In a quick sanity check, it looks like prior to vaccination the rate of deaths from small-pox were averaging around 200-per-100,000 and measles around 10-per-100,000 (presumably per-year, but few organizations seem to be able to properly key a chart for some odd reason.)  That puts rough numbers of the magnitude of the problem we are discussing here, and it should be remembered that medical care and methods have evolved extensively since that time so such treatments as an IV for a few days would likely reduce the mortality rate significantly.

OTOH, autism rates are on a trajectory that would see every other U.S. born male be clinically diagnosed in a few decades.  South Korea is hit even harder.  Somehow nobody can figure out what's up with that so, 'oh well.'  I mean it's not like having 1/3 of the population be unable to cope with life and at least partially dependent on the rest (administered through the state of course) for survival would be a problem or anything like that, right?

Bull.  Firstly, the Mumps part of MMR, at least, is undergoing vaccine failure with dismal efficacy.  Merck was caught red-handed trying to deal with the situation through blatant fraud.  Thanks to a couple of insiders we know this (as if the outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations were not enough.)  Of course it will be several decades if ever before the problem is even acknowledged by the CDC, much less anyone getting in trouble.  That's why the revolving door is kept well lubricated and in a high state of function.

The above is just 'vaccine failure' and says nothing about the damage that may be occurring.  'Vaxxed' documents in detail how the CDC threw data in the trash (literally) about the vaccine/autism connection and has not done another study since.  If vaccines were found to be associated with autism by 'science' and the victims were compensated, it would cost Trillions.  I bought 10 copies of the DVD and hand it out to people I give a shit about.  Especially if they have kids.

To be perfectly honest, it looks to me as though the vaccine program is a eugenics program, and it's just that simple.  Bankrupt and disable Western societies (and the U.S. in particular) so there is less resistance to a global technocratic takeover.  That hypothesis fits best with observations as far as I'm concerned.

Vaccines are not 'tried and tested' as are other pharmaceuticals.  Their is an exemption so they don't have to meet the same standards.  Not only that, but the manufacturer is absolved of legal responsibility for harm that vaccines may cause unlike most other medications.  When someone is harmed AND navigates 'vaccine court' (usually doctors and scientists who's kids got harmed are the only ones who make it all the way) then the taxpayers pick up the tab.  Look it up.

Worse still, the companies who manufacture (or license) the vaccines typically do what testing is done and the CDC mostly just takes there word for it, especially if they have the right person running CDC.  That's why the head of the CDC revolves right through the door to become the top dog in Merck's vaccine division (e.g., Jewly Gerberding.)

For every crime stopped by firing a gun, 99 are stopped by a would-be criminal knowing that you have one either by seeing it, seeing evidence of it (like a target full of holes), or hearing about it though various neighborhood channels.

Even when there is an actual confrontation such incidents are almost never reported.  This element of American civic reality is judiciously ignored by the gun-grabber contingent who, generally speaking, have no ethics and honest, and no interest in actual crime rates.  They have a different agenda.

From the research I've been doing recently (trawling a lot of 'revisionist' scholars among other sources) it looks like you are almost inverted.  (No surprise if you are a Western educated individual, see below.)  Looks to me as though the earliest Bolshevik government was in the 'almost 100% Jewish' character while that character faded over time.  It's said that in the early days there were a lot of people who didn't even speak Russian and they needed translators for the Yiddish speakers, but this was not documented and could be bullshit.

What is fairly clear is that Trotsky (born Bronstein) was bumming around in America just prior to the Bolshevik revolution and went over with a lot of people and money.  The people seemed to be the 1900 equiv of today's antifa (Jewish academics and meth-heads) and the money via Jacob Schiff (who himself was earlier sent over by the Rothschild dynasty for various exploits including instantiation of a privately owned central bank which was eventually successful and which we still have today in the Federal (so-called) Reserve.)

Lenin was supposedly chosen (in full agreement with Trotsky) for leadership because he was not Jewish, or not known to be.  A lot of 'revisionist' scholarship is focused on elucidating how true this may have been.  Stalin (born Dzhugashvili) was similarly not considered Jewish but today's revisionists try to make the point that his name translates to 'son of a Jew' and most/all of his wives, concubines, and children were Jewish.  Not unlike Donald Trump, interestingly enough.

Khrushchev was the first Soviet leader who is not really suspected of being a Jew by almost anyone, but he didn't last.

Prior to a week ago I'd vaguely known that Solzhenitsyn wrote 'The Gulag Archipelago' and won a Nobel prize.  What I didn't realize was that he got a Nobel for a much earlier short story released in a brief but of relative openness under Khrushchev.  Due to this thread I've been trying to piece together the Jewish animosity to our 2nd amendment here in the U.S., and ran across this piece:

  http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Solzhenitsyn-Chap16.html

I was confused about how in the Hell Solzhenitsyn could ever get a Nobel since that organization are notable politically correct and 'pinko'.  The answer is that Solzhenitsyn's legacy of brutal honesty was yet to be established.

What happened was that the strong contingent of people sympathetic to the Bolshevik revolution (and hoping to arrange the same thing all over) really could not deny the nightmare aspects of the USSR, and the Jewish nature of the Bolshevik revolution was also cumbersome to deal with.  What they could do, however, was to blame all of the 'bad' on Stalin, and they had made significant progress in academia and society.  Solzhenitsyn's work hurt because it exposed the lie.  'Counter-revolution' started right away and was horrific from that time onward.  Stalin was particularly awful though.

Solzhenitsyn makes the point that the Soviet leadership of Russia actually harbored a hatred of the Russian people themselves.  This was interesting to me because for a few years I've explored the hypothesis that American leadership actually harbors a hatred the American people themselves.  (Cannot blame them really since the feeling is fairly mutual.)  From that perspective a lot of the 'failures' of the health care system, education system, quagmire wars, etc, etc, really make a lot of sense.  When a hypothesis fits well with observation it is worth exploring further.

---

Whether true, half-true, or utter BS, this is certainly 'heretical' to Western educated masses of 2018:

  http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/bolshies.html

Revenge to 'feel good' is stupid.  At least it is to me.  I personally do it mostly out of duty, and that sometimes can feel good.  Someone or some entity who has wronged you is likely to continue to do so to others.  If they can be slowed or stopped through 'revenge', is doing a favor for other future victims of your category and possibly yourself as well.

Revenge against an individual is usually not worth the hassle although there are exceptions.  I was wronged by a government official some years ago.  To this day I continue to work to sap the effectiveness of this useless bureaucratic agency as a whole, and do so in multiple ways.  Very often it is 'revenge' that tips me over the edge to get off my ass and write something or vote a certain way or financially contribute to a certain cause.

As with the gun thread here, it seems like 80-90% of the respondents are parroting a philosophy that I recognize from 40 years ago in public grade school (and to a degree, from what I know about certain religions, what I see in the media, etc, etc.)  I would suggest that to a reasonable degree some of this is indoctrination specifically by and for the 'ruling classes' and primarily for the efficient functioning of their own operations.  This indoctrination takes many forms but the mainstream media and public education systems are primary vehicles.

The standard arguments for 'gun control' which we see regurgitated on a daily basis on this forum are absurd enough that we can be fairly sure that something else is going on here.

Over the last few days I've been reading Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" (1973) which is a treatises on the USSR's system for political prisoners (of which the author was one.)  Early on in the book Solzhenitsyn elaborates on the methods of initial capture.  Clearly and armed population would have complicated these operations a lot, and I suspect that such a thing may have allowed the Russian people (and others) to avoid the 70 year Bolshevik nightmare.

Solzhenitsyn follows by outlining the various waves of prisoner classes which came into the system over the years.  The breadth of the groups is staggering, not to mention the shear numbers.  The state-sponsored terror which our liberal western democracies have been ramping up recently is nothing compared to what is possible (and, ominously, does seem to work as evidenced by the lifetime of the Soviet Union, the Chinese communist rule, etc, etc.)

An explanation for the extreme pressure and increasingly ridiculous lengths that certain people are willing to go to try to modify the U.S. constitution vis-a-vis the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms might be that operations modeled after the Soviet system are being planned for the U.S., or at least dreamed of.  It is notable that certain groups have a history of being enamored of Bolshevik and Soviet methods.  To some degree these are the same groups who seem to be pushing the 'gun control' thing most vigorously here and now.

There are a bunch of really interesting documentaries about Edward Bernays and his work.  I highly recommend the one by Adam Curtis called 'The Century of the Self':

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

or reading Bernays work 'Propaganda' which, to be honest, I've not done yet.

'Brainwashing' is kind of like a piece of cloth in that once a tear gets started, it can continue and destroy the whole item.  Modern propaganda is aimed at trying to not let tears get started (by use of what I call 'information channels' and censorship mostly) and attempting the 'stitch in time' principle.  This by making people uncomfortable with certain thought patterns and thus reject them.  The term 'conspiracy theory' and weaving in 'guilt' into the fabric are two methods in common use.

In reading Orwell's work, it is almost inconceivable to me that he was not very familiar with the 'insiders' who've understood well Bernays' work and decided to use it systematically to their advantage for social control.

I think you got the it correct that most people will not, for a variety of reasons, ever really break out.  Probably more than meet the 'very strong' bar however, and probably enough to cause some real problems for the proverbial 'powers that be.'  Hope so.

The shit always hits the fan eventually.  These are events that cause a lot of un-noticed defect to turn into huge tears.  These are also the times when people who who've had some seeds of doubt germinating in the ground 'wake up' and make a difference.  It's not a total waste of time to try to plant some of these seeds when possible....though the results may not appear within one's own lifetime.

Edit: slight.

The 'county cop' (aka, Sheriff) is an elected office in the U.S.  In a city, the police chief is appointed.  I'm not sure it works this way in all cases, but that's how it is here in my area.  Any cop can and should protect lives which are in eminent danger.  In fact anyone should whether they are a cop or not.  It's a matter of citizenship, and it is possible (but rare) for a private citizen to get in legal trouble for not doing so.

The 'powers that be' are not especially fond of situations where citizens directly elect officials.  Normally it's not a problem to have a corrupt slimeball (like Sheriff Israel) 'win' in our current democracy, but it's an extra hassle and not a sure thing.  Look for efforts to degrade and get rid of 'legacy' offices such as county sheriff, local elected school boards, etc, and replace them with appointed positions, bureaucrats, or 'soviets' composed of hand picked 'citizens'.  The various 'committees' which decide what a person can build on their own property are good examples.

A believable story could be done around this formula, but the ones which are known to have occured in history are of the form:

  Poverty + Communism + guns under control of the party only = mega death

We see this in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc.

I personally don't think that Communism per-se has much to do with the equation other than that it is a totalitarian system and disfunctional economically which makes problems come to a head more quickly.  A simplified equation which I feel is more accurate (and so did, apparently, the founders of the U.S.):

  Totalitarian govt + un-armed population = mega death of own citizens

If the government (totalitarian or otherwise) is war-like then the mega death is more outwardly directed.  They want to keep the citizens healthy the better to kill citizens of other countries.  If the government is peaceful then they will focus inward on milking the herd and culling the population when it gets unwieldy.  An armed population complicates the culling options.

They could pass a raft of legislation mandating chronic costs and hassles.  Then any infractions could be used as justification for draconian punishments.  This is how I would 'get the guns' if I were designing a strategy.

The above strategy probably would get the guns out of the hands of most typical law abiding people, but not out of the hands of criminals who create problems for ordinary folks.  That is actually fine with TPTB.  Violent criminals are a very useful tool that TPTB can use for system control purposes and to justify 'official protection' in the form of paramilitaries.  Both the violent criminal classes and the state sponsored paramilitaries are more effective in certain kinds of operations, and cost effective, if the general citizenry are dis-armed.

The representative from my area is a Democrat but is usually the lone Dem in the state who votes against the ever-increasing efforts to get rid of civilian gun rights.  I vote for her for this reason...in other ways she is a classic Dem and very frustrated that we greedy citizens don't want to cough up even more tax money for public projects.

My gut sense is that there are an increasing number of Dems who are on the edge of having had enough of this bullshit.  Especially the guns and chicken-little eco stuff.  Flipping some fraction of these could be a real help.

The whole 'semi-auto' thing is an absurd charade and it gives the game away.  Most modern weapons are 'semi-auto'.  If these scum can conflate 'semi-auto' with something which means anything, and can tuck it away in their volumes of regulation, they will use it to take advantage of the general ignorance among the uninformed population.  Similarly the nebulous term 'military grade.'

It's pretty obvious to all that 'they' plan to get rid of all weapons as soon as they can.  Probably it's been posted here already, but:

...
You just have to take that sort of moderate "We just wanna have common sense legislation so that our children are safe!"  You say shit like that, and people will buy into it.
...

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsZulVQ6N9Y


And while I was looking for the above, I found  this widely viewed one about the 'gunshow loophole' and other propaganda:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEihkjKNhN8

They tend to be the most refined and developed pieces of equipement for a variety of reasons.  Just like 'street' donercycles which borrowed heavily from the racing world and are a blast to own and ride.  High-end motorcycles are way to much fun and way to dangerious for a person like me so I gave them up.  My guns are vastly more safe.

Even NOAA and NASA, who are utterly dedicated to the climate hoax fear-porn propaganda, cannot really show either a problem with sea level rise or a demonstration that modern human practices had anything to do with what is going on with their charts.  They resort to textually telling people something which a glance at the graphical representations show as bullshit.  Sadly it seems to work just fine against today's cohort of modern educated retards.

Just like global temps, the sea level has been changing upward in fits and starts since the last ice age.  It's typically in fractions of a millimeter per year.

What's funny is that the error bars that NOAA/NASA uses pretend that scientist of the early 1900's were to stupid to be able to read a tide gage within a few inches.  This is a set-up for re-writting history to try to make it appear that there is a problem which needs to be solved...by consolidating power and authority of course.

Here's the solution to sea level rise (which, again, nobody denies.)  Since the oceans are rising in mm/year ranges, one can buy an ocean-front property if they just want to enjoy the rest of their lives in a house with a nice view and not worry about re-sale value.  If you want to avoid problems 100 years out and have your investement stand the test of time, build about a foot higher.  Public works projects can (and should) do the same thing.

In my strategy, 'society' expands into 'safe zones' in a natural and cost effective manner.  Better yet, people who don't care about their property after they die can enjoy a nice place that they like at a bargin price.

One way or another, giveing the carbon scammers all of the public funds that they want is not going to change sea level rise even one iota.*

(*)  Edit:  ...and might make 'the problem' worse.  The 'powers that be' have had a wet-dream about melting the Northern ice cap for transportation and resource exploitation reasons for 50 years+.  Ideas include using carbon black to darken the snow.  Could that be why under our current globalist 'enviromental' programs most of the coal is burnt in East Asian furnaces without scrubbers while those which do have scrubbers here in the U.S. are being shut down?

Even that is not necessarily true.  Most of the guns I own are used primarily for dealing with unwanted wild animals, but I also need to be able to kill domestic animals which may be sick or injured.  It's part of being a responsible person in my environment.  Many rural living people around the world have similar needs/responsibilities, and rifles are pretty common for this reason.

That said, at least one of the guns I have is specifically for defence against criminals, and I've bought guns for several female family members for self-defence purposes.  It is not at all uncommon for there to be meth-heads looking around for stuff to steal in my area.  It's happened several times already this year!  This meth-head contingent try to avoid encounters with homeowners (since most households have guns) but they mis-calculate sometimes and there is the ever-present possibility of totally insane and/or suicidal one (or group of them) coming along.  Fortunately meth tends to make a person highly paranoid and one can use this ton one's advantage.

Here's a thought on the war on our constitutional rights here in the U.S..  Call it a hypothesis to just match against obsevations:

The U.S. 20 trillion in debt.  That figure is rapidly growing and showing no signs of slowing down,  'We' are going to default on 'our' debts.  It's pretty inevitable.

Some courts (maybe U.S., maybe some TPP-like tribunal of multi-national corporate interests, maybe something else) is going to decide the terms of 'our' default settlement.  We citizens who own property here in the U.S. and the people who hold U.S. debt instruments are probably going to have very different ideas about what is fair since a lot of 'private property' very well could be considered part of the balance sheet.

People who are 'good with money' know various tricks.  One of them is how to buy junk debt for pennies on the dollar then obtain some muscle in to help collect.  The amount of muscle needed and the cost of commissioning this service will be a LOT more if the pissed off target population is armed.`

There is one ethnic group who were over-represented in both starting the Bolshevik revolution and making bank to become the 'oligarchs' 80 years later when the Soviet Union fell apart.  They are widely considered to be 'good with money.'  Interestingly it is this same ethnic group who are over-represented here in the U.S. in supplying politicians and 'activists' to focus on getting rid of our pesky 2nd amendment.

---

BTW, I note Ivanka Trump in an above post.  The woman and her handlers have the intention of her becoming POTUS in the future.  She a member of a part-cult, part religious fundamentalist group, part white-collar crime syndicate, part ethic supremacist group called Chabad-Lubavitch.  They are in the news about being all over the Florida (supposed) shooting deal which happened lately (if you know what news to read, and Israeli news papers are well worth scanning.)  Don't trust the woman.  She'll take your guns in a heartbeat when she gets the chance...unless you are an Israeli settler in which case she'll take my tax money to buy you an AR-15.  I'd bet money on it.

It is very rare indeed that a nation was formed by people who didn't trust their own class and who planned for a failure mode which was not in their interest.  I'm sure they did realize that an armed population would simply created a hurdle for tyrants and thus hold off the inevitable for that much longer.

As an American I'm 'shocked' that people around the world cannot even state how they feel about certain political issues, and that so many true scum have risen to the top.  Hitler, Stalin, Musselini, Queen Elizibeth, Mao, Pot, etc, etc.  Our founding documents, including our 2nd ammendment, probably does have a good deal to do with our good fortunes over the years.  Hopefully enough Americans recognize this and remain 'bitter clingers' in the face of a full court press targetting a lot of our key rights and start holding accountable those people who are trying everything possible to take them away.

How are these documents to be stored and used?

Do you suppose that at the local level there might be only a few degrees of seperation between some worker in county courthouse and a set of local meth-heads, and that information about who has guns and who does not might make it out and around?  I can pretty much promise that that would be the case where I live.

Or should the information be considered 'high security' and only available to those at the highest levels of government?  If so, for what reason might the information be used?  In what circumstances would the information be useful, and to whom?

Perhaps it should be shared with large social media organizations (Twitter, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc) and the task of coorelating risky individuals should be outsourced to those who already have other data on individuals (known in the industry as 'PII')?  Or perhaps the government should be able to tap into the data collected by these large multi-national corporations in order to run the algorithms?  Which way would you like to see it go?

'Revenge' is a regrettable duty that should be performed in certain circumstances.  The reasons are pragmatic:  You may/should/must discourage an adversary and other onlookers from undertaking theatening actions against you in the future.  Thus, revenge must be accomplished with a degree of transparency which is evident not only to the target (if they survive) but also to other potential adversaries, and this can make the operation particularly risky.

I was confused about why a leopard would risk it's own health and life to 'teach a lesson' to some other species which has wronged it (a human in the case of interest.)  I asked a friend of mine who is knowlegable about big cats what was going on.  He told me that in the cat's native environment, they run across the same individual (of totally different species) repeatedly over their life due to overlapping ranges, and having a reputation as a vindictive individual is of value.  The same principle certainly applies in humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCSTc4brSPM