what am i supposed to be listening for? why would anyone want to listen to this noise?

If man were to abandon coal we would have a definite crisis on our hands. No question about it. Millions maybe even billions would die. Ill take a potential crisis in the future that will probably be averted naturally based on predictable trends over a guaranteed crisis today. Though this isn't really addressing things like emission scrubbing. I don't know too much about that, perhaps if all of the externalities were priced into the cost of production than technologies like this would make emissions much lower.

Completely different. We the species need massive amounts of cheap energy. We don't need war.

I don't see how i am. I'm making the assumption that the scientists I've listened to were generally right about how much more energetic neuclear energy is. And im making assumptions that society will generally tend to move from less energy dense sources of fuel to more energy dense sources of fuel over the long term. That would even be in the interest of a monopolist.

The thing you have to consider is that nuclear energy is a million times more energetic than chemical energy. The only reason it isnt profitable now is because we (the species) haven't figured out how to capture it very efficiently. But that will change and there is simply no way that chemical energy can compete in the long term against an fuel source that is a million times as energetic. So yea the trend is up, but it will reverse at some point, you can bet the farm on it.

*edit* Oh also i should say that i totally agree with the sentiment you are getting at here. Details aside, the whole global warming industry is subverting real resources and real time and real energy away from real environmental problems. Some of my pet causes are deforestation of rainforests, overfishing, the use of depleted uranium in war, and the government subsided nuclear energy that isn't ready for mainstream production that has caused situations like the catastrophe in japan.

Talking about like smog in china making people sick? That is a real problem. However I suspect it is one that would go away after about a week if people stopped using coal. I also suspect that coal as an energy source will at some point naturally be replaced by nuclear energy (though not in its current form). I also suspect this is more of a problem with the location of the coal plants than anything else. And finally, the people in these smog ridden cities are probably better off with smog and cheap energy than without smog and without cheap energy.

That's why im actually pro choice. Its a practical matter. Do we really want the sorts of people who would be willing to murder babies raising children? Of course the best solution for every party would be a white market in babies, but that's a bit unrealistic.

The only sin more grievous than murdering that poor baby would have been for that woman to raise it.

apparently i'm not very smart because im not seeing the connection. can you explain to me what this video has to do with his comment?

Ok I finished it up today.


Ah ok. So let me be more clear about what i think the concerns are. The risks, to the extent which i suspect they exist, are not the result of conspiracy, but rather incentive incompatibility between the firms producing vaccines and consumers. The federal government insulates vaccine manufacturers from all liability resulting from injury inflicted by vaccines. Quoting uscourts.gov


So if you are injured from a vaccine than the federal government pays your damages instead of the vaccine manufacturer. Its like a weird twilight zone inversion of how in criminal cases the offender pays the state instead of the victim. Here the state, rather than the offender, pays the victim . Its a bit ironic because supposedly the justification that people make for state is that only a sovereign can solve some pubic goods problems by internalizing external costs. Here we have a situation where the decentralized process of common law has developed a mechanism for internalizing external costs (tort liability) and the federal government has come along via fiat power re externalized the problem. The cost of damaging someone with a vaccine has been entirely externalized by the vaccine manufacturer onto the tax payer.

So this would be a pretty serious incentive incompatibility problem in and of its self but actually it gets worse because you see, in the event that a vaccine happened to cause some sort of damage to a person, and in the event that this required symptom management, than it is reasonable to expect that the same pharmasutical corporation that produced the vaccine would likely supply many of the drugs used to treat those symptoms. Profitable even in small doses, but very profitable in the event of life long chronic symptom management.

Now lets be clear, we aren't talking about mr burns tenting his fingers and cackling menacingly behind a desk in some big pharma company. You dont actually need that sort of conspiracy in an organization when everyone's incentives are naturally alined in such a way. The self interested response of the participants will simply trickle up through the culture of the organization. The sub conscious defense mechanisms of the participants will naturally instil in them the right sorts of biases to allow them to pursue self interest without destroying their ego (their image of themselves). Humans are amazing at this. We can dismiss arguments and ignore facts that would put us in the position of needed to chose between maintaining our standard of living or our belief that we are a "good person".

As for your friendly neighborhood doctor. Imagine what would happen to his career if he were to begin advising his patients to not take vaccines? His carrer would be over so fast it would make his head spin, a career that he spent 8 years of his life and a million dollars on preparing for. Again here its nothing to do with conspiracy. The people who would be doing the firing would be immersed in the culture described in the previous paragraph. And the doctor himself isnt thinking in his head, i wish i could advise them not to take vaccines but i would lose my job, just the existential threat of this outcome makes it so that he doesn't even examine the idea. Supposing the cost of vaccines ought weighed the benefits and he found himself in a position of needed to chose between a million dollar investment and "the right thing". What a terrible position that would be to find ones self in. Our sub conscious protects us from putting ourselves in these sorts of situations, we have evolved that defense for good reasons.

Anyway thoughts from anyone on my writings here are welcome.

I'm quite skeptical myself actually. I think probably some of them do a better job immunizing than others. Probably all of them do work to some extent at their intended task. To the extent which they do immunize people i think all of them do so at a cost. I really don't think this black and white assessment is appropriate.

I understand that you are in favor of choice, so you probably will be in favor of the general premise, but seeing as how you represent the "pro-vaxer" position, the article linked below was quite good I think, I wonder if you would be interested in rebutting any the particulars. Here is link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-06/guest-post-how-vaccine-hysteria-could-spark-totalitarian-nightmare

Well is sure hope hes right. Poor guy.

Haha yea I'll start taking these depopulation activists more seriously the moment I see one put his money where his mouth is.

Does anyone know how the eco-fascists intend for this to be interpreted? Is it really a threat? It looks like a threat.

Preaching to the choir brother. I'm an anarchist myself.

I find it interesting how receptive this community is to these ideas. Not one person has come forward yet to call me a kook for even asking the question.

I don't know if you are interested but i managed to track down the source of my confusion. It came from my familiarity with Operation COINTELPRO. Which i believe stands for counter intelligence program. So i was making the false assumption that counter intelligence professionals were people who were paid to  "survey, infiltrate, discredit, and disrupt domestic political organizations", as per the stated agenda of that program.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the meaning of this term. I was under the impression the infiltrating a group in order to promote discord, for example, would fall under the scope of that definition. Looking up definitions from several sources though would seem to indicate that it would not. What would you propose that I title this thread instead?

Everyone would lose interest. We would never regain the traction we have. It would be the end of bitcoin but probably not cryptocurrency in general. Some altcoin would replace it.

Thanks I'll check it out. And I agree.


Eh. I'm not really willing to be scared of being on one of those lists. 1984 convinced me that if the government became too tyrannical and the society willing to accept that tyranny than I would rather be one of the ones who died early than one of the ones who survived and lived in that nightmare. I made a personal conscious decision long ago not to allow the threats of those psychos to change anything about my behavior or my speech. As for putting someone innocent on our own list, well if they are such a terrible troll as to appear that they may be a spook, I have no pity. Its not as if we could ever say definitively that someone is, the ideal is just to build the most convincing case that can be built and let people decide for themselves.


Will do thanks.


yea i was aware of this story. i wouldn't have taken article linked in OP as seriously if it were not for having read this story.