patrick.net

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

I'm talking about the span of Dynasties. About 100-150 years is pretty average.

100-150 years roughly correspond to two ponzi-scam cycles. Many dynasties lasted shorter than that. What's taught to middle school kids as "dynasties" are only a select few long-lasting or historically significant dynasties; many dynasties simply didn't make the cut for the history textbooks . . . because history was often written by scribes paid by the immediate following "dynasty" rich enough and long-lasting enough to have full-time scribes on the payroll. Those scribes were very much aware of the political legitimacy of their employer, so all the shorter and insignificant dynasties were ignored.


MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

This is pushing private resource ownership back in the past, and there is NO evidence for it.

LOL! 20th century Russia, China and Cambodia supplied plenty evidence that without private ownership, the society starves to death. BTW, the pilgrims from the May Flower found the same reality in their first winter in the new world trying collective farming. BTW, even antebellum southern plantations used plantation script . . . which showed that even early 19th century southern slave plantations were economically far superior to the 20th Communes.

Resources in structured agra societies were owned by the Clerisy/Monarch. So where did the copper to smuggle come from?

Depending on what type of resources. Gold wouldn't be valued as much it was if the Clerisy/Monarch could rule by fiat. Even in today's fiat money world, rich people value gold much less than the ancient Clerisy/Monarch did. The Clerisy/Monarch were obsessed with gold only because wealth was still judged by sound money, not fiat. What copper are you talking about? Gold was naturally occuring, and its original value likely derived from its rarity and its shininess could get sex from girls.

We have the official stamped ingots and records of the shipments; we don't have any evidence of widespread independent trade.

The best evidence of widespread independent trade was in the survival of the society and the development of the agro society at all: if you have ever tried planting a few acres of grain you'd known that growing grain is a highly unpredictable enterprise without chemical fertilizers and pesticides: drought and flooding frequency is much higher than once every 15 years (the least amount of time to raise the next generation), and pests as well as microbes that destroy repeated planting of the same crop in the same patch of soil ensure that independent grain farmers can not survive without trade! Just like Indian farmers of the 20th century: grain farmers have to convert surplus crop into gold and other highly storable items of value in order to survive the lean years (by trading those items back to food). The emergence of grain agricultural society near the major rivers was not due to water availability but due to ease of transportation on slow-flowing segment of the big rivers, so that agro areas significant distance from each other could trade and survive as local weather patters and microbes/soil condition change.

Also, as trade grew, enabling grain cropping gradually replacing much easier and more stable on a smaller scale sheep-herding / chicken/egg raising / fishing, grain cropping societies were essentially slave plantations focused on producing a storable/transportable i.e. tradeable export (grain) . . . because clay containers for storing grain were cheaper than salt for preserving meat and fish back then for inland locations.

The origin of grain cropping likely started in beer-making, as growing grain was not nearly as stable as hearding sheep or raising chicken/eggs, and could not survive without trade due to the frequent drought, flood, pests and soil deterioration after a few years of repeated cropping.

tanked says

Are you aware that all the animals died in the trial? Once they were exposed back to a natural environment. It would be irresponsible to not assume the worst case scenario in a safety analysis.

Yes, I've heard this.

Like I've said over and over, if they are stupid enough to be actually trying to kill people, it will be our absolute moral duty to entirely eradicate them from the human race.

They must know that, but if the almost impossible to conceive event they don't and they've purposely poisoned the population.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

My point being this: The idea of an ordinary person empowered to own things and trade/produce them largely unmolested was not at the beginning of civilization.

The instinct of private ownership was there from the beginning: even apes and monkeys learn to trade bananas and grapes for sex in labs very quickly without explicit instruction . . . but only being rewarded with grapes and bananas for non-sexual accomplishment then they extrapolate on their own regarding the value of grape/banana ownership and trading it for sex; gnobo do the trade on their own in the wild.

As for being able to trade/produce (division of labor is a result of trade) unmolested, that is a whole different topic. I'm sure you live in a place that impose tax on trade too, even today!

Adam Smith points out that the prosperity of Britain relative to other countries was due mostly to the common people being able to keep the fruits of their own labor, without fear of the oligarchy or government confiscating their small businesses or assets. This gave them the confidence that their hard work would be rewarded, even in spite of harmful regulations. He points out a lot of harmful regulations that they had even back then in 1780 or so.

In most poor countries, the principal cause of poverty is the disincentive to work hard, because the mafia that runs the government will simply muscle in and take whatever you create.

richwicks says

tanked says

Are you aware that all the animals died in the trial? Once they were exposed back to a natural environment. It would be irresponsible to not assume the worst case scenario in a safety analysis.

Yes, I've heard this.

Like I've said over and over, if they are stupid enough to be actually trying to kill people, it will be our absolute moral duty to entirely eradicate them from the human race.

They must know that, but if the almost impossible to conceive event they don't and they've purposely poisoned the population.

Sure, Nuremberg 2. For the ppl actually known, the puppets put in. They are probably as fooled as anyone else into doing what they have done and most of them likely took the death jab themselves.

But who is pulling their strings. We don't know, and never will. But we can do a thought experiment to what their motivation is.

The obvious motivations seem to be profit via systemic corruption of the CDC/FDA/NIH, and the power to restrict life for anyone who does not obey.

People lower down in the hierarchy may be motivated by anxiety reduction, the comforting believe that this is all about the virus and can be solved by obeying the order to submit to the jab.

https://patrick.net/post/1341418/2021-09-20-prof-mattias-desmet-explains-the-mass-psychosis

There could also be a motive to make conservatives lose jobs, out of resentment at their having elected Trump.

I'm not sure we need any more motives than those to explain everything. The conspiracy is pretty much out in the open.

Patrick says

There could also be a motive to make conservatives lose jobs, out of resentment at their having elected Trump.

I think that would just result in a lot of new businesses.

I don't know any small business owners who are democrats. People that start out as one, I can't see as lasting as one for very long. Running a small company you learn what a vile piece of shit the government is in short order.

Patrick says

The obvious motivations seem to be profit via systemic corruption of the CDC/FDA/NIH, and the power to restrict life for anyone who does not obey.

People lower down in the hierarchy may be motivated by anxiety reduction, the comforting believe that this is all about the virus and can be solved by obeying the order to submit to the jab.

https://patrick.net/post/1341418/2021-09-20-prof-mattias-desmet-explains-the-mass-psychosis

There could also be a motive to make conservatives lose jobs, out of resentment at their having elected Trump.

I'm not sure we need any more motives than those to explain everything. The conspiracy is pretty much out in the open.

I tend to like Shaman's analysis. There's a very clear split between liberals and conservatives as to who took the jab. Liberals is 90% took it, non liberals only 24%. If this was meant to punish conservatives then it backfired. Which means that perhaps it was on purpose.

If you look at what they did in 1973 they were absolutely targeting the lower IQ people knowing they are far more prone to kill their own kids, and be a sink not source on society. In other words, liberals. We're seeing it again, them tricked into self voluntary genocide.

The user Reality is also on the right track, I don't believe the financial motivation and the productivity motivation to be mutually exclusive, they go hand in hand.

tanked says

There's a very clear split between liberals and conservatives as to who took the jab. Liberals is 90% took it, non liberals only 24%. If this was meant to punish conservatives then it backfired.

I don't see how it backfired.

it is 76% conservatives who are being forced out of a job by not subjecting their bodies to the unknowns of the jab.

Patrick says

tanked says

There's a very clear split between liberals and conservatives as to who took the jab. Liberals is 90% took it, non liberals only 24%. If this was meant to punish conservatives then it backfired.

I don't see how it backfired.

it is 76% conservatives who are being forced out of a job by not subjecting their bodies to the unknowns of the jab.

That's a bluff, there's no way that will stand after it is settled in court. Any companies worth anything will wait until that point before acting. Already General Dynamics chose instead to wait for the courts to review it after 40% of their employees threatened to resign rather than take the death jab.

But what it will do is cause a few thousand more to take it ahead of it being settled, but they were already on the fence about it. The vaccine hesitant vs the vaccine hell no. And the damage will already be done. So it was low hanging fruit. Biden and his handlers don't care at all about any backlash for anything they say.

The few thousand won't scratch the surface of the 100M standing strong unvaxxed. Which is likely to be a propaganda number and the real number perhaps 200M, 250M, or more, in the US alone. Easily billions worldwide have refused to take it and never will voluntarily.

Yah I feel like Biden’s mandate is just a bluff. It probably won’t hold up in court and will absolutely be delayed past the point of relevance by the lawsuits. Even if it goes into effect for a few months, that’s just a few months we have to test every week. PITA but beats dying of the vax. And in half a year the fallout from the vax is going to be MUCH harder to hide. Especially with the boosters going into effect. People are already dying of ADE, excess cancers triggered by the vax, and pulmonary heart disease is vastly increasing beyond and resemblance of a baseline. Half a year from now, there will be more vaxxed people bemoaning their unfortunate status than vaxxed people screaming for unvaccinated blood.

tanked says

Any companies worth anything will wait until that point before acting.

I agree that any company would be stupid to fire anyone for refusal to take a drug still entirely under EUA and before OSHA even issued any guidelines.

But a guy on this site has been fired already for refusal.

Patrick says

tanked says

Any companies worth anything will wait until that point before acting.

I agree that any company would be stupid to fire anyone for refusal to take a drug still entirely under EUA and before OSHA even issued any guidelines.

But a guy on this site has been fired already for refusal.

That is terrible of course and we wish him the best in finding his next job.

Priority wise it is a no brainer, health and body first, job second. Jobs can be replaced your life cannot.

He is a casualty of war but this war has had and will have many other casualties of actual death, and far more on the left.

tanked says

He is a casualty of war but this war has had and will have many other casualties of actual death, and far more on the left.

True. Think of job loss as taking a wound in the war against the Left. You’ll miss some income, but they’ll fucking DIE. No brainer on which side you’ll want to be on in the long run.