Like you observed, there simply aren't many geriatrics left to cull.Brive1987 wrote: ↑Have some fresh meat to devour 😅😂
But this is still pct of total deaths. I'm looking for delta in IFR within age groups.
Like you observed, there simply aren't many geriatrics left to cull.Brive1987 wrote: ↑Have some fresh meat to devour 😅😂
If you count me as a friend-- you have 2 friends which match this description-- down to the amount of land. The first captain of the land grant is my ancestor. Only thing I have to show for it is my surname. And this Hispanic Heritage Month t-shirt. And this Thermos. And this ashtray. And the lamp. The thermos, the ashtray, the lamp... and the paddleball game. That's all I have. And this chair.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ family's from New Mexico dating back to not just when it was old Mexico, but to when it was New Spain. They owned like a million acres at one point.
I doubt either of us will convince the other, but maybe readers will be stimulated think on the matter a bit more deeply. Judging by the large number of posts that are not being displayed to me there will also be some frothing at the mouth with calumnies.
I'm not sure convincing people should necessarily be the goal. One version of my position is that there are a bunch of core elements of this that pretty much just come down to culture and personal preference, for example, what is the correct balance between safety and liberty? I don't think that is something that there is a correct solution to. By the look of it, you skew more towards safety while I and some of the others here skew more towards liberty. There are obviously consequences of those choices that can be talked about, but everything is tradeoffs between choices and outcomes that can't objectively be rank ordered for goodness.
Because the only possible reason someone could not accept Herr Doktor's gift of wisdom is because they haven't thought deeply enough on the matter. Or are selfish, uncivilized oafs. Or, just rabid lunatics.I doubt either of us will convince the other, but maybe readers will be stimulated think on the matter a bit more deeply. Judging by the large number of posts that are not being displayed to me there will also be some frothing at the mouth with calumnies.
screw would surely endorse the words of His Holiness, Pope Anthony I:fafnir wrote: ↑I'm not sure convincing people should necessarily be the goal. One version of my position is that there are a bunch of core elements of this that pretty much just come down to culture and personal preference, for example, what is the correct balance between safety and liberty? I don't think that is something that there is a correct solution to. By the look of it, you skew more towards safety while I and some of the others here skew more towards liberty. There are obviously consequences of those choices that can be talked about, but everything is tradeoffs between choices and outcomes that can't objectively be rank ordered for goodness.
The mask mandates, the house arrest, and now the compulsory injections -- none of which are supported by actual science -- have frequently been pronounced "for the good of the collective." It's obvious this is not just differences of opinion on how to balance public health with private freedom. Rather, the entire exercise has been motivated by a visceral rejection of Liberty and personal responsibility in favor of collectivism and blind obedience.Fauci wrote:There comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society.
The idea that elites should get to unilaterally decide everything has been popular at the top of American society for 100 years at least. There are statements from Andrew Carnegie that are functionally the same as Bloomberg's idea that the poor needed to be heavily taxed for their own good so that smarter people could better spend their money for them.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑The mask mandates, the house arrest, and now the compulsory injections -- none of which are supported by actual science -- have frequently been pronounced "for the good of the collective." It's obvious this is not just differences of opinion on how to balance public health with private freedom. Rather, the entire exercise has been motivated by a visceral rejection of Liberty and personal responsibility in favor of collectivism and blind obedience.
It is still odd. I think I can taste things better today....but most flavors are just salty. I still don't have my fucking PCR test back from the lab. They said it might take three days... so I will call them tomorrow to follow up. I went birding today and saw a Virginia Rail, Rufous Sided Towhee, and tons of immature White Crowned and White Throated sparrow that had not yet migrated. Also, about 30 Wood Ducks. Very nice. Nature marches on.
My GF's dad lived on Towhee Court. I never knew what Towhee was. Now I understand why the other streets in the neighborhood were named Blue Jay Way, Hummingbird Lane, etc.
The more I see the more I suspect something more sinister going on. There are too many coincidental markers of Marcuse's blueprint to bringing about the "sustainable" society (communism). The superpowers need to be reduced to 3rd world conditions according to him. We hear the sustainability buzzword everywhere, talk of great resets and everyone being happy and having nothing. The West is experiencing demoralisation exactly as laid out by Yuri Bezmenov. It's all too consistent. It really makes me wonder who exactly is behind the Democrats because they are very clearly breaking down resistance through despair and demoralisation.fafnir wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:35 amThe idea that elites should get to unilaterally decide everything has been popular at the top of American society for 100 years at least. There are statements from Andrew Carnegie that are functionally the same as Bloomberg's idea that the poor needed to be heavily taxed for their own good so that smarter people could better spend their money for them.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑The mask mandates, the house arrest, and now the compulsory injections -- none of which are supported by actual science -- have frequently been pronounced "for the good of the collective." It's obvious this is not just differences of opinion on how to balance public health with private freedom. Rather, the entire exercise has been motivated by a visceral rejection of Liberty and personal responsibility in favor of collectivism and blind obedience.
I don't see as many Towhee as I used to. Towhee actually like brushy edges of open fields. So.... human activity increased their favored environment. They used to be very common and I would see one almost every time I went out birding. But, now... more edges of farm fields are made up of woods. There is less manmade brush for the Towhee to do its foraging. They are always found in dense low brush... poking around for bugs.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑My GF's dad lived on Towhee Court. I never knew what Towhee was. Now I understand why the other streets in the neighborhood were named Blue Jay Way, Hummingbird Lane, etc.
We see loads of Spotted Towhee's - our house is surrounded by lavender bushes, and they love those. We feed bird seed to our local black-tailed deer, and the Towhees go for it big time. As do about 20 other species. Never counted them all, but there are lots. I'll have to do a list...John D wrote: ↑I don't see as many Towhee as I used to. Towhee actually like brushy edges of open fields. So.... human activity increased their favored environment. They used to be very common and I would see one almost every time I went out birding. But, now... more edges of farm fields are made up of woods. There is less manmade brush for the Towhee to do its foraging. They are always found in dense low brush... poking around for bugs.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑My GF's dad lived on Towhee Court. I never knew what Towhee was. Now I understand why the other streets in the neighborhood were named Blue Jay Way, Hummingbird Lane, etc.
I was just doing some internet "research" on the Rufous Sided Towhee... and I just found out they changed the name. It is now called the Eastern Towhee.
My theory at the moment, and it is very much a work in progress..... You kind of have two strands in Marxism. One of them is focused on envy and pulling down the elites. Those people would have seen Wall Street, CIA, Zuckerberg etc as the enemy. You then have the internationalist utopians - Trots, Fabians etc. The internationalists realise the economics based, working class revolution has failed 100 years ago and begin to pivot towards race, gender, culture and so forth. By the early 60s that faction is taking over. What they succeed in doing is making international socialism even more compatible with international capitalism than it already was. Effectively global capitalism and new left socialism have been the same thing since the 90s at least, and arguably much longer.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑The more I see the more I suspect something more sinister going on. There are too many coincidental markers of Marcuse's blueprint to bringing about the "sustainable" society (communism). The superpowers need to be reduced to 3rd world conditions according to him. We hear the sustainability buzzword everywhere, talk of great resets and everyone being happy and having nothing. The West is experiencing demoralisation exactly as laid out by Yuri Bezmenov. It's all too consistent. It really makes me wonder who exactly is behind the Democrats because they are very clearly breaking down resistance through despair and demoralisation.fafnir wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:35 amThe idea that elites should get to unilaterally decide everything has been popular at the top of American society for 100 years at least. There are statements from Andrew Carnegie that are functionally the same as Bloomberg's idea that the poor needed to be heavily taxed for their own good so that smarter people could better spend their money for them.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑The mask mandates, the house arrest, and now the compulsory injections -- none of which are supported by actual science -- have frequently been pronounced "for the good of the collective." It's obvious this is not just differences of opinion on how to balance public health with private freedom. Rather, the entire exercise has been motivated by a visceral rejection of Liberty and personal responsibility in favor of collectivism and blind obedience.
I think you've done excellent 'Astronomy'-- you've catalogued the ideological bodies, tracked their trajectories-- you can extrapolate from these patterns-- their future paths.
I'm not sure whether Marcuse's blueprint is being 'followed'... vs. whether Marcuse tried to take credit for the direction the earth spins & where each light twinkles in the sky... as manifestations of -his- new & improved now!more!scientific! scientific-communism.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑ The more I see the more I suspect something more sinister going on. There are too many coincidental markers of Marcuse's blueprint to bringing about the "sustainable" society (communism).
Just watched it. I agree with you. I've heard marketing-guru guys say... that people will pay you... to powerfully-express... the things they wish they could say themselves.
The story of incentives is certainly part of it. I'm not sure ideas can be minimized either. Can one not trace the history of ideas like equality, and world government and say that is one story of how we got where we are? I don't think the world run on legions of people saying "I am going to try to normalize some deviant sexuality today in order to undermine the foundations of the western family to help grease the wheels of global capital". The ideas are important, just as culture is important. Yes, these ideas are influenced by incentives..... but they aren't just meaningless interchangeable names either.Service Dog wrote: ↑ The extremist purist fundamentalist content of those Words-- have little or no relation to the actual behavior of the Commie. It's all just rationalization and noise.
Like a SMASH CAPITALISM sticker on a vapid celebrity's iPhone.
That would be the most optimistic assessment AFAIAC, but I fear you may not be quite right. I think the distinction between the old bolshies and the "cultural Marxist" types is quite well known, but the end goal is not necessarily that different. As Service Dog says there is a whole spectrum of political animals who embody aspects of the ideology, but I tend toward the idea that there is evidence of an underlying instigating force moving everything toward the Marcusian society. The Marcusian language is there, CRT is infiltrating everything and the process of demoralisation is well advanced. My suspicion is that the globalist capitalists are acting from a mix of greedy opportunism and paternalism without appreciating the extent to which they are actually serving the ends of the Marxists. I think your conclusion about capitalists subverting the communists is wrong. There is a very real possibility of the next generation being firmly indoctrinated in Critical Theory. CT is not something which is easily taught alongside other theories as one alternative, it is a totalising theory which demands supremacy and fundamentally changes the way people think. I think Service Dog is partially correct in a way in thinking that Marcuse merely reflected an organic process. The process is organic once it is INSTIGATED. It takes a strategy to get the underlying theory into academia and a entryism toolkit to deploy in society.fafnir wrote: ↑Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:37 pmMy theory at the moment, and it is very much a work in progress..... You kind of have two strands in Marxism. One of them is focused on envy and pulling down the elites. Those people would have seen Wall Street, CIA, Zuckerberg etc as the enemy. You then have the internationalist utopians - Trots, Fabians etc. The internationalists realise the economics based, working class revolution has failed 100 years ago and begin to pivot towards race, gender, culture and so forth. By the early 60s that faction is taking over. What they succeed in doing is making international socialism even more compatible with international capitalism than it already was. Effectively global capitalism and new left socialism have been the same thing since the 90s at least, and arguably much longer.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑The more I see the more I suspect something more sinister going on. There are too many coincidental markers of Marcuse's blueprint to bringing about the "sustainable" society (communism). The superpowers need to be reduced to 3rd world conditions according to him. We hear the sustainability buzzword everywhere, talk of great resets and everyone being happy and having nothing. The West is experiencing demoralisation exactly as laid out by Yuri Bezmenov. It's all too consistent. It really makes me wonder who exactly is behind the Democrats because they are very clearly breaking down resistance through despair and demoralisation.fafnir wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:35 amThe idea that elites should get to unilaterally decide everything has been popular at the top of American society for 100 years at least. There are statements from Andrew Carnegie that are functionally the same as Bloomberg's idea that the poor needed to be heavily taxed for their own good so that smarter people could better spend their money for them.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑The mask mandates, the house arrest, and now the compulsory injections -- none of which are supported by actual science -- have frequently been pronounced "for the good of the collective." It's obvious this is not just differences of opinion on how to balance public health with private freedom. Rather, the entire exercise has been motivated by a visceral rejection of Liberty and personal responsibility in favor of collectivism and blind obedience.
In a sense, I think Bezmenov has it the wrong way around. The communists didn't subvert the capitalists, the capitalists subverted the communists. All the craziness in the world is global capitalism continuing to leverage radical left wing politics against barriers to trade.
Is it optimistic? I don't know. I just wonder how ignorant the Andrew Carnegie's and Bill Gates's of this world actually are. They've been talking about ideas like global government and having effectively an enlightened dictatorship of the elite for well over 100 years. These people weren't communists by any means, but funded marxists and communists.... brought them to the US, placed them in academia. Did the Marxists co-opt the elite, or did the elite co-opt the marxist? I say it's more the latter than the former.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑ That would be the most optimistic assessment AFAIAC, but I fear you may not be quite right. I think the distinction between the old bolshies and the "cultural Marxist" types is quite well known, but the end goal is not necessarily that different. As Service Dog says there is a whole spectrum of political animals who embody aspects of the ideology, but I tend toward the idea that there is evidence of an underlying instigating force moving everything toward the Marcusian society. The Marcusian language is there, CRT is infiltrating everything and the process of demoralisation is well advanced. My suspicion is that the globalist capitalists are acting from a mix of greedy opportunism and paternalism without appreciating the extent to which they are actually serving the ends of the Marxists.
I don't see that oligarcal elites subverting the communists/marxists etc... is incompatible with critical theory taking over. Critical theory doesn't say "topple the Tzar". Critical theory says the Tzar need to have minute and absolute control over the lives of every single peasant to make sure their views are compatible with the views of the enlightened circle in Moscow.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑I think your conclusion about capitalists subverting the communists is wrong. There is a very real possibility of the next generation being firmly indoctrinated in Critical Theory.
I agree, but I don't think it threatens globalist oligarchs either. It is a system for identifying different classes of kulaks who can be blamed for the downsides of globalism and the enactment of elite social policy.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑CT is not something which is easily taught alongside other theories as one alternative, it is a totalising theory which demands supremacy and fundamentally changes the way people think.
And lots of funding and friends in high places.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑I think Service Dog is partially correct in a way in thinking that Marcuse merely reflected an organic process. The process is organic once it is INSTIGATED. It takes a strategy to get the underlying theory into academia and a entryism toolkit to deploy in society.
Sounds like Fascism to me. This is actual literal violence!
In trying to explain my tentative objection to your tentative theory... I overstated how-much I disagree with you.fafnir wrote: ↑ I'm not sure ideas can be minimized either. ...the history of ideas like equality, and world government... is one story of how we got where we are?
I don't think the world [can] run on legions of people saying "I am going to try to normalize some deviant sexuality today in order to undermine the foundations of the western family to help grease the wheels of global capital". The ideas are important, just as culture is important. ... these ideas ... aren't just meaningless interchangeable names either.
I have here the memorial volume of speeches by Aldous Huxley's friends and family in a meeting nearly a month after his death edited by Julian Huxley. I can quote from Julian's speech:fafnir wrote: ↑ By the way, has anybody else read about the life of Aldous Huxley's brother Julian? I'd never looked into this before, but it looks suspiciously like Brave New World was a takedown of his brothers views and work with UNESCO. I can only imagine things must have been awkward between them.
Whatever the opposite of "muscle shirt" would be called, that's what he's wearing.
That's fine. I don't particularly disagree. One of the things that always astounds me is how candide they are in their publications. It's like Hillary Clinton talking to Goldman Sachs thinking nobody will find out, only lots of this stuff is published by them and available from Amazon or in the About section of their website. A while back my mother was arguing with me that the leaders of BLM couldn't be Marxists who want to overthrow global capitalism because investigative journalists would have discovered it and published it in The Guardian. They don't have to try very hard to render all this essentially invisible to most people.
That is on the border of conspiracy theory territory, and obviously one can't know for sure. I would say it's like the "is light a wave or a particle" question. I think it's the wrong question, or the question has implicit assumptions that may not be true. I'm inclined now to see the last 100 years of politics more in terms of elitism/populism, constrained vision/unconstrained vision, masculine/feminine. 500 years ago, elites would entertain themselves redrawing the map of the world with armies. Now they play the same game with bureaucrats, sociologists and NGOs.
You are right. I had to write a eulogy not long ago and it brings it back.
I was momentarily concerned that my arms have atrophied to match his.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Whatever the opposite of "muscle shirt" would be called, that's what he's wearing.
Mozart wrote his first symphony when he was 8, and mohammed had sex with Aisha when she was 9. You guys are old.
It just needs enough voters to see the obvious. I think most politicians are only honorary elites being fed crumbs and if given the choice between the electoral guillotine and seeing the light the light will be seen. That said, it is depressing how powerful the establishment machine is and how easily it has managed to crush opposition with it's ownership of the press. Things can turn in a relative instant though. There are still a whole lot more of us than there are of them and you could look at the contemporary upheavals with a positive spin. You could conclude that the string-pullers have been forced out into the open and the commoner is being hit hard in the wallet, called racist and having their kids taught self-loathing and racism. The tactics and corruption of the Federal law enforcement bodies in the US and of the security services in some other countries is being exposed in a way I've never seen before. The problem is Trump though. He instinctively sees some of the problems with globalism and is bold enough to tackle them, but I don't think he understands the whole picture and he's a bit inept when it comes to dealing with two-faced political "friends". His starkly obvious deflecting waffle when presented with his mistakes is a liability as well. He is excellent at working a crowd but has no clue how to stay afloat in the Swamp. He lost out when he dumped Bannon. I can't see any extra-establishment candidates in the UK or US who combine Trump's appreciation of the elite problem with government-ready management skills. I don't yet trust people like Desantis, Cruz or Nigel Farrage. Farrage has the right instincts but he treads too lightly on some issues out of fear of being called a bigot.fafnir wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:31 am"Late last night I watched Ben Shapiro debate Ana Kasparian at a Chamber of Commerce event. It was toothless fare, for an out-of-touch geriatric audience. Last year, the Chamber of Commerce joined forces with their supposed AFL-CIO union opponents-- in a conspiracy to deny Trump a fair election, according to that TIME Magazine article. To that extent: Shapiro & Kasaparian & the Chamber of Commerce are all on the same side."
The house always wins. The important arguments within and between elites. The Trumpist world view is non-elite. To win, it needs to be picked up by some non-negligible faction of elites.
Have you ever read the Rivers of Blood speech by Enoch Powell. It's from the UK in 1968. The section I always remember is this:ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑ You could conclude that the string-pullers have been forced out into the open and the commoner is being hit hard in the wallet, called racist and having their kids taught self-loathing and racism
Time has obvious made the language seem a little spicy. 42 years later in 2010, a similar woman came up to Gordon Brown, then on the campaign train to remain Prime Minister. He was caught on a hot mic referring to as a "bigoted woman". He was an old Labour party guy, supposedly representative of the working man and yet he despised working people as they actually are.“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her
door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.
“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
I think somebody, anybody in the White House who is able to see and straightforwardly talk about at least some aspect of the problem is worthwhile. The problem has been made undiscussable since WWII. While it is undiscussable, it won't be fixed. Whether he or Farage could have been better, I don't know. I guess only Allah is perfect. Nobody did do better than them though, so I flip it around and I'm glad they didn't do worse.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑The problem is Trump though. He instinctively sees some of the problems with globalism and is bold enough to tackle them, but I don't think he understands the whole picture and he's a bit inept when it comes to dealing with two-faced political "friends". His starkly obvious deflecting waffle when presented with his mistakes is a liability as well. He is excellent at working a crowd but has no clue how to stay afloat in the Swamp. He lost out when he dumped Bannon. I can't see any extra-establishment candidates in the UK or US who combine Trump's appreciation of the elite problem with government-ready management skills. I don't yet trust people like Desantis, Cruz or Nigel Farrage. Farrage has the right instincts but he treads too lightly on some issues out of fear of being called a bigot.