The jury is out on this (where-as it is crystal clear with the Clintons.)  Pence is a career politician who has supported things which indicate that he is a typical for sale one.  The main hope I see for the guy is that he does seem to stand on principles so if his principles are or get right when the chips are down, he might do the right thing.  Kaine, OTOH, gives every indication of being a weasel.

Trump has no reason to go into politics for money, and indeed it puts his wealth and his life at risk to do so as well as that of his family.  For 30 years he's been saying that he would only do it as a last resort to try to turn the country away from an iceberg.  I'd say there is at least a 50% chance that he is 'for real' in this.  I'd say the chances of an iceberg dead ahead are up in the 90%'s.  The odds that Trump could avoid a collision even if he is for real are not great, but better by a large margin than I expected to see.  I'm actually more interested in who's in charge after a devastating collision at this point, and the few persons who have impressed me in this is actually Flynn and one or two of the other military guys Trump has scared up, and Sessions who was the one guy who actually seems to have gotten off his ass and bothered to study the TPP to the extent possible.

Worse than 'no love', I think it likely at this point that she has genuine hatred for us.  With an extra helping of utter contempt for her few actual pleb class supporters.

Hillary has demonstrated time and time again that she and her business partner Bill will sell anything to anyone.  I don't rule out that she would not even charge money for 'we the people' just out of spite and vindictiveness.  She (or more accurately, her animators) might simply skip the TPP step and move straight to the next phase.

If Hillary is installed according to plan, I won't be surprised to see it be worse than even the more fringe groups imagine.  For my part I'll be preparing as best I can to be ready for anything, but there is a fair chance that even that won't be enough.  This person is bad bad news.

I think it's clear that Pence won easily on style and on 'substance'.  I think (and hope) that Pence's job was almost exclusively to shore up the political right, and if so, he is doing this with competence.  The debate was a good example.

To me, the 'touchstone' about a quality in a politician in 2016 is their stance on TPP.  It tells me in abbreviated form if a candidate is a globalist or a nationalist.  At the very least support of TPP indicates that a candidate is lazy, ignorant, or can be bought-off.  Kaine or basically anyone on the Dem side can be assumed to be a hard-core globalist minion so there are no surprises here.  Pence is at least highly suspect in this however.

I was unsurprised that the moderator failed to bring up the TPP issue.  Anyone who could possibly be chosen from the mainstream media world is certain to be a globalist minion as well, and this is not a discussion that any of them want to be having right now.

In my mind, Trump was the winner for a reason I've not heard anyone express.  Pences' stance on various of the Syria and ISIS problem/solutions, and certain others, differed notably from those of Trump, and I personally find Pences' (and of course Kaines') ideas here abysmal.  This tells me that Trump is not surrounding himself with yes-men or telling his hires that they must adopt his own ideas and this is, in my mind, the mark of a strong leader of the type we need.

Catch-up for those following the story.  As I mentioned, Wikileaks and Bitcoin are intermingled in my life so I'm extra-interested in the topic:

I stayed up to watch the thing (the presentation in Germany.)  I nodded off and awoke about the time that the Infowars crew had given up hope and gone into fully pissed off and silly mode since nothing happened.

The parts I did catch seemed odd in a way I cannot really describe.  The quality both technically and content wise was poor.  Obviously a balcony appearance is not conducive to a Q&A format so there were some last-minute changes here.  Also, I presume that data stream transfers continue to be complex due to potential interference which can degrade things.

Currently I consider the strongest hypothesis to be that 'they' got to Assange in some way or another.  The most likely way would be to make a credible threat of force against parties he could not bring himself to neglect and which outweighed the needs of his sources.  (e.g., Self, Family, Manning, Ecuador, etc.)  In this case Wikileaks is effectively history.  Hopefully Assange would have taken some steps to 'divide and multiply' along the lines I mentioned in a different post if the guy really does care about transparency and I believe he does.

Another hypothesis which I dearly hope for is that Assange has a trick up his sleeve and computes the most effective strategy would be to play dead to a degree but still get the job done.  I'm not hopeful about that since tonight's performance did significant damage to the organization.

Another is that he doesn't have that much more.

Other hypotheses which I don't completely rule out is that there is some degree of 'virtual reality' about the whole thing.  For now I'll use this bin as a catch-all for instances in which things are not as they seem or as commonly thought true.  I just cannot shake to 'odd' feeling about things but nor can I put my finger on it (though I slept through about half of it and didn't even watch the last part after Infowars gave up in disgust.)

---

With Wikileaks and it's gift of transparency out, Trump is back to having about 33% fewer of the advantages than he had before.  Basically he has his status as a better candidate and the peeps stacked against Hillary's many advantages (funding, dem and repub parties,  mainstream media, multi-national corporations, hedge fund managers, foreign leaders, etc, etc.)  If Trump somehow pulls it off it will be one of the most miraculous feats I've seen in my lifetime.

When things are 'gentlemanly' it might be workable for hubs such as Wikileaks or Greenwald's thing to 'curate' leaks.  When people are getting 86'd, not so much.  I'm hopeful that the next generation of transparency will be bulk dead-drop type dumps with crowd-analysis.  If that results in some collateral damage that could be avoided by more responsible releases (where both Assange and Greenwald did reasonably well), so be it.

Those election-aware leakers who are adverse to the risk of Assange failing to perform may (or may not) still have time to arrange alternate methods of engineering transparency, and it might be a good idea for the more highly motivated of them to think about it.  There seems currently to be a healthy enough alternative media network to get things distributed around.  How much longer that will last is unknown.

I would say "That's what bothers me.", but I do.  To some extent it might be a matter of finding what one is looking for I suppose.

As I've alluded to before, and as can be seen in my earlier work here (if one reads between the blatant trolling) I've always been on the Liberal side at least, and for a time could be rightly accused of being prone to lean toward 'progressive' causes.  I continue to consider myself a 'liberal' and as such I needed to run to the so-called 'alt-right' for protection as the 'left' stalled out and entered it's death spiral.

Probably the biggest influence on my personal shift was the 'climate change' issue, and this because of the incredible damage done to 'science' which I always have glorified.  I will never forgive the modern leftists for clubbing science to a bloody pulp in their hijack.

There's a primitive search function you may notice, and the site appears to be indexed occasionally.  It's not really rocket science.

Trans-humanism is one of the mysticism themes which is on the march these days.  Probably in part due to efforts to move humanity into globalized Technocracy.  I had been mulling some aspects of it and felt like communicating them.  Rather than start a new post, I did a search.  That's about all there is to it.  I do wonder what happened to wilikon, and find it interesting that his consciousness live on to a degree in this little wisp of cloud.

With respect to perpetual consciousness in the cloud, I'd not really want to upload into a sim maintained by a group who may be hard pressed to keep a DNS record lint script working.

Even if the thing could work, and to the extent that it seems that it someday may, it seems to me a wonderful way to make big money extorting the remaining family members in-perpetuity.

It also seems like a good way to try people for crimes in bio-times and apply punitive measures long after the fact.  Likely this is what it would be mostly good for, especially as the prevailing notions of 'naughty and nice' are subject to capricious shifts and the human capacity for cruelty knows few bounds.

As it so often the case, technology has startling analogs to outside phenomenon (e.g., viruses.)  In this case it would be a stunning analog to the Christian notion of eternal damnation.

Whether these analogs are attributable to our mining down to 'fundamental units', or simply a reflection of a failure in creativity is an interesting question.

Once one comprehends how utterly corrupt, and now how utterly desperate, the mainstream media is, one can glean a lot of fairly useful information about their direction and strategies by analyzing it.  I actually take in a lot more mainstream media now than I have for years.

In particular, what comes up on the top of a Google News screen is particularly valuable in this respect, and it basically alternates (on my profile) between CiaNN, WaPo, and N(((J)))YT.

How much would you charge to be a body-double for Assange even if there was bullet-proof glass?  Or a food taster?  How much do you suppose that the bribes to Ecuadorian security personnel are up to by this time?

Doesn't matter for this operation;  if Assange has gotten on the announcement it's a fair bet that the info will be released no matter what.  And in the worst case scenario, a hell of a lot of other info besides.

Wouldn't it be something if Assange is noted in the history books as the main player who steered humanity away from a one-world corporate dictatorship?  As awful as his sacrifices have been, many others have payed a much more dear price for vastly fewer rewards.  Never was there a better illustration of the pen being mightier than the sword.

For my part, I retain open the hypothesis that Assange, Snowden, Binney, and the rest are part of a sophisticated psychological operation.  That said, their continued performance continues to erode the strength of the hypothesis.  Such a hypothesis is unlikely to be completely dead until long after the principle actors involved are.  Such are the workings of a complex world.

'Action' (not 'inaction') in the way the 'consensus' describes it (however nebulously) is blatant violence against all but the upper 1% or less of the world's population.  For probably 25% at least it is effectively a death sentence.  It is a genocidal program, or at least a major component there-of.

Your complaints matter not.  Why?  The goal of the chart is to demonstrate that the climate models, and thus the 'science' upon which they are based, are shit.  The computer models don't go back to 'the beginning of the 1900's because the bogus science was not constructed at that time, and because the defective sims were not run on Hollerith machines (though they may as well be for the results they produce.)

Seems that the only 'legal' data is that which is diddled by the scientpriests.  Since it is more challenging to diddle the present readings upward without being caught, the usual technique these days is to 'homogenize' the historic readings downward.  As Orwell famously stated, 'Those who control the present...'

Just so you know, I personally don't doubt that we are in a warming trend here on Earth at the present time, and I don't know of anyone who does.  It's been going on in fits and starts since the earth was colder than it is now, and nobody doubts that at many times it was.  My complaint is that it is ever more obvious to me that humans burning fossil fuels have very close to zero impact on the trend.  We humans cause enough needless problems that we don't need to invent non-existent ones to attack.  Unless, of course, there are other reasons to do so and 'the ends justify the means' so to speak.

In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle.  The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.

If a Maunder-minimum is the sun's plan, the immediate issue is that the scienpriests have amasses a mountain of BS 'proving' that evil humans are making the earth boil over (and thus, they want to take control in order to save it.)  The fun thing will be to see how spin things to 'prove' that evil humans are making the earth freeze (and thus, they want to take control in order to save it.)

Looks like they make take the easy route and simply criminalize scrutiny of their certified scientpriests' utterances.


Do you have any actual rationale for stating this, or is it just what pops up in your playbook for this topic?

And what does the playbook say for the "Global Overloards + 'diet, injection, and injunction'" topic?  Lemme guess:  "Nope."

TPTB ('the powers that bank') are 'predicting' a 400% increase food prices in the coming decade and a variety of other hardships to befall the pleb class.  It's a fair hypothesis that they 'know' things that others don't...in addition to the rather obvious one that they know how to get wealthy and stay that way.

Even at the heart of the last ice-age, glaciation never got to my little corner of earth so I'll be building a greenhouse.  Actually, it's not a long duration cold snap that concerns me since even a 'mini' one is unlikely to impact me in my life-cycle.  It's more that as everything that the the city dwelling populations consume, from food through medications through water, is dictated by a rapidly consolidating multinational corporate entity structure (see the merger of Bayer (formerly IG Farben of NAZI gas chamber fame) and Monsanto.)  Such operations as the great global warming hoax are only 'sustainable' by neurologically damaging the population as the standard propaganda techniques become to absurd to be suitably effective on their own.

Common sense applied to the chart says that your theories about the dangers of evil fossil fuel use are all a load of horse shit.

The chart spaghetti are the model predictions and the solid line is observed reality.  The endless cronyism and wealth generated in the 'sustainability' movement is a direct result of the now discredited 'science' which produced the flawed models.  My 'conspiracy theory' is that this was no accident.  Other charts show that reality is now outside the error bar on the spaghetti.

Until a few years ago, the defense against 'common sense' was to 'hide the decline' and try to explain it away, assure the mouth-breathing public that disaster was still right around the corner, and propose that the fact that reality was not playing ball only meant in some nebulous that the danger was even worse than previously predicted.  The new strategy seems to be to simply deny the existence of the problem with the theory and hope that Joe Sixpack is to fuckin' stupid to notice.  Sadly that has turned out to be a surprisingly effective strategy.

Maybe not effective enough though, in which case the fallback which is being set up is to simply criminalize 'denial' be it science based or not.  This is why I consider you guys 'regressive'.  Regressing right back to the dark ages when the priests of the Catholic church defined reality and the earth was flat.  The analog between the church and it's priest class vs. the IIPC and it's 'scientismist' class is startling.

edits: minor

Ironically, I'm coming around to 'your way of thinking.'

As I've 'proven' to a significant degree, evil humans burning fossil fuel has nearly zero to do with it.  OTOH, an idea which I initially rejected, is that geo-engineering could have some impact on global temperatures.  It is increasingly obvious that it can have wide-scale impacts on 'climate', and with certain feedbacks, an impact on global temperatures also seem plausible.  Don't take my word for it.  NOAA has already admitted that there is 'accidental' geo-engineering due to commercial aircraft, and CIA director (and former communist voter) Brennan is pretty ga-ga about the idea of using geo-engineering as an inexpensive irrigation system servicing chosen entities (and, presumably, dis-servicing others.)

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCP4x9dVvE4

What really spurred my interest in geo-engineering was my own eyes looking into the sky above my own home.  As little as three years ago I nearly completely wrote it off as a wild conspiracy theory.

I entertain the hypothesis that the 'anthropogenic climate change' fraud as couched by the likes of you guys is as much as anything about trying to produce justification for weather modification.  Of course that is not to say that the promoters (like yourself) would have the foggiest clue that that is the real game.

Yet another attempt to lay a foundation to attack real science in the court system since doing so in the lab or on the chalkboard is becoming increasingly impossible as the years drift by and the fraudulent model world vanished over the horizon.

To me, and to genuine scientists, 'know' means 100% and this is a very very high bar.  I'll give you a little lesson about how to operate in such a challenging world:

The continuous nature of the slope describing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is measured at Mao Loa (sic?), say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to represent a delta if it did indeed exist.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpg

The computation of anthropogenic CO2 releases based on economic records is, say, 99% likely to be accurate enough to compute a significant delta at around y2k.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/CO2_Emissions_IPCC_1024.jpg

(By chance, both plots I found happen to be from a warmunista shill site (which doesn't proxy, so click to view.))

So clearly, the idea that humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and it builds up to cause a problem, has at least 98% chance of being wrong.  Roughly, but close enough.

This is about as close to 'knowing' something as is practical in the real world.

As it happens, there are a whole chain of additional ludicrously small probability suggestions and/or utter absurdities between the theory that handing over $100's of TRILLIONS of dollars over the next decade and control of the global economy to a gaggle of bozos at the UN will save the planet certain death.  It's hard to believe that anyone above idiot rating would actually believe this, but so it seems to be.  A good illustration of the quality of propaganda that money can buy these days.

https://www.corbettreport.com/and-now-for-the-100-trillion-dollar-bankster-climate-swindle/

I can see from the abstract that the screed is full of shit.  Any quasi-scientist understand that one rarely 'knows' anything, making the suggestion that we 'deniers' hold mutually conflicting views absurd.

I was actually disposed to believing that 'global warming' was real until I actually looked into the science behind it.  This occurred after wilikon started this thread in fact.  It only took a few days of study for me to realize that it was a sham of epic proportions, and almost everything I've seen since only strengthens my hypothesis here.  Again, the 'anthropogenic global warming is a hoax' hypothesis is remarkably coherent and corroborated by observations.

It may have escaped you, but the models upon which a lot of policy and false 'hope' were based are old enough not to be verified against reality and they have failed miserably.  Slightly less well known is that while human generated fossil fuel use _rates_ have increased it is not matched in global CO2 concentrations which have not even realized an observable impact.  In scientific terms, this means that your theory is proven false.  Yet people want to stick with the pre-supposed solution (which is, give a certain group of people vast amounts of money and control of the global economy) for some reason.  <chuckle>


Ever heard of a guy named Snowden?

My text specified that I believe the suggestion that a nuclear war would necessarily end human life on earth to be false.  It would be a high mortality event, of course, but I believe that there would be plenty of survivors, and that especially the case if the nuclear attacks (and defenses) were reasonably well choreographed.  If one reads the information from back in the early cold-war days when U.S. civilians were provided with survival tips, one notices that lethal radiation levels drop off fairly quickly (short half-life isotopes are the ones which get you) so if one can stay 'underground' for a while, one has some chance of survival.

I'm war-gaming what could happen after such an event.  And again, while a nuclear war causes 'some problems'...to understate things slightly...it also produces some solutions to others.  Different people gauge different problems differently, and one fixation of 'the elite' seems to be their feeling that there are to many of us walking the earth.

Again, I see the main thing joining Trump and Putin is a shared idea that a nuclear war would suck and is to be avoided.  If Clinton had a safe bunker and a reasonable expectation that she and a few people that she actually cares about would come out on top at the other end of the tunnel, I would not be surprised to see her push the button.  Especially if she has a minimal amount of time to live anyway.