So do the soldiers of our minion quasi-nations in Europe.  That is to say, they go and fight where they are told to by US executive power.  I guess that makes some sense since there is not much left of the former nations to defend as they fold into the EU.


What's the difference between today's modern police state of France and the Vichys?

Answer is: - you guessed it.

When one gets to the point of needing self defense, the situation is utterly serious and it would be unwise for most people to be making less than a 100% effort to defend themselves.  Bonking a home intruder on the head with a frying pan makes for good comedy on TV but has a very good chance of working out poorly for the defender in real life.

Arguments for less-than-lethal ammo can be made both ways (and have on this thread.)  I personally still keep that as an option, but it is mostly because my biggest threats are against large animals which I don't normally wish to kill, and I can switch over in less than one second.  As long as I can keep my head together in an emergency situation which hopefully I'll never be in.

WhatHuh?  I'm nearing 50 and am still fairly strongly conditioned to feel some combination of guild/shame/fear about saying anything which could be construed as negative toward 'the Jews'.  That usually translates into saying nothing at all.  It's probably part of a strategy and a design.  Thinking back, it probably has something to do with the endless discussions about the holocaust and such that the school curriculum was saturated with.

Now it could be that Sanders and other Jews feel some discomfort that people may feel things about them that they are restricted from expressing.  That's a trade-off.  Whatever the case, all of the 'hostility' does not seem to have kept Sanders from office and eventually doing amazingly well in a run for the presidency.  Plenty of other Jews have overcome these tremendous obstetricals to meet success as well it seems.  I guess Jews are unusually superior in some ways or they've been overplaying the disadvantages dealt to them here in the U.S.  I suspect there is an element of both at work here.

I'll guess that Trump is like:  "Oops.  Did I get 'hacked'?  Oh golly gee, whatever am I going to do?"

The idea that Trump is a RINO is neither big news nor is it necessarily something without an upside.  Especially when he's up against Clinton.  That this 'hack' happened at this time mainly tells me that Trump has stopped bothering to worry about the remainder of the 'republicans.'

Voicemail hacks are as old as the hills.  If Trump doesn't have better IT security by this time I seriously doubt that he would have gotten this far.  I'm not buying it.

The Salby presentation I've pointed to earlier demonstrate that the computer models show that the predicted temperatures so closely and so exactly mirror the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that one does not even need a model even though the idea that CO2 is the only force impacting temperature is ludicrous.  In fact, even limiting to the considerations associated with greenhouse gasses, CO2 takes a back seat to water vapor.

What the climate change scammers are doing is throwing so much shit at the wall that their adversaries cannot keep up.  This is fine because when someone does the actual research and observation to cross-check and does find out that one of the 'dangers' is a load of BS, policy has already been made and that is never rolled back.

A good example is the 'ocean acidification' crap:

For one thing, the very word 'acidification' is bogus.  The ocean is alkali.  For it to move toward even becoming acidic at all it moves toward neutral (a pH of 7.0.)  Thus, the proper term would be 'ocean neutralization.'  The scammers, however, knew that the sheep had seen a James Bond movie where someone was thrown into a vat of acid and knew that 'ocean acidification' would scare the shit out of people.  And it does.  Especially scientifically illiterate greenies.

In my state there was a successful effort to tax people more for fuel so we could be more like Kalifornia.  The whole political/media machine was awash in stories of 'ocean acidification' which was the hot and happening thing in green-scam-land at the time (last year) and it worked.  Our DEQ is working on figuring out how to further fuck people as I tap this out.  Theory was that all of the shelled creatures were going to dissolve and mother Gaia would die.  After a year went by and there were more shelled creatures than ever, the 'scientists' are admitting their 'mistake.'  Are the taxes being backed out?  Of course not.

Our 'first lady' and her doddering old husband (Gov. Kitzhaber) were thrown out of office for massive green influence peddling and the scammery surrounding the gas tax (esp, what to do with the loot when it started to pour in out of Joe Sixpack's pocket) was a significant part of this malfeasance.  Even after THAT the gas tax thing remains on the fast-track.  Oregon is a one-party Democrat state and has been for long enough for these types of people to have become completely entrenched.  Like a bad case of tape worms.

Seems to me like there is plenty of room in Turkey for the Kurdish state.  No need to disrupt Iran, Iraq, or Syria.

Loosing Turkey as a NATO member in the process of carving it up would be a great benefit as well.  I would rate Turkey's membership in NATO as one of the biggest threat to humanity at this time.

Actually, 'saving water' is a globalist/corporatist scam and the Democrat tinted fold of the establishment which is currently the most active and effective in implementing such plans.  To be fair, though, that is largely attributable to it being they who control the executive at the moment.  The so-called Republicans show every sign of being anxious push such scams forward when it is their turn.

I would agree that the parallels between Idiocracy and modern America are stunning and Trump is a poster-child.  Just not in this way.  Yet.  It's mostly that his is pretty much a dead wringer for President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.  FUCK YEAH!

Probably the most perceptive part of the whole movie was at the very end when reference was made to 'the un.'  I do wonder if it was this few seconds of footage  which was responsible for the best effort attempt to bury the movie only to have it pop up as a ubiquitous cult classic a decade later.

I only started to look into Trump since super Tuesday after which it became clear that I would not be totally wasting my time.  Thankfully the Democrat machine is so well oiled that I won't have to waste time trying to understand Sanders (and I've known what a dirtbag Clinton is for at least 10 years...though I was once fooled a long long time ago.)

Anyway, Trump seems shrewd enough to know the soft spots and know that he needs to have protection before getting serious.  We are at or near the point of having death squads here already with the dead doctors who go against the establishment, dead journalists, dead hackers, dead judges, etc.  Snowden (unless he's a fraud which I still consider possible) and Assange have a particular class of protection in that they have unreleased information which is more valuable in unreleased form than their own dead bodies.  Or at least they make a credible claim to such info.  Trump, who is deeply involved in New York real estate. certainly would know the score about 9/11.  He has had the money and connections to obtain hard-copy proof of a lot of interesting things and seems to have had an eye on the presidency for a long time.  Surely he would have considered a poison-pill to be a pre-requisite, especially since he would have known going in that he was going to be highly unwelcome to the establishment.

This is, obviously, conjecture and hope on my part, and it is born of my findings about how shrewd and clued in the guy seems to be.  Already I consider Trump to be at least a decent protest vote, and it seems possible that I could at some point even vote for him for real.  All selections for POTUS are to me sort of 'Hail Mary' play based on long-shot hopes that the candidate turns out OK.  I actually feel it less of a long-shot with Trump than with any other candidate in recent memory.

There are a couple of wildcards in such a scenerio (assumed to be China's million man army vs. armed American citizens defending their turf'.)

  1) The U.S. govt could provide very valuable inteligence support (at least) to the foreign attackers.  Especially with the help of the Israelis who have played a strong role in U.S. internal intelligence gathering for quite a while now.

  2) Both the Chinese and more recently the U.S. governments conceive of the biggest threats to their position being their own internal populations and there are just to many of us for their tastes in both countries.  Especially since as technology moves forward, there is less need for flesh-bots to run the equipment.  Such a framing will be even more the case under a 'one world government' leadership and is probably the main driver behind the 'SCN'.  A mutual destruction of all combatants would be 'not a bug but a feature.'

The 'flat earth/round [spherical] earth' thing is a psy-op designed to give warmistas an excuse to avoid debates with rational people.  Much like the '99% of sciententists say' class of argument.  These are necessary because they inevitably get their asses handed to them when they try to argue coherently on scientific merit.  Nobody I know who has a basic competence science believes the 'flat earth' nonsense.  I'll wager that about the only people who do are only pretending to as part of their shill game.

I've not heard of the 'O2 religion' thing.  People who have the aforementioned basic competence recognize immediately that O2 is a highly abundant(*) waste product of the vast majority of life on earth by biomass.  CO2, on the other hand, is a rare and valuable trace gas necessary for the existence of said biomass for which there is much competition.

* except in anaerobic conditions where the atmosphere is excluded.

edit: slight.

I'm kind of a subscriber to the 'social evolution' hypothesis.  In a nutshell, as I define it at least, it is the idea that the proportions of different kinds of people are evolutionary arrived at in order to maximize the survivability of a group.  The mechanics of evolution being slow and human history beyond hunter/gatherer stage being minimal, we are likely 'set up' for a small group dynamics.

One example would be that it might be nice to have someone who likes to stay up late.  This because it was important for a village to keep the fire going.  But if everyone liked to stay up late then everyone would want to sleep in and fewer berries would be gathered and less game captured.

We all know the 'all chiefs and no Indians' or 'to many chefs' idea.  When that happens, disaster is around the corner.  It is best for a group dynamic to have mostly followers and few leaders.  In fact, the key to being a successful leader is to recognize that most people are natural followers.  One of the tools that a leader has available to them is religion, and it is used to great effect in most societies.  Thus, most people are going to be susceptible to religion.  It's sort of hard-wired in.

(I recent theory of mine is that religiosity is a re-routing during the maturation process of the circuitry that one uses to relate to their parents in childhood.  But I digress.)

On the intellect thing, it is not really in the best interest of a group to have a lot of smart people.  Just like leaders, a few will do just fine.  I suspect that usually they became the group shaman and were responsible for at least counseling the leader on group movements, war strategy, and such.

Now being smart is kind of associated with being powerful in other ways, and the opposite sex often appreciates this.  How to avoid having to many kids and the catastrophe of having the mean intellect of the whole village explode.  Should that happen, who would do the fighting???  One solution is to have bright people tend to be weird and creepy.  In modern times a bright person is more likely to be able to predict what a pain in the ass a spouse would be, and would also be able to build a wealth buffer for old age (e.g., by buying Bitcoin) but the weird and creepy gene lives on.

I pay almost no attention to what almost anyone 'says', and that is extra true in modern politics.  To the extent I do, I try to figure out why they are saying it more than what they are saying as an indication of their overall positioning.

Trump, like Warren, seems to understand the type of people they are dealing with in the financial sector.  I'm inclined to take a chance on Trump and cross fingers that he will deal with them on our behalf.  It's a long-shot, but stranger things have happened.  If he chooses to attempt an attack, 'knowing the enemy' is critical.  What Clinton seems to know about this sector is that it is an easy place to pick up a quarter million bucks for a few hours of work (including driving time.)

The Democratic machine is well oiled enough that it's a waste of time to worry about Sanders.  If I did need to, however, I worry significantly that he is milking the global climate change fraud to the max, and the pinko side of it.  Which is to say, employing it in it's transfer of wealth from 'rich' to the poor formation (where 'rich' means the middle class since the 1% can easily skate and in fact use it to their advantage to get into the 0.01%.)  He is either to dumb to realize that it is a scam, or knows it and welcomes it in which case he is nothing but a scammer.  In this case, assuming he is 'honest', a scammer of the 'warmista' type.

I've said it before and I'll say it again because it has significant explanatory power:  I suspect ever more strongly that the 'NWO' is actively install 'flawed' people who can be induced to do such things as 'homogenize' historical climate data.  For a true scientist, doing such a thing is an anathema to the discipline because it spoils  the ways and means of science going forward.

I suspect that many of the 'flaws' that are leveraged are financial in nature, but there are way to many which include an element of sexual deviancy.  Pachauri is something of a poster child here, but there are far worse behaviors which could probably be found if anyone had the gumption (and stomach) to look.

There are probably many people who have personal political reasons for bending science in the interest of the UN crowd and need no financial or other incentive to do so.  This phenomenon was exposed in the climategate data leak among other places.

This is not to say that the 'other side' is faultless and doesn't play the same games.  It seems to be the case that there is precious little mass on the 'other side' of the scale.  Everyone from Nature Conservancy to Exxon is making bank on the climate change fraud, or has a reasonable expectation to do so down the road.

In my country (U.S.), when the Republicans (some of them) are fighting to have transparency in science and the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep the data, algorithms, etc which feed into policy secret, it's pretty telling.  This more than probably any other factor has shifted me from being a generally solid left-wing type to taking a much more close look at all sides.

The 'pause' (aka 'hiatus') is nothing new.  It's been known about for many years.  Even the warmistas conceded it before the strategy shifted to denying it outright and more aggressively 'homogenizing' the historic surface temp data to try to get back the slope that their political sponsors demanded.

Edit:  Speaking of 'scientist' doing what they call 'homogenization', here's a graphical illustration:

From: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/

Seems like a whole lot of people are getting a whole lot of money and a few people are getting a whole lot of control out of the 'scary' nature of these models.  As long as the money and control keeps moving upwards, the 'scientists' can question to their heart's content.  But it would probably be a good career move if they kept largely quite on these questions, and in fact I don't see much mention made of the 'divergence' except on the 'denier' side of the fence.

Two things which seem to really get Bitcoiners juices flowing:

  1)  Space travel/exploitation.

  2)  Living in harmony on a ship or island or desert wasteland with other like-minded Bitcoiners.

Hey, don't let my bad attitude and lack of 'vision' stop you!

That is the one thing which makes me start to consider looking at Trump seriously.  Actually, I agree with some of the few things I've heard him say (and dis-agree strongly with others) but at this point I don't give any weight whatsoever to what any candidate says.

Back in the Romney v. Obama days, I figured that there was some small chance that Romney would go 'against his people' and be, on balance, OK.  Similarly, there was a small chance that being his last term, Obama would turn over a new leaf and start to be a little bit for the country.  I didn't give high odds for either of these things (and did a joke vote due to this.)  We know how Obama acted which is even more corporate globalist and anti-people than ever so I wish we'd had Romney.  But he was only there because as a rich white Mormon cult-member he was pretty much un-electable making it near certain that Obama would stay on to continue doing his sponsor's bidding.

LOL!  Tired of getting beat up for being the shittiest 'scientist' ever and abandoned by even his allies for the embarrassment of supporting his fraud.  I guess he's trying to practice science for a change to salvage something of a reputation after a decade and a half of being a laughing stock.  Better late than never I suppose.

For my part, I consider Bloomberg and Clinton to be pretty much indistinguishable.  I specifically voted against Clinton back in 2008 (the last time I voted nationally with a non-joke vote) and I have seen nothing which would make me detest her less since.  I can think of nothing at all to like about Bloomberg and he seems to be at least as much of a totalitarian NWO type as Clinton.  If anything that is his claim to fame.  (BTW, for most of my life I was kind of a 'default Democrat' voter on issues/people I'd not studied, and on many of those I had.)

Ultimately, given the assault of public education and mass media, a totalitarian NWO advocate of a 'one-world' political/social/religious system type of person will command a majority of popular support.  Hopefully not yet in 2016, but I would not rule it out.  At the end of the day, people are going to have to see what that means with their own eyes in order to properly evaluate the down-sides.  When it becomes possible to break out of it (if ever) those who survive will try very hard to make sure it never happens again.  At this time I believe that the only hope for 'change' will be at such a juncture.  That is to say, we ARE going to see a global order and the main thing worth considering is how to deal with it when it occurs.  Taking actions which guide how it occurs and what it looks like (in order to later attack it) is also worthwhile.

We used to find the keys to our parents cars and drive around when possible.  That is one of about 1000 things we did which were potentially dangerous.  I don't feel like looking up the numbers, but I'll bet that accidental deaths due to improperly stored firearms and/or improper training are a tiny fraction of the way kids injure themselves.

Back in the day, guns were commonly stored in an unlocked cabinet in the basement.  A few hours of training and a bit of plinking with the 22 was plenty to get even fairly young kids to understand the theory of operation and dangers of firearms.  Accidents did happen but it was pretty rare.  There may be a legitimate argument that 'kids have changed' and are at more risk now.  If so, I would say that the 'low hanging fruit' would be to understand how and why kids have changed and deal with that issue since guns are a tiny fraction of the way problems can occur.  I'd suggest starting by looking at the pharmaceutical industry and related industries which play a role in what kids consume (physically and intellectually.)