I'm not sure what form of capitalism you have in mind their because a tendency toward or potential for monopoly is ever present in virtually any system. That's the basis of capitalism to some degree. This seems like an ideal rather than reality. Almost like not real communism.
Capitalism is not a perfect system. No system is perfect. Capitalism straddles the divide between order and chaos without a guarantee of confinement. This has been tested quite a bit in games and simulations where eventually a reset is needed which is one of the sources of the flawed great reset proposal.
Capitalism's weaknesses tend also to be its strengths. The latter can prevail all on their own. A system too inflexible to fail is already failed. Capitalism's flexibility is what allows it to adapt and to seize opportunities to succeed. It also allows it to fail. Failure is built into the system.
I suspect you have in mind a counter force in capitalism which may suppress monopoly. Those do exist but they're not universal. The government can mess up capitalism in anyway it can already mess up on its own and more.
Government interference has had a massive impact on housing shortages which from immigration alone pushing up demand. A lot of regulations might look good on paper but in reality we don't want to all be squashed into hives like in China.
There's a balance somewhere between varying systems. The problem with the government isn't government. The problem with capitalism isn't capitalism.
It's bad actors. You can't have a system that's foolproof. You're always going to need good actors to oppose bad actors.
I'm increasingly realising more and more that there's a bit more to it than the standard concept of intelligence. A hell of a lot of this stuff is technically speaking not beyond their capacity to comprehend. Instead there's an overriding stupidity.
If you measure their intelligence on a test that's relatively neutral I'm certain you'll get a very different result on topics that they're biased toward. I would guess that any drop in IQ is possible.
It's like a lobotomising effect. I also strongly suspect that as woke culture extends their quest to politicise everything including mathematics you'll see a numbing effect that turns the average person into a vegetable.
You would think that if you gave someone a mathematics test there's nothing political there and you can evade the dampening effects on intelligence of ideological allegiance by testing someone purely as a calculator.
I'm relatively certain that someone given 13 / 52 to solve or an equation with 88 in it has a good chance of being unable to compute purely as a result of their ideology.
What the fuck is that?
Kids can pick up that kind of behaviour very quickly and not really know what they're doing.
In his mind they're saying we're bad because of militias. So to be good we've got to not have militias.
He doesn't really have a properly developed and independent understanding of good or bad.
He doesn't understand that them complaining about militias is as deranged as for example them complaining about the police and saying that they should be abolished.
When the feds initiate that trend useful idiots like this will go around beating people down to make us conform to what they think makes us bad in the eyes of the enemy.
There's a level of maturity where you realise that the things that rile them the most you must do more and more off. If they get upset over police action? More police action. If they get upset over militias? More militias. Whatever it is that triggers them just do it more. If they don't like it, that's what to do.
That's actually when you're on the right track.
The problem is that it's really not a sporadic event. It's in a fixed location, prolonged, easy to get to, plenty of assets on the ground in the city already most likely.
I'm certain a number of agencies are being set up to try to derail the audit but it's unlikely to be as immediately obvious as this nor going to such lengths when there are better ways.
Technically speaking there's always a slim chance of anything. The thing that seems a bit odd for me as far as holding patterns go is that a ballpark calculation suggests it was spinning around like that for at least an hour or two.
I don't know much about air traffic control but that seems like a long time to be waiting in traffic based on how long in my experience it usually takes (never been stuck in a plane having to circle around anywhere near that long to land). Exactly what you would be doing flying around in circles like that for an hour and a half is a little bit of a mystery.
The glow thing comes from counter agents that infiltrated various fringe groups and set in motion several inhibitive and self perpetuating / propagating social habits. It's almost like the libtards screaming at everyone who doesn't conform and keep their heads down that they're a racist.
It's a bizarre effect that makes the group self contained and all kind of sneak around like they're hiding telling anyone who makes a peep to be quiet. It's extremely suppressive / repressive and no one from those groups should be allowed to have those behaviours take root in a free and open community.
Just looking at that screenshot I can see what look like three commercial jumbojets near by. I doubt a density of three such planes so close together and appearing to be aligned in as little as a two block by 7 block is the normal density so I'm guessing an airport nearby which you would expect in a major city and standard flight lanes.
Looking at the maps, there is indeed an airport just out of view also horizontally aligned as you would expect. I'm guessing the small plane is in a holding pattern.
This looks like it would be a really excessive and pointless way to land agents. They shouldn't have any problem getting whatever they need to into Phoenix via standard routes.
If you think about it, George Floyd being presented as the best example of a black man is inconceivably racist.
Einstein nooooooo!
I really have a problem with some of these threat analyses. I think they get a lot of things wrong.
If I were thinking about culling the herd and other things I'm not sure vaccines would be the best option. Not a non-option but not the best option either. The current adverse positions on vaccines can already be explained by human folly.
Perhaps one benefit of vaccines is that you can deploy something selectively. It has so many weaknesses though other than that and it might not be the only selective approach.
A huge weakness is that you want to inflict something on people where they have no choice but do so where you have to fight them having a choice. It's also an extremely obvious way to do it.
We're at the point now where it would be easy to put things in the food, air or water as well as a variety of products people otherwise consume.
We can engineer bugs like mosquitoes to deliver whatever we want. We can engineer a virus to deliver what we want like a vaccine and people won't really have much of a choice then. All the vaccines are actually just derivative of SARS-CoV-2 which is its own vaccine. We can modify cold and flu strains to do various things and deliver payloads.
People have not quite comprehended what the current technological era we're entering into permits. I've established that the most likely explanation for SARS-CoV-2 is that it's from the laboratory but people miss the elephant in the room which is that it has been proven as a matter of fact that laboratories have the capability to have been able to manufacture such a virus.
Though I am most certain many behind the vaccines have ill intent the kind of concerns about the possible risks both intended and unintended are somewhat antiquated and not in line with modern reality.
The odd thing is I've been telling people about this virus threat for about two or three years now.
Loads of them at the top are just figure heads or chauffeurs put in the drivers seats like Biden and indeed they can be into all kinds of stupid things.
Behind them are legions of half-way intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals and intellectuals repurposed to put their skills to use for nefarious purposes, I mean whatever pays right?
I can tell you coming from an intellectual background that yes, this is how we think. Some are worse than others.
I've always expected that someone would release a virus or one would come naturally and that's really not a complicated thing, most people can figure that out. Viruses have been thinning out the herd since before time. Even in the Bible they had a concept of summoning plagues to that effect.
In the second half of the century scientific progression opened the door to the concept that we're approaching the point where we'll be able to play God and release the viruses ourselves. Even back them sampling nature and selective breeding allowed some development of biological warfare with the discovery of genetics making it known that genetic engineering was on the horizon, no longer being if but when.
I pointed out at the start that if you look at it purely going by the numbers (extreme technocracy) COVID-19 looks like a gift to the world from China to thin out the ageing population. Of course it's not going to do that in practice. Many leaders either aren't going to let that happen to the full extent or otherwise somewhat minimise it as a side effect of using the crisis as an excuse to cease more power. This is a godsend through the eyes of many.
I'm not sure I would really conceive of the part of using offering the treatment as eugenics. Especially when that can backfire when the idiots are going to force it on anyone overriding individual choice and thus selection.
One of the things that most intellectuals are very well aware off is that there's no longer selection in our society to a great degree. Survival of the fittest more like survival of the fattest. As things are made easier and easier, the population is constantly expanding, all genes allowed, unhealthy genes preserved, negative traits selected for over positive traits, etc. They can see a process that probably isn't good and have a sense that they have to substitute for the cruelty of nature after the intellectuals killed it.
The thing about intellectuals is that must of them are too pussy to say what's going on and are closeted freaks hiding from the rest of society. I think the intellectuals also often to appreciate that there are often bad qualities to be selected for which many of them possess in abundance and their level of intellect would not save them from the chopping block.
I hate to say it but while your rebuttal is correct conceptually it doesn't match up with the reality.
There are so many cases where they simply will not change position.
Remember when it came out ages ago that the Russian collusion thing was bogus? They still went ahead with an investigation.
Remember when it came out that Ukraine phone call was perfectly acceptable? They still went ahead with impeachment.
Remember when proof came out that Flynn was framed? Still insisted on putting him in prison and if I remember right he had to be pardoned. They tried to stop that as well.
Remember when it came out that Derek Chauvin was entirely innocent almost a year ago? Still found him guilty on all charges.
Remember when it came out that Kyle Rittenhouse acted entirely in self defence? Still charging him.
There are so many cases like this where they actually just don't care if they cheated or not. If you haven't picked up on this pattern yet you're in trouble. This is just a fraction of the cases.
In this fight the only thing that matters is overpowering them. That's the only thing you can do. To physically and forcibly overpower them. It's rape or be raped.
I think this is going to become more common. This is what social justice warriors get. You abuse it you lose it.
I'm not going to defend Newsmax for their total cowardice but looking at many of the trials that have occurred in the USA I think it may be impossible for Dominion to lose a lawsuit. The issue isn't going to be that they have a valid case but that the defence will have no standing.
I'm only aware of it superficially but basically cells are surrounded by doors for various purposes. They have molecular locks with molecular keys.
The virus has evolved one of these keys or basically sort of works out the password through evolutionary means that are like brute force but intelligently guided to have a better chance. Imagine guessing someone's password but using the names of their family members and pets for example.
The spike protein is able to unlock one of the doors in the cell to allow the rest of the virus in which then takes control of the cell to produce more of itself instead of what it normally produces sort of like sneaking into the factory and replacing the moulds with ones of itself.
Not exactly what the spike protein on its own can do is a bit mysterious. You would need to ask someone with better knowledge of cell function and chemistry or physics.
Generally speaking however, I don't see why it wouldn't unlock the door. That in itself could let the spike protein in and who can be sure it's not going to interact with anything in the cell. At the very leave it's dead weight. It will also likely if so get kicked out of the cell and perhaps inside the cell trigger some level of immune reaction, though it's technically speaking meant to do that as a vaccine.
Another odd thing is that with just the key floating around it's triggering that receptor and that has a purpose but it's triggering it randomly which could still allow some other stuff in and generally just cause havoc.
It's a bit like when an automatic door is faulty and it's randomly opening or closing on its own.
I might be slightly wrong about that. hACE2 is one of many enzymes the cell produces. Some of those will stay inside of the cell, some will be expelled by the cell and some will go through the wall of the cell to be on the outside like a picture on a frame.
Making an assumption, the ability for the enzyme to get on the outside of the cell make work both ways or be reversible. It may also be an unintended effect or that it's meant to be retractable as part of regulation and balancing between the inside and outside of the cell (perhaps passing back in is part of signalling).
Either way the spike protein appears to stick to that then makes it go back inside the cell and it pulls the spike with it. Given hACE2 performs a regulatory function you can be fairly certain that will knock things out of whack.
Apparently the enzyme is only meant to pass through the cell membrane in one direction so what the spike protein does is a bit like making the poo go back up your bum and attaching it to it so it's pulled back in with it.
Capitalism does need regulation to keep it healthy though not regulation for it's own sake. If you observe capitalism it'll start to reveal where regulation is needed to a great degree itself.
That regulation requires competence. Honestly for the average person I would suggest that they're not qualified, they're only likely to make things worse.
When it comes to the government, a lot of what they do is interference and in that sense of that's all that it is. Especially as regulation piles up and it's diminishing returns.
They don't have a sense that it's hyper regulation virtually criminalising manufacturing here so it gets done in China instead where the government will not regulate any company or societal standards if that means it's unable to out compete a US company.
Trump had fairly good sense when it comes to capitalism. Don't get in the way of it succeeding. He knows what the public sector is like, blocks everything and if you want anything to go through they'll ask what's your price. It's not just the red tape but the enormous scope for corruption and abuse.
Remember that video that leaked where federal workers were discussing dragging their heels, doing their job as slowly as possible, etc? It's like that. In those jobs they get paid often no matter what so they just sit back and let things pile up sometimes.
A little like how some regulations for traffic in certain countries may have entirely been intended to do good but really all they did was empower police to levy fees for their own good.
Trump also had a fairly good sense to look at removing some of the excessive regulation. That's not the only thing you need to do but those are the initial things.
You have domestic problems as well but the balance between the competitive environments of US and China is well off which is another huge immediate problem.
Price gauging on properties and housing ()or other living basics and essentials) is a huge problem but we can't really get anywhere with that. You have the left who are just complete idiots that want to keep injecting more and more people in the country while also claiming to care about affordable housing. They also keep going on about race and it has nothing to do with that.
They're just not qualified to address any problems. Saying that, they are successfully achieving their intended population control. Mathematically the contention on cities and having a constant inflow squeezes the urban population slowly out of existence (it shrinks). It's taking away excess population from Mexico and using it to reduce the local population.
I have been able to deduce an interesting phenomena. The people driving this process often turn out to be racists. They may in fact perceive a benefit from reducing the white population and replacing it with ones that are less competitive. Most of their actions do end up being anticompetitive (which can be confusing because that's also a form of competition just not on equal terms).
It elevates their position greatly if they're competing against less capable races. Other white people are their main competition at the top. Africans, Indians, Mexicans, etc pose little challenge when it's mass immigration rather than brain drain.
I have a theory that over crowding in cities causes different gene expressions. Something as simple as being stuck in traffic will trigger psychological processes that "there are too many people" but this can also be felt quite holistically with a real sense of frustration and a palpable change in your body chemistry which induce anticompetitive tendencies more often through gene expression as well as psychological and hormonal responses.
I want to be absolutely clear about something. Genetic differences in capabilities between races is an absolute fact. This is directly observable and proven by science. Measuring the exact differences isn't a perfect art but that's beside the point. The point is, as dumb as many people on the left are it's just not possible for as many who appear to believe that there's no such thing as race and not difference in capabilities between races (or sex) to be close to as many people who truly believe that. Just because they'll say there's no such thing as race don't assume that behind the scenes that's the basis they're operating on.
I would try to see a lot of them somewhat like the kind of guy who if a woman asks if it's because she's fat they wont go on a date with them they'll say not its something else to not make them feel bad but really it is because she's fat.
It would be even creepier and bizarre if he were described as a skinless man.
I think something the left doesn't conceive of is that most of us support ethical capitalism.
The problem is left think socialism is the solution when it's just not. A proper leader aware of capitalism takes care of it when it goes wrong but otherwise allows it to thrive and do good.
When there is a specific problem that emerges we address that and only that. Socialism overhauls the system and replaces it with slavery, total control over everything which just isn't a viable solution.
I see this a lot in software. Some library or framework has one issue. Throw the whole thing out and use another (most frameworks suck to be fair).
Socialist leaders will never fix the problems that might arise in capitalism when elected because those are what drive people towards socialism. In fact they'll prevent people from fixing them and make them worse. If capitalism isn't broken why would anyone vote for them?
They'll in fact sabotage capitalism on purpose with every dirty trick in the book. Some of them particularly like the fact that capitalism has enough degrees of freedom to be steered more toward socialism through failing to maintain it properly (such as monopolies, the loss of entropy, basically death as capitalism is literally based on life systems).
Many people on the left don't realise this is happening and that they're doing it to themselves. When you look at the Democrats notice they always obstruct? If there's anything that needs to go through they pin their price tag as the toll gate for it to go through.
This is how they operate in regards to socialism. The price of fixing any of your problems is socialism. Whenever people say we have a problem such as price houses they'll always say well the problem is that we don't have socialism and by that I don't mean partially but in its totality and what that really comes down to is they're not going to give you what they want until you give them what they want which is absolute rule.
The specifics can help but they don't address the root cause which is not the specifics. Quite often the most over powering force in them taking a side is what they believe to be the winning horse or basically not an uphill struggle.
I know that if I talk to anyone at random they're going to already have their mind made up about it and will have all made the same mistake. Social fear plays a large part including of going up against the masses.
When you're arguing with one person you're not arguing with one person. You're arguing with them why they should go up against everyone else, one against a million. This effect is automatic with the press. Anything they say has the psychological impact on people that they would be going against everyone because everyone watches the news right?
You can also flip people's sensitivities. No one wants to be seen as racist for example and take the side of Derek Chauvin against the system. That's a huge social taboo.
I've been able to somewhat convince people that Derek Chauvin is innocent and it's not racist. Though you have to really be on the attack, absolutely right at the same time and don't let them take control or go on the attack.
This will devolve into other positions. Such as but America still has problems with racism right? It's like pulling a thread that unravels itself.
In this case, absolutely America has a problem with racism. It's the ones terrorising black people with fake police brutality that are the racists.
This is a matter of fact, a dark truth and a realism that when it hits them really leaves them paralysed. Once your case wraps around, well they're wrong and the ultimate conclusion to that is that they are in fact the ones defending racism.
If you can get people around to the inescapable point that they are their own enemy that's devastating. Winding back and then forward tends to be necessary to correct their orientation. Most people are back to front because basically they use forms of reverse psychology and convolution.
To give an example...
If I went around saying that black people committed more crime and in the context there's almost certainly no other purpose than to turn people against black people.
That would be rather obviously racist. Though it is just a fact there would be a malicious purpose in that case in presenting that fact. Not that it should be hidden but stating it without good purpose certainly raises justified suspicion as to what that person might be trying to achieve.
Here's some facts. Black people commit more crime and therefore are arrested more often.
Someone can't say the first part as that would be obvious so instead if you want to be racist you would have to say the second part. Each part naturally follows the other.
That also creates a situation that resembles a Kafka trap. Getting someone else to say what you as a racist cannot say. The response to that is that you have to say yes because they commit more crimes. One thing leads to another, forward an back.
Someone can do this because they are racist or as entrapment, they'll say ah ha, you're racist, liking it to the case where someone says it initially. Except it's not. It's like punching someone, them punching you back then pretending you didn't do anything.
Many people do this to instantly get the upper hand in a social interaction. It's really basically whoever says more black people are arrested by the police first forces the other person to take the role of the racist.
Modern collective psychology minefield of these traps where things are reversed and it's like a game to set people straight again and to put it back onto them. In a case where someone says that in the first place don't let it slide onto you.
You have to immediately point out that what they're saying is racist. You've got to get rightfully angry at them. It entitles you to punish them as they are misbehaving, they are the child, you are the adult in the relationship.
Seriously try it. Lose your temper, go mad "You're trying to make me say that black people commit more crime and that's racist." because it's not socially acceptable to be racist and you have to be vigilant.
This is a bit misleading because virtually everything influences gene expression.
Regardless, the claim that the spike protein is entirely inert is bogus.
I certainly don't see why it would not interact with hACE2 and potentially cause complications there.
It's really something embedded in the psyche that your derive deeper understanding through study.
The quote here is one such that if someone has to spend over a year studying every form of representative government on the planet to come up with that then they're an idiot.
I don't think that's what you intend to say. I wont fault studying the literature either but the quote above is a really basic reflection of an observation of human behaviour.
You forgot to draw the best part, Mr Ploppy. Poor Mr Sloppy is all alone.
Edit: I fixed it to make it anatomically correct... https://kekpe.pe/i/608d935b26be5.png
My IQ is potato.