Another in a long list of wankers who thought that their childish scientism games would work on this thread like it does on reddit bites the dust.  Bye-Bye.

Not all scientists by any means.  There are plenty of scientist who are aware that this global warming thing is a scam to one degree or another.  A few of them are brave enough to stand up and say so.  Usually those who are at the end of a successful career because honesty caries significant cost in our world which is degenerating into and amalgamation of pseudo-science and pseudo-religion which I call 'scientism'.


It is no more difficult to disprove a 'conspiracy theory' than any other.  If a particular 'conspiracy theory' seem frustratingly Teflon-ish here, there may be a fairly obvious reason you know.

It will be interesting to see how the efforts to outlaw scientific exploration of certain scientific lines of enquirey will play out.  It's certainly been tried over the centuries.  Will increased communications capabilities help or hinder such legislative efforts to control science?  Time will tell.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/

I'm basically aware of the loss of life engineered by Stalin.  Lots of people, Communist and otherwise have engaged in population engineering to the detriment of civilians.  These tend to be relatively short-lived events.  Not relevant and not particularly counter to my point even if it was.

My interest in the politics of shortage was spurred in discussions with a Russian speaking Ukrainian friend of mine.  He says that the lines to obtain food in the former Soviet Union were often not necessary but that it created a means of social conditioning which were useful to those who managed the collective.

Housing was similar.  One way for a young couple to get a flat was 'inform' on someone else.  If the victim lost their flat then the informer may get it.  I know from my standpoint where eco-sleazeballs can anonymously call about things when are non-problems and have the state bureaucrats show up and cause a lot of hassles that this snitch culture creates a lot of fractures in a community.  That is probably one reason why this construct is often used in socialist and communist societies (as well as capitalist ones like our McCarthy era red bating to be fair.)

At the end of the day, there are few attempts at socialism or communism which ended up being even tolerable for those who have little desire for liberty, and more often than not they seem to fall into a hell-on-earth bottomless pit which spares only a handful of the leaders.  It's relatively easy to see why and how this happens and hard to see any construct which could avoid it.

I think there is reasonable evidence that Bergdiddlio fantasizes about this significantly.  I don't recall where I ran across it (this board or elsewhere) but the statements from the most recent Popes (one in pre-Pope stage) about the book Lord of the World at the end of the linked Wikipedia article are quite interesting.


Contrasting the thoughts of Ratzinger and Pope Benedict XV with those of Bergdiddlio makes one wonder if they are even from the same religion.  I also wonder about the details of Ratzinger stepping down to make way for the current douchebag.  I always thought that Ratzinger was a nazi pedo-protector because that is what I heard from the left-wing sources.  In looking into things more, mostly because of his stance on the book and the new-world-order-ish thing described there-in, it seems like the guy might not have been that bad on these fronts after all.

I'll defend the guy a bit only because I was/am pissed about Trump's abortion stuff being taken out of context.

It is a legitimate (not necessarily equal to 'correct') argument that it is better in times of famine for a government to have it together enough to keep people alive.  Even Bernie would probably prefer that people's nutritional needs are met adequately without such a construct.

Perhaps not however.  Austerity seems to be a common feature of collectivist societies.  The benefits are that the population develops a reliance on the collective, and more specifically on the organizers of the collective which helps the organizers control them.  In a corporate owned collective, which is the path the world is on at the moment, the owners of the means of production can extract more reward for less product.  What's not to love if you have a lock on the product being rationed (fossil fuel reserves are a prime example.)

It's usually fairly easy to form an opinion to a workable degree of confidence.  Say, 80%.  After that it's just a matter of matching semi-random related observations against the general hypothesis.

It is increasingly clear that a lot of the 'protest' activities against trump are rent-a-mob astroturf, and one can see signs (figuratively and literally in this case) of it in a lot of the tangential reporting.

I might take the time to mention again that what sparks my interest in delving into a subject is often something which some activist dug up and presented, and, since I frequent this list, you personally have been 'responsible' for doing this on more than one occasion.  So, thanks.

The 'backlash' I was talking about would be a general and reasonably forceful rejection of the mainstream media at large by an increasing number of citizens.

The abortion trap was just one of many operations these guys have pulled vis-a-vis Trump.  When it came down to the wire, almost all of the mainstream media went all-in for Establishment Inc's choice Bush in Bush v. Gore.  By chance it was Mathews who started the ball rolling on operation abortion trap, and I remember Mathews the most in the Bush v. Gore event.  The difference is that in Bush v. Gore it was in the critical last few weeks when they really showed their hand.  In the Trumpian era, they showed it even more clearly than in Bush v. Gore with even nastier and more dishonest tactics, and 7 months from zero-day.

Bush v. Gore 15 years ago was when I simply stopped paying attention to the mainstream media except occasionally to study what his between the lines in order to understand certain underlying strategies.  Usually I find more truth by taking their material as being lies.  This has only gotten worse (or 'better' if one analyses material a layer or two deep) since relatively recent de-regulations which occured since that time.



It is worth note that corporations activities generally align with the desires of those who sit on the board of directors.  This tends to be the ultra-wealthy or functionaries thereof.  Thus, even if 'six multi-national corporations' seem to provide some 'diversity', it is mostly an illusion.

For my part, I get most of my 'news' from individuals who have the time and interest to dig things up and/or present their own novel take on their areas of interest.  If one of their thesis merits interest in my mind, I follow up with my own research (which, again, sometimes includes seeing what the mainstream media is saying and analyzing it carefully and critically.)  Possibly this for of information intake is why there is some desperate interest in trying to shut down news aggregation linking, tighten up 'fair use' intellectual property 'loopholes', and generally try to increase intellectual property regulations globally.

I'm not terribly concerned.  The negative perception, if it is even true and not another fairly common form of propaganda leveraging group-think dynamics, was achieved by the establishment media pulling out ALL the stops and sinking to extreme depths of dishonesty.  Even some of my highly progressive family cannot ignore it any more.  7 months is plenty of time to engineer a backlash, if it even needs any engineering at all.

I would suggest to Trump that he develop a brief catchy civics lesson to counter the abortion thing.  Along the lines of:

"The 'abortion' comment related to ILLEGAL abortion just as the immigration thing relates to ILLEGAL immigration.  The mainstream media almost always and very dishonestly leaves out the 'illegal' part for propaganda reasons.  Under our form of government, congress makes laws, courts decide if the laws are allowed, and the executive enforces those which are found to be legal.  As president I intend to enforce laws whether I agree with them or not.  The American people are sick of other people and groups being 'above the law' and I intend to put a stop to it on many fronts."

LOL.  Come correct, homes.

LULZ.  Cough 'em up, bitch!

Or you could try 'losing' them.  I wouldn't recommend it.  Wouldn't life have been easier if you had just sat on your early stash and not gone about trying to rip people off?

Moi?  I've never met the man so of course I'm not a 'friend' of his.  I am increasingly a Trump supporter for a whole lot of reasons, but I'm not a blinded groupie.  It's not in my blood.

BTW, why would one support a candidate BUT for 'political position?'

You have your style, I have mine.

In as sober and fair an analysis I can muster, I'm proud of some of my analytical calls.  It Bitcoin-land and beyond.  I'm still here and cypherdoc, for instance, is gone.  Yes, his formal shilling netted him quite a lot of other people's BTC, but he is in danger of needing to cough them up and/or face unpleasent consequences from a variety of quarters.

The contrary point of view is that anyone who wants to degrade themselves enough to play the political games which are rampant in today's politics is 'out of their mind.'  Being president during a time of existential crisis, OTOH, would be doing so at a time when it actually matters.  The person who would want to do so may still be nutso, but cut from a whole different sheet of cloth.

The trouble is that there are several curves here.  One is 'us' waking up to the writing on the wall and 'preparing.'  The other is the economic situation deteriorating which works against those who have a mind to prepare even being able to.  At some point these curves will cross if they have not already.

For my part, I took an interest in 'preparing' quite a while before Bitcoin came on the scene.  When it did, it offered a fresh new avenue to broaden my preparation.


I will again re-iterate my prediction that the 'controlled demolition' will occur while Obama still has a tenable legal argument that he is in charge.  If Trump cannot be stopped or there is not a very clear expectation that he will be stopped that is.

I'll allow myself one more out in this regard:  if Trump is not 'for real' and is playing a masterful con-job on analysts like your's truly.

I would suggest that people start to consider right now what they personally will do if/when Trump is shut down by very unethical and non-democratic means.  Forward planning is always a good thing no matter what side of the fence one is on.

I at least half agree.  Sanders has been and independent (iirc) for about forever and has held his basic socialist views for as long as far as I know, but in honesty, I never actually studied him or paid a lot of attention to his activities.  He has always been in a class of other independents who I had some respect for (Chaffee, Specter, to be specific.)  I don't doubt that the establishment has animosity toward him, and it would probably nearly equal that which they feel for Trump if Sanders were an actual threat.

This establishment animosity would be nearly the sole reason I would vote for Sanders at this point.  In terms of having hope that he would accomplish anything positive as president, I have none.  As an 'old timer' in his situation, I think it possible that he has an 'America First' instinct, but he also may very well be led by the nose into the (very false) promise by the globalists that they are taking us into a Utopian collectivist world.  I just don't see any signs that he is anything but a stary-eyed dreamer who will blindly follow anyone who utters the word 'peace' a few times.  Even if not, I don't sense that he has any very realistic views on how to usher in 'Socialism' (much more than we already have), and more and more think we are to far down that road already.  If we could get rid of the 'crony' aspect of the residuals of our 'Capitalism' that would be a plenty good start point, and it seems that Trump is making the most compelling case to date that he might be the one who is capable of doing this.

As for the 'Illuminati', call it what you will but there are a relatively small group of very wealthy people who are the driving forces behind the 'new world order' or 'new world economic order' that MANY politicians have mentioned.  In many/most cases the wealth come from a dynastic family (or being a functionary of one) or the banking system or often both.  Being ultra-wealthy means owning seats on the boards of multi-national corporation which translates into having a high degree of influence.  For all intents and purposes, this framework of ownership constitutes 'the establishment'.  Sorry, but that's the way it is.  Many people are waking up to it.

Such a thing seems mathematically and logical inevitable no matter who or what is in charge.  It's just a matter of timing, setup, and implementation.

I think that such a re-set will happen before Trump becomes president if there is not a fairly good chance that he can be stopped.  The simple reason is that for TPTB it needs to happen at a time when there are 'friendlies' at the levers of power in order to achieve the best outcome for said powers, and nobody is more friendly than Obama.  He is clearly a willing tool of the financial sector class.

Trump's re-tweet of the Trump-Cruz wife comparison seemed tacky even by my standards, and I initially considered it a mistake.  In thinking about it more, I'm not so sure.

Taking advantage of an opportunity to get Heidi's name and face burnt into the public's consciousness sets up two potentially devastating body-blows. 

  1) if Ted's infidelity issues have some basis in reality and I suspect they do, it can be milked as needed.

  2) if/when Trump stops beating around the bush and goes full 'anti-globalist', Heidi working as a special adviser to Robert Zoellick on trade deals, actually herself sitting on the CFR, working at high levels in the banking system, etc, could become a real weapon for Trump and a very legitimate one.

Every time Trump get's tagged for 'beating up on woman' he can counter-punch on these two issues.  Especially 2).

My sense is that lots of people who basically see this have a some nebulous hope/expectation that once 'we' get Socialism in place then we will be able to turn on the rich/super-rich, dis-empower then and shake them down for the good of the collective.  The trouble from a realist's point of view is that this basically never happens in any sustaining way.  Ultimately, even little temporary 'wins' become more rare as the totalitarian nature of a necessarily tightly controlled and bureaucratically bloated socialist government becomes more entrenched.

Seen any chemtrails?  Lots of people in parts of the U.K. claim to see them a lot and are quite bothered by them.

I live in a very rural area on the Pacific NW coast of the U.S. and pretty much 'deep in the forest.'  I really don't see anything unusual in the newts, crawdads, salmon, bears, deer, elk, trees, etc, etc.  We had two very dry years and I saw some VERY interesting things in the skies.  The huckleberries dried up early, but no mass die-off of anything that I could notice (and I'm pretty observant.)  About 1 year ago I suddenly stopped seeing bizarre things in the skies and have seen only a few since.  The rains came back this year too.  Over 100 inches already which is twice what I got all last year.

I'm wondering if some of the 'chemtrail' activity was not part of a program to basically drought out California and allow their government to implement draconian regulations.  Also, to drive the remaining small farmers into bankruptcy and allow their property to be gobbled up by the multi-national corporations.  I've mentioned it before on this thread, but I sometimes wonder if one of the major rationals behind the whole 'global climate change' fraud is not to justify certain geo-engineering programs which are already being deployed.  Every day more and more people are looking up into the skies and saying 'wow! something is going on.'  If the excuse of 'saving the planet' can be leveraged then such activity can probably persist in spite of the ill effects on various parties (esp, those who don't have inside connections.)

That would suck and it would probably work   Sanders could be tucked away once Clinton is in and not interfere with the corporate aspect of the one-world project.  Like Dan Quayle.  If she had health problems which could bring him in, he could easily have complementing ones himself.  He doesn't strike me as someone with the wits to watch his own back or even really see what's going on.  If he was given the bully pulpit, he very well could lead the social justice sheep cohort right inside of the multi-national corporate wolves den and not even realize it himself.

In such an instance (Clinton/Sanders), it would probably negate my idea of Trump using some left-winger who happens to also be an anti-globalist.  With a Republican-sponsored third-party conservative in the mix, I don't see a way for Trump to win against Clinton/Sanders or Clinton/Warren.