both of those are the easy choices.
If I had to choose only one between 1 and 7, I'd probably opt for No 2 as the rational choice. It could be easy to lump 2, 4 and 7 together in one option (e.g., deaths are recorded differently, so the data is misleading/wrong, because the American health system is hyper-focused on confirming every possible COVID death as a COVID death).
There can also be an argument made that COVID deaths are in some way financially incentivized, which could lead to anyone who died with COVID being labeled as a COVID death for financial gain, or some psychological aspect like confirmation bias or narrative control.
It's also very important not to rule out No 5. Americans as a society are extremely unhealthy by all standards. Which makes the whole "the government wants to keep us safe and healthy" narrative absolutely ridiculous on merit. If the government wanted to keep Americans safe and healthy, they would tackle obesity, plastic toxicity, GMOs in food, ultra processed foods, suicide, drug overdoses, Big Pharma, porn accessibility, black crime, illegal immigration etc, etc, etc. Until they address those things the same way they've addressed COVID, I refuse to take their "we care about you" jargon with any degree of seriousness.
Regardless, IMO, the relevant aspect isn't the "how" or "why," it's recognizing the failure of the COVID response by the American system. Which, is basically No 6.
Honestly, I could probably literally make a valid argument for each of the given options. But, the more I think about it, there more I think No 6 is my final answer.
Here's why:
I've said before, and I'll say it again, I can't help but wonder what this pandemic would've been like if there had not been any significant government response. If people had just gone on with their daily lives as usual I don't think most people would have known any different. My theory is that the number of people who died of COVID would be probably half of the official number (both literally and empirically).
Of course, I have no way of proving that. But there was a recent study by John Hopkins just released that stated the lockdowns were useless:
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have concluded that lockdowns have done little to reduce COVID deaths but have had “devastating effects” on economies and numerous social ills.
The study, titled “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality,” said lockdowns in Europe and the U.S. reduced COVID-19 deaths by 0.2 percent.
Shelter-in-place orders were also ineffective, reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9%, the study said.
“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote in the report, issued Monday.
I think we will eventually start to see data that shows masks caused way more harm than good. Simply observing people's behaviors while they are wearing a mask (particularly younger people) makes it obvious that they are introducing more germs to themselves than repelling them.
I also think studies will come out that will shine a negative light on the vaccines. Not only from an ADE perspective, but that they've harmed the immune system and will eventually be linked to adverse side-effects. If you analyze the government's pandemic response, and acknowledge their degree of failure, it's hard to have any faith in the vaccine considering how they pushed it in the same way they pushed lockdowns.
Melting and sublimation on Mount Everest’s highest glacier due to human-induced climate change have reached the point that several decades of accumulation are being lost annually now that ice has been exposed, according to a University of Maine-led international research team that analyzed data from the world’s highest ice core and highest automatic weather stations.
The extreme sensitivity of the high-altitude Himalayan ice masses in rapid retreat forewarns of quickly emerging impacts that could range from increased incidence of avalanches and decreased capacity of the glacier stored water on which more than 1 billion people depend to provide melt for drinking water and irrigation.
At the rate at which the highest glaciers are disappearing, Mount Everest expeditions could be climbing over more exposed bedrock, potentially making it more challenging to climb as snow and ice cover continues to thin in the coming decades, according to UMaine climate scientists Mariusz Potocki and Paul Mayewski.
The team’s findings, published in the journal Nature Portfolio Journal Climate and Atmospheric Science, are the latest research results from the 2019 National Geographic and Rolex Perpetual Planet Everest Expedition. The expedition’s scientists, including six from UMaine’s Climate Change Institute, studied environmental changes to understand future impacts for life on Earth as global temperatures rise.
“It answers one of the big questions posed by our 2019 NGS/Rolex Mount Everest Expedition — whether the highest glaciers on the planet are impacted by human-source climate change. The answer is a resounding yes, and very significantly since the late 1990s,” Mayewski says.
“Climate predictions for the Himalaya suggest continued warming and continued glacier mass loss, and even the top of the Everest is impacted by anthropogenic source warming,” says Potocki, a glaciochemist and doctoral candidate in the Climate Change Institute who collected the highest ice core on the planet.
I'm just going to say it: Science is bullshit. Period.
You can literally present any scientific theory, and as long as it conforms to the system's current narrative, it's regarded as absolute truth.
Read the above article carefully, particularly the bold and underlined portions. Then process what you've read unbiasedly and see if you disagree.
It should go without saying that "scientists" from the "Climate Change Institute" are going to conclude that "human-induced climate change" is an observable phenomenon. It doesn't even matter if it is or not, because they believe it is. Therefore, all of their Science! will confirm that bias.
It should also go without saying that it's a conflict of interest to come to any other conclusion. They will make the Science! say what they want it to say or they're going to have to convert to another religion and find another career.
"But what about their data?"
Who is going to climb to the top of Mount Everest and prove their Science! wrong? Are you? Nobody else is even capable of offering an alternative theory. Are there any "institutes" funded by powerful donors who want to send a team of scientists to the top of Mount Everest to contradict the study? Of course not. So we have one theory, and that theory is going to be regarded as truth even though it's just an agenda-driven opinion that hasn't been subjected to the scientific method.
Plus, if their Science! doesn't conclude that humans are changing the weather, then they don't have a religion, a purpose, an institute or paid vacations assignments at the top of Mount Everest.
It's also important to note that it's not just proving that "climate change" is occurring (which it obviously is, because the weather isn't static and never has been), it's proving that it's humans that are changing it in a negative and catastophic way.
"Human-induced climate change" is the current propaganda crop that the powers-that-be are seeding. The reason they're seeding this idea is because they have an agenda.
"What's their agenda?"
In my piece Depopulationism for Dummies I present a theory using deductive reasoning, and then applied the Hegelian Dialectic to formulate a thesis on the subject. In the thesis I outlined the stages of depopulationism. We are currently in the beginning of the 2nd stage (technological escapism), with the 3rd stage being human emigration into space colonies. Historically, this will become known as the "sixth extinction," and will be blamed on human overpopulation overheating the planet and catastrophically changing the climate. Eventually, they will gentrify earth and turn it into a nature resort that they use as a vacation destination. The richest man in the world is on record saying that exact thing.
That's a summary of their agenda.
Science! will be used to verify that agenda.
In that process, Science! will become the next religion that persecutes non-believers. (The COVID pandemic has clearly set the stage for this.)
In conclusion, when they give their "climate predictions" think about your local weatherman and how often his predictions are right. I'm not talking about when it's in the middle of summer and he says it's going to be hot all week. I'm talking about when something out of the ordinary actually occurs.
What's the old saying, the weatherman is the only person who can be wrong 90% of the time and still keep his job?
These "scientists" are just glorified weathermen.
