Another data point.  This guy claims to do his own bench science and claims to see clear and convincing evidence that 2019-nCoV is almost certain to have been lab created.  The 'snake' material that we heard about early on is marked indication a 'pShuttle-sn' which is technology published in the 1990's as a method for inserting genes.

https://youtu.be/hPdGfibyOZ0?t=1276

My own take is that the scientist is probably right with his science and analysis.  If he is wrong, he was probably working with sequences which were bogus (but he still got them from somewhere.)  Of course there is also the possibility that he is fabricating and lying for whatever reason.

The questions remain about whether the virus was made for vaccine research or for bio-warfare (or some combination of both.)

The question also remains about who made it.  Understanding that will help figure out how it got to be floating around in public (if it even is.)

The suggestion that the 2019-nCoV formed 'naturally' is, in my opinion, bogus.  I sort of 'sensed' that before simply because of how that 'bat eating dinks' story was circulated and by whom.

The new angle is that it was a 'weapons lab' which the 'chi-coms' were stupid enough to put in Wuhan and they didn't know how to keep clean.  Maybe, but I get the same sixth-sense about how that particular idea is being injected and cultivated as I did about the earlier 'slants eating bats' one.  But that's just me.

People are, you know, like people 'n shit.

One does either need to have money to burn down here or be on their toes.  Some combination of both is good.  I find the difference in the people, such as it is, to be refreshing in a way.

Nobody has yet threatened me with violence or any such thing, but I always expect that possibility and take appropriate measures.  People do absolutely try to overcharge me for stuff.  Normally I just pay it because the cost is still absurdly cheap by my standards.  Normally they lose money because I would have given them a tip which is higher than to overcharge anyway.  A vast majority of people do NOT try to cheat me or overcharge me.

The funniest thing is that when someone does some sort of a blatant over-charge or other attempt to get a little extra money they seem to feel so good about how clever they are for 'fooling the dumb foreigner' even when it is blatantly obvious and ham-handed.  They seem to assume that I won't or don't notice.  It's so pathetic that it's almost 'cute' in a funny way.  My means and the scope of my life experiences is radically beyond what most of the people can really conceptualize that it's sort of feels like I'm in a different world.

I can only speak for myself and my own situation, but I find it fine down here.  I'm planning to stay (here in The Philippines or in some equally 'third-world' country if I have to move) until there is some light at the end of the tunnel for my home country (the U.S.).  That probably means I'll not go back sadly enough.

It helps that I spend a great deal of time in the Bitcoin ecosystem as it has evolved.  The Bitcoin ecosystem makes The Philippines seem like Japan when it comes to flakiness and dishonesty.

What if a certain small-ish state decided it was time to take their rightful place and 'bring peace' to the world as has been prophesied.  Say this country had operational control over the government of what is considered the top-most country (who's place they need to take.)

In this age of finely tuned weapons which can target what remains of distinct genotypes (i.e., ethnicities), one way to do it would be to use the operational control of 'top country' to attack '2nd country' and make it 'overwhelmingly obvious' that it had been done.  It no longer being rocket science to produce these things, and utterly trivial to deploy them, the natural response would be for '2nd country' to retaliate in kind.

Then you sit back and enjoy the fireworks.  As long as the various main combatants rely on you for certain services, you are pretty safe.  Ultimately you just walk up and grab the crown which is rolling around on the floor and 'take your rightful place.'

People seem to think that 'my government' would not do anything to harm 'me' (along with the rest of the native population.)  This is a dangerous misconception as we move more and more into 'globalism.'  Many of the most powerful individuals on the face of the earth have themselves already 'transcended' the antiquated ideas of nationalism and borders and such-like.  Worse still, some of them remain fanatically 'tribal' in their own way.

I've not read the whole article yet, but the first part itself has a bunch of interesting info.

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/top-news/bats-gene-editing-bioweapons-recent-darpa-experiments-raise-concerns-amid-coronavirus-outbreak/

From the neocons published Sept of the year 2000 (not 2001) as "Rebuilding America's Defenses."


The document is more famous for seeming to predict the events of 9/11 a year later when many of the PNAC authors had gained power via the GW Bush admin:


The document seemed to contain a fair amount of 'predictive' power to be sure.  More and more as the years drift by.  Anyway, the concept of biological weapons which target specific races and ethnicities is quite old.  I've been aware of the possibilities and theories for at least 30 year.  The likes of Rumsfeld seemed pretty confident that they were going to be usable in the near-ish future and could be 'useful.'

Pretty good run-down in the first half of this vid of stuff which is already know by people who's information sources extend beyond the mainstream media outlets and heavily censored 'social media' platforms:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d21t5ft6R0

Shows where U.S. biological warfare labs are located, information about ethnic targeted bio-weapons, where SARS fits in and who said what about it after studying it, etc, etc.

Good one.  But I would say that it could have been made anywhere.  I'd start by looking at the various bio-warfare labs scattered about.

I absolutely would not put it past the Chinese govt to develop and deploy such a thing against their number one enemy (their domestic population) if it served some useful purpose or if they were directed to do so by their controllers (e.g., as a trade for having moved capital there over the last few decades.)

At the same time I would not put it past quasi-adversaries in the West to deploy the goodie in Wuhan as a starting point.

One way or another, it won't stay a Chinese problem for long so where it started doesn't really mean a lot.  One operative with some liquid could start it wherever they so choose and could have it pop up anywhere else which was advantageous.

Could it be from the gooks eating bats?  Sure it could.  But that psy-op being spread around social media lends exactly zero support to the hypothesis.  As a matter of fact depending on how social media was used to spread the idea (which I've not researched) it could be that the fact it spread via social media might be taken to strongly indicate that the story is a flat-out lie.

We'll know more as time goes by.  At those of us who expand our foraging range to outside of the mainstream media will.

Here's a solution:

Anyone interested in taking the guy's vaccinations, go for it.  If you want to do you kids, it's sad and I'll feel bad for them, but it's simply not my business.  (I don't want to pay for their lifetime of autoimmune ailments though; that fund should be raised from Bill Gate's-n-companies estate.)

The rest of us should educate ourselves and fund research into what is actually going on an if these people, who are known and proud eugenicists, have anything to do with it.  The key to stopping and rolling back 'non-lethal biological warfare agent' infections is to gain insight into the science behind it.  Right now it is all highly classified.

Anyone who buy's the idea that this thing jumped from 'bats to snakes to humans' all by itself with no help from the (many) biological warfare labs that are know to exist all around the world is a chump.  It's possible, but the possibility that there was some engineering helping the process along is very very high.  This is 2020 after all and that's a magic number for a lot of these creeps with their 'agenda2020' and all that.  They all but said that just such a thing was going to be rolled out if you know how to listen.

  https://vaccineimpact.com/2019/did-a-military-experimental-vaccine-in-1918-kill-50-100-million-people-blamed-as-spanish-flu-part-2/

Actually, the ability and willingness to find, analyze, and contemplate information that Merck's AAHS is using an novel and unlicensed antagonist which targets TLR9 using their AAHS adjuvant as a carrier, and that it seems to consist of unknown genetic material, is a task for which the 'new mammalian brain' is indispensable.

  https://youtu.be/quRm_eMelp4?t=2280
  https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjsnrki432k5mfb/HPV%20vac%20Chicago%202019%20Lee.pptx?dl=0

On the other hand, the pro-vax process goes like this: "Mommy corp/gov say vaccines are good so they are."  That thought process requires nothing more than the 'old mammalian brain' augmenting the general directions of the repltilian brain circuitry.


What is ya?  Nephalem?

The 'reptilian' and 'reptilian dna' idea, when taken figuratively, is more palatable and could make some sense.

'Reptiles' tend to be cognitively primitive and particularly brutal.  Killing and consuming dominates their thought processes.  It is possible to be in awe of their absence of any form of empathy and directness of purpose and to seek to emulate them.  It probably is an effective mode in certain environments (e.g., managing global corporate enterprises.)

It is also the case that mental processes are at least to some degree influenced by genetics in humans, though I think it's fair to say that 'nurture' has a lot more to do with the final product most of the time.  I would suggest that the potential for empathy is more correlated with genetic traits than are most elements of human mental processes.  Empathy is a complex feedback loop which is prone to variation and failure, and empathy and psychopathy are clearly associated.

What I find interesting is how widespread the concept of reptilian and political/social/economic power are in a wide range of human societies.  Snakes are common in almost all environments and often dangerous so there would be good reason for they to be a fixture in the mythos of many cultures.  'Dragons', on the other hand, are mythical creatures and figure prominently in a lot of cultures.

Quite striking is the association between reptillians (often snakes but also dragons) with wealthy and powerful people.  It is practically 'common knowledge' that the owners of certain large department stores in The Philippines are 'snake people.'  It is a genuine fear that some of the fitting rooms have trap doors which will suck a victim into the store owner's reptilian lair for consumption if they are unlucky.

In fact there are a lot of kids who go missing in The Philippines, so who knows?

I tend to side with the people who argue the 'shoot-to-kill or not at all' point of view.  At least as a policy for people who are not professional law enforcement and train all the time.

That said, I did keep a rubber slug as the first round for a variety of reasons I won't go into.  The only time I ever shot an intruder it was a bear and all I wanted to do was to chase it off.  Worked.  Following the rubber slug was alternating 00-buck and slugs so yes, I was more not planning to play around with rock-salt and that sort of thing.

To answer your question, yes, of course a shorter barrel will scatter more.  There are a ton of vids on-line about it I'm sure.  In Alaska people used to saw the things off a lot for transportation reasons (planes and boats often not having an abundance of room.)  I never saw much reason to do so in a house.  There is an argument for mobility, but again, if I was working in my house I'd grab my .357.  Also again, very very few people in that part of the world are stupid enough to break into an occupied house and it's relatively easy to inform a person that they've made a mistake about occupancy before you have to confront them most of the time.

Never tried.  Probably depends on what you mean by 'work'.  Factories make items people want, and people want things because they are a reasonable compromise mostly.  For home defense most short-barreled shotguns seem about right to me as they are.  I'd rather use a .45 or .357 mag for close-in encounters anyway.

Most people in my (former) neighborhood had a variety of bang-bang options to suite the task at hand.  And just for the fun of it.  I personally don't even find guns all that much fun, and it is a hassle to properly train with them and clean them.  I ended up with quite a few because I had money, a large and complex bunch of property, and a lot of uses for them (hunting elk, killing downed horses, 'social work', practice, etc.)

And in my part of rural Oregon where most homes have at least one shotgun in the closet, the latter figure approaches 0%.

These are all solutions (labor spreads) are things which would not exist for corporate business after globalization has homogenized the worlds populations and societies via open borders.  [You can (and should) argue that it won't matter much as automation takes over.]

The winners would be the people who control the largest corporations at the time of a 'flip' to centralized economic control since they would step into those positions in the new regime.  It seems that there is ample evidence that indeed, some of these people are the most active in furthering the globalization project.  To a degree they use the resources of the corporations they control (and build new corporations) to do this, but it's not the main vehicle they use as I see it.  They use governments (through lobbying, Epstien-esque methods, etc) and NGOs, and especially the combination of the two.

---

At a deeper (and to me much more interesting) level, it seems the case that their will be a homogenization and centralization of control.  It's going to happen, folks, and about all we can hope for with distributed crypto-currencies is that they attenuate some people's flexibility in certain ways.  The question is who will be in charge of 'it' (aka, the 'new world order')?  There are two main factions as I see it:

 - Resource based.

 - Debt based.

The resource based folks favor smaller and more controlled populations;  'their' resources will go farther and they can induce artificial scarcity more effectively.

The debt-based crowd are better served by larger populations; there are more potential debt-slaves, and said debt slaves need the 'freedom' to most effectively service the debt that they've been saddled with.

Although highly simplified and inaccurate, these two groups could be represented by Rockefeller and Rothschild respectively.

The resource-based group has been out of the driver's seat since territory/feudalism times and the rise of modern banking, but they've had plenty of capability to set up for a recapture and have been working on it diligently for about 100 years.  (The 'global warming' hoax is a minor and current artifact of their labors.)  The debt-based crowd have more recently seen the danger and dug in for the fight (and Trump is a minor artifact of their reaction.)

The dynastic wealth, and even the primary combatants themselves to a large degree, have put bets on both sides.  I suspect they will try for a sharing agreement since both sides are guaranteed a pretty big slice of pie (game theory.)  They'll always be jockeying for an upper hand though, and ready to completely slit the throat of the other side if the opportunity presents itself.

Bring some examples please.  I have seen 'captains of industry' pay lip-service to a lot of the agenda items of 'globalism', of which population movements are one, but there are all kinds of reasons why that would happen.  The 'boots on the ground' actually implementing the policies don't seem to have direct funding ties to global corporate entities that I know of.

I've been paying attention to politics for some time.  Only a few decades ago immigration was indeed a 'big business' thing and fairly obviously it was for the purposes of bringing down wages like you say.  'Liberals' were anti-immigration.  That shifted notable and relatively suddenly along with a lot of other policies.  Sadly a healthy percentage of 'Liberals' did a 180-degree about face with their policy directors without missing a beat.

Anyway, with modern globalization where you can bring most work to the cheapest labor, industry really doesn't need 'cheap labor'.  It actually makes more sense to have discrete nations with different economics and different policies.  Lumping everyone into a state of 'equity' will work very much against those who's business model involves playing the 'labor spread'.

Both logic and observation indicate to me that the goal of 'open borders' is 'deeper' than some profit maximization scheme.  On the other hand it is pretty much an exact match for the prophesies/fantasies of one certain group in particular.  In might be simple coincidence that it is this same group who are very very over-represented in making 'open borders' a reality.  Or it might not.

I don't think I really even read the initial post.  My bad.

Trees are nice and they make a more pleasant surrounding for most people.  That in and of itself is adequate reason to try have them.  One does not need a bunch of pseudo-scientific (at best) hype about 'carbon footprint' and general virtue signaling which is disgustingly obvious a phony.

It is better to just make good engineering decisions about how to use trees for what they are good for and try to minimize the negative aspects of them of which there are plenty.  The disadvantages are even greater when trying to dense-pack the plebs into UN Agenda 21 'human habitats'.

The shade effect of trees is great.  One can achieve that with awnings which capture rain-water and they can house solar panels (if/when economically feasible) as well.  My current house has a lot of concrete and awnings over most of the property.  That has it's advantages as well, and in my current location especially.  I've got some modest sized trees in barrels (which makes me feel like I am torturing them), and one large shade tree which, sadly, I'm going to need to get rid of for certain development work.  In another decade it really would be creating a genuine hazard to life and limb for both myself and my neighbors.

It is worth note that trees themselves are a significant detriment to smaller plants.  They get big in order to maximize their gather of solar energy so they starve out everything below them, or try to.  What most 'modern eductated' people fail to realize is that if you cut a tree, a ton of other plants below it start to grow like crazy.  Very little solar energy ever touches bare ground in any circumstance.  So-called 'clear cutting' does NOT leave a lifeless piece of ground for more than about a week (unless it is followed up by dosing with defoliants which is common and is, in my opinion, sort of a problem.)  Logging tends to promote 'biodiversity' since it gives environments for 'fringe' plants and animals to live for a while until the forest grows back again.

It actually doesn't make much sense from any standpoint that 'private corporation are the driving force behind policies which would 'destroy' the Western European nations.  And I've seen no real evidence that that is the case.  On the other hand, U.S. and Israeli operations (esp, the creation and support of so-called ISIS) created a lot of the refugee supply, and a bunch of so-called 'NGO groups' have been doing the transport of these 'displaced persons.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53A5AJoRxF0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZrLt5q0SxI  Some of that good 'ol stage managed rescues in this one.  Lol.

One hypothesis is that segments within the Jewish world WANT Jews to be hated and despised all around the globe and don't really seek to hide their genocide in 'their land' and interference operations within other nations.  They want and need 'anti-semitism' and seek to create it at every opportunity.  The simple reason for this is that they want/need a re-population of the so-called 'promised land' by the so-called 'chosen people' to fulfill certain of their prophecies/fantasies.  Yet another set of purges here and there would be just the ticket.

I honestly don't remember seeing any Talmudic/Kabbalahistic person stating the aforementioned strategy in a totally blunt manner, but some of them have come mighty close.  If I were one of the 95% of Jews who is just a normal person I would be terrified of what the radical Jews are up to and working hard(er than I already do) to see the project wither on the vine.  An attempt is unlikely to end well for anyone.

I think you'll find that there is plenty of 'racism' amongst those who have motive force in this project, but it's simply sliced differently than is commonly associate with 'racism' as constructed in mainstreamland.

'Corporate lobbyism' is just a tool used by those who have board seats on corporations.  I've really never seen anyone systematically diagram that out.  It's a shame, too, because there is probably a lot to tease out from such a puzzle.


I would say that the Libertarians dis-like the state and in some circumstances would work to destroy it, but almost the whole reason to do so would be to get it's boot off their neck.  Cheap labor has noting to do with it in their case, but they are a fringe (non-)group with nearly zero power.  A very big driver is indeed 'cheap labor', but it ain't no Libertarians driving that train.


Yup.  That's the plan, and it's not just Europe.

Most people confuse 'Communists' and 'Jews'.  Part of it is deliberate (if unconscious) in order to avoid the anti-semite label which terrifies most normies to the core.  The other part is that there is, historically, so much Jewish influence in Communism that it's a fairly easy mistake to make.

Communist governments often do influence society by mass migrations and genocides, but that is common for ALL totalitarian forms of government.  It appeals especially to those who are enamored with central planning (e.g., most who call themselves 'socialist' and 'librals' these days) and those who are chronically paranoid about losing power (e.g., nearly every government with one very notable exception in the early days of the United States and shortly before.)

The so-called 'Muslim invasion' in Europe and the migrations into North America are nearly entirely driven by a pretty well known 'utopian' vision associated with Jewish people who tend toward the 'liberal' side and a parallel idea prevalent among the Talmudic folks from who's literature both sides basic belief's can be traced.

The general idea is a pure 'chosen people' race ruling over a mass of 'the nations' (mixed race light-browns).  (The more secular 'liberal' crowd focuses on 'ideological purity' where the more conservative Talmudic folks go for the ethnically pure 'descendants of David' line.)  They plan to 'bring peace', and seem to genuinely believe that only they can do it.

But before they can 'bring peace' the existing powers must be toppled.  Hence the immigration goings-on.

Of what 'amenities' do you speak specifically?

'Top of the world' means next to nothing for Joe Sixpack these days.  Worse than nothing actually since it paints a big 'milk me' sign on the his back.  Extracting maximum production out of a herd (e.g., mainlining them with hormones) can be harmful to individual health, and the average life expectancy in the U.S. has already peaked and is on the way down.  For 'white males' currently but I expect most other major cohorts to follow.

World suicide rate rank:

  U.S.:  #34
  Philippines: #159

That should tell something about life in a society.

To say the truth, I find Filipinos to be more 'normal' as humans go compared to large swaths of the middle/upper-middle class in the more 'developed western liberal democracies'.  That's not necessarily a good or bad thing, and it can be plenty aggravating, but it's probably better than the alternative.